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.