The new corporate capital planning process was developed and implemented by the government prior to the 2002-2005 business plan review. The establishment of the new capital planning process was done without consultation of the Regular Members.

The standing committee is of the opinion that this process affects all Members and would like the government to give a status report on the corporate capital planning process to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight.

This would give all Members an opportunity to express their concerns to the government on the current process. The government would then convey those concerns to Cabinet for possible amendments, if required.

In the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development's review of the 2002-2005 business plans, committee members noted that:

The new process removes capital planning from the departments and places the decision-making firmly in the deputy ministers' control and may leave communities and Regular Members without effective input.

As a result of this new capital planning process, all GNWT capital projects are now subject to a prioritization process, determined by the Capital Review Committee, which is made up of departmental representatives. The prioritization process is made up of a review of all capital projects screened through a new primary rating criteria.

The new primary rating criteria places the protection of people first, followed by the protection of assets, protection of the environment, financial investment considerations, and then program needs or requirements. The standing committee is concerned that these criteria, especially the protection of people, may lead to more projects being placed in larger rather than smaller communities.

(Response to the Government on the Review of 2002-2005 business plans, November 13, 2001, page 3)

The inflexibility of the government's new capital planning process is particularly evident in the Department of Transportation's ferry operations. For example, when ferries encounter major mechanical breakdowns, in some cases, it may be more cost effective to replace an engine rather than to adhere to a strict maintenance schedule and engineer costly makeshift repairs. As a result, committee members would like to see the current capital planning process be more flexible and responsive.