I think that to start off I'd like to thank all the colleagues and all the MLAs for their hard work on this document and for collaborating effectively to bring something complete to the table. That being said, there are several issues with this process that I think need to be improved upon. The mandate ought not to be a business plan. We have business plans for those. It ought not to be a budget document. We have a budget process for those. What it ought to be is a set of political commitments that are gathered together to form a concise plan that gives certainty to Members of this House and also members of the public to know what the government is going to do. I have said it before and I'll say it again, often many of our Ministers respond to the commitments made by the Government of Canada, and those commitments follow through from their election campaign. Most of those commitments are not made directly. They come from that election. People have certainty in what they're going to get from the Government of Canada because those clear, precise commitments were made, and people are looking forward to those commitments optimistically. We've heard it today in the House about how some of the social housing programs and infrastructure programs we’re looking to capture as opportunities can only be done if the Government of Canada holds true to its promises. That's what this document should be, and quite frankly, there's simply too many vague statements in here. My colleague spoke previously to “capturing opportunities” as being mentioned many times, and there are just a litany of examples of some very good, clear statements about supporting certain things or implementing certain things, but not how much they cost, not how much they're going to make more resources available to communities or to governments, and actually commit to put things on the ground. It's all very vague and hard to measure. How do we hold a government accountable to see how many opportunities they've captured? That's a perfect example; that commentary was made multiple times and it continues to remain in the document. What we have as a proposal is a very risk adverse document that wants to be realistic and play it safe. There are good reasons to do that, as to not raise hopes. Occasionally you can't fulfill everything, but you can present a bold and ambitious plan that gives people confidence, especially when our fiscal and economic circumstances are extremely challenging. The conversation today in our communities is one of, quite frankly, fear. Fear about the future and a lack of knowledge about what the way forward looks like. I would be hopeful for a document that would allow people to have those fears allayed. Unfortunately, there's more “hurry up and wait” that's produced by this. Really, what this ought to be is something that gives that certainty of moving forward. Perhaps you can't meet all your political commitments, but you can try and that’s part of the role of a Minister, to explain why things aren't on schedule and why things haven't been met. You have to take risks at certain points in the process. I do think that there's a list provided in the opening comments by the Premier that does show the document did change. Some of these items are more or less clarifications of some of the points that were in there, but that still shows change, so I do think there was a high degree of collaboration. But the other thing to think about is that this is a document that Cabinet is working to implement, and they should be the pens on this. They should hold to things that they think are achievable and that they think are things they can accomplish within their four years. It's really their mandate and we have tools like a mid-term review and other things like that to hold them accountable. That being said, those commitments need to be measurable and clear, and that's still absent from this document. Going forward to our successor Assembly, I would say that this needs to be primarily directed by Cabinet Ministers and the Premier. It can't be solely on the advice of deputy Ministers and departments. It really has to remain at that level, at that high level of political discussion and political commitments, and show vision and ambition, and give people something that's clear and concise and that Cabinet Ministers, as well, can take ownership of, and that Members from the other side of the House can take ownership of as well. And that shows a clear path forward. I think that's what we need to strive for in the future: To be clearer, more concise, and keep it at a level of political dialogue that is in as plain language as possible. There's ways to take hundreds of commitments and boil them down into five-point plans or three-point plans or four-point plans. There are ways to do that. Again, poring through this document takes some time, and there's no succinct statement that's very clear to the public about how things are going to move forward and how their lives, the lives of people that we serve, are going to be improved by implementing of this plan, and that's really why we're here. Those are the kind of long-term strategies and goals that should be implemented.
Kieron Testart on Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
In the Legislative Assembly on February 22nd, 2016. See this statement in context.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
February 21st, 2016
See context to find out what was said next.