Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have closed the book on the 2009–2010 capital budget, I would like to provide my thoughts on the process.
First, the change in timing for the consideration and approval of the Capital Acquisition Plan is a positive step. There’s a better probability that projects will get activated and started early enough to take advantage of the summer construction season, but at the moment it only works in theory. It hasn’t yet been tested. There must be an evaluation of this new process after this year — say early 2010 — to see if the change in timing really does produce a better result.
A second seemingly new tactic for this year’s Capital Estimates is the dropping of projects from the previous year’s Capital Acquisition Plan if planning is lacking. I support this change. It makes the plan more realistic, in my view.
Third, the Finance Minister and his staff provided Members with lots of information about the Capital Acquisition Plan projects and provided it in a timely manner. I personally appreciated receiving the substantiation and background information. As I have mentioned before, I would like to see a priority attached to each project. I feel it would assist Members in evaluating these projects.
Fourth, the department should provide the government’s long range Capital Plan to Members well in advance of any draft Capital Estimates that go to Members. As you have heard more than once, there is a genuine concern on this side of the House about the equitable sharing of projects and capital dollars among all of our 33 communities. This has always been a problem and will likely continue on after we’re all no longer here. A solution may be to calculate the cost per capita for each of our communities and each riding to determine if the distribution is fair. If this is shared with Members, I know you’ll get feedback. Members are always looking for an opportunity to provide input.
Fifth, this year’s infrastructure plan has a big focus on deferred maintenance. I fully support this approach. We need to ensure that this focus is maintained on an ongoing basis. Another new initiative this year was action to reduce our carry-over amounts from one year to the next. I feel this will make the Capital Plan more realistic as we go forward. Eventually we may actually have a plan where all projects start and end when they should. That would be a good thing.
With any plan, as circumstances change, so should the plan. It should reflect the present, not the past.
Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues. Our capital infrastructure plan should not be set in stone from one year to the next. If necessary, projects should be dropped or added. For the deletion of projects that are in the 2008–09 capital budget but not in the ’09–10 budget, I saw and heard little evidence of valid reasons for the deletion. Members should be given information on deletions as part of the substantiation package accompanying any Capital Estimates document.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide my comments to the Finance Minister. I hope he takes these comments as constructive criticism and an attempt to improve on the final product.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
