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.