Mr. Speaker, I have a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Fred Koe on March 29, concerning revision to the development policy.

Mr. Speaker, the policy on policy development has not been revised since 1983. It does establish the government's authority to develop policy and outlines the process by which policy proposals will be reviewed, approved and implemented. It is true that some of the terminology is out of date. For example, the document referred to as the senior managers' handbook is now commonly called the Executive committee systems handbook. However, the process, authorities and responsibilities remain current.

Mr. Patterson asked whether the priorities and planning committee of Cabinet is still in existence. As was indicated on March 29, in the past all Members of Cabinet sat on the priorities and planning committee, but Cabinet is now functioning as a priorities and planning committee. Previously, the Cabinet was, in effect, making recommendations to itself by sitting in a separate meeting as a priorities and planning committee. Cabinet now deliberates on policy proposals as many times as it takes to get it right. The policy is not inconsistent in this regard, Cabinet has not dissolved the priorities and planning committee, it just constitutes itself as such when required.

With regard to the screening of policy proposals, there is basically no change to the process since Mr. Patterson was Government Leader. Central agencies such as the Priorities and Planning Secretariat provide advice through an assessment process. As Mr. Patterson knows, it is the prerogative of the Government Leader to screen Cabinet submissions as part of the agenda building responsibility. As chair, the Government Leader decides what goes on the Cabinet agenda and when. Cabinet decides on whether a policy is approved by reviewing the Minister's submission and the independent assessment report.

Mr. Koe noted that the policy development policy provides for the review of government policies, neither this government nor the previous government has been stagnant in this regard. Policies are continually monitored by Ministers and their departmental staff by central agencies to ensure they are up-to-date. In the life of this government, for example, five new policies have been developed and approved and there have been 19 amendments to existing policies approved by Cabinet.

However, as some Members noted in their questions, it is true that some terminology in the GNWT policy manual is out of date. An overall review of the manual has been conducted and areas requiring update have been noted. However, since a complete revision and reprinting of the manual is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking, the government has chosen to wait until the process of departmental consolidation is complete before revising and reprinting the entire document. In the meantime, the reference to ministerial authority such as the reference to the Minister of Public Works and Highways, noted by Mr. Antoine, is not of great concern because clarification of ministerial responsibilities is reflected in the departmental establishment policies which are revised as an area of responsibility as transferred from one department to another in much the same way that the Interpretation Act covers off inconsistencies in the use of terminology in legislation. The establishment policies ensure that ministerial responsibilities are clearly defined. In any interim period while provisions are being processed Cabinet records of decision specify ministerial responsibility.

Finally with regard to Mrs. Marie-Jewell's question to Mr. Pollard yesterday about consistencies of definitions in policies, it should be noted that although all policies are screened for consistency, sometimes definitions cannot be standardized among policies. For example, although we would all agree that the word "resident" refers to someone who resides in the north, for the purposes of specific programs resident requirements will differ. Thus the term might be defined differently in different policies, for example six months and up to five years in another.