Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is not an implementation, but I would like to ask the Government Leader again, why were not the ordinary Members involved in developing this document, Reshaping Northern Government?

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of this government is for the cabinet to try to put into place the issues that have been put before us and is to get this government into a position where people feel that it is accessible and that the programs and policies are delivered as close to the people as possible. These documents that are presently in front of you are the outline and the broad objectives of what has to be done in terms of putting together that process. It was highly technical in trying to translate what has come out of other papers, other initiatives, as well as Strength at Two Levels, on what can be done or what we can possibly achieve in certain time frames, looking at the government as a whole and what is possible.

So I did not believe that in setting up this technical way of dealing with things it was possible and desirable for the Members to be involved at the time. The mandate was given to us to structure a process where we can deal with those issues and goals and objectives, and this is what we did. This is just the background, and now the work has to be done. That is where I assumed that the Members wanted to be involved, in actually doing the work, not designing the technical nature of the boxes on where we are going to go. Thank you.

Oral questions. Your last supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, since the ordinary Members that were suggested to participate in the implementation team were not consulted at any point in time when the government decided to develop their document, Reshaping Northern Government, and since she indicated that Members would participate in implementation once the work was to begin, I would like to ask the Government Leader whose decisions they were to consolidate departments. Were they community decisions or government decisions, in

isolation, without the participation of ordinary Members?

Madam Government Leader, Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, the working paper was developed from a lot of different areas, including suggestions from the Strength at Two Levels report. From the very beginning this government and myself have stated that we have to approach government in trying to change the way we do business. It was no secret that we had to get on with that kind of job. But first of all we had to set up a process so the job could be done. That is the idea of what is in the documents now, the process and what has to be done within the scope of what is in Strength at Two Levels, within an awful lot of other discussion that has gone on.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have many proposals out there. For example, the communities are asking where they fit into this process. They want to know where they make their decisions. That is the most important area that we stop at with local government when we gave them only so much responsibility. Now they are asking where the rest of it fits in. This discussion has been going on forever.

At the same time, and I say again, there is great concern on how this government operates at a central level as well. It appears there are too many decisions here, there is too heavy a structure here, and people can take more authority and responsibility at other levels. We have numerous boards and agencies, and people are wondering where to go. All these things are mixed up as to where we go as a government. We are merely trying to put in place a process where we can deal with those issues; and while we are dealing with those issues, a committee will look at it and put it to the various committees of this Legislative Assembly and that will go on.

So on behalf of the people at the community level, I hope that we will respect what they want to do. There are other areas where we have to consider that the Minister responsible for aboriginal rights is dealing with, in terms of what people want to do under their claims. These are all a mix of different ways of how government best serves a people. And if we do not begin to address it at a community level, then we are the only ones that are going to be talking about it. The communities will know no more or no different than what they do today. So we have to put that discussion at a point where it is begun at a community level.

In terms of the regional concept of the Gwich'in, I am quite familiar, and I think everyone here is quite aware, that the Gwich'in can deal unilaterally with the Government of Canada without even going through this territorial government. We are aware of that. They have that in their claim. If the Gwich'in want to pick up right now and say they do not want to deal with the territorial government, within their claim they can go directly to the federal government.

However, where we will be involved is that some of those resources that would go directly to the Gwich'in are sitting here in the territorial government. So whatever is taken away from the budget, that we have, to go to the Gwich'in, we would have to concede that it would have to be passed on. Because they do have that right within their claim.

So in the end, either we do it together and recognize those rights and those agreements or we will sit back and we will let those discussions go directly between the federal government and the aboriginal groups. And right now I think if we work together to do that, it will give them a better deal. That is what we are setting out to do. Where does the rest of the Territories sit; that is, those that are not negotiating specifically for their group? So all I am saying is, let us get it together or else we will be left out. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to continue to pursue the questions with regard to the process. I would like to ask the Government Leader -- I recognize the concern that the Government Leader has expressed with regard to a unilateral process that could occur and could cause problems even for this government if it happens. However, the concern that we have as ordinary Members is the perceived unilateral process that exists right now in our government: that there are certain decisions that have been made to implement -- or at least that is the perception -- to implement Strength at Two Levels, the Beatty report, without consultation and without involvement of ordinary Members.

Could the honourable Member seriously consider ensuring that all ordinary Members, including those Members that are among our implementation representatives, could continue to be involved in consultations with regard to the Beatty report, Strength at Two Levels, on an ongoing basis, and not only when certain reports are concluded?

Madam Government Leader

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that that is what I was saying. I know that there is a perception, but one of the things I will say again is that oftentimes we set out to do a chore or a task and we sit together and we throw three or four people together and say, "Let us grab this and let us grab that, and let us just ad hoc it along."

For once I had hoped that we would take a report that was commissioned to answer a lot of the questions that were out there in the general public, so we would not have to start all off again ad hocking our general representative responsibility to our constituents.

The constituents do not like it because they say every time we get a new government we start all over again. They wonder what happened to all that work that was done. They say they were talked to a few months before the last government by this group of people that were on the Strength at Two Levels report. They came around, they say, and had meetings in the regions. They want to know what happened to that. There was a lot of effort and a good deal of money spent in trying to co-ordinate and think of people and look at ways and means that we can pass on to the people we are serving that responsibility and the funding to take over the programs and services.

I am committed to that, and I am also committed to making sure, on an ongoing basis, as we begin to do our work, that all the Members of the Legislative Assembly will be involved. And whether it is at a committee level or in the legislative assembly and the committee of the whole, where the committee presently is right now, people can keep bringing that in continuously. I suppose it can be tabled every session. We had some information meetings earlier on the report, on the overall presentation a while ago to all the Members to see whether the process was adequate or whether it has holes in it. I am sure there are some points where there are places we can improve. But I will say again that we are committed to involve everyone who wants to be involved. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question concerning the Strength at Two Levels report. The first time I came across the report was when I got here. I wonder if the previous government had access to the same document. Thank you.

Madam Government Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the report was commissioned by the previous government. It was not finished when the previous government went out. The report was delivered to the Finance Minister, and the report was given to all MLAs in December, before you left for home. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Government Leader. Were any of the documents or any portions of the report available to the former government?

I want to caution Members that the present government is not responsible for the actions of the former government. Ms. Government Leader.

Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

Oral questions.

Item 6, written questions. Item 7, returns to written questions. Mr. Whitford.

Returns to written questions.

Item 8, replies to Opening Address.

Item 9, petitions.

Item 10, reports of standing and special committees.

Item 11, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 12, tabling of documents. Mr. Whitford.