Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the MLA for Great Slave to lend my support to the budget in front of us today.
I have been in the Assembly for about 10 years and I have gone through 10 budget exercises and, every time we have gone through a budget in this Legislative Assembly in the last 10 years, there has been some give and there has been some take. There has been working together long hours into nights to work out ways to meet the needs of all Members on both sides of this House to make sure that we have the best budget possible in front of us. I am confident that with this budget, as with every other budget that has come in front of this House for the last 10 years, the same will occur.
I say that, but I also register some frustration that I am having with this particular budgeting process. In my 10 years, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a budget process where there has been such resistance to the budget and drawing of such incredibly hard lines. In the media last week, there was a press release where it basically indicated that, unless the items that are demanded are included in this budget, there will be no movement. I find that frustrating as an MLA, Mr. Speaker. I find that frustrating as a resident.
As a Cabinet Minister, I also find that frustrating, but I listened very carefully to the comments of all the Members of this House and there is clearly frustration on their side, as well. I can promise you that there is frustration on this side. This is consensus government, Mr. Speaker. Consensus government is not about everybody agreeing. Consensus government is about everybody having the opportunity to be heard, listened to, and understood. There will be disagreements, Mr. Speaker. We can't have a system where there isn't disagreement. I would, in fact, be worried about a system where everybody agreed on everything.
I really appreciated the comments that many of the Members made about some of the give and take that has occurred. There has been some give and take to this point. Mr. Speaker, I am privy to the same letters that all the Members are privy to, coming back and forth between committees and Cabinet, and I have seen letters from Cabinet indicating significant movement, $4.5 million in reductions taken off the table based on solid input, advice, and guidance from the Regular Members. I have also seen the inclusion of $14.5 million in new initiatives, items that have come up as part of our mandate. Yes, 911 was not specifically in our mandate, but I would say we are hard-pressed not to find or believe that 911 is clearly something that is important to the people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, we all must work together to find a resolution and solution to this budget. We must back off hard lines, and we must work together. I do say that, recognizing, as I said, there are a couple of areas of frustration that I have experienced in listening to the statements, and I once again applaud the Members in bringing their concerns forward and working with us to resolve them, but there are a couple that I need some clarity on. There are some questions that have arisen in my mind, as an MLA, based on the statements that have been made over the last couple of days.
On February 6th, according to the unedited Hansard, Julie Green, the MLA for Yellowknife Centre, said, and I quote, "We are looking at as many as 200 positions being eliminated this fiscal year and the next, creating a major hit to the public service and to the local economy throughout the Northwest Territories. As the reality of those losses combined with the slow-down of our economy sinks in, how do we reverse this flow of out migration?"
Mr. Speaker, I would love to seek some clarity on that comment. I am not sure where the number 200 came from. I have gone back and looked at letters and documents that are available to all Members, and what I have seen is that in 2016-17 there were 124 positions impacted. That was 56 employees, Mr. Speaker. Of those 56 employees, 40 were retained by the Government of the Northwest Territories. That means they were redeployed. They continue to work for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Five retired. Nine were laid off.
Ultimately, I agree with Members; we don't want to lay off employees. Employees are our most valuable asset, but we weren't able to find them jobs, and we do struggle with that. As a note, one remains impacted and one has yet to receive an offer because they were on a leave of absence. When they return, obviously, they will get one.
In 2017-18, Mr. Speaker, the budget we are talking about today, 65 positions are potentially impacted. It doesn't become official until the budget is approved or not, as the case may be. Thirty-six employees are affected. Eleven of those are eligible to retire. Twenty-one are potentially affected. Four of them have already been identified for redeployment should the budget pass.
Mr. Speaker, I have been an employee of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I have been an MLA. I have been a Minister. I am confident when I say that this government is committed to our most valuable resource, to the people and to the employees of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and I know through watching and being involved that this government will work closely with them and focus on their retention.
I would also just like to add a point with respect to staff complement in the Government of the Northwest Territories, both before and after the budget that is before this government and this Assembly for consideration. While there are reductions that affect staff, absolutely true, this budget adds 17 positions to the public service overall. The GNWT and its public agencies expect to employ 5,626 people in that number of positions over the next fiscal year, which is up from 5,609. This is a growth in the number of positions overall in the public service. So I appreciate the Member's perspective. I hear her frustration. I am trying to understand the numbers that are being presented, and I would certainly love to sit down with the Member to see if she can help me understand where she is coming from.
Mr. Speaker, I have known Mr. Testart, the MLA for Kam Lake, for a number years. This is a man who is clearly passionate about politics and wants to do good for the people of the Northwest Territories, and is very interested in procedure. I respect him for all that he does for the people of the Northwest Territories, but I have a problem with a comment in his statement. I am seeking to get some clarity on that.
On February 2, 2017, in the unedited Hansard, Mr. Testart said, "During the first operation budget, we again saw a return to debt management and reductions as a driving force of the government's fiscal strategy to underpin all of its spending commitments. This in fact led Members of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning to label this budget an austerity budget, motivated by a reduction target of $150 million."
Mr. Speaker, I thought about this a lot and tried to understand exactly what was being said, recognizing that I believe the Member, as all Members, wants the same thing that Cabinet wants, which is an effective budget to meet the needs of the residents of the Northwest Territories. So, I went and looked up the definition of "austerity budget":
"An austerity budget is an attempt to significantly curtail spending in an effort to control public sector debt, particularly where the nation is in jeopardy of defaulting on its bonds."
It goes further, Mr. Speaker:
"The term 'austerity' is more likely to be used when government spending cuts and higher taxes occur during a recession or during a period of very weak economic growth. Austerity implies that spending cuts and tax increases are highly likely to have an adverse impact on aggregate band and economic growth."
I didn't feel and I don't feel, as a citizen, as an MLA, as a Minister, that what is being presented today is in fact an austerity budget, but I wondered what it was. So, I looked up the definition of "balanced budget":
"A balanced budget (particularly that of a government) refers to a budget in which revenues are equal to expenditures. Thus, neither a budget deficit nor a budget surplus exists (the accounts balance). More generally, it refers to a budget that has no budget deficit, but could possibly have a small budget surplus."
Now, in looking at the information that is available to the public, the GNWT is proposing to spend just over $1.7 billion on its operations in the coming fiscal year and another $266 million on infrastructure. That is about $2 billion that the government plans to spend in the next fiscal year. Most of it will go back into the NWT economy in the form of salaries for staff, contract services for residents, and purchasing with NWT businesses and companies.
This is a reduction, Mr. Speaker. There is no denying that. This is certainly a reduction. It represents less than a 0.04 per cent reduction from the previous year's spending, and the government, this Assembly, is dealing with revenues that are only increasing by 1.2 per cent. In this budget, there is growth, Mr. Speaker. We have seen an increase in the number of positions in the public service.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the concern I have with that statement made by Mr. Testart is the continued reference to the $150 million target. As I said, as a Member, I am privy to the same correspondence as is shared with committee and Cabinet and, in a letter from the Minister of Finance on December 16th, it states clearly that we believe we can meet our fiscal objectives with the implementation of the proposed $101 million expenditure reductions and revenue initiatives.
This is a long way from $150 million, and it was my understanding that, at that time, the government of the day was clearly articulating that $150 million is not the target being utilized. Yes, Members are correct, during the budget planning process, $150 million was still on the table, but, based on the dialogue, discussion, and working with committee in the House, that reduction was moved from $150 to $100 million. They were made aware at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I also had some concerns with statements that were made by Mr. Thompson, so I wrote them down. According to the February 2, 2017, unedited Hansard, Mr. Thompson said, "Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that it is strictly Cabinet's fault or the Regular Members' fault. It is all our faults. We need to work better together. Mr. Speaker, lack of communication is a major challenge." After I wrote it down, I realized I actually totally agree with what the Member is saying. The Member is right. Our inability and our frustration to move forward with this budget is all of our fault. It is not one side or the other, and, clearly, we need to work better together.
When we first met at the start of this Assembly, we talked a lot about the importance of doing government better. We agreed that changing the way that the Assembly does business was one of our priorities. Strengthening consensus was one of the ways that we said we would do that. Strengthening consensus is an appealing idea that is easy for people to get behind. To make it happen, though, we have to know exactly what we mean by it, and we have to know what we mean by "consensus" to begin with.
The way I see it, Mr. Speaker, consensus is about hearing the voices of every Member in this House, no matter which side they sit on the floor. Consensus is about taking the best ideas, wherever or from whomever they come, and turning them into government policy. It isn't about implementing a one-sided and predetermined party platform like you would see in most other Canadian jurisdictions.
Consensus is about hearing what matters to the people right across the Northwest Territories and doing what is best for them. It is not about "getting the win" for one side or the other or for one point of view over another. Sometimes, once we've heard and debated all sides of an issue, doing what is best for the Northwest Territories means setting aside our individual preferences and priorities.
While that may be hard, the fact is that, when people of the Northwest Territories win, we all win. We should feel proud of every decision that we make together that serves our people with the best interests of the territories, whatever our individual views. Finding consensus on the important issues that face the Northwest Territories is an ongoing process. It takes time, and it takes work, sometimes hard work, for each of us. It requires us to be engaged in an ongoing conversation about what this territory needs and how we should address those needs.
As an Assembly, we have agreed to a formal process for carrying out that conversation and for making collective decisions. That process is established in documents like The Guiding Principles and Process Conventions of Consensus Government, in our committee structure, and the rules that govern debate. Our guiding principles say that consensus government is defined by the ability and willingness of all Members to work together within our respective roles for the collective good of the Northwest Territories.
One way we must make sure we are doing this is by working with standing committees through established processes, like we do in budgets every year. We recognize there is frustration. We recognize we have to work harder, but budget takes both sides working together, Mr. Speaker.
Well, budget day is not a bit of an event. It is a result of months of work and discussions between Cabinet and standing committees. That discussion begins each fall, when draft business plans for every department are shared with standing committee for review and analysis, something not available in party systems, Mr. Speaker. Ministers then meet with the appropriate standing committees to answer questions -- sometimes good, sometimes bad -- hear concerns, get input and suggestions on the government's plans for the upcoming fiscal year.
Recommendations from standing committees to add or cut specific items from the upcoming budget are often made as part of those meetings and continue to be discussed in correspondence and further meetings in the months leading up to the budget day. For this current budget, Cabinet received quality input and cautions for committee that resulted in important changes to the budget before you. On October 28th, the Minister of Finance wrote committee and indicated $4.5 million in reductions based on requests from committee would not be moving forward. Also on that date, he indicated -- that is, the Minister of Finance -- the Cabinet would add $6 million in initiatives that would be added as priorities to consist with the mandate. There are a few more, but because they are specific to positions I don’t want to add concerns to residents in potentially what could have been impacted positions.
Overall, $14.8 million worth of changes. Budget banking is a balancing act, Mr. Speaker. There is always some need for more money to meet them and there are more ways and more wants on top of that. Finding a way to pay for essential services and central programs and some nice-to-haves and wants without breaking the bank is a challenge even at the best of times. It's even harder when times are tough and revenues are uncertain.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the comment made by Mr. Cory Vanthuyne on February 7, 2017, in the unedited Hansard. It says, "Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister has told us the government has a three-pronged fiscal strategy. Let me share those with you.
1. Increasing fiscal capacity by lowering our operating expenditures or increasing our revenues;
2. Discipline spending to ensure expenditure growth is aligned with revenue growth; and
3. Reducing our reliance on our line of credit as a way to finance the day-to-day operations."
He went further to explain what that meant in his perspective, and I really appreciated his point of view. I've known the Member for a long time, back in the days when I had Brian May hair and he had long, long blonde hair. Good times.
He made a further statement, Mr. Speaker:
We have objected strongly to this target. He was referring to the $150 million which Cabinet moved off from after discussions in the fall with committee, and these were objected for a number of reasons. The key one is that they are simply too severe. I for one do not believe that it is either responsible or prudent to attempt to wipe out a year-end cash deficit accumulated over a number of years and estimated over $300 million in the life of this Assembly. We have asked time and time again to find compromises. Maybe one of the other fiscal reduction targets would have been a suitable compromise.
Mr. Speaker, normally I would agree 100 per cent. I think the way the Member described it was sound. I think his points are valid, but as a Minister, as an MLA, I think it's important that we don’t look just in the one-, two-, three-year window; we have to look at the long-term benefits or impacts on this government. The reason I can't agree completely with what the Member is saying is in the budgeting we know things are coming. We know that by 2026 we have to put in 258 long-term care beds. That's $139,000 in operation costs per bed that need to be added to the books of this government.
Mr. Speaker, by 2026 -- and these numbers are based on today and will need to be indexed appropriately -- that's $35,862,000. We know that there are mine closures over the same nine-year period. We know forced growth is upon us. We know union increases are coming, utility costs are going up. Every 1 per cent in union increase is $8 million added to the budget line, and we know, unfortunately, that there are always unforeseen challenges coming.
Mr. Speaker, I support this budget. I don’t believe it's the best budget. I believe it's a good budget. I believe that, given how we have worked in the past, there will be some room for negotiation and move on this budget as time goes by; but, Mr. Speaker, if you're not taking flack, you're not over the target. This is consensus government, Mr. Speaker, and I believe firmly that we can and we should work together, move away from hard lines and find real resolution on meeting the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories.
I've said it to Members and I'll say it again: I don’t believe that solidarity for the sake of solidarity benefits the people of the Northwest Territories. This building needs to work together. We must find a way to work together to bring forward a budget that meets the needs of the people, and I think we're there. I think we need to work together, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.