Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, for the past six years I have usually been the only Member to reply to the budget address. In fact, for the first four years, Mr. Speaker -- you will recall this as you were Finance Minister -- I was the only Member to make a reply. I'm very happy to see that there are many Members who are now making ready use of this item on our order paper. This, after all, is the budget session and we should be looking at the budget address critically.
Acting the role of a critic, Mr. Speaker, is one of the easiest jobs of government. It is very easy to criticize. It is nearly always possible to find something wrong with what government does. I recall, Mr. Speaker, you reminding me of that in my responses to your address when you were Finance Minister. I started with all kinds of glowing things and never explained what it was all about. You ended up getting a long string of critical comments. Although some of the comments I have today, Mr. Speaker, will seem critical, overall I am pleased with this very large capital program. It fulfils obvious needs and injects money into our economy during very difficult times.
My first criticism is of the phrase which says, "building infrastructure through the capital program and the provision of training, business and employment opportunities are of equal importance." Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are many economic spin-offs from a capital program, but we shouldn't get too carried away with ourselves. There is a primary objective. That objective is to get things built. That is the primary objective of any capital program. Everything else relates to it, but is not equal to it.
At one time, when the capital program was a cut and dried exercise, the only consideration in capital was to get works built on time and within budget. Times, however, have changed. Today we pay premiums for local involvement, local business opportunities and training. That adds considerably to the costs of each capital project.
In an age of free trade and fierce competition between different sectors, we may not be able to conduct a protected capital program for a long time into the future and keep the goodwill of all our neighbours in this great country of ours. Establishing new ground rules for our capital program to include employment, training and business means the government is obliged to develop some value for money criteria so you know exactly what you're getting for your money, in addition to just the building that you've acquired money to build.
The same thing applies to the increasing use of negotiated contracts. I said how important it is for the government to become less interventionist and less involved in people's lives. Negotiated contracts are classic cases of government manipulation to avoid the competition of the marketplace. When open tendering does not take place, there is no opportunity to get the best value for money. Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe negotiated contracts must be handled very, very carefully.
The message to the public on the issue of negotiated contracts is this: those in power will negotiate with those they want to negotiate with and they will not negotiate a contract with those they don't wish to negotiate. There is no system in place to determine when or where it is appropriate to negotiate a contract. It depends entirely upon the wishes of those in power. Power, as we all know, is a very, very sensitive and dangerous thing if it is not exercised with great responsibility.