As you know, these roads in the Northwest Territories are very challenging to the department. We have special, unique, harsh climates to worry about in terms of how our roads are put together. That’s why this department is investing strongly in our roads, as the Premier’s indicated in his budget speech, with strong investment to all the region.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that Nahendeh in the last year, 2007–2008, had the highest percentage of investment as a constituency in transportation areas. So we will continue working on the system infrastructure. Once we know that, we will put our initiative toward opening up the roads for the people of Nahendeh and Liard who use that road. The priority in our government is safety, and we want to make sure that safety of all the travelling public is foremost with all our officials working in the department.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

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.

Mr. Speaker, today I have questions for the Premier or the Minister responsible for reducing the cost of living — the cost of living for communities in the Tu Nedhe in the area of food, fuel, power and gasoline. The cost of living is extremely high in those areas. An example is that in order to reduce the costs themselves, the people would supplement their food by hunting. However, the cost of gasoline is so high that people are unable to do that.

I’d like to ask the Minister if there is a plan to address the problem on a short-term basis. A lot of the costs of living are laid out. The reduction to costs of living is laid out. Awareness of energy, hydro strategy and so forth are all items that are in this year’s budget but have long-term implications. I want to know if there are any plans that have short-term impacts on the cost of living in the smaller communities.

The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.

The area of energy is, as we hear in our communities, having a huge impact on the lives of individuals, holding people back from their potential. The cost of goods in our small stores in the communities is huge. I shared, for example, a trip to Paulatuk. One tomato in that Northern Store in Paulatuk was four dollars and some cents. I’m sure it would be similar in Lutselk’e. We see it, for example, when the ice crossings go out. The stores automatically bump up their prices, because the transportation costs are there.

One of the things we’re doing, that is ongoing, is, for example, the Territorial Power Support Program

— helping the cost of living that way. Ongoing on an annual basis for those families who are on income support or use it from time to time, the food basket is adjusted for cost of living and set-up — I believe if not by the community, then by a regional process. What we do have to look at, and there are other activities.... For example, within ITI, for those who go out hunting, we set up a fund that, once matched by the band or the hunters’ and trappers’ organization or the regional body, they can draw down that funding to help their constituents in that area. There are some dollars left in that for communities that haven’t drawn that down. That was one-time funding that’s stretched over quite a number of years since it was introduced. There’s some funding still left in there.

The MLA from Nunakput advised me that a tomato has doubled in price since then.

Interjection

And it’s the same one, yes.

Laughter.

I would like to ask the Premier if he could give me an idea of the time frame they’re looking at to have some sort of impact on the hydro strategy and the energy programs.

There’s the overall hydro initiative across the Northwest Territories and trying to bring that to either investment or industry, as well as communities. The three mini-hydro projects, we’re looking at continuing investment in this year to see if they can be put in place. For example, Lutselk’e was a community that has been identified in that area. We’re looking to continue that work in this upcoming year.

The bigger picture, as the Members have said earlier, is correct. Some of these large initiatives are going to take quite a number of years for ourselves as government. We’re going to have to find partners to build the larger hydro development potential in the North to bring the cost of living down once and for all in our communities — or, for example, a gas pipeline to get natural gas in the communities to convert from diesel to natural gas to give a more stable source. Those are a number of areas.

The cost-of-living initiative: as I said earlier, we’ve instructed Ministers who are lead on this file to set up times for committees to start getting some of that dialogue and input to see if there are other ideas we can bring to the table.

The other one is the Food Mail Program, which is supposed to help reduce the cost of transportation of food to the communities. We’re starting to work at trying to get that back and to propose some changes to it. It is administered through Canada Post, I believe. We’re going to have a look at it. We are quite concerned. There’s a substantial amount

of money from the federal government for the program, but we see little benefit for the North. We need to have that re-addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier if they’ve examined any sort of subsidies that other jurisdictions might be using to reduce the cost of living.

We as a government have looked at our subsidy programs, and there are quite a number of them. When you look at the overall public housing package, the Territorial Power Support Program, the Seniors’ Fuel Subsidy, Income Support and some of these other investments, we haven’t had an updated review in comparison to other jurisdictions. We know that on a lot of fronts we do have a better program than quite a number of jurisdictions in Canada. But, again, we’d be willing to sit down with committee members to go through that and have a look at that initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve just a short question. Would the Premier look at other jurisdictions, specifically for the reduction of food costs, where they have communities where there is fly-in?

We would be willing to do that. We’re aware, for example, that the Food Mail Program affects quite a number of other jurisdictions in high-cost areas, and we’re going to plug into that to see how it works, to see if they’re feeling the same impact or have the same concerns we have. So we would be prepared to look at that type of initiative, yes.