Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Item 3, Members' statements. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to take this opportunity to profile the two pages working in the Assembly this week from my riding of Inuvik Twin Lakes. These two fine young persons are Dwayne Dresher and Rennie Edwards.

Dwayne attends Samuel Hearne Secondary School in Inuvik. He is also very active in sports. He participated in the territorials for the biathlon and will be heading to Quebec City. He will also be participating in the 2002 Arctic Winter Games in Greenland for soccer and he is a master corporal in the army cadets.

The young lady, Rennie, also attends Samuel Hearne Secondary School. She belongs to the youth group in Inuvik, which does a variety of volunteer work at Ingamo Hall. During the summer, Rennie also works as a camp counsellor at the summer day camp in Inuvik.

Mr. Speaker, when these two young pages were asked why they wanted to come and page, they replied it would look good on their resumes. Mr. Speaker, this makes me very proud to see our youth thinking and acting on their future. I hope they will continue to pursue their personal goals.

I wish both Dwayne and Rennie the best of luck, especially to Dwayne who will be participating in the Arctic Winter Games, and to Rennie in your wish to become a businessperson someday. I would like to thank both of them for coming here and working with us. As you know, pages play a key role in aiding in the communication amongst the Members while they are sitting in this House.

I would also like to thank their chaperone, Eileen Edwards, for her assistance to all the pages. Thank you for the excellent job. I would like to say thank you to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, who continue to make this page program a success. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Item 3, Members' statements. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the Report on the Review of the 2002-2003 Main Estimates.

The Standing Committees of Accountability and Oversight, Governance and Economic Development, and Social Programs all participate in the review of the government's business plans and main estimates. The committees met from January 14, 2002 to January 25, 2002 to review the 2002-2003 draft main estimates for the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight is comprised of all Regular Members. The committee prepares a report dealing with issues that are government-wide in nature, which were identified by the Standing Committees on Governance and Economic Development and Social Programs. The issues identified in the next section of the report are government-wide in nature and were brought forward to this committee for further study and discussion.

Total operations expenses for the government increased from $833,642,000 proposed in 2002-2003 business plans to $851,673,000 proposed in the draft 2002-2003 main estimates. This represents an increase of $18,031,000. Total capital expenditures for the government declined from $131,928,000 proposed in its business plans to $108,852,000 proposed in its draft main estimates, representing a decrease of $23,076,000. A major portion of this reduction is due to the cancellation of the original Highway Investment Strategy and the transfer of infrastructure contributions from capital expenditures to operations expense as the result of the revised accounting process for capital.

On January 30, 2002, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight took the opportunity to follow-up on several issues arising from its review of the 2002-2003 main estimates with the government. Three issues were felt to warrant a letter to the government from the committee requesting changes be made before the main estimates were presented in the House. These issues included the National Aboriginal Day and Living History Project, Student Support Services and Caucus Priorities for Housing.

During the review of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development noted a proposed $1,000,000 expenditure for a combined National Aboriginal Day celebration and pre-celebration events co-ordinated under the Living History Project.

The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development had a number of concerns about these projects and brought them to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight for review. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight agreed with these concerns, which are outlined as follows.

Members could not understand why the two initiatives were linked in the same line item in the main estimates, nor why funding for the Living History Project would fall under the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Combining the two makes it more difficult for Members and the public to understand the amounts proposed to be spent on either project. It also makes it difficult for Members to evaluate each of the projects without the inference that concern with one of the projects impacts on the other.

Members of the committee were concerned by the lack of detail on the proposed activities for the Living History Project. Aside from the brief outline of initiatives planned by this society in the main estimates, Members were disappointed to see no formal proposal for the funding requested. Members want to see an outline of the society's mandate and goals, an analysis of other funds received by the project from various private corporations and the federal government, and other relevant material to establish the organization's value and substance.

Members were also concerned that there had been no notice in the business plans that significant funding would be requested for this non-profit organization. Members noted the project has already received funding of $40,000 for start-up costs, and the draft main estimates requested a further $500,000. We were told this new funding was for pre-National Aboriginal Day celebration events, including a symposium and a review of the history of the past 25 years of the Government of the Northwest Territories. By adding the funding for this organization to the main estimates without going through the business planning process, some Members wondered if we might be accused of preferential treatment for this group when other non-government organizations have to follow a much more rigorous process to acquire government funds.

Without seeing long-term plans, Members were further concerned that funding for this organization may become ongoing.

As noted above, committee was concerned with funding for the Living History Project falling under the auspices of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. The Department of Education, Culture and Employment is responsible for most grants and contributions offered to cultural or historical organizations.

Committee felt the government should address these concerns before the Legislative Assembly considered funding for the Living History Project. We advised the Minister of Finance by letter that the proposed funding should be removed from the main estimates, and that any proposal for funding should come forward as part of a supplementary estimate when our concerns had been addressed.

Members of the committee are pleased to see that the department addressed one of the concerns stated above and has supplied information showing that the budget items of National Aboriginal Day and the Living History Project have now been separated. However, in light of the concerns previously stated by the committee, we make the following recommendation:

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that the funding for the Living History project be removed from the 2002-2003 Main Estimates.

Committee members noted that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, or ECE, had included $2,726,000 in the 2002-2003 draft main estimates to reduce the pupil/teacher ratio (PTR) to 16:1 and to increase student support services to 14 percent in 2002-2003.

The committee noted that the department is ahead of its legislated requirement to reduce the PTR levels in NWT schools and on target for the legislated student support increases for 2002-2003. Committee pointed out the positive results of increasing direct support to students in need in the classroom. Based on the financial information provided during the review of the business plans and the draft main estimates, committee members asked the Minister to consider taking $900,000 from the PTR and advancing the final installment of the student support services to reach 15 percent in this fiscal year. This would leave the balance of $1,826,000 to apply to PTR in 2002-2003. The PTR would then be topped up in its final year by $900,000 to meet the legislated target of 16:1 in 2002-2004.

In the government's response to the committee's request, it became clear that the financial information presented to the committee on the split of the $2,726,000 during the business plan review and draft main estimate review was wrong. The department now states that $1,600,000 was to be used to increase student support services to 14 percent and that the remaining $1,126,000 was to be used to reduce the PTR. Subsequently, the department's initial estimate of $900,000 to implement the 15 percent student support services was revised to encompass the entire $1,126,000.

Regardless of any misunderstanding, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight was pleased that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment agreed to the committee's request and that the funding for student support services will be increased to 15 percent in 2002-2003, a full year in advance of the legislated requirement.

The committee discussed the proposed budget of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. Following Caucus discussions in Hay River in December of 2001 that highlighted the priority Members attach to making housing available to Northerners, the committee was surprised that the government had not proposed significant new monies for new or existing programs within the main estimates. Nearly all additional money appears to come from the Government of Canada through a contribution from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to enhance housing programs.

In the government's response to committee's concern that the main estimates do not reflect Caucus priorities, it is stated that the government is currently developing initiatives to support private development of housing in non-taxed based communities.

Mr. Speaker, the committee will watch to see whether the initiatives under development are relevant and will encourage private developers to invest in the non-taxed based communities.

Mr. Speaker, I now seek your consent to ask the honourable Member for Hay River South to conclude the report.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen, to conclude the report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight also discussed and evaluated the following government-wide issues. These issues include the corporate capital planning process, the consolidation and placement of energy initiatives and the placement of the social agenda.

A responsive and equitable capital planning process is essential for effective community capacity development and maintenance. A new capital planning process, referred to as the corporate capital planning process, which I will just refer to as CCP after this, was announced by the government during the review of its draft 2002-2005 business plans by the standing committees. The development and adoption of the CCP by the government was done without consultation with the Regular Members.

The CCP is based on a primary rating criteria which prioritizes capital projects in the following order:

• • protection of people;
• • protection of assets;
• • protection of the environment;
• • financial investment considerations; and
• • program needs or requirements.

A capital review committee, comprised of deputy ministers, determines which projects are chosen based upon this prioritization model. However, committee members concurred with comments made by the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development in its review of the 2002-2005 draft business plans that this new capital planning process "may leave communities and Regular Members without effective input" and furthermore, that "these criteria, especially the protection of people, may lead to projects from larger centres being placed before the needs of smaller communities."

As a result, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight in its review of the 2002-2005 business plans, recommended the re-introduction of the notification letter from the Premier to each Member and community informing them of the capital plan for their community.

The government agreed and informed the committee that the letter of notification process will be implemented during the preparation of the 2003-2004 main estimates.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight remains concerned about the implementation of the CCP and looks forward to a debate on this issue on the floor of the House.

The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development had expressed concern that a number of new energy initiatives have been placed within departments that do not have the proper mandate for such programs and this appears to be duplicating efforts. The Hydro Unit has remained within FMBS and the Energy Secretariat has remained within the Executive Offices under the Cabinet Secretariat. Committee members suggested that a better coordination of efforts would result in greater efficiencies and better results. The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development is of the opinion that this issue has government-wide implications and as such, referred the issue to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight for further discussion by all Regular Members.

After detailed discussion, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight in its review of the 2002-2005 draft business plans, recommended initiatives be placed within the most relevant department rather than within the department of convenience.

The government, in a recent information package submitted to the committee, replied that the placements of the energy and social agenda initiatives are currently under review. However, the draft main estimates still show that the placement of these initiatives has not changed.

In a letter to the Minister of Finance, dated January 11, 2002, the committee stated that:

During Committee of the Whole Consideration of Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation Act No. 2, 2001-2002 on November 5, 2001, the Premier made the following statement and commitment to the Members:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had a discussion with some members of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight earlier today. They had said they were concerned about having the Energy Secretariat by itself in the Department of the Executive and seeing different elements of initiatives and interests within the government in different departments. I will look at making an announcement to address that. We will specifically look at moving the Energy Secretariat out of the Department of the Executive. That will be done within the next couple of days.

That is from Hansard, page 654. Further, the committee asked "would you please provide the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight an explanation as to why the 2002-2003 draft main estimates do not appear to reflect the commitments made by the government?"

To date the committee has not received a written explanation. However, during the review of the draft 2002-2003 main estimates for the Executive Offices, the Premier advised the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development that he would bring forward option papers on the placement and consolidation of energy initiatives during the February session.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight looks forward to receiving and reviewing the government's option papers on the delivery, consolidation and placement of its energy initiatives and environmental responsibilities. We trust the government will be able to provide the option papers to the committee in the next few weeks.

As the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development reviewed the Department of the Executive's main estimates, the chairperson noted that the placement of the social agenda within the Executive paved the way for considerable discussion of social issues and problems that should fall under the mandate of the Standing Committee on Social Programs.

The committee was also of the opinion that there does not appear to be a clear coordination between the Department of Health and Social Services and the Social Agenda Working Group. While Health and Social Services has just recently announced its action plan, the Social Agenda Working Group plans to release its recommendations at the end of February. The committee would like to be assured that the expenditure of over $475,000 towards the working group has been worthwhile and their recommendations will be considered in the department's plans.

Given the committee's concerns and the fact that their suggestion for the removal of the Social Agenda from the Department of the Executive during the business plan report was not heeded, the committee brought the matter to the attention of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight examined the expanding mandate of the Executive Offices. Given the cross-departmental nature of the social agenda and other initiatives like Maximizing Northern Employment, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight will be proposing an amendment to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly to include the Executive Offices within the standing committee's mandate.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight on the review of the 2002-2003 Main Estimates. Therefore,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that Committee Report 1-14(5) be received by the Legislative Assembly and moved into committee of the whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. We have a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? The motion is carried. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and have Committee Report 1-14(5) moved into committee of the whole for today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4). Are there any nays? There are no nays. Therefore, Committee Report 1-14(5) is moved into committee of the whole for today. Item 5, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development met from January 14 to January 25, 2002 to review the 2002-2003 Draft Main Estimates. The GED envelope includes the following departments, the Executive, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Financial Management Board Secretariat, Finance, Public Works and Services, Municipal and Community Affairs, Transportation, and Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

General Comments

The government informed the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight about its new corporate capital planning process on September 25, 2001. The process was developed and implemented without input or approval from the Regular Members.

With the new corporate capital planning process, or CCP, there is only one government capital target, with all departmental projects competing for the same pool of available funding. Proposed capital projects are placed within a primary rating criteria in the following priority:

• • protection of people;
• • protection of assets;
• • protection of the environment;
• • financial investment; and
• • program need or requirement.

Each project is then considered against a secondary criteria comprised of the following factors:

• • scale of impact;
• • severity of impact if the project is not completed;
• • urgency of the project; and
• • the ability to mitigate.

The evaluation process is done by a Capital Review Committee made up of deputy ministers. It is the Capital Review Committee that determines which project would be chosen based on the new capital prioritization model.

Committee members are concerned that as more responsibilities are transferred to the municipal level, the ability of communities to obtain the necessary infrastructure, human resources and funding to ensure the safe and effective delivery of local programs and services have become increasingly difficult.

Committee members note that since the CCP's first priority is the protection of people, projects in larger, more populous communities would almost always obtain funding at the expense of smaller and less populous communities.

The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development is of the position that any capital planning process must also take into account essential programs and services such as health, safety and other priorities in the smaller communities. Committee members pointed out that these communities, because of their smaller population, isolation and high operating costs, have less financial and infrastructure capacity to deliver programs and services efficiently, effectively and economically than their larger counterparts. Furthermore, in many of the smaller communities, capital projects funded by the government are often the only source of employment.

The committee first brought attention to this issue during its review of the government's 2002-2005 draft business plans and referred it to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight to allow for further input from all Regular Members. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommended that the government re-instate the letter of notification from the Premier to each Member, informing him or her of any changes to the capital plan in their riding. The government subsequently agreed and advised all the Members that the notification letter protocol would be implemented during the preparation of the 2003-2004 main estimates.