Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like today
to speak to yesterday’s statement from Minister McLeod, Chair of the Ministerial Subcommittee on Infrastructure. While I agree with the Minister that we face significant challenges in the GNWT capital planning and delivery process, I was dismayed to hear the Minister state that, and I quote, “Some of the more important changes we’ll be implementing are....” What struck me when I heard those words was the finality of the statement. The Minister is advising the House and the public that changes will happen, that the decisions have been made and the GNWT is moving forward, full steam ahead.
For me, it’s not a matter of the substance of the changes. Changes are needed, and at first glance the proposals are good ones. I’m saddened by a public announcement from the government, yet again, about actions of which Regular Members are not fully aware. As I’ve stated before, maybe my naïveté is showing, but I’d hoped that the subcommittee would have advised Regular Members of the changes they were about to announce before the announcement.
The Minister will respond, correctly, that Members were advised of the intentions of the Ministerial Subcommittee on Infrastructure in April of this year. We were, Mr. Speaker, but I for one didn’t perceive the changes mentioned in that briefing as a done deal. In fact, one slide from the briefing states, and I quote, “Consider suspending the BIP.” I presumed, obviously wrongly, that Regular Members would have an opportunity to comment on the final proposals before they were set in stone and announced. As well, the letter from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning to Minister McLeod following his presentation stated, quote, “Please advise us of the next steps to be taken and when we can expect a follow-up discussion.” There was no reply to that request that I’m aware of.
Mr.
McLeod said yesterday that the Business
Incentive Policy will be eliminated, new options developed and implementation plans set, and then Regular Members will be advised as to how the
plan will be put in place. Where in this scenario is the opportunity for us to comment on the proposed options and implementation? That’s assuming that we even agree on the options.
This side of the House represents many diverse communities, and we have excellent, wide-ranging ideas and suggestions in regard to the removal of BIP. I know with certainty there’s no agreement over here with the ministerial subcommittee’s statement that BIP should be cancelled altogether. I spoke in a global sense about communication disorders last week, Mr. Speaker, but maybe we have a communication problem here in the 16th Assembly. Did the Minister expect a response from Regular Members to his briefing?
Mr.
Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to
conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.