I would like to make some comments on the goals and objectives. I note we are getting hand-outs of definitive objectives for 1993-94 and the Minister of Finance has stated that we will be getting ones for 1994-95 sometime next week. I would like to reiterate again what SCOF has said. For any organization to function effectively and efficiently and for all employees within a system and for all users of the services that are being provided, it is nice to have a clear understanding of what those services are, what the organization's mandate is, what the goals and objectives are. If these mandates, goals and objectives are clearly defined and stated, then programs and activities can be established to achieve those stated goals and objectives. Following that, then budgets can be formulated based on the needs and priorities to achieve those goals and objectives.

Just glancing through the main estimates, I picked out many places, and I think I made reference to them last year also, for a billion dollar budget, many of the definitive objectives and mandates and goals were not clearly defined. I am glad that the Standing Committee on Finance has made that point. I am glad that the government will be providing us with, hopefully, adequate information as we deal with each department in terms of these goals and objectives. I just wanted to make that statement before we got into the details. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it is always risky for a former Minister to appear to be critical of a former department. I want to say that I do appreciate the challenges the Premier is facing in the current fiscal and political climate. I know that it is quite a different situation than faced even in the last Assembly. Having said that, I was part of this committee report, which I like to think has provided some thoughtful and hopefully constructive criticism of massive changes that have been put in place here and are before us. I would like to summarize them quickly and hopefully without exaggeration.

Personnel is a mere rump of its former self and soon will waste away to almost nothing when the staff housing function is transferred to the Housing Corporation as planned. Finance, and I am talking about the ministry of Finance, not the secretariat to the FMB, has been gutted. The suggestion in our report is that the traditional watchdog role of the department and the Minister of Finance has been thereby diminished.

Massive centralization of government resource management; question about whether checks and balances are still in place, particularly with the Comptroller General and secretary to FMB functions being put in one place imbalance of power amongst Ministers and bureaucrats, super Ministers, super bureaucrats, super DMs and lesser DMs; political communication; filtered bureaucratic power enhanced; those are some of the themes that I think come through in the thoughtful discussion of the changes in the Department of the Executive.

I would like to hear a response. I believe that the Premier had some strong comments to make about the SCOF report when she spoke to some businesswomen in Yellowknife the other day. I would like to hear them here. I would like to hear where we have gone wrong if she thinks we have gone wrong. What was the goal of this reorganization? What outcomes were expected? How will we know if they are successful? Is it working? Will it take some time to see the results? What was driving all these changes? Those are the kinds of issues I would like to see addressed as we discuss this first and most important department of the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to make one correction. When I spoke to the businesswomen of Yellowknife, I said that the SCOF report was critical of our budget. That is all I said, and I did not elaborate on that. I just said they were critical and that was in reference to the financial inability of this government to convince federal government to continue with some of the financial obligations they had. I just want to make that clear right now.

I will agree with the former Government Leader that it is difficult to be critical because much of what we are doing now, comes out of some of the deliberations from former people or former responsible Executive Members, such as the Government Leader and the Minister of Finance. I wholeheartedly endorsed that it was time for change, at the time of the report, and that strengthening government was important to do. I would like to commend the former Minister of Finance and the former Government Leader because in putting in place the document, "Strength at Two Levels," allowed this government to be able to approach something new in the last few years, because all governments have gone through the very same internal changes that we are undergoing right now. Certain credit has to be given to the people, or the Executive Members, who were very diligent in making sure that such a report examining government structures and delivery of departmental responsibilities, was seriously looked at.

One of the major issues at that time was to try to get some focus on how we do government business. I thought that it was important to note that, subsequently, other governments have fallen in line, for example, the super-government of Ontario who felt very strongly that they had to reorganize. So did the Atlantic provinces and the British Columbia government.

I would like to say your report and the initiative that was put forward is exactly what they were doing. Subsequently, we moved in that area and I don't think we should apologize for that. I don't think we should be critical of ourselves for reorganizing because it is important to take as much of our resources to the programs that people use and do things as cooperatively and as efficiently at the central level, so we don't burn up all the resources we have and end up with fragmented, departmental, independent governments.

I don't know if that is a good enough answer to your questions. In trying to address some of the words that you use, we didn't strip anything. We re-funnelled or reorganized, so we respond much more quickly, effectively, cooperatively and coordinated at the central level, to the many demands that are made on this government. Certainly it was with good foresight.

A number of years ago, we didn't realize that we were going to be in this financial difficulty with the federal government, the transfer of payments and financing of programs. I believe that we were far ahead of the other jurisdictions. We are trying to present ourselves in a very effective way in getting the job done at the central agency. I know that we haven't streamlined or made all the functions work totally the way we would like to see them. We have got more work to do and we recognize that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take some credit for some of the good things that were in the "Strength at Two Levels" report, which have been implemented. To get specific, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure -- I don't have the report in front of me -- that the "Strength at Two Levels" report emphasized, even as it recommended consolidating and strengthening headquarters decision-making functions, the importance of a political filter on decision-making and emphasized the importance of Cabinet committees to screen proposals developed, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, but perhaps not with political sensitivity, by the bureaucracy.

I would like to ask the Premier if she would comment on the criticism that the political input into Cabinet decision-making seems to be less and that some of the Cabinet committees recommended in the "Strength at Two Levels" report do not exist. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated on numerous occasions, the "Strength at Two Levels" report was tabled and presented. Subsequently, what was presented was "Reshaping Northern Government", which did not take all the elements out of the "Strength at Two Levels".

With regard to committees, I believe that certainly the Legislative Assembly has taken a much more active role in being involved in numerous critical areas, and the Cabinet has tried to respond as well. I believe that, with the internal structure, not too much has changed in terms of all Ministers being involved. We just don't have committees set up to do this because, previously, as the Member would recall, we had some committees such as priorities and planning. The same people would go to priorities and planning as would go to Cabinet. The same people that would be on another committee, would go to the same meeting. All we have is incorporated because everybody is involved. Thank you.

Yes, I understand what the Premier is saying, Mr. Chairman. I believe the shortfall that the Standing Committee on Finance tried to identify with the new process is that there don't seem to be Cabinet committees that are doing political screening of proposals before they get to FMB and the Cabinet table. It is the bureaucracy, this much-strengthened, much centralized, all-powerful bureaucracy, that is doing the screening and evaluation. Ministers have input when the matter gets to the Cabinet table, but not before. So, it is an all or nothing thing in Cabinet. The Ministers don't necessarily even know what has not made it to the agenda from their colleagues because the screening is done by the bureaucracy, undoubtedly, most competently, but perhaps without the kind of political sensitivity that is required, particularly in a consensus government. That is the concern, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I want to restate once again, and I want to restate it very clearly, that nothing gets on the agenda unless a Minister has signed and brought forward an issue. The point of decision is myself. I have spent a little bit more time on it than previous Government Leaders probably because it was filtered out by smaller committees of Cabinet and went through a process. So, everything gets on the Cabinet agenda and the only organization we do through the bureaucracy is to make sure that, when there is an overlapping responsibility, everyone is involved and that if a paper came forward that is complementary to another initiative that a Minister goes through, those things get worked out by deputy ministers and people who are doing the background work. I don't think that a Cabinet Minister could possibly know exactly what everybody is doing every bit of the time in other departments. Here, everyone is involved. Everyone is given equal status in terms of determining the Cabinet agenda. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I should certainly make way for other Members, but I would like to pick up on one comment the Premier made about the enlarged role of the Legislature and its considerable activity in dealing with issues. I would like to ask the Premier whether she feels that, given this high level of activity in the Legislature, the Legislature is now the primary policy-making, decision-making body, especially with regard to new initiatives, as opposed to the Cabinet. Traditionally, it has been the government that proposes initiatives and the legislature that disposes of them. I sense, from what she said, and from the form of consultation papers before this House, which are not strategies, as I see them, but rather towards strategies. They raise all the questions and all the issues very capably, but they don't necessarily suggest or lead the discussion toward an end. I am just looking at tabled documents before this House, Towards an NWT Mineral Strategy, Towards a Strategy to 2010, Building a Strategy for Dealing with Violence in the Northwest Territories. Is it the Premier's view that it is the full Legislature that has this primary responsibility now to determine direction on new initiatives, rather than the Cabinet perhaps screwing up its courage and suggesting a direction, laying out a direction? Thank you.

I would like to have a clarification on some example of screwing up courage, please.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard Cabinet Ministers say that there are 16 of them and 8 of us, so we are very cautious about presenting initiatives lest they be shot down in flames. That is what I am referring to. It does take some courage, perhaps, or some initiative to propose a solution. For example, to deficit reduction, we had this debate last fall where Members of our committee had hoped the government would, in presenting a discussion paper, with all of its resources and all its knowledge of government finances, come up with concrete proposals rather than say, here are the problems, here is the multitude of choices you could make. Now, what do you think? To me, leadership is forging a path, even though there are risks with doing so. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think, in this Legislative Assembly, and with the job that the Executive Council has to do, I have always looked at it as a shared responsibility and a shared decision-making. It is not because you are a Cabinet Minister, that you have all the answers. It is not because I am the Government Leader, that I have all the answers. I do not believe I can be categorized as losing the will to do something. If it cannot be done in one way, it has to be done in another way. Certainly, as Executive Council Members, we realize that all 24 people in the Legislative Assembly have something to offer. I can't see anything wrong with that or saying that each one is responsible. If we prepare a budget and someone has an initiative and they want to do something entirely different and it is going to cost multi-million dollars, certainly we would like the suggestion of some of the Members, particularly the ones who are suggesting these new initiatives, on what things they are willing to go without. I don't think that is unfair to ask that because it is just giving the thought that, certainly, people who are going to bring forward these initiatives have some idea what it would replace or what we can do without to get these new initiatives going. That is just giving due respect.

I believe that, from time to time, there are going to be initiatives that will not be well received for many reasons. It could be lack of communication, not enough consultation, something that has absolutely nothing to do with it, or an interest of certain constituencies that they feel are going to be compromised. All those issues have to be weighed when initiatives are coming forward. I want to assure the Members that I have never worked with a Member of the Executive who wasn't sincerely trying to do the very best job they could, taking into consideration all people's point of view.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't here, but I heard the Premier had some kind comments about Mr. Patterson and myself concerning the Beatty report. It is nice to hear that. It is the first time I heard my name mentioned with that report for the last two and a half years. It is good to know. I appreciate those comments.

I have a couple of overall observations to make about the Department of the Executive. The Premier should recognize that there are always different philosophies of how you run an administration. Members on the Standing Committee on Finance, many of them, have had some concerns about the communication that has happened between Ministers and Members. They have been concerned about the immense number of priorities and a feeling who about whether the government can handle all of these priorities. It is a very common sense reality that any government who tries to do too much, most of the time, doesn't do anything very well. When we look at the list of priorities and initiatives, some of them are immense. Some of them like reforming the welfare system, the education training strategy, some of them on their own could consume most of the energy of the government.

I think the simplest way to put the concern of the committee is that with 18 months left, the committee feels there should be a handful of major initiatives, five or six, and a commitment to complete those and to do them very well.

Over the past two and a half years there has been a lot of good work, and no one is trying to take away from the government the work that they've done. My concern, as an MLA, is that what I haven't seen and what I think is a very necessary focus. For the Premier to sit down with her Cabinet and say to each Minister you have ten of these initiatives but, realistically, there is one big one you can do and a couple little ones you can do so let's sit down and decide to take some of these initiatives off the table. That is hard, politically, because every one of them has a constituency and every one of them is done for a good reason. But the reality is that with the number of major initiatives that the government has going, I very much doubt you're going to successfully conclude very many of them.

That was, I think, some very constructive advice for the Premier and the Cabinet to consider. I hope it's taken that way. The Standing Committee on Finance has made a very concerted effort during this round to keep the issues away from constituency issues, to keep them away from personalities, and to deal with the major policy issues facing this government. With some of those policy issues there may be some disagreements, and on some of them the government may have very good reasons to come forward with them.

But I think that for many of these issues, both the ordinary Members and the Members of the Standing Committee on Finance and the public should hear the arguments. Some of the recommendations we made, perhaps the government has some very good ideas as to why they're doing what they are, and that's fair ball. I would hope that the government would view the recommendations of the standing committee the same way. I think there's some good ideas in there and I hope they will be considered in a positive sense. I don't think it hurts if there are disagreements. That is what this forum is all about. If the government feels strongly about their way of doing things, say so. Like most Members, I'm quite willing to be convinced. It's in everybody's interest that this government succeeds with these initiatives. So I look forward to this budget debate as just that. A debate, a discussion on policy. If there are differences of opinion, so be it. That's what politics is all about.

When we look at the Beatty report, just to put it into a little perspective. The government has done some good things. I am a strong supporter, as you know, of the Beatty report and very involved in it. Some things they've done and some things that they haven't done that the Beatty reported recommended. A lot of those decisions can become very subjective, that's true. A lot of the style of government is going to depend on what the Premier is comfortable with. So there are no absolute rights and wrongs in all these things. These are observations and, perhaps, there are some things that the government and the Cabinet may want to think about.

For an example, in my opinion anyhow and working with the Beatty group very closely, what there has to be in a government bureaucratic system are checks and balances and creative tension. You need creative tension between the line departments and the central agencies. What Beatty was talking about, and quite rightly, and I think the government was definitely on the right track, the problem with the last government -- which I readily acknowledge -- is that the central agency structure was fragmented. So there were political committees of the Cabinet, each one with a different bureaucratic group supporting them. And that caused problems. We definitely recognize that. The concept is to try to bring together some sort of a structure that will support the Cabinet, that will give some cohesiveness and coherence to government policy making. That's a laudable objective.

A couple of things that the government didn't do that the Beatty report suggested. We had a lot of discussions about the four-pillar approach. That it was very important within the central agencies that you do have these checks and balances and you have creative tension. The concept was that you would really have four equal bureaucratic components serving the government. You would have the office of the Premier, with the principle secretary, the office of the secretary to the Cabinet, the deputy minister of Finance and the Department of Finance, then you would have the secretary to the Financial Management Board. Each one with a different function, all of them working together, but with enough creative tension between those particular roles that everything and all policy making had a thorough analysis from different perspectives.

Also, the thought of the Beatty group was that though there would be a centralized support system for Cabinet, that there would be Cabinet committees. There is a problem with everything essentially going through Cabinet or finance through FMB, though it sounds on the surface that everything has a full vetting. The reality is because the time constraints of Cabinet Ministers, because of the number of things on the agenda, it's very difficult to look at them in a Cabinet meeting and look at the political ramifications, to look at the financial ramifications with FMB, to look at the specialized policy area fall-out from decision making. The reason that you would have, for instance, a political strategy committee -- still served by Mr. Alvarez's shop -- is that you would actually ensure that the political ramifications of policies would be looked at on their own.

So what has happened here, what I see as a good first step but it wasn't completed. Essentially, because the Department of Finance by bringing the Comptroller General, bringing in the accounting function into FMBS, is that the Department of Finance has essentially been stripped down. It's no longer one of the pillars. Because the principle secretary to the Premier who is also an exceedingly capable person, doesn't really have any formal responsibilities. Essentially, what he does now, temporarily as deputy minister of Justice, is an advisor. But without some kind of a structure around him, he doesn't really plug anywhere into the structure.

I think the people you have are all very capable, talented people. I've worked for years with Mr. Voytilla, Mr. Alvarez is a hard-working, very smart guy, and everybody is doing a good job. They are trying their best to do a good job. But I really think the structure now is unwieldy. It's over-centralized, it doesn't have all the checks and balances in it, and the feeling of committee Members is perhaps one of the reasons for some of the communication problems. The hope is that the Premier will have a look at it and read through what the report has to say, and perhaps glean some ways to approach it to make the system a little less rigid, a little more open to political debate among the Ministers, and a little bit more able to carry on that tension between line deputy ministers and central agencies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.