Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to proceed with third reading of Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009.

Unanimous consent granted.

You may proceed with third reading of Bill 8, Mr. Roland.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009, be read for the third time.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The motion’s on the floor. The motion’s in order. To the motion, the honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Bill 8 has been in the works. This has been the budget session. We’ve been here for several weeks now. It’s been a long road on this budget. A budget in a year subsequent to an election is always a challenging one, because the normal cycle of the planning that goes into a budget is interrupted. There were days when it really taxed all of us and called for all of us to put our best efforts forward to arrive at something that we could support.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting third reading of Bill 8. I was one of the ones who did not support it at second reading. So that begs the question: what’s changed?

What’s changed for me, Mr. Speaker, is that today we have a product before us that shows that every Member of this Legislature has a part to play in putting together a budget like this. There were things that made this budget particularly challenging, besides the fact that it did follow on the heels of an election. We were looking at changing the way we do things. This budget contained reductions. It contained reinvestment.

I’m happy today to say that we have a budget here that does reflect our input. Not everything that all Members of the House wanted to see in here is in this budget. I do look forward to the business plans, which are coming up so soon in the fall. There will be a lot of opportunity, going forward, for all Members of this House once again to work together, to work with Ministers, to work with their departments to again bring the input and the voices of the constituents we represent to a process that will result in a document that we can all say that we were proud to have a part in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too will be supporting this bill in the third reading.

I, for one, feel, as a Member who’s been here for 12 years, that this is probably the first time I saw this House really cooperatively work together. We realized we had our differences but also tried to find solutions for the benefit of the people of the Northwest Territories. We also realized that we have to be flexible on both sides. We knew that we didn’t get everything we wanted, but again, there’s still a process that’s going to take place this fall by way of our business-planning process.

I think, also, that consensus government is an avenue for us to all realize that we’re here representing the people of the Northwest Territories. It doesn’t matter which side of the House you sit on. I think it’s important that we’ve shown that we can work together.

We still have a couple of years ahead of us. We have some major challenges that we’re going to have to deal with. With open minds, and people who show respect for each other and are willing to listen and to make an attempt to find a better solution than what we had in front of us when we got here some three weeks ago, I think we ended up with a better product than we started with.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we were able to show that we can work out our differences. We can find solutions by talking and working together. As Members on this side, one of the avenues we have is by way of motions and deletions. At the end of it all, we’ve got a better budget for it. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s something we can all work with, realizing we are going forward to another process in the fall.

With that, I’d like to thank all Members of this House for making that attempt to work through this process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. To the

motion. The honourable Minister for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.

I got promoted on top of that.

Too much in one day. I’ll move over there later.

Mr. Speaker, the Book of Proverbs says that a wise man will listen and increase his learning, and a man of understanding will attain unto wise counsel. I think that’s exactly what happened here. When we first had second reading on this Bill, I stood up and said that of anybody in this Assembly who should vote no, it should be me. But I voted yes at the time, because I believed that we’d have an opportunity to make some change.

As a couple of Members said, we didn’t get everything we wanted, and Cabinet didn’t get everything they wanted, but I think this is a perfect example of this Assembly working together. I admire the resolve of the Regular Members, who pretty well stuck together. We had our differences, but Regular Members pretty well stuck together throughout this whole thing and came to Cabinet with a common front and a united front. I think that had a lot to do with the fact that we were able to get a lot of the changes that we required. It’s a good day for consensus government, an extremely good day.

I commend Cabinet for listening to what Regular Members had to say, not only just listening and paying us lip service but actually acting on it. It goes to the Members’ conduct guidelines that we all signed. I think this goes a long way to showing that we have the ability to have our disagreements, but at the end of the day, we try to come forward with a product that’s best for the people in the NWT, because that’s what we’re here to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote in favour of third reading, because Inuvik has benefited from this whole process, and we just hope that we can keep up the good work. A good lesson for Cabinet in the future is that it’s much easier when you work with the people on this side and give us a product that we can all agree to. Then we won’t have as much trouble in the future. It was an interesting process to be a part of. I’m glad I was a part of it. I’ve seen a lot of good fights from a lot of good people in this Assembly, and I really admire that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I encourage you all to bear with me. I’ve got a few pages here to go through. Today is the final day of Bill 8, the Appropriation Act of 2008–2009. There’s been a significant amount of debate on this bill, inside and outside of this House. We have heard a significant amount of talk from the Union of Northern Workers, who have continually stressed that for years the GNWT has underestimated its budget surpluses and has overestimated its expenses. Further, they stress that a job-cuts budget is a bad budget. They clearly want the Regular Members to vote this budget down.

Clearly, the Union of Northern Workers has been very strong in their message, and unfortunately, Cabinet has been a little on the weaker side. Cabinet should have put together a comprehensive communications plan prior to announcing the fiscal realities of this government’s planned direction. Instead, they allowed the information to enter into

the public forum with no concrete plan and had to respond to or react, rather than announce their own plan. Obviously, this is not a good way to communicate a complicated message in already muddied or agitated waters. I hope that these and any subsequent Cabinet Ministers have learned from this process and understand the value of clear, concise messaging. People of the NWT who are beneficiaries of programs and services, as well as the employees of the GNWT, provided our most valuable asset and clearly deserve better.

When the fiscal realities of the GNWT first became public, many of the 11 Regular Members expressed concerns about potential elimination. Many of us had been around in 1996, when the GNWT went through a similar process, and can clearly state that 1996 was a failure. Departments that were amalgamated, such as Economic Development and Tourism and Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, have once again split up; and those departments that were decentralized, such as Personnel, have now re-formed in a single, centralized department. Further, the mass exodus of employees from the GNWT and the NWT turned out to hurt the entire industry, as federal transfer payments reduced noticeably in subsequent years. Public service position numbers have climbed steadily since 1996, and any cost savings that were intended had completely reversed themselves by 2007. In short, 1996 was bad, and we certainly can’t relive the same mistakes.

Within this House the 11 Regular Members have continually expressed some dissatisfaction with the budget process as a whole. We have felt that we were not actively engaged or involved in the design of this budget or in the setting of the individual priorities suggested through the five strategic investment committees. Clearly, given that these committees are responsible for setting the strategic direction or strategic reinvestments, we as Regular Members should have been equal partners. Cabinet coming to us after they made up their minds and telling us what they plan to do is clearly notification, but it is definitely not engagement or involvement. Strategic reinvestment is the direction and job of all 19 Members, not seven. By excluding Regular Members from the process, Cabinet is officially reducing and minimizing the role of the 11 Regular Members. That’s not appropriate.

The fiscal challenges faced by this government are a reality. We have traditionally spent more than we bring in. Where our revenues have grown at a fairly constant 3.5 per cent, our expenditures have increased by around 5 to 6 per cent annually. Fortunately, in previous years the government has been able to obtain additional one-time funding to cover the difference. However, it is bad practice to assume that the government always will. We definitely need to get our house in order.

The Premier has indicated that we need to find $135 million over two years in order to assist us in getting our house in order and reinvesting in the priority areas suggested to us by constituents during the October 2007 election. Of the $135

million, $60 million was targeted for

reductions, whereas $75 million was targeted for reinvestment in this government’s strategic plan — specifically, new initiatives identified by our constituents and incorporated into this government’s strategic plan. Therefore, the government is really only asking for $60 million decreased to the annual budget and realized over two years, or roughly a 5 per cent reduction to the budget as a whole. Therefore, before forced growth we targeted about 3.5 per cent a year. This would match our expenditures to revenues.

As a Regular Member I did share my colleagues’ concerns about potential loss of jobs. In fact, I went on the record in February requesting that Cabinet pursue all options to streamline government and find efficiencies within government before looking at job cuts, and that any job cut should be absolutely a last resort. Being a realist, I knew that some positions would be affected. I was hoping that the majority of them would be vacant positions, excluding those vacant positions in Health and Social Services, which shouldn’t be cut.

I appreciate the Premier’s message that this is a refocused government and a change in how we do business. There is entirely too much self-protection and empire building within the departments, boards and agencies. All of the departments, boards and agencies are supposed to be on the same team, working for the good of all residents. Unfortunately, they are often more concerned with staking their individual ground and spending at all costs, without thinking about the big picture and the benefits for people that could be attained should they decide to work together.

I do have to acknowledge that I, along with the other ten Members, did have a role in the timing of this budget. To his credit the Premier and Finance Minister did originally request additional time to complete this budget. He wanted to have the official budget session in October, which he believed would provide Cabinet’s key bureaucrats with ample time to conduct a thorough review of the departments and identify areas for reduction, which would minimize job cuts. Further, this time would allow Cabinet to work with Regular Members in a more meaningful way and allow greater levels of interaction and consensus.

When we received the proposal, we believed it to be unreasonable for the people of the NWT to wait one full year for this Legislature’s first budget. We further believed that eight months would provide civil service with enough time to conduct the necessary reviews. In the end, with no guarantees

that the budget would have been any different if we’d waited 12 months, there’s certainly evidence that waiting would have at least improved the process we’ve gone through, which may have resulted in a different budget.

Today we are voting on the budget, but how to vote? There is clearly, as demonstrated by the UNW, a portion of the population that definitely wants the budget to fail. At the same time, there are those who clearly want it to pass. I’ve received a number of e-mails and phone calls and have talked to people on the street who want it to pass and those who want it to fail. Also, I have always said that when making any decision as a Member of this Legislature, I’ll make my decision based on what is in the best interests of the people of the NWT. What I feel I must do, in order to make an appropriate decision, is get past all the rhetoric and focus on the facts and details of the budget itself.

I’ve read the UNW’s report on the financial situation of the GNWT, and I understand their point of view. However, I do believe that getting the government’s house in order is an absolute necessity. This government bleeds out money on a daily basis. There are redundancies within the system, and traditionally we’ve had more growth in expenditures than growth in revenue. We need to bring this in line.

I do agree that job cuts are not the best way to streamline government; however, some cuts are a reality. Based on budget discussions, apparently 237 jobs were identified to be eliminated. Of these, 80 are vacant and a large number of positions are sunsetting, which basically means that they would have been deleted regardless of this process. In total the government has identified 104 affected employees. Of these, 30 or more have already been placed into new positions or they’ve accepted early retirement, leaving 70 incumbents that still need to be placed or provided with layoffs in the 2008–2009 fiscal year. At the same time, 124 positions are being created as part of either forced growth or new initiatives as identified through strategic initiative committees.

Finally, as we have heard today, Cabinet has accepted a large number of recommendations that we have made over the last four weeks, resulting in a return of around 30 positions, the majority of which have incumbents in them. As a result, the true number of employees remaining to be either laid off or placed drops to around 40 employees, with a total of 207 positions being eliminated.

I remain worried about the future of these affected employees. However, should this budget pass, I’m confident that the majority of those who want to continue working for this government will be placed. Should this budget pass, I will have concerns about future layoffs. Coming up is 2009–2010, and there

are likely to be some additional layoffs at that time. We’ve already been informed about a number that will occur at Arctic airports through the fiscal year, and we have made a number of recommendations to Cabinet to consider their current path. Based on Cabinet’s comments today, I hope and feel that they will review our motions with an open mind.

I talked earlier about Cabinet messaging around the fiscal realities of this budget. I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage this government to invest a little bit more time and effort into communicating their future budget plans. Messaging around this budget and these reductions was very minimal, and in my opinion it caused the entire process significant confusion and damage. Clear messaging would have helped all parties involved, including the public, to better understand the reasons and the rationale for the government’s direction. I guarantee better communication will have positive results. Consider it.

As discussed earlier, I’ve had concerns about the process we’ve been following with respect to the budget. Prior to the Premier’s Budget Address I was quite frustrated and felt that my input and the input of my colleagues on this side of the House was not valued or considered to the degree that it should have been. However, coming into this session, 11 Regular Members have been united and strong. We’ve remained committed to the process and have worked extremely well together to get our message across to Cabinet. I believe that they have heard us. The evidence is clear. As of today Cabinet has officially acknowledged this by returning over 30 positions that were previously erased back into the public service. Further, they have acknowledged a number of our recommendations with a focus on the next fiscal year, and I am optimistic that they will attempt to work with us to attain a consensus during the business planning process and prior to the introduction of the 2009–2010 budget. This has been, at times, a painful process; however, we have managed to work our way through it. I’m confident that both sides have learned from it. I’m confident that we, as 19 Members, will find a way to move forward and retain the ability to reach consensus as part of this consensus government.

Ultimately, the most important part of this entire process is the budget itself. As indicated previously, to go forward, I must believe that it is a good budget, that it is in the best interests of the people of the NWT. I must not get hung up on the rhetoric, and I must focus on the people. In review and discussion of the budget over the last couple of weeks, I believe that it’s not the best budget that we could be presented with. However, with the changes agreed to by the Premier today, it’s not a bad budget; in fact, it’s all right. Overall, we’re talking about an investment of operations expenditures of around $1.217 billion and over

$179 million in infrastructure expenditures and contributions. Overall, this is an increase of over $64 million in operations expenditures and $34 million in infrastructure from the previous Main Estimates.

Included in this budget are a significant number of reinvestments that we should all be proud of: increased support for arts and culture; increased support to tourism; investment of $25 million in health infrastructure; enhancing police services; advancing devolution discussions; expanding early childhood development programs; support for our official languages; additional support to apprentices; and many, many more.

At the end of the day, with the additions the Premier announced this afternoon resulting from motions made in this House, I am confident that this is a good budget — not a great budget but a good budget. When you factor in that this government has been in a holding pattern, in a no-go-anywhere position, standing still, for the last eight months and not moving forward with business, I believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of this territory if I support this budget. So I’ll be supporting this budget.

In moving forward with the business-planning process in October and future budget discussions, I

hope that all of us here, including Cabinet,

remember these four weeks and the value that clear communication, active involvement of all 19 Members and the principles of consensus government can have in attaining a reasonable and appropriate conclusion in the best interests of all Northerners.

In closing, I’d like to thank Cabinet for listening to us and meeting us halfway. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion, the honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure what else can be added to Mr. Abernethy’s statement. It was all-encompassing.

I would like to talk about two aspects of this experience that I’ve had. One has to do with process; the other has to do with the product. As for the process I’ve said a number of times that I felt that there was a piece missing in the process and the development of this budget. All Members developed goals and objectives in December of last year. Then Regular Members trusted Cabinet to go away and develop a budget. We expected — I expected, at least — that the concept, the big picture, would come back to us as Regular Members and that we would be asked for our input. That step was missed.

We came back to detail, and the detail was not what we expected, and the detail was not to our liking. We didn’t feel — and again, I particularly didn’t feel — that we had an opportunity for input into the main concept, into the general plan for this particular budget. The reductions were pretty alarming.

As for the process, I have to comment on the notification to affected employees. I think we could debate until the cows come home whether or not early notification of employees was a good or a bad thing. I think, depending upon who you ask, you’ll get one opinion of yes, and the second person will say no. But it’s done, and we have to just let it go. However, I can’t let go of the fact that we have notified employees for the ’09–10 year that they are potentially affected. I have to say that I think that was just wrong, and it shouldn’t have been done.

Throughout this process there were a number of times when notice to Members was particular lacking. I have to reference the letters that went to affected employees before Members were notified that their constituents were going to be affected. There was notification to mayors and chiefs and councils prior to Members on this side of the House being notified of that sort of information.

All of this is water under the bridge, and we have to move on. We’re at the end of this process, and there’s no point in crying over spilt milk.

To the product, I think it’s no surprise to anyone that this side of the House, me included, didn’t like the product that we received. I felt that the reductions lacked justification. I felt that some of the layoffs were poorly planned or not planned for at all. I didn’t feel ownership in the budget. Again, it goes back to the fact that I didn’t have an opportunity for input. I didn’t agree with many of the principles that were underlying the budget that we received and the product that we saw.

This is my first experience with budget debate, and I can’t say that it was always a pleasant experience. But the end product proved to me that consensus government is alive and well. Many constituents confessed to me over the last several months that they wondered whether or not consensus government was alive. There was a lot of backing-and-forthing. Once we did get into the detail and made some suggestions, Cabinet did come back with some agreement to some of our suggestions. We then went through another set of backing-and-forthing, and there were concessions made on both sides of the House. I think now we have a product that all 19 of us can accept. That product does involve layoffs, but I have always maintained that in order to match our revenues and our expenditures, some layoffs are necessary. That’s an unfortunate fact.

I didn’t vote at second reading for several reasons. One of them was because I didn’t support the principle of the bill. I didn’t feel that the product that we had was a good one, but I also wanted to get the documents into debate. I wanted to get it to debate, so I didn’t vote for it and I didn’t vote against it. Those are my main reasons. I’m very glad that I had the chance to do that. I think that all Members throughout this process have managed to keep an open mind most times. I think a few of us were closed, more than once, but I think we showed trust in the process, and I think we showed trust in each other. At this point, with the additions that will come in the supplementary appropriation, which is coming before us shortly, I can support the bill as amended. I will be supporting and voting in favour of this particular bill.

I’m not necessarily looking forward to business plans in the fall. I think it’s probably going to be another onerous process. I am looking forward to an opportunity to have input before we get to detail. As has been expressed already, Cabinet will recognize that communication needs to be early and often. We do want to have input into what’s going on. We want to produce the best product possible for the NWT and for our residents.

I’d also like to thank Members on this side of the House for working together. It was a most incredible experience. I want to thank Members on the other side of the House for being open and being receptive. I think we do have a product which may not be perfect, but it’s one that I can certainly agree with, and I think it will certainly do us until we get the next one, which will be better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms.

Bisaro. To the

motion, the honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Stephen King began one of his books by saying, “He wasn’t a good boy, but he wasn’t a bad boy either.” So what we have is…. That’s how I’d like to talk about the budget: it’s not a bad budget, but it’s not a good budget either.

It took a lot of hard work to get to where we are today. It took the power of the 11. It had a big impact, working with Cabinet, because when we first started the process so many months ago, we had our input, and for whatever reason it didn’t seem like we had our footprint. I mentioned it several times that it didn’t have the impact that our constituents wanted. They came to us with their letters of job losses and so on. So we came back here. We went to Cabinet, and we met with them. At that time our esteemed Premier said, “No.” He said, “No changes to the budget. We’re holding the line. This must be done.” That kind of shocked us and took us for a loop because we’re talking about

consensus-style government. We worked hard as the 11. We stood up many times, united, and we showed government that consensus style government means involving everybody, the majority of the views. We were very pleased, actually, to see about a week ago or so that the government said, “Oh, yeah, we’re now negotiating a budget.”

That speaks to where we should be at all times: looking at the resources, what we can do for the communities, the regions and, indeed, our staff, too, who are the backbone of our organization. Those are the people who we must take care of. I do concur that within the process, we have our input early.

I would be remiss, of course, not to mention the hard work of the Union of Northern Workers and their supporters and how involved they got in our budget process. They involved the communities, they reached out to us politicians, and above all they represented their constituents to the best of their ability. I’d like to say, as well, that I hope we’ve done the same as politicians.

For us, in the many debates we’ve had over the past four weeks…. We got to be a thorn in the side of government, and we kept needling them. In fact, I think Mr. Premier said at one point, “Look, we don’t want to move to old-style politics,” when we were doing tit-for-tat or trading. I don’t know what that is. Old-style politics — I don’t go back that far. For me, Mr. Speaker, it’s not old-style politics to take care of the regions and the communities; it’s consensus-style politics. We’re all representatives for the many different areas.

I do want to say that the road was daunting. It looked hard. It was very, very much uphill. When I left here and went home to my community, I got all phone calls, letters, e-mails and petitions that said, “Look, this is happening.” It also seemed impossible.

We came back here, all 19 of us, about four weeks ago, and the gloves were on, Mr. Speaker. The gloves were on, and the fight was on. It was not only with government but in the committee too. We had many fights, and they worked out. That’s how you challenge yourself, and that’s how you build the intestinal fortitude to speak up for yourself and for your people and, at the same time, remain united and do the best thing you can for our people for whom we serve — the reason why we are here.

Once again, I would like to thank my constituency, all the communities, Grannies from Nahendeh who signed the petitions that I brought here to the House. Our communities spoke for consensus-style government. The people spoke, Mr. Speaker. It is a democracy and not an autocracy. That was one of the key things. The impact is huge in our small communities, even more so in the small and remote

communities. Loss of one job is huge. When that capacity, when that skill level leaves a small community, it is just irreplaceable.

When it all began, people came to me and they said, “Well, are you going to vote no? Are you going to kill the budget?” I said, “Well, I’m going to vote no if I cannot save any jobs.” That’s what I did, right off the bat: I voted no. I told my people that’s what I would do. “But I can’t promise…. I’ll fight hard. I’ll fight like hell,” is the word I used. I did that. I came here and I fought like crazy. In fact, I was telling government, Mr. Premier and the Cabinet Ministers that I was on a hunger strike. That’s the way I used that. And it worked. Look at me now.

Laughter

I’m happy to say I can probably eat the budget that’s there. I can swallow the budget that is before us. That’s going towards where I’m going to stand today. I’m going to stand with the budget. I’m confident and comfortable that I fought hard. I

represented my people. I, too, didn’t get

everything that I wanted for my constituency and my people. There’s still a net loss of jobs. But the key people that are there are being re-profiled. They are good, hard-working people, and they deserve the positions in the communities that they wish to work in.

As well, I’d like to commend our Chair of the Priorities and Planning Committee. Somebody called her a coach. The Chair, Mrs.

Jane

Groenewegen, she’s done well. Having to sit with 11 people from different backgrounds and different opinions…. Well, I used to be Chair in the former Assembly, and I know how hard it is to work with 11 people. Getting 11 people to agree is a huge, huge challenge. But she did it. She took 11 people with diametrically opposed views, which is something else, and was able to unite us, not only once but many, many times, in order to make an impact — as I think I told one of the Ministers — to help government make decisions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to say that today I will be voting in favour of this budget. I’ll look forward to the business plans that are coming up in the fall time. I can tell the people of the North that I will be working just as hard to make the next budget work for our people, our communities and our region. With that, mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion, the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr.

Speaker, I, too, will be

supporting the budget. I supported the budget on second reading, and I support the budget here. I felt it was a budget that, because of the way the budget process went, gave us an opportunity to see all

aspects of the government, all aspects of every department. We had an opportunity to have an impact and some influence on all aspects of this budget in all the departments.

Initially, when we had voted on the budget to go to second reading, I voted for the budget then. I was confident that the Members of this House could work together to come up with a product that would be something that would be acceptable to this House and something that would positively impact the people of the Northwest Territories and, definitely, positively impact the people of my riding of Tu Nedhe.

I feel like this is a budget that was put out to the MLAs on this side of the House. I felt like the MLAs on this side of the House worked on trying to build a foundation for this budget. As with anything else you build, a good foundation is a good place to start. I feel like this is a foundation budget that could go on for the next four years with good additions, changes and evolution of the budget and so on. I look forward to the business-planning process, because it will basically be the first time we’re going through a business-planning process, going from the very beginning of the process to the end.

There are still a lot of things that I think this government could do that will positively impact smaller communities. I still feel like I stand up in the House and I talk about the smaller communities versus the bigger communities. I’m not doing that because I want things taken away from big communities; I do that because I think there has to be some form of equalization.

This government is supposed to make sure that all people in the Northwest Territories are afforded the same opportunities and the same chances to live their lives the way that they want to live them — opportunities for people in small communities to have all the same services and all the same programs that are available to everybody else in the North, everybody else in the bigger communities. I’ve always believed that it’s like anything in life: the unfortunate ones should get the attention so that it kind of equalizes things. If you have to put less in areas where there is a lot already and you have to put more in areas where there isn’t quite as much, then that’s what has to be done. I feel like that’s what this budget’s done.

I feel like there are issues that I talked about from day one. Probably the first thing I talked about after campaigning in Tu Nedhe was that I felt like the youth were our future. A lot of people feel that way. Everybody talks that way too, but I feel like, for the first time, this government and people on both sides of the House said, “Hey, that is true; that is the way.” The way to cure the ills of the Northwest

Territories is to make sure that the youth become people that are responsible, quality people that can go on in life and not rely so much on the support of government to be able to become good, functioning citizens of this territory. I feel the youth are in the forefront of this Assembly.

The issue that everyone only talks about and nothing really substantial happens is the area of the cost of living: the high cost of living in some communities, where people can’t afford basic essentials to operate a house or basic essentials to feed their kids and so on. I feel like now the government here, the people in this room, understand. Maybe they always did. I’m not saying this is something people are just beginning to realize but actively, proactively, trying to address the issue of the cost of living.

The housing conditions across the Territories, balancing out the housing conditions, making sure that…. Thinking and knowing that individuals who operate their own households are able to maintain their households, are able to live and support themselves in their own home ownership units, and giving them the supports to be able to do that. At the end of the day, it’s going to save millions of dollars for this government ,instead of putting people in institutions or putting people in subsidized housing.

Those are the things that I feel this budget is going to allow us to do. There are a lot of issues that I felt were brought out in this process, where we said, “No, we’re not happy with this budget.” I wanted us to work on this budget. I couldn’t really fathom the thought of going back to square one and starting all over, so I voted in favour of the budget to try to move forward and put the handprint of the ordinary MLAs into the budget.

I feel the process was excellent. Nineteen people came together and created a lot of synergy to be able to pass a budget that positively impacts all constituents, all the way from the very north of the territory to the south of the territory and east and west. I feel like this is truly a consensus budget that everybody here can live with for this year.

And then we’ll do it again next year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 8 here at third reading. I listened quite intently to the words of my colleagues, and I appreciate all of their words. I know Mr. Abernethy put a great deal of work into his remarks, and I appreciate those. I echo a lot of his sentiments and those of other Members.

I guess I stand here today…. Four weeks ago —and four weeks goes by pretty quick in this line of work; although it seemed like an eternity at times, it did go by fairly quick — I voted against the budget at second reading, and I did so out of principle. As many of you know, I’m a process guy, and I honestly believe the process was flawed. I don’t believe Members were given an opportunity to have input into the budget to the extent that I would expect in a consensus government.

What it took, Mr. Speaker, was the 11 Regular Members working with their Cabinet colleagues, over the past three and a half weeks, to come up with something that we could live with. Is it perfect? No, it’s not. Has the process been flawed? Yes, it has. It hasn’t been perfect, but we need to move ahead. We need to get on with things. We need to learn something. We need to grow as Members and as an Assembly.

I think we can take a lot out of the last three and a half weeks. We’ve had some lively debates in this House; we tried to keep things on an issue level. From my standpoint, it never did get personal; it’s all about the issues. I respect the Premier — as the Premier and as the Finance Minister — and the work that he and his Cabinet colleagues have done over the past three and a half weeks in getting the budget to the state it is in today, and that’s at third reading. I think a lot of good work has been done by the Members of this House, and everybody’s to be applauded for working together and showing the patience to see this through. It would have been easy for us to vote it down in second reading. But as my colleague Mr. Beaulieu stated, we would have started back at square one, and I don’t think that was something we wanted to do.

What I believe is the government took on too much too soon. It’s a government still trying to find its legs. I can appreciate some of the growing pains of a new government just coming in and wanting to do so much, and I give Premier Roland a lot of credit for his ambitious start and trying to get some things done and a new way of doing business. I subscribe to a lot of that, Premier Roland and Members. I believe fully in trying to do the best we can with what we have. That’s where I believe we can all work together and achieve some good things over the next three and half years, the time that we have left here together.

Moving ahead, though, I do believe we need to come up with a road map of some kind: something that we can share with the public, we can share with each other, we can share with our stakeholders. Something that’s going to show us going from where we’re at today to the time the next election comes around and the 17th Legislative

Assembly of the Northwest Territories is voted into office three and a half years from now. We have to

come up with something like that. We can gauge our progress and our success on that road map. It has to happen.

One of the key failings, I think, in all of this, was communication. That’s been flawed from the start. Whose responsibility is that? I’m not sure. Again, I think it’s just the way things happened. We were trying to get too ambitious too soon.

Our budget has grown 30 per cent in the last five years. That’s a tremendous rate of growth. It’s over $1.3 billion now. We do need to find ways, and a means, of getting our spending in check. One of the things in the process that we’ve set out for ourselves…. I buy into the fact we’ve got to reduce our spending, but as fast as we reduce our spending, we’re finding new places to spend the money.

Some of this, going forward, has to be in an effort to cut back on our spending. We can’t spend every dollar that we reduce ourselves by. We can’t find more ways to spend it, because it’s a tremendous…. Thirty per cent in five years: that’s a tremendous rate of expenditure growth, and it’s something that we just can’t sustain. I know the Finance Minister has said that himself. Again, I think we have to have our eyes squarely on the future, and we need to work together to get there.

Before I close, again I want to say it’s been a struggle at times. But I believe with the back-and-forth that has happened in at least the past week…. I really do appreciate the work Cabinet Ministers have shown this side of the House, and I’ll point out Mr. Miltenberger specifically, and Mr. McLeod, for their efforts to work with committee, and Premier Roland, at the end of the day, stepping up to the plate. Mahsi.

Applause.

What we see here today, again, is not perfect, but it’s something that I can lend my support to and take it out to my constituents.

The job loss has been minimized, so I think that’s a key thing too. In all of this the job loss has been minimized. Again, with that, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the start of the budget I supported it, knowing that for my open-handed approach of working together…. Today I stand here with my colleagues — 11 Regular Members. You know I’d go to war with you any day to support you. Given myself and my constituents of Nunakput, I appreciate it. Members, colleagues across the floor, I thank you as well.

Just looking back at so many things…. For myself, worrying about not sleeping well at night while I’ve been here — like, what I got myself into. You know, for myself, I worry about not sleeping well at night while I’ve been here: like, what have I gotten myself into? You worry about the people the cutbacks are affecting. That’s what bugged me the most.

Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Beaulieu and all of you spoke so well in regard to working together to try to save as many jobs as we possibly could for all of us and the people. I really think we’ve come a long way. I really knew that we could get through this, but I’m not looking forward to the next one.

A lot of good has come out of this. I mean, for myself, my access road 177 is going to get started finally. It’s not lip service; it’s a reality now. For my people of Tuk, you’re going to have gravel, water, a new graveyard, sewage, a dump site, and a back door for the safety of my people. That was one of my key drivers for being here: the safety of my people.

When I was the mayor of Tuk, we had so many problems from global warming. Everybody says so much about global warming, but my people in my community of Tuktoyaktuk live it every day.

I’d like to thank the staff for all the support you’ve given us; the EDI Committee, our Chair, for all the hard work he has done; and our Gov Ops. To P-and-P Chair Mrs. Jane Groenewegen, thank you so much again for the support. To my colleagues across the floor, for the meetings with Mr. Miltenberger and Mr. Yakeleya, and for all the good work every one of you has done. There’s a lot of support. We’ve done our best with what we came out with today. I’d just like to thank you all, my colleagues, again. Mr. Krutko down there is smiling at me. Thank you. Have a good day.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. To the motion. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.