Thank you. The definitive objectives point to the fact that we need to work with communities if we find what would be an acceptable process for doing these assessments. The objective points out that it is not finalized yet, but we are working on it. What I have stated earlier is the intent. My view is that, it is not this ministry that says, for instance, to the municipality, we have some difficulties with your administrative and management structure because of previous dealings in other areas. That would be the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. The Department of Social Services might suggest that we have some concerns about confidentiality of clients and, therefore, we need some assurances that it is going to be handled properly. It is not this ministry that is going to offer up these sorts of objections. Our job is to coordinate and make sure that an assessment is done. It is not to say, sorry, but you are not one of the communities we are willing to do business with. We will try to set it up so we do business with everybody. At the same time, we need some sort of a process that deals with outstanding concerns: how do we do it without being paternalistic or condescending; how do we do it without insulting people; and, how do we do it without hard-lining it? That is saying, this is our assessment and we don't agree that you are capable. We need some sort of a process that can be done well, keeping in view that we are dealing with public concerns, public programs and services. As a government, we are providing programs and services of a certain quality and nature that, at the very least, should not diminish as a result of transfers. So there is an obligation to give that reassurance to the public and the members of the individual communities. I think that is the intent of this. We don't, as the Member knows, have it written down in black and white, so we are still working on these but if, for instance, the Member has specific communities that he feels haven't been treated properly, then, as I say, the best way is to bring it to my attention. I can check them out personally, which I try to do anyway.
Stephen Kakfwi on Bill 1: Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1994-95Committee Report 2-12(5): Review Of The 1994-95 Main Estimates
In the Legislative Assembly on February 21st, 1994. See this statement in context.
Bill 1: Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1994-95Committee Report 2-12(5): Review Of The 1994-95 Main Estimates
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
February 20th, 1994
Page 270
See context to find out what was said next.