Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion about the way we could proceed with our committee of the whole review of the standing committee's report on the Auditor General's comprehensive audit. If honourable Members agree, I would suggest, perhaps, we could deal with it chapter by chapter. When we get to a chapter, one of the Members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts could make brief opening comments. We can stop and let other Members make general remarks about the chapter. We can then move on to make motions regarding the recommendations in that particular chapter. I think that would be the fastest way of getting through this report, Mr. Chairman, and would certainly be better than reading through it page by page. The one exception to that might be when we deal with the chapter on the department's management response. In that case, perhaps I will move the motion and then we can get into the discussion of the committee's findings. Would that be agreeable, Mr. Chairman?

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. In that case, I would like to start off by saying how pleased I am to be able to present this report. I believe that the process of accountability is a very important one for all governments, and particularly so when it comes to a consensus form of government.

With the tight financial times facing all of us, I believe it is imperative that we take every possible action to ensure that government departments are providing value for money. By that, I mean that government departments must be able to demonstrate that they are operating economically, efficiently and effectively. Those are the three Es. They form the base for what is called a "value for money audit."

In addition, it is important to ensure that departments' financial records are verifiable and that they are operating according to the laws, regulations and policies which have been established by this Assembly and by Cabinet. All of these factors, financial records, compliance with authorities and value for money, can be evaluated in what is known as a comprehensive audit.

During the 11th Legislative Assembly, the Standing Committee on Finance, which was chaired by the honourable Member for Hay River, identified a need for a comprehensive audit of the Department of Health. In fact, it was Mr. Pollard who pointed out that his committee was uncertain about whether or not the people of the Northwest Territories were receiving value for money from the Department of Health.

He stated that a comprehensive audit should be conducted to determine whether the Department of Health was running as well as it should be. I think now, we have an answer to that question. The Auditor General's report demonstrates that the concerns raised by Mr. Pollard's committee during the 11th Assembly were valid. A great number of shortcomings were identified with the manner in which the department is operating.

I mentioned these on March 24, when the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' report was presented under reports of standing and special committees. There are deficiencies in the management of information. The Department has definite shortcomings in terms of the way it has managed human resources. Serious problems exist in its relationship and level of communication with health boards and other stakeholders. At the base of all these problems is the fact that the department lacks direction and is in dire need of better planning.

The full report has now been printed in Hansard upon the consent of this House. We will spend more time today reviewing the specific findings in the report and considering the recommendations which the standing committee has brought forward.

I should, first, make a few quick comments about the preparation of the Auditor General's report and the review process that was used by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The office of the Auditor General of Canada performed a comprehensive audit of the Department of Health in late 1991 and early 1992. The procedures they used and the scope they identified are all described in the Auditor General's report, so I do not think there is a need to go into it again at this time. However, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge, for the record, a few of the people from the Auditor General's office, who worked on the comprehensive audit. Mr. Roger Simpson, who is the principal for the Edmonton regional office, Cheryl Moneta and Michael Martin. As well, the standing committee would like to acknowledge the support and interest that was personally provided by the deputy Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Raymond Dubois. We found these federal audit officials to be very helpful, Mr. Chairman. I know that I speak for all Members of the standing committee when I say that we appreciate their professional support.

Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General signed off the comprehensive audit in October of 1992, and transmitted it to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly at that time. The report was formally tabled on November 17 and was referred to our Standing Committee on Public Accounts, for public review.

The committee held two sets of public hearings in Yellowknife as well as public hearings in Rankin Inlet and Inuvik. We are most grateful to the people of those communities for hosting Members during the hearing.

In general terms, we were very happy with the response we received during public hearings. I believe we were able to hear from the vast majority of health stakeholders, and hearings were quite well attended by members of the community. I believe this demonstrated the importance of having our standing committees conduct public review activities outside Yellowknife where a much broader perspective can be gained. Again, speaking generally, the input we received from organizations and individuals in the public supported the Auditor General's findings and recommendations. There were a couple of areas where it did not, and the standing committee has pointed those out in this report. However, for the most part, the standing committee was very happy with the entire audit and the review exercise.

Members of the committee believe that the resulting reports should be regarded as important documents to guide priority setting and planning with respect to departmental administration and management. Members of the committee also anticipate that this work is going to be taken seriously by the Department of Health and by the Minister.

That leads me into my discussions of the first substantive chapter dealing with the department's management response.

Should I proceed with that now, Mr. Chairman, or would it be appropriate to stop and allow other honourable Members to make general opening remarks?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a couple of opening comments on the chapter of the public account's report which deals with the department's response to the audit and public review. Then, perhaps, I will move on to make a motion so we have something definite to talk about.

Just as an opening comment, I want to note that certain people in the Department of Health were very helpful to the committee in terms of providing follow-up documentation that we requested during the public hearings. This was appreciated, but it is also one of the expectations that Members have.

At the same time, the standing committee was very concerned about the fact that the written response which the Department of Health provided to each of the Auditor General's recommendations were, in our view, inadequate. The Standing Committee was also very concerned about the way in which some information was presented during the public hearings and in many ways with the whole tone of the approach which was taken by certain officials. We feel that it is important that these concerns be treated in a serious manner by this House.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the first recommendation.

I move that the Legislative Assembly express dissatisfaction with the management response made by the Department of Health to the Auditor General's report and with the presentation of: information on organizational structure; and, information on human resource management, provided during the public review of the report.

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that such a motion should have to be brought forward. I would have hoped that it might have been possible to count on departmental officials to conduct themselves in a different manner. However, this will not be the only time that this committee or another committee of this House will need to rely on departmental resources for information and cooperation.

I believe it is important to set some expectations about the sort of response that we anticipate. When the Standing Committee on Public Accounts gave the House its report in June of 1992, after reviewing the other matters report, we commented that "committee Members got the distinct feeling that witnesses did not take the public accounts committee seriously...the public accounts committee wishes to signal loudly and clearly that this situation will change. The committee intends to be taken seriously. It has adopted a new philosophy that is much more pro-active in holding managers accountable for their past actions and it intends to bring about the kind of changes that are needed."

During the public review of the Auditor General's report, committee Members became concerned about the apparent attitude of the Department of Health. Here are the main concerns: the department's management response to the Auditor General's recommendations basically tell us nothing. For more than half the recommendation they simply wrote down "agreed." That does not allow the committee, the Cabinet or anyone else to evaluate what the department plans to do, when they plan to do it and who should be held responsible for making sure it gets done.

Other management responses are confusing and again stop short of making a full commitment to take action. The department said they did not have enough time to make their management response. The committee disagrees, they were given six weeks, Mr. Chairman. That is consistent with expectations for audits of this type. The department said they had an additional set of management responses. We waited, Mr. Chairman, until they completed these and there still was not much information added.

The standing committee knows that there are very capable people within the department and expected that there is no reason why full and detailed, helpful management responses could not have been supplied. Either the audit report was not given enough priority, or the department realized this approach would make it more difficult to hold them accountable. In either case, the response was unsatisfactory. This problem was made worse, Mr. Chairman, by the fact that the deputy minister of the department chose to question the validity of the approach used by the Auditor General. At one point, he even made comments about the objectivity and relevance of the office which had to be clarified.

Again, this left the committee confused. Members were asking themselves if the department had these problems with the audit, then why did they write "agreed" as a management response and leave it at that? Members were asking themselves if the department is questioning the way in which the audit is done, then does that mean they are going to question whether the recommendation should be implemented.

On page 17 of the report, Mr. Chairman, the committee has suggested that in the future if the department disagrees with audit findings or procedures, they should spell this out clearly with an implication for responding to the recommendations clearly identified.

During the criticism of the audit, the department raised a number of points that the standing committee simply could not accept. The deputy minister listed a number of acts which have implications for the Department of Health and stated that the auditors work should have considered them more carefully. This is not specifically referenced in the report but you can see it in the proceedings. Our observations and that of the people who came to our public hearings were that the department is alone in that concern. It is hard to understand how the Ophthalmic Medical Assistants Act or the Dental Auxiliaries Act has as much to do with the organizational structure and operation of the department as the statutes on which the Auditor General commented on, which were the Financial Administration Act and the Territorial Hospital Insurance Services Act.

Similarly the department made many comments about how the Auditor General should have considered the situation which exists in other jurisdictions. It was like they were saying you cannot expect the health system to be any better in the territories because problems exist in other provinces. Our comments on this point can be found on page 12 of the report. We disagree. The people of the Northwest Territories have a right to expect a well run health system. If problems exist the Department of Health should be taking steps to correct them regardless of whether they are also taking place in other jurisdictions.

The standing committee had similar problems with the comments made by the deputy minister of Health that the Auditor General neglected to mention that the department's problems are due, in part, to this Legislative Assembly, and that his senior managers have told him that the NWT has one of the best systems in the world. Mr. Chairman, I will leave it to other Members to comment on those if they wish. The committee comments are on page 12 and 13 of the report. Just let me say that the standing committee had no trouble realizing that we have some of the best ideas about health delivery in the world, there is no mistaking that. However, we have a long way to go before the administrative and management systems, which turn those ideas into action, can be looked at as even satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman,...

Mr. Chairman, if I could seek unanimous consent to conclude. I tried to summarize my comments pertaining to this chapter, however, the chapter was very lengthy. I would ask my honourable colleagues for unanimous consent to conclude my comments on the management response.