Mr. Speaker, I think that as elected leaders and politicians, it's very important that we have the ability to make decisions and be able and prepared to back those decisions up with clear communication and a rationale for those decisions.
I have tried to be very transparent and clear when I raise my voice in this House to speak out on issues. I have expressed that I have concerns with the budget that has been presented. I've spoken in the House and in the media interviews about why I have those concerns. I make no apologies for that. I have the right, in fact the obligation, as an elected Member to hear my constituents, weigh the evidence and the information before me, and act accordingly.
So I was disappointed when I heard the Premier on the radio phone-in show on CBC this morning say that he is not good at political gamesmanship. I'm not sure what the insinuation is here, but I want to assure you that there is no political gamesmanship here. I'm not good at it either, and I have absolutely no interest in it. I am committed to good government, consensus government, clear vision and direction, and our ability to communicate that vision and direction to the people of the Northwest Territories.
In the same interview the Premier, in response to a question about whether Members were sufficiently consulted, said that new Members he could understand. I don't know why the Premier would differentiate between new Members and returning Members.
The fact is that we had a compressed process. Maybe a better product would have come forward in the fall, or maybe it wouldn't have. But when the opportunity to include Regular Members presented itself, our requests were denied. We asked for participation in the capital planning priorities. We asked to have membership on the strategic initiatives committee. We asked to be at the table when new projects were identified under the Building Canada Fund. Our written requests were denied. We submitted a report to the Premier on cost-saving ideas. They were set aside for future consideration.
After all this, a budget comes forward, and many Members now say that this is not our budget. Regular Members do participate through standing committees. We responded to the Main Estimates. Most of our recommendations were not accepted by Cabinet. Is it any wonder that we say that this is not our budget?
Later today, at second reading, I will elaborate further about why I feel that the month of June would be better devoted to taking this budget back to the drawing board and why I cannot support this budget.
The limited ability to further delete items cannot fix this budget for me. The Premier has already clearly stated in the House, on Friday, that they are not prepared to move on the budget reductions or the reinvestments. I asked the Premier, and I quote, "Would the Premier agree to return to an interim status quo budget until such time as we can come together and not take these very, very drastic measures that are proposed in this budget?" and the Premier's response was no.
The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, I’ve had the chance to do a small review of the Budget Address heard last week, and a number of statements in the address made me go, “Huh?” I’d like to discuss a few of those and the questions they raised in my mind.
We had some communication last week about how the government is accommodating employees who have been affected by budget reductions. There seems to be a genuine desire on the part of the government to make the transition as easy as possible, but where are the actions that show us that desire? I haven’t seen anything.
The Minister of Human Resources said that GNWT policies don’t allow certain actions that could better accommodate staff whose positions are being reduced — early retirement, for example. I would think that if the government is serious about needing to reduce positions, we would be looking at every available possibility to smooth the way. Surely we can amend policies or, at the very least, agree to waive them for a specified period of time to accomplish the easy accommodation of our affected employees. After all, it seems the government writes the policies.
The Budget Address indicated that there are plans for approximately $500 million of capital investments over the next four years but that we will only incur $17 million in debt in doing so. I suggest that we would be better off retaining the 111 affected positions set to be reduced and use more of our borrowing power to pay for the capital investments.
Page B2 of the address document includes a graph titled Revenue and Expenditure Growth. It shows revenues increasing faster than expenditures, at least to my eye, and contradicts the Finance Minister’s statement that expenses are outgrowing our revenues. I am unable to reconcile the words and the picture.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed in three aspects of this budget: that there is no new revenue source; that budget reductions seem to target jobs first, not as a last resort; that there is no coordinated approach from the government for the consideration of saving the environment — reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example; energy planning; and minimizing climate change through all of our programs and services. Energy conservation, climate change prevention and mitigation should be at the front of and integral to everything that we do as a government: new buildings, roads, bridges, economic development, utility costs — everything.
As I mentioned in my statement last week, few departmental budget briefings presented a good rationale or justification for the content of their budget. I hope to see that information during budget debate. I need convincing that the various departments’ proposals are the right ones. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.
