Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Premier. It’s in regard to the budget process that has been followed to date.
Mr. Speaker, like all of us in this Chamber, I make decisions for a living. In order to make sound decisions — decisions that affect the people in our communities, our families and the opportunities that are out there — we need to have a solid base, a foundation of information, in order to build these decisions and make these decisions on. Throughout this budget process I have been surprised at the lack of detailed, solid analysis that has been done by the government that would lead them to make some of the decisions in reductions they have made.
Mr. Speaker, the first question I have for the Premier is.... I’d like to know exactly what the decision-making process was when it came to making reductions. What analysis did the government go out and do prior to making decisions on what would be reduced? I’m talking specifically about jobs and the reduction in jobs.
The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware the Member has serious concerns with process — that’s for the record. I’ve heard him a number of times saying that this government has done things differently from what was done in the past. I’ve been a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories for 12 years — as a Regular Member, as a Minister and in this present position. Our process we followed to build the budget has been the same process followed by other governments when it’s come about after an election year.
The thing we did differently this time is that we didn’t wait a whole year to try to have an impact on where we’d go as a Legislative Assembly. Members, when the work’s been done by a previous government — pulling information together about forced growth, some new initiatives on that basis of the capital infrastructure plan — it sits there until the new Members become available.
In a typical year, Mr. Speaker, if we decided to try to meet our original timeline of having a whole budget in place by April 1, we would in fact just tinker with the existing work and basically bring in a budget that had lots of work done by a previous Assembly. This government has changed that. That’s why we put in an interim appropriation, status quo budget, no growth, no reduction, until this document comes forward. So that process, that interaction between the government and Regular Members, hasn’t changed.
In fact, I recommended a potential change that didn’t get accepted. So I find it a little surprising to be pushed back, in the sense of saying this government is not doing, and has in fact let down, the process we have in place. The fact is, we’ve looked at our initiatives; we’ve looked at the growth rate; we looked at our revenue sources coming forward. We know we can’t continue at the existing pace, so we set a target of $135 million for reduction and reinvestment. That work is still going on. As you see, we’ve not met the targets, and we’re going to have to look at how we can do that.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I challenge the Premier on the fact that he says that Regular Members were included in this process. I was here the seven months since the government came into power. To be honest with you, I don’t see that conclusion that the Premier speaks about. I don’t know where....
Maybe this is the question I’ll ask the Premier. Mr. Premier, where were Regular Members when Cabinet decided where to spend the millions of dollars in strategic initiatives? How were we included in that decision?
Mr. Speaker, what we’ve done in the strategic initiatives is work from the goals and the visions and priorities set by this Legislative Assembly. We can align those and show what area is used in an important piece of investment. Early childhood: is that an investment we should make? Are the Members trying to say that’s not an area? The increased investment we’re putting into health care and social services in the Northwest Territories: is that something we shouldn’t invest in? We can align those with the vision and goals.
Now, some of the strategic initiatives, yes, have been driven by a number of factors. For example, the Building Canada Fund has set criteria set by the federal government. We’ve plugged into that system, and that has some impact on that. But for making changes, for example, again the normal process works. We have letters go to the departments for forced growth, new initiatives, infrastructure. It’s reviewed by Cabinet, some decisions are made, draft business plans are set forward and brought to committee. The committee takes those recommendations back, and some changes can be made. That’s the same process we’ve used this time around.
Mr. Speaker, to me it’s not a matter of.... We all know what’s important to the residents we all represent here. We know that health care is important; we know education is important; we know we need to be spending some more money in certain areas. My point is that the government has taken it upon themselves to identify areas where they’re going to spend millions of dollars. In effect, they’re taking away my constituents’ voice at the table, and that of every other Regular Member who’s on this side of the House when we don’t have any input into where those millions of dollars are being reinvested. That, to me, is a fundamental flaw in the process.
I’d also ask the Premier: where were Regular Members when the decision was made to reduce positions by 135? Where were we in that discussion? We found out three weeks after the fact that that had happened. That’s inexcusable.
Let’s go back a little bit. When we first got elected, we sat down. I went to committee and said, Here’s the fiscal picture that we’re looking at; we’re going to need to reduce. I gave a target to Members, and based on that, we made the announcement.
Now, I heard from a lot of Members say that if there’s going to be an impact, you need to limit it on employees. If there’s going to be an impact, notify them early. In fact, the UNW.... I had meetings with the president, and he said that if there’s going to be impact, let the people know early.
We did make a mistake in the sense of the timing. The package of materials should have been brought to Members before that announcement and the calls went to employees for setting up appointments. That’s been clarified. That won’t happen again in that process. That’s a glitch, for sure. I went to Members, and I apologized for that. We fixed that situation. The fact is the initiatives, the goal, the revenue, the big picture — we went and sat down with Members.
The Member, from what I see, would like to be beside me making some of those decisions. You elected a Cabinet that had to pull some of this stuff together. We fully realize there’s going to be some good and bad to it. I encourage Members.... Let’s do things differently here, and let’s extend it so that we can come up with a full plan with more input to meet the goals. What Members told me is to get a full budget in place by May–June.
I believe this budget sets the course for where we want to go. The rest of the year the business plans coming up will fall back into a scenario of an improved system in the sense of not just your typical business plan. That’s the pattern this one is based on. It is that more interactive approach I went to Members with. We’ll have more input when we sit down and talk about the business-plan process coming up.
I thank the Premier for that. I think it’s a discussion that needs to happen. I think, even outside of this building, the public wants a chance to have a discussion about the goals, the aspirations and the opportunities that are going to present themselves over the next three-and-a-half years. I think maybe we can get to some of that here in the next three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half weeks, but I think we should also look at having a public debate where people can come and ask questions of the Ministers and we can have a full disclosure on how decisions were arrived at.
The Premier also said early on in the process that cuts would be a last resort. That’s why I’m a bit surprised that had happened. I’m also surprised that when Regular Members make suggestions to Cabinet, they’re dismissed. They say they need more analysis. We need to look at them a little bit further. But when it comes to decisions that are made by Cabinet, they’re put forward. There’s no analysis there. There’s no groundwork done. How is the Premier going to engage Regular Members going forward so we have meaningful input and our constituents have meaningful input into this process?
Let’s look at the facts. The record would speak for itself. The Members of this Assembly, and the Member himself, has talked about the fact that the government has grown substantially. It has grown too big. We can pull that out of Hansard. When we target these areas for reduction, and there’s unfortunately some impact there on individuals in jobs and positions, now it’s “Don’t do it.” And if you’re going to have to do it, notify them early. So we did that, but we did it wrong, so — no good. I don’t know what environment I’m in.
We’ve listened to Members. The Member himself raised the issue of a bypass road here in Yellowknife. That wasn’t in the capital plan. We listened. It is now presented as part of the package. Is that not listening? For one of the schools, St. Joe’s here in Yellowknife, the cost came in higher than was budgeted. A process became available; we put it in the system. Is that not listening? Reduce the amount on the Mackenzie Gas Project area. Members made that recommendation, and we met them halfway on that. Is that not listening?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
