Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like my colleague, Mr. Roland, the refocusing in the department's vision statement is a fairly significant piece of work. I personally tend to support the direction this department is taking to align itself in a more business-like fashion.

It has been an interesting exercise, at least in the committees, or in the departments that have been reviewed through the committee I sit on, the Economic Development Committee. Various departments seem to have different ideas about what a vision statement is, goals and strategies. Perhaps through the lead of this department, there will be some further alignment and tuning of other departments. Again, what I would support is a more business-like orientation.

The growth in the department was naturally a focus of attention. It is a consequence, as the Premier has point out, of some forced growth, some layers of government and administration being taken on into the department and some new initiatives. I guess for me, there is a good side and a bad side to this.

There is a concentration and a subsequent growth in the Department of the Executive. It signals a couple of things. That this department has the lead, political, trouble-shooter, take charge, take initiative in government. It is the one that is certainly closest to Cabinet. It has a responsibility to be fairly innovative and move aggressively on important items. We have gone over these several times, Intergovernmental Forum, the change in regional orientation, significant moves for this government. I support them.

There is a balance in what we are seeing in many other areas, and overall erosion of public investment at the community and regional level on the ground. Two examples there, Mr. Chairman, are the cuts to municipal block-funding and the steadily declining investment in capital spending. While the Minister has indicated he has listened to the committee and has gone in and found some more dollars and some more streamlining, there is a concentration and subsequent growth in this department that tends to catch attention and will continue to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all for now.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. That was more of a comment than a question. Next on the list is Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have one specific question at this point, an issue I would like the Premier to speak to, plus some issues I will touch on as we get into a more detailed review of the budget.

Overall, our main concern about the growth in the budget at the headquarters level at a time when I have indicated repeatedly in the House, communities are expected to embrace some cuts, or at the very least having to hold the line in spite of rising costs.

The one issue I would like the Premier to speak to is the issue of accountability. He references it on page 2 of his opening comments. I look at that, and I look at his comments to me in the House on June 22, 2000, where he indicated there is no clear, measurable way by which to make this government, Ministers and deputy ministers, accountable. It is an issue that has caused me some significant concern. I have asked every Minister that has appeared before the House to speak to the issue. As a Premier and head of the Executive, I would like the Premier to speak to that issue. If there is no clear, measurable way to achieve accountability, how does he intend to address that issue as Premier? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have noted in discussion with some Members that in some countries, managers are told if the 12 of them cannot perform well, one of them would not be there the following year, and that is the motive for working really hard, trying to achieve everything the dictator would lay on them.

In our system, which I am not totally familiar with yet, but I am engaging in, we have deputy ministers and we have senior managers. We have legislation such as the Financial Administration Act. We have policies. We expect deputy ministers and senior managers to conduct themselves and work in a way that adheres to the legislation and the policies of this government, as well as the goals and objectives of each specific department. The point of it is if a department makes no difference in change on achieving better statistics in pursuit of affirmative action, what do you do to the deputy minister?

That is what I meant by there being no way to make them accountable. They are accountable. There is no doubt about it. For instance, the deputy minister manages in a way that is acceptable to the Auditor General and Cabinet, but does not make any significant improvements within the department for affirmative action, what do you do? I am trying to explain the context of my statement. There are many things that have to be considered when you are making Members accountable, and senior managers as well.

Presently, there is a system where there are, I think, annual interviews done, discussions with deputy ministers and, as the Premier, I am sometimes expected to engage in the process of doing assessments and evaluations, performance appraisals. I think it is important to go back to something that Mr. Nitah said yesterday, which is, the fact that four years from now, we may very well be sitting here complaining about the same things, noting concerns about the same things.

That is a very real danger because, since we have been elected, we have been running flat out, Members as well, trying to keep business going the way it has been going for many years. There does not seem to be any concerted effort to find a way to look at how this government operates and functions and see if there are better ways to get the job done. I think that is a question that we all have to address.

We do things like review main estimates in standing committees and we go through them again, sometimes in question period, and then we do it again, in grand style, here in the committee of the whole. However, there is a limit to the ability of the Legislature to look at the fundamental way in which government and departments operate and the programs that are designed. So, in my view, it seems to me that we need to focus, as a Legislature, on taking the time, and maybe that session that we are slating in Inuvik in September will serve to do that.

I agree, we must be accountable. We need to take time to decide, what is it that we are doing and to get that information out and let the public know as well. We have done many things. We are not able to do everything, so looking at ways in which we can become better accountable is one of them. It is all tied in the process of trying to keep the machinery going, trying to decide what are the priorities and how we are going to get those done, and what are the best ways to measure the things that we are trying to do.

I do not know how much time we need to spend on trying to measure the things that we do not agree we should be doing in the first place. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Premier indicated, do we want to be sitting here in four years, talking about the same kinds of things, and it is an interesting comment. I pulled out a copy of the special committee on the Northern Economy from 1989, and there are three items that came immediately into my vision.

One of them was the need to establish a commission to take a clear look at the human resource practices of the government. A recommendation to establish a Public Service Commission and a call for a review of the Affirmative Action Policy. So it is not four years in the future that we are looking at and saying the same things. Now, we are saying the same things that were said 11 years ago.

It is an issue. The Premier's comments, I do not want to focus just on the deputy ministers. The Premier indicated that it was government, Ministers and deputy ministers. The Premier has indicated that he is accountable, and it is good to hear that. As the Premier, and a man with extensive experience in Cabinet, I would just like an indication on how he intends to deal with the issue of accountability if it in fact is still somewhat fuzzy and unclear. As a government, how do we do that? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is difficult to be accountable if you are not doing anything, so there has to be some confidence that we can do new things and do them with the knowledge and support of Ordinary Members. We set out with an agenda that we took time to develop with every Member in this Legislature, and we made a commitment that we would not come up with new initiatives and try to involve Members of the Legislature in everything that we do as much as we can.

If we have the confidence that we can go ahead and do new things, initiate work and conduct ourselves without always wondering whether we are going to get hit in the Legislature with a motion on confidence or reprimands from the Ordinary Members.

That would go a great extent towards making us accountable, because we would be initiating work and moving ahead with some things.

Being accountable means we have to let the public know what it is we are doing. As well, setting targets for ourselves and applauding those things that we achieve. It means Members need to openly support us, even though they may not feel like it, because that is what the public expects.

We need to say when we are doing things right, when we have done things that are notable and achievable, because that is all part of the process of accountability. Silence can be deafening sometimes. We have our senior managers and deputies that work very hard all across government. I like to think that our employees are dedicated, hard working and committed to the tasks that are placed in front of them. We have to let them know that we are aware of it. We know what it is they are doing, and we are there to support them and applaud them when they do good work. Ministers and Cabinet are no less in need of that as well.

So that is all part of accountability, as far as I am concerned. In my view, we have, our four years to do some things, and the 14th Assembly can take the time in September to decide what is it that people are going to look back on, and ourselves included, in ten years, when perhaps we may be onto some other things.

To say we have left our mark, we have made a significant contribution, a historic mark that said the 14th Assembly was a reality that made a significant contribution and a significant mark in the history of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were a number of issues that were raised by the Premier in his opening comments that I would like to address. One of them is the second key strategy to support a collaborative intergovernmental approach to political and economic development in and for the Northwest Territories.

He also talks in his opening comments about the need for improved accountability and increased opportunities for public participation in government. In talking about the second key goal, he also talks about the need to identify the interests and move forward in partnership with all residents of the Northwest Territories.

I have certainly heard from a few of my constituents that they are wondering, in terms of political development in the Northwest Territories, what is happening constitutionally. They see talks taking place, this government, the federal government, and the aboriginal governments, at self-government tables and they see political development taking place in a regional basis because of that.

Their interest is, how are we, as a whole, talking about political development of the Northwest Territories, given that it is happening on a regional basis, and how does the public get involved in those talks? We do not have a constitutional working group or a CDSE or Western Constitutional Forum. There are numerous other processes up until now.

What a number of people see is political constitutional development and constitutional development taking place in isolation in some portions of our society.

So how does this second key strategy tie in the average person who is not represented at one of those self-government tables into constitutional development in the Northwest Territories?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I spent some time talking to Mr. Dent's constituents as well, and also people in places like Hay River, Fort Smith and Inuvik. It is my view, in general assessment, that the people of the Northwest Territories are optimistic and feeling invigorated about the agenda that we have set out and the message that we have been putting out to people, that economic development is happening and it is going to continue to pick up and that we are committed to partnerships. We are committed to working hard to make those tangible for people at the community level right across the territories. We have the beginning of a positive working relationship with aboriginal governments, the federal government and industry to do that.

There has been almost no discussion, no call for a Northwest Territories wide constitutional development process at this time. In the agenda of the intergovernmental forum, which has been set up, there has yet to be any discussion of that as well. There may be, but that has not happened.

There is no process right now for the public, for this government, or anyone to have a forum for the constitutional and political future of the Northwest Territories as a whole, which could be addressed in a clear process that would be result oriented.

The Member is right. There is no question. As far as I know, there has been no call for it from any quarter. Thank you.

Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that Mr. Kakfwi talks to some of my constituents, and I am glad that he does. My role is to represent them here, and I can say that I have heard from constituents who have expressed some concern about the process and what the public involvement will be as we look down this road.

Now, I do not know that anybody is calling for another Constitutional Development Steering Committee or Constitutional Working Group, but I think that there is a concern about the constitutional development happening on a regional basis without there seeming to be an overall vision or discussion of where we are headed as a territory.

I think my constituents would agree that they are optimistic about the future and welcome the talks that are going on. This is not intended to try and indicate that there is anything wrong with those talks continuing. I have heard from them that they do want to know that there is going to be an opportunity for their involvement in what the political future of the Northwest Territories looks like. For instance, before the government signs a self-government agreement, are those agreements going to be presented in this House for ratification?

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cabinet would be prepared to discuss with Caucus in September if there is an agreement that some sort of a statement will be reassuring and needed at this time to the general public about the political and constitutional future of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the future of the Northwest Territories as a whole, then we should put that on the agenda for the Caucus in September, and we can do some preparatory work for that.

With a statement would potentially...a lot more aboriginal and public citizens would become unsettled. That has been my experience. While there is always a need for assurance to be given to some of the people some of the time, sometimes it is better to try not to say something that would try to assure everybody, because you may not be able to achieve it. If the Member feels strongly about it, we welcome some discussion about it in Caucus. Thank you.

Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not looking for a commitment to move the discussion to Caucus. After all, Caucus is a secret meeting of Members around this table. I think the Premier has talked in page 2 of his statement about the need for improved accountability and increased opportunities for public participation. The public probably gets that when they see what is going on. That is why I think that a commitment to present issues before this government in the public forum like this House for ratification at some point. I am not saying to negotiate in public. I am saying that after the negotiations are concluded, there should be a willingness to publicly present whatever it is that the government is prepared to sign. They have to be accountable through this House to the public. That is all I am asking. Is there a commitment to be accountable through this House to the public for documents that this government intends to sign? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Premier.

Yes.

Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions for the Premier on his opening comments for the department. The first thing that caught my attention is the discussion of the Staff Retention Policy. The Premier indicates that the intent here is to further foster support for the strategy of strengthening the public service, and I think that this is something that we all agree is critical and necessary. I think that is why there was discussion around this table the other day of the creation of a Public Service Commission, which is not something new as Mr. Miltenberger indicates. It is something that has been batted around for the last ten or 12 years.

The Premier indicates that a component of strengthening the public service is this money, this development fund for staff training, internal Government of the Northwest Territories staff training. An investment of $250,000 has been earmarked for this fund, and corporate human resource services will administer the fund, look after it, and handle staff training and development.

One of the concerns I have, and I guess we all have, is that we have seen these kinds of things and money earmarked for these purposes in the past. Past governments have let funds lapse and not access them.

Some of the comments from people in the department over the last few years had been that yes, there is money there, but the conditions and the administration, in order to access the funds and use the programs, are so onerous and so difficult that we just have not bothered. That is one of the reasons that some of this money has lapsed.

I am wondering if the Premier can tell us why this will be handled differently now, or what improvements, what things are being put into place to make sure that we do take public service training seriously and do make sure that this money is used? Thank you.

Mr. Premier.