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.