Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to present the comments of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure regarding this department.
In reviewing the draft business plans of this ministry, the standing committee rejected some additional funding and staffing proposals and accepted the ministry's proposed reduction options. However, committee Members felt that more could be done in this area. Therefore, the standing committee recommended that the role and structure of this ministry be reviewed and consideration options developed which would result in a more efficient operation. As a result, the responsibility for the community transfer initiative, formerly held by the ministry, will now be undertaken by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. MACA is obviously best suited for managing the community empowerment process, and the standing committee approves of this transfer.
As well, committee Members approved of the plans to incorporate the ministry more closely with the Executive. However, some of the side-effects of this move seem to be contributing to increased duplication and confusion. It now appears that the responsibilities of the ministry are being supervised by three Cabinet Ministers: Mr. Antoine, for aboriginal affairs; Mr. Kakfwi, for national and constitutional affairs; and the Premier, Mr. Morin, for intergovernmental affairs. Committee Members felt that this would only lead to more confusion and inefficiency and that the principle of accountability could be strained by this arrangement. Therefore, the standing committee recommends that the structure of this ministry be more clearly outlined, that the responsibilities of the ministry fall under one Minister and that the government present a proposed solution to this situation to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure by June 15, 1996.
A further concern of the committee Members was the GNWT office in Ottawa. While the ministry did discuss some of their justification for maintaining this office, the standing committee is still not convinced. Three provinces have chosen not to have an office in Ottawa, and we may not be able to afford such a luxury in this fiscal climate. As one Member put it: "Do we really need an office in Ottawa when we're laying off northerners?" We understand that a comprehensive review of the role of the Ottawa office is being developed and should be ready by the summer. The standing committee recommends that the comprehensive review of the Ottawa office be presented to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure by June 15, 1996. The committee can then review the report and make appropriate recommendations at that time.
Committee Members raised some concerns about grants and contributions made by this ministry. The standing committee suggested that the grants and contributions to organizations for special events be revised into a dollar-matching program, where the ministry would match funds generated elsewhere for special events, rather than just granting free money. This would encourage all organizations to broaden their funding base. We understand the ministry is examining this suggestion and look forward to seeing the results of the ministry's review.
Committee Members also noted, with appreciation, the efforts under way in the self-government division to work with communities and aboriginal organizations on furthering community government and self-government. The committee agrees that the community is often the most effective, if not necessarily the most cost-effective level at which to deliver programs and services to the people of the North. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.