Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have seen a number of dramatic changes introduced in the last year, in the way the government does business.
New initiatives such as the consolidation of departments, privatization of government services and infrastructure and community empowerment are all fundamental changes to the way this government works.
But I, Mr. Speaker, have serious questions about the implementation of these initiatives. Plans are being put into place before they have been extensively debated and while internal reviews are still in progress.
The major initiatives of this government must be subject to a rationalization test. That is, the Minister or department responsible for a new initiative should be able to make a concise presentation covering the purpose of the change, the benefits, the risks, the savings, the costs, the up side and the down side.
Using the example of community empowerment, it seems that there is no middle ground between the portrayal of the status quo as a dictatorship by a central far away government, with no communication with the communities and the image of community empowerment as a wholesale offloading of responsibility to communities.
Yet, there is a perception that to question the implementation of community empowerment is to speak against the principle of community consultation, respect and attentiveness to the needs of our constituents.
There must be middle ground where community empowerment really is the best of both worlds. With important decisions being made at the community level but with adequate monitoring by a central government.
This government has not convinced me of that. I have not heard a clear explanation of how the government will maintain responsibility for the health, welfare and safety of our citizens if community transfer initiatives fail.
I have not heard a clear explanation of the rationale for the amalgamation and consolidations of departments that have taken place and are planned for the future.
I have not heard a clear explanation regarding hardship through such things as the privatization of the petroleum products division in a marketplace where competition is not a viable safeguard. I would like to hear Members speak out to delay or oppose such initiatives until Members are satisfied that the rationales make sense and are in the best long term interest of the people we represent. Let us make sure that the road we are charging down takes us where we actually want to go. Thank you.