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?