A lot of Members have already gone on record discussing the proposed budget and the process that has been undertaken today. Given that today we may be voting on the first and second readings of the budget, I thought it would be timely for me to talk about the process as well.

It has been suggested by Cabinet that the 11 Members on this side of the House have been adequately briefed and involved throughout the entire budget process, including the cuts themselves. When it comes to reductions, the 11 Members prepared a list of potential reductions, not focused on job cuts, and provided them to Cabinet

for consideration. We were told that there were some good ideas but they would need research before they could be implemented. That makes sense. However, if research into our ideas is required, I would suggest that research into the changes put forward by Cabinet would also need to be reviewed and researched as well. Instead, they put their ideas forward as part of the budget.

To me, they don’t appear to be the most logical and appropriate cuts given Cabinet’s commitment that job cuts would only be as a last resort. Some departments made no attempt to reduce other than by cutting jobs themselves, which is contrary to the original message. With respect to the job cuts, we’ve also been ignored. During the last session, we asked that job cuts be a last resort. We were also given the understanding that we, as Regular MLAs, would be notified before potentially affected staff.

On February 28, 2008, we received a letter from the Minister responsible for Human Resources indicating that jobs are being cut. Unfortunately, staff were being notified at exactly the same time. That hardly gave us an opportunity to discuss the potential cuts with Cabinet and offer alternative solutions. Further, the package we did receive did not include a list of potentially affected positions; rather, it just said staff were being notified. We didn’t receive a list of potentially affected employees until three weeks later, long after staff had been told.

The worst part about this whole situation is that the Minister of Human Resources went on record in the March 3, 2008, issue of News/North indicating that MLAs had been told about the notification in a briefing and a letter. I don't personally recall the briefing.

As a Regular Member I don't personally feel that I've been adequately briefed and/or involved in setting the priorities for the proposed reinvestment either.

When it comes to the reinvestment, Regular Members have continually asked to participate in the setting of priorities. We have continually been denied that opportunity and been told that we won't be invited to participate in the strategic reinvestment committee

. The entire process has

been lacking, and the net result is, in my opinion, not in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Language Commissioner recommendation 2: That the government immediately take steps to ensure the appropriate training and certification of interpreters and translators and ensure that there’s a registry of interpreters and translators that is available to both the public and private sector.

With the closure of the aboriginal language section of the Language Bureau in the mid-1990s, the GNWT lost capacity in the areas of language standards, terminology development, training and accreditation. The precarious situation of our aboriginal languages combined with the declining numbers of mother-tongue speakers makes the need to actively address the revitalization of the aboriginal languages more urgent.

In recent years the former Language Commissioner and the Special Committee on the Review of the Official Languages Act spoke to the need for capacity building through the development of translation standards as well as training and certification standards for interpreters and translators.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommended in its “Report on the Review of the 2004–2005 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner” that “the GNWT work with Aurora College to deliver a basic interpreter-translator training program for aboriginal languages as well as specialized training for medical terminology.”

In its response to the report, the government indicated that while it generally supported the idea,

it “delegated” the responsibility for action to Aurora College and further made any action dependent on “sufficient demand and program funding.” The government’s response did not indicate any specific steps towards such an undertaking.

A year later the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommended in its “Report on the Review of the 2005–2006 Annual Report of the Language Commissioner” that “the GNWT implement a plan for the training and certification of interpreters and translators.”

During the review of the 2006–2007 annual report, the Standing Committee on Government Operations discussed with the commissioner the fact that, despite repeated recommendations by the Languages Commissioner and by standing committees of the Legislative Assembly, the GNWT has not made any progress on training programs and certification of interpreter-translators in aboriginal languages.

During this discussion the committee also encouraged the commissioner to follow up on her recommendations in accordance with her mandate and powers under the act. The committee suggested that the commissioner include a status section on previous recommendations in future annual reports.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask my colleague from Nunakput to continue the report.

I do understand that it is a gap. I understand that right now their increased costs are based on around 2 per cent, and we know that the real costs of health care are increasing about 7 per cent or more a year. I understand that.

The gap is real. You need to find a way to renegotiate that cap that they have placed on you. So I’m once again going to ask: what kind of timeline are you working on to develop or increase that cap, or negotiate an increase to the cap, so that we can stop losing money that they clearly owe us?

My question today is to the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, and it is related to my Member’s statement yesterday concerning federal responsibility for Indian and Inuit health care costs.

The federal government has limited growth on their portion of the Indian and Inuit health care at around 2 per cent. Real growth in health care is around 7 per cent or more. As a result, the GNWT is falling further behind. The feds owe our health system more money to support our health care system — around $95 million to date.

So my questions are: what is Health and Social Services doing to collect these outstanding dollars? What is the status of any negotiations that are going on between the department and the federal government? How long can we wait, or expect, or.... How long is it going to take before we develop some sort of funding model to flow a larger portion of funds to us so that we’re not relying on the 2 per cent?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During our last session I went on the record concerning morale in the public service. After receiving the Main Estimates yesterday, it's clear that 231 positions have been targeted for reduction. Fortunately only 147 of these will result in potential job loss, as 84 are currently vacant. Although 147 affected employees is definitely better than 231, it's still far from appropriate, and it's bad for the public service.

Staff of the GNWT are our most valuable resource. They're the people who provide the essential services to our residents in the Northwest Territories. Without a happy and motivated public service, we fail in the delivery of the essential services we are expected to deliver as a government.

These job cuts do nothing but radically reduce already poor morale. Further, this job-cutting exercise is seen as only the first round of cuts. Whether or not a second round of cuts is coming, it does cause uncertainty within the public service, which currently affects morale and the quality of the services provided by our dedicated yet nervous and apprehensive staff.

As I indicated previously, I believe focusing on job cuts is exactly the wrong way to pursue the course of direction with respect to the government's spending patterns.

The public and the Members on this side of the House have offered Cabinet many suggestions on ways to improve our financial situation without cutting staff: things like reviewing and improving our energy use and consumption within the government itself, restructuring boards and agencies and increasing cooperation between departments in order to reduce duplicate spending.

During the last session I and my colleagues on this side of the House strongly encouraged the Premier and Cabinet to make every reasonable effort to reduce our overall spending through streamlining,

as well as creative and innovative thinking and planning. After looking at the Main Estimates last night, it appears to me that our encouragement to find reductions other than through cuts has largely been ignored. Don't get me wrong. Upon review, it's clear that one or two of the departments were more creative and did find alternative savings without jobs cuts; however, the vast majority appear to have gone directly into job cuts themselves.

I am a realist. I know that this restructuring exercise will result in a few — and I stress, a few — job cuts. However, as I indicated previously, these job cuts should be the last resort. They shouldn't be the government's first solution to our financial difficulty. I’m disappointed that Cabinet has pursued this course of action, as I believe they're setting us up to relive the mistakes of 1996 government cuts.

To avoid repeating these same mistakes, I encourage Cabinet to listen to the Regular Members, your colleagues, and reconsider many of the job cuts you are proposing. We must support our most valuable resource: our dedicated and committed staff. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to recognize a constituent and the president of the UNW, Todd Parsons.

Earlier this month the Parkland Institute released a report on the public-service cuts in the Northwest Territories titled “Economic

Imperative or Political Choice?” This report contains a significant amount of information and points of view that are often contrary to those of the opinions supported by the Ministers and the GNWT public service.

Personally, I don’t believe the government’s financial position is as positive as that suggested within the Parkland report. However, I also don’t believe that the financial situation is as dire as suggested by Cabinet. In truth, the reality lies somewhere in between the two. It is clear that a course correction is required. However, I’m not convinced that the course being pursued by Cabinet is the most appropriate for the people of the Northwest Territories.

A clear example of this is demonstrated within the Parkland report. The report suggests that the GNWT should place greater emphasis on collecting additional revenues than on cutting public-service jobs and programs. While I disagree with the report that increasing personal taxes and fuel taxes would be a reasonable method to increase these revenues, I do agree that pursuing additional revenue is critical for the long-term future of the GNWT.

I believe an opportunity for increased revenues that must be pursued is the acquisition of federal money owed to the NWT for Indian and Inuit health care costs. It is estimated that the federal government owes the GNWT approximately $95 million to help offset the cost of providing health care to the indigenous aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories. This money is owed to the Government of the Northwest Territories and must be collected. Given this government’s fiscal realities, delays in the collection of these dollars are no longer responsible. I believe the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance should make the collection of these dollars a top priority. Further, a long-term funding agreement needs to be developed that ensures the continued delivery of health care to aboriginal people in the NWT. This agreement must further recognize the ever-increasing cost of health care in the NWT and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I’ll be asking the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services questions concerning the department’s inability to collect these urgently required federal dollars, the status of the negotiations, and where the department is with the development of a long-term funding model to flow future dollars.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, $135 million is a lot of money. It’s going to be hard to find these dollars. What will happen if we don’t reach the targets that have been set by this government?

Mr. Speaker, in the announcement of the reductions there was reference to reinvestment. If the government is looking for $135 million, how much will actually be reinvested back into the public service? How will it be done, and what criteria for reinvestment will be used? Thank you.