Mr. Speaker, I’ve thought long and hard about exactly what’s happened here in the last couple of weeks, but more importantly, after living through the 13th Assembly, I don’t see anything
different that we’re doing here through this budget process than we did back then. Like I stated, we do have some major implications of what we did in the 13th Assembly.
Coming from small communities, our services in our communities are next to nil — nil, no mental health workers, no social workers, no policing. Look at the services we have in our communities where you depend on locums to come and fill in, because you can’t find a nurse. You have a situation where you go to the different communities and health centres. It’s a revolving door trying to attract nurses in a lot of these communities. That is a major problem. I feel this budget does not do anything to basically resolve that situation. If anything, it adds to it.
You talk about the easy things — “Well, let’s get rid of vacancies.” The problem with vacancies is that the majority of those vacancies are in communities that can’t fill the positions to begin with, because they lack housing. We have a lack of stable, healthy communities, because the basic programs and services aren’t being delivered. I find it awfully difficult to stand here and support something when I know what the consequences of this decision are going to be.
Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity through our business planning process. Yes, it was rushed. Again, in order to make some very drastic changes to the way government works there have to be some changes, but if you’re going to make changes, make it for the best, an improvement of services to all Northerners, especially the ones in small communities.
We follow the Canada Health Act by way of ensuring services to Canadians, yet when it comes to aboriginal communities, we’re no better off than most of our brothers and sisters in the northern provinces. I think it’s that type of reality that sometimes we have to face. Simple things like community empowerment and self-government are slogans that we throw out there when we want to make ourselves feel good.
The reality is that we can’t even hire our own local mental health worker or alcohol and drug worker. They don’t think we have the capacity to take on that job, because somebody didn’t give you the certification to say that you’re competent because you didn’t go to university. Yet you’re there when they need to call you when there’s a suicide in the community or a problem in relation to a crisis in another community. That tells me that there’s no real empowerment ability for communities to really take hold of government programs and services; the controlling mechanism is either at the top or is being muzzled in the middle.
I think we do have to change the way we deliver government. We do have to look at how this government delivers programs and services. I think we also have to be realistic to the potential that we have in the Northwest Territories by way of oil and gas, minerals and, more importantly, megaprojects. We talk about projects where we’re talking a couple
hundred thousand here or a million there. We’re talking megaprojects: the $365 million Taltson expansion, the $1.8 billion highway expansion up the Mackenzie, $60 million to put a bridge across the Bear River. We had a battle in this House in regard to the $165 million bridge across the Deh Cho in regard to the Mackenzie. Yet we seem to have a crisis on our hands because of something that might happen in the future.
I’ve been here for a while, and it’s amazing how many times the sky was falling and basically we were in trouble, and then all of a sudden a bag of money falls from the sky. I believe that we have to review exactly how government governs, how programs and services are delivered. Again, it has to be done in a way that’s just and fair to our employees, our communities and the people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, I stood up in the House in the February session, during which I asked the Premier a question.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has a system in place to notify affected MLAs if there are going to be any vacancies in their ridings by way of positions. Then we can be informed ahead of time, and we are able to react to our constituents when they find out there are notices given or that positions are going to be removed from our constituencies.”
The response from the Premier:
“We’re going to work in a way that is respectful for Members as well as for employees when we do make decisions on what positions may be affected. We’re going to work in that environment, where we’re working in a transparent form. We definitely don’t want Members to walk back to their communities when a decision has been made and you’re approached by people who you’re not aware have been affected. We are going to try to do business differently.”
Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what didn’t happen. I went home and found out second-hand, “Did you hear that so-and-so got laid off?” I didn’t even have a notification letter.
The part that really gets to me is that one of the areas that was cut is an individual who’s been with marine operations for almost 30 years. One of the areas that they wanted to cut for savings was this individual’s livelihood. He has a large family. For him that’s the only means of employment for the whole year. The government wants to save $30,000. For $30,000 you’re taking away someone’s livelihood — someone who’s been committed to the Department of Transportation for years. I can see it in light of the expansion with the Department of Transportation, where you have
assistant deputy ministers or assistant to assistant deputy ministers or a deputy minister responsible for marine operations, a deputy minister responsible for transportation operations. Why don’t you take out one of those guys and save yourselves $165,000?
Again, no thought was given in regard to how these positions were going to be eliminated. No plan was in place in regard to how that was going to be effected. But in a small community like Fort McPherson $30,000 is the average earnings of most people. For $30,000 you have to sustain yourself in these small communities, yet the cost of living is somewhere around $60,000.
I think we’ve got to be realistic how we position ourselves and where those cuts are going to take place. Yes, I know there are a lot of cuts that are going to take place in headquarters, regional level and whatnot, but we do have to review how government operates. We do have to review exactly where the expenditures of government are. The biggest cost to our budget is in the area of salaries and benefits, looking in the range of $340 million. I think it’s important that we do look at that once in a while to impress on ourselves what programs and services are needed and, more importantly, when they’re not needed, to have a transitional process in place so those employees have an opportunity to transfer from one area where they work to a new field where they may have to be educated.
Again, I do have areas of concern with this budget. I hope deep down that with Members on the other side of the House we can try and find ways of looking at government-wide reductions, looking at the budget to see where we can possibly find savings. I know there has been some effort made by government, but it’s not enough. I think we do have to do a better job of finding those reductions. I don’t think we have to continue to help big business get bigger than what they already are but to help the little guys in the small communities who are struggling simply to get access to a nurse, a doctor, a mental health worker or even a teacher. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.