Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we step back and look at where this document came from. Mr. Lewis can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe -- and you yourself, sir -- were on
the standing committee on finance when the recommendation was made to the government that they do a base review. During the fourth year of the government's term, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Ballantyne, came to us and said we are going to have to review government. He asked us to participate in the process. I think we refused by saying it is the government's job to get the document done. We told him how we feel about it, and I think Mr. Lewis is on record as reserving the right to criticize the document. I see that he is exercising that right during this session, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, when the document arrived, it arrived from one government to another government. It arrived in my office one day. There was agreement in cabinet to release it immediately, without reading it. There was agreement in cabinet that we should be open and up front. We delivered it to the House the next day. When we delivered it to this House at the last session, Mr. Chairman, we did not know any more about what was in there than the Members who eventually got the document. But it soon became apparent to us as we read through the document and went over it with our staff, that not all the things in the document suited what we as a government or this Legislative Assembly would want to do. I think the number of usable items in here may be as low as 70 per cent. We admit that as much as 30 per cent -- maybe more -- is chaff.
We could have reviewed the document and pulled out the good parts, and written our own story about what we wanted to do. We could have then delivered it to the House and said this is what the government wants to do. But we did not do that. We released the entire thing and said it is the information we have before us. We said this is a document we would like to put into the House and that some of the things are attractive to us. We have said it before, and we will say it again.
I want to make some specific references to Mr. Todd's comments with regard to the transfer of responsibilities and the financial aspect of that. This government has experienced for some time, Mr. Chairman -- and you are well aware of it --the fact that Ottawa transfers responsibilities to us and does not ultimately give us enough money to operate the program. I do not see where we as a government would be doing that to our own communities. I think that when Mr. Todd refers to the capital budget as being locked into this quest for efficiency that we have in government when he says we should be building parks or houses, it is always the government's responsibility to look after the people it has responsibility for. But Mr. Todd also said he wants people to get jobs and he wants an economy. Governments have to balance the spending that they do with an area of requirement by people of the Northwest Territories. At the same time, we have to be asking ourselves how the economy can be stimulated to create some jobs. We are constantly wrestling with how we should spend money, where we should spend money, and trying to balance that between the social needs of the people of the Northwest Territories and a future which we hope will have a stronger economy. We worked it back and forth and said we should do certain things because, ultimately, they will create some wealth and it is an investment for jobs down the road. It is difficult. This House has to decide when those budgets pass through the House, whether or not we have placed priorities in the right areas.
Duplication In Government Departments
There is a lot of duplication in government. That occurs for a number of reasons, Mr. Chairman. The fact that responsibilities have come from Ottawa at different times over the last 20 years or more, and when they come you lump them into another department or you just create a new department. I think there is a recognition, not only in the Northwest Territories but across Canada, that there are enough reasons to suspect duplication in departments that it makes sense to examine putting the departments together. I do not think any of us on this side have any idea of the kinds of things we would have to go through to put the Departments of Health and Social Services together. These are some of the things that we would like to explore. We may get into it and find that it might not work. But, I think there is a gut feeling that it would make sense because it deals with many of the same things people in the Northwest Territories are complaining about or have need of.
Certainly, Mr. Todd is complaining about the finances. Certainly, we are being driven like we have never been driven before by the fact that we do not have enough money. We are looking at ways of doing things that, as Mr. Lewis says, cost us less and yet we can deliver an effective program.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate to this committee that the ultimate decision on whether we go ahead with these things rests on the floor of this House. The ultimate decision for proceeding -- if there are legislative changes, it will have to go to the standing committee on legislation; if there are changes to boards and agencies, it has to go to Mr. Koe's committee; if there are financial ramifications to the legislation or to the boards and agencies, it has to go to the standing committee on finance. We have said from day one that any changes we are going to make structurally to this government, where it affects any one of these three committees, will be delivered to that committee for either ratification or consultation from the committee to the floor of this House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.