Mahsi, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the committee wishes to consider Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2007-2008, and Bill 15, Liquor Act. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Lafferty. Is committee agreed?

Agreed. We'll proceed with that after a brief break.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. The first item on our agenda this afternoon is Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2007-2008. At this time, I will ask the Minister of Finance if he will please give his opening comments.

Mr. Chairman, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 requests authority for additional appropriations of $6.004 million for operations expenditures and $3.615 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

Major items included in this request for operations expenditures include:

• $2.45 million for the creation and implementation of a Tourism Product Diversification and Marketing Program;
• $1.98 million to fund the projected shortfall of the forest fire suppression budget for the 2007 fire season. This amount is net of recoveries through the Mutual Aid Resource Sharing Agreement for fire suppression activities within other jurisdictions;
• $940,000 to provide appropriation authority to draw down funding provided by the federal government through the patient wait times guarantee trust fund;
• $856,000 to fund the cost of immediate repair of a section of the Hay River runway; and
• $533,000 to provide contribution funding to three groups under the Western Harvesters' Assistance Program.

Major items included in the request for capital investment expenditures include:

• $1.6 million to fund the purchase of five modular classrooms for the Ecole St. Joseph School renovation project; and
• $570,000 to cover a funding shortfall in the water and sewer upgrade project for the Ecole Allain St. Cyr and William MacDonald School.

Also included in the request are two reallocations from operations expenditures to capital investment expenditures, as follows:

• $523,000 to fund a shortfall in the costs associated with the upgrade to PeopleSoft 8.9; and
• $417,000 to begin preliminary work in 2007-2008 for a territorial dementia facility to be constructed in Yellowknife.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. There is no committee response to this bill. At this time, I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber. Minister Roland.

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Does committee agree?

Agreed. At this time, I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses to the table.

Minister Roland, would you please introduce your witnesses for the record?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, to my right is secretary to the FMB, Mr. Cleveland; and to my right is Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, director of budget evaluation of FMBS. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Roland. General comments. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dealing with Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, there are a few things that I wanted to get on record as saying. I guess I'll start with the $523,000 to fund the shortfall and costs associated with the upgrade of PeopleSoft 8.9. As the Minister and other Ministers have heard earlier in this session, in fact if you go back to 1997 when PeopleSoft was first looked at as a product for the Government of the Northwest Territories, the government has spent approximately $8 million on PeopleSoft in total and that's implementation costs and the costs upfront. It's a substantial amount of money, Madam Chair. Given the problems that we've had with PeopleSoft and the implementation in the last little while, I am just wondering what assurances the Minister can have that an additional half a million dollars is going to correct the issues that are at play with PeopleSoft, and when can the employees expect that this system will be up and running without any kinks in it and be able to be fully utilized, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The PeopleSoft program does have a long history with the Government of the Northwest Territories as we had to renew our past system of payroll and dealing with employees. PeopleSoft originally came into the government, as the Member stated, back in '97 or '98 and the government-of-the-day was looking to replace an older system. What we found in the day was the fact that as the program was brought in, the government did not take the program in the form it was delivered. In fact, I guess the proper terminology is it would be customized to fit the existing government processes. At that point, it was felt that was the best way to go. Since then, with every upgrade that's come online we have found it more and more difficult. In fact, trying to save some dollars, we did not do an upgrade every year. We upgraded every couple of years and recently we found the old version was not going to be supported, so 8.9 was the program that we had to upgrade to. By doing that, we found ourselves in a fair bit of difficulty trying to rectify original customizations done to the program to fit the PeopleSoft program as it was designed, hence the problems we have found with it. We hope now that as we are in the process of going through the pure form of PeopleSoft 8.9, we will get away from the problems that occurred.

As for giving an actual time or deadline as to when things will be 100 percent okay, as we all know, to err is human; to really screw up, you need a computer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland, for that profound enlightenment. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I haven't been given a real comforting answer by the Minister. If he spends half a million in additional money in implementing PeopleSoft 8.9, what assurances do we have that we are not wasting another half a million dollars and next year we aren't going to waste some more? We've come to a certain point with PeopleSoft. We've spent $8 million and it's still not working. I think at some point in time somebody is going to have to answer some questions. Why isn't it working? Who customized it? Why did it happen and why are we still paying the price? Somebody has to take responsibility for it and somebody has to provide this House with some answers. There has been $8 million spent over the past 10 years and we are spending another half a million. To what end, is what I am getting at, Madam Chair, to what end are we spending this half a million and should we be looking at an entirely new system? Let's start from scratch. Why should we be paying good money after bad and are we doing that? Are we paying good money after bad with PeopleSoft, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, more on the serious side of our transition, we can't turn the clock back to 1997 or 1998 when the decision was made at the time to customize the program to fit our processes as the Government of the Northwest Territories. Hindsight being 20/20, if we could do that again, we would stay with the pure form of the program and we would adopt our processes to fit it which would provide for a much cleaner process. Will that stop absolutely everything from occurring? As those of us who have home computers realize, that's not necessarily going to be the case. On an annual basis, there will have to be upgrades and new licences bought as we put in new systems and new computers in offices across the Territories, so that will be an additional cost there. But for the problem itself in the customization of the original program, I can't go back and try to justify why the decision was made back then and going to a customized version or creating that customization. We, as we found out now, are not in a position to continue with that customization. In fact, that program through the customization wasn't being fully utilized. That is the goal now, is to go to the pure form of 8.9 and use the programs as they were designed. We, as a government, will have to change our processes. For the majority of things, if you look at it, are cleaned up. There are a couple of modules that were causing problems as of recently and causing much grief for employees across the Northwest Territories. Once that is fixed, we should be able to proceed forward with minimal interruptions. But as for a guarantee of one going forward, I don't know if anybody can give that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just following up to that. If I was a business owner and I had spent a substantial amount of money like $8 million in one program area, and that is PeopleSoft, over the past 10 years and I was getting the service or the delivery of the program wasn't what I thought it would be and maybe some things had happened in the past -- maybe my employees tinkered with it too much or did something to it -- I would want to get a third party, somebody to come in and tell me what has been happening with my investment of $8 million. I am wondering if the Minister has ever gone out and got a thorough analysis of what exactly has gone wrong with PeopleSoft. If he hasn't, I would suggest that he does that. Has the Minister and the government ever involved the Audit Bureau in taking a look at getting into the fine details of what exactly happened? I think the Audit Bureau would be a good place to start. If you spent $8 million and you don't get the product that it was intended for, well, then you have a problem. I think somebody, like I said, Madam Chair, should be responsible. Somebody should have to answer questions. If I was a business owner, again, and if I spent $8 million and somebody went in and tinkered with my program and caused me to spend more millions of dollars, I would want to know what happened, who it was and when it happened. Do you know what? There would be repercussions because of what happened. In this instance, we don't seem to be there. We just continue to spend money and we don't go back. I really do think we need to go back and find out what happened so the mistakes of the past aren't repeated and there is proper protocol when somebody is going in there and chopping up a program that we spent millions of dollars on, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, FMBS has gone out to do a review of the situation. Again, just for the record, I have to state that the PeopleSoft system itself, which is used by a majority of other jurisdictions in very similar circumstances through government and companies, the system itself isn't the problem. It is the fact that a decision was made when we first, as the GNWT, took on this new program and decided to customize it to fit our processes, not use the program as it was initially designed. The fact that the government-of-the-day used it in limited versions and customized it was okay when they did minimal upgrades every couple of years. But when the program itself became unsupportable unless going up to the newer version and then having to un-customize or to go the pure form of the program has caused many of the problems that we are facing today. So, ultimately, we do know what is happening. It is the fact that a decision was made in the past to customize a program and we are unable to continue with that customized program. Thank you, Madam Chair.

As we proceed forward, we will be using the program as it was designed. That is the PeopleSoft 8.9 without any customizations to it. We are going to change our process as a government to fit the program and be more functional. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would like to speak on a specific item on the Minister's opening statement. It speaks to a specific project, but I am going to make it into a general comment because it is included in his statement, Madam Chair. That has to do with an item in the budget for the dementia centre. Madam Chair, I just want to thank the Minister very much. I don't mind being effusive and being totally shamelessly thanking the Minister for moving this project forward. Madam Chair, I just want to say that.

All the Yellowknife Members here know, especially the ones such as Mr. Braden who has been here at the same time as me, this has been on the books for a long time. Even as of last summer, I couldn't really respond to a senior who said I don't think I am ever going to see this project get off the ground. I know that all of the Yellowknife MLAs have been working really hard to make this project happen. But I could tell you from sitting where I was as a chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, it really wasn't until the Minister got on board that he really looked at the project. After one or two briefings, he really came to a position on what he wanted to do with it. He set boundaries and directions. He put staff into it to have them look at it. He has made a lot of incremental decisions to make it happen. I just want to acknowledge that. I know lots of other Ministers here do a lot of good work. I think when the good work gets done, it should be acknowledged.

This facility is not just for Yellowknife. It is something that is going to be more and more needed as we go forward. You know that the dementia and other conditions related to that is something that is becoming more and more common. This is going to be a territorial facility that will serve all of the seniors in the Territories, but unfortunately as the numbers grow, we are going to be able to use that expertise and to enhance programs in regional centres. Already in Hay River and I believe in Fort Simpson and Fort Smith, services for our elders with a minor form of dementia are being serviced there. I know that the territorial dementia centre is only a start. We, as a government, have to prepare years down the road to serve our residents who are going to need our service more and more. I think we owe it to the Minister for taking it on last fall and really looking at it closely, looking at numbers and what was happening and really took control of it and put it through the Cabinet in a way that was affordable to the government. More importantly, he has been able to bring partners into the process.

Let me just say I know the Minister didn't do it all by himself. We have to thank our private partners, Diavik and, in particular, Mr. Zelinski who has really stepped forward in a big way. I do understand that the details have to be worked out, but I think we really need to acknowledge the fact that you could have lots of players wanting to do a lot of good, but you do need somebody in the middle, in the centre, who takes on the leadership role and makes everybody do what is right in the interests of the total project. I just want to take a moment to thank the Minister for what he has done and for the seniors of not only Yellowknife but the Territories. I have said enough to secure this for the next budget as well, but the big number is coming in the next Legislature. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. I didn't hear any questions there. Would the Minister like to respond? Minister Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I thank the Member for her comments but, at the same, I have to state that she has as well. This project has been under some review for quite some time. In fact, 2005-06 was when the Department of Health and Social Services started working with the Yellowknife Association of Concerned Citizens for Seniors and looking at the planning and design of this facility. When I became involved, there was a concern that this project had grown substantially and became unaffordable. At that point, I decided that we needed to sit down again with the group to revise the plan, to look at it to see if we can come up with something that was workable for all parties and affordable for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Yes, it includes taking in partners in this. We have to thank them for their work, as well.

It is a territorial facility and will be treated as such, looking at residents from the whole of the territory. It is a much needed facility as are a number of other facilities that the department is looking at. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, there are a couple of things in here that should be celebrated, as Ms. Lee pointed out, when we see good work, even if it is the result of years of hard slogging. When the paperwork actually lands on the desk and we are given the chance to say yes to it and really have it mean something, then that is something that makes this job worthwhile.

Ms. Lee has highlighted the territorial dementia centre, a long sought after program. Madam Chair, I think just about all Members, members of the general public, the media, have all heard the stories of families that are dealing with their parents and relatives who are undergoing the inevitable terrible devastation of these kinds of diseases and the lack of a facility here in Yellowknife. One that is capable of looking after people on a territory-wide basis is very welcome news. Ms. Lee has highlighted the work of other partners in here. This is a really innovative approach and one that I am proud to have had some part in, but I am much more proud and satisfied to see that we are actually going to be committing to it.

Madam Chair, I think that I would also like to celebrate the $1.6 million that is earmarked for the purchase of modular classrooms for Ecole St. Joseph. This was done. Many factors are at play in the school agenda here in Yellowknife, but the principal one here was reacting or responding to the devastating fire of just about a year ago now at this school. So this is welcome.

Madam Chair, I also welcome the almost $2.5 million for the Tourism Product Diversification and Marketing Program. As the tourism industry enlarge in one sector, which is the outfitting and sports hunting sector went through and is still going through some wrenching changes, Madam Chair. As Members know, I have been a vocal critic of the way our government has responded to this situation, in part because of the business agenda that I think we left behind. We left a number of operators really holding the bag for far too long. While I say I celebrate this move to look at how we can diversify our tourism product, it is something that is overdue. Let's just get on with the job.

Madam Chair, I want to take this opportunity to ask for some additional information and clarification on one item that committee found lacking in the development of this appropriation. That is the $100,000 that is requested to enable the Premier, I understand, and officials and members of the private sector to go to China next month on a...I guess the best I know about it is that there is a largely business agenda. Tourism is one of the topics that is at its forefront. But, Madam Chair, usually committee is given ample notice, detail and information on the nature of these kinds of fairly high profile and, I would like to think, very beneficial visits. We have not had the benefit of that in this request for $100,000. I would like to ask the Minister if he could at this time, or at some point over the next few minutes during our debate of this bill, supply us with information about the nature, the objectives, the participants, the outcomes that are anticipated from this mission to China.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, if it is alright, I can go into the detail now or we can do it later on; but if it is raised now, work has been done on this initiative through the Department of ITI looking at a number of factors, the goals of it or working with the business community, looking at emerging business in the Northwest Territories as well as the tourism side of the equation in trying to grow that side of the economy here in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is that the extent of the information that the Minister is able to provide?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, for more of the detail, we will go to the Minister responsible for ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the last several years, my department has been lobbying Chinese trade officials to try to build a program to go to China and open some doors for some of our businesspeople specifically in tourism and also some opportunities we see in transportation. But tourism, as we have seen with the aurora industry coming under additional pressure, Japanese numbers are falling off. We have been looking at a logical market to diversify to. All evidence points to China and its 1.3 billion people as being very prospective for us in terms of aurora tourism, but we are having difficulty getting an invitation at the appropriate levels that would allow us to build a trade mission to China, so we had the Premier speak to some Hong Kong investors in Toronto and some trade officials and investors in Edmonton. We were pleased that, on the heels of that, we did receive an invitation from the proper levels of the Chinese government for the Premier to lead a trade mission to China and to make the connections for a number of our businesspeople who could benefit from such a mission and such contact. So the reason it comes at the end of this government, we wish we had advanced further on this sooner because we know what great pressure our tourism industry is under, but we are still thankful that we did receive the invitation for the Premier to come and lead this delegation. That piece was critical in China. We needed to have it at that level in order to get the attention of business there and the proper protocol at the government level. So we believe that this can be very successful.

It certainly can't be the last China trade mission. The Department of Yukon I think has been there, in my recollection, over the last year or so three or so times to China on similar trade missions. So we know that there will need to be follow-up with more business officials, more departmental officials, but we have this opportunity here and we think there is some merit in seizing on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Braden.

Thank you for that information. Does it not seem a bit unusual, if I could continue to direct the question to Mr. Bell, that we are undertaking this mission, yes, at the very end of this Assembly and our senior official, Mr. Handley, I understand is going to be leading the delegation. He is not returning to this Assembly.

---Laughter

How is it, Mr. Chair, that this government wants to undertake this when the Minister quite rightly points out that this should only be the first of many delegations and building this market? It just seems quite unusual that we are putting this together under the direction of our senior politician who is not going to be here in the coming Assembly and who will not be on tap to follow up and carry through with this. My point is, as desirable a mission as this is, doesn't it make more sense to take this good planning, defer it and allow the senior people from the next Assembly to take it on?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will defer this to Minister Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Chair, I think the important thing to note here is that NTCL, Aurora Village, Aurora World, Watta Lake Lodge, Mackay Lake Lodge, and Arctic Chalet, these are businesses that have a lot of history here. They will be here in the next government. The Premier's role is to open doors for these businesses and no slight to Mr. Handley, but what is more important is that it is the office of the Premier. That is the compelling issue here, not the person who is in that role. We have the ability to use our Premier and his office to open some very important doors. It can open up new markets to these businesses. We don't think that we can wait. We know that this winter, it is no secret, is going to be very difficult for our aurora tourism industry. They are under immense pressure. I don't think we have time to wait to start to look to diversify markets. So there will be follow-up and follow through. The next Premier and the next government hopefully will acknowledge and recognize that this is a priority. But more important than who is going is the fact that the office of the Premier is going to open doors for these businesses. I know they are very appreciative of that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following along the lines of my colleague, Mr. Ramsay, with respect to the PeopleSoft fiasco, is what I would like to call it just because of all the problems we have had with it and all the money that we have spent, and a system that is still not up and running today, as we speak, properly when you take the leave component module out of it. That is still a deficiency of some fair significance. When I questioned Minister Dent earlier in this sitting in question period about if we would do a report on what has happened so that we would have a sense, as my colleague Mr. Ramsay said, of how we could avoid this, where we went wrong, if there were any liabilities, if there was any blame that needs to be assigned on this, it is just good to know these things. Anyway, Mr. Dent, in response to that, suggested that a report might be a good idea, but he didn't say there was a report, and now Mr. Roland has just said we have gone out to the Audit Bureau. So I don't know what to think now. I didn't get the sense from Mr. Dent's answer that there was a report. Now the Minister says we have gone out to the Audit Bureau. What is the status of a report? What is the status of the involvement of the Audit Bureau? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I should clarify in response that FMBS has done a report but not on the latest change from 8.3 to 8.9. I believe it was done in 2000, but Mr. Cleveland can give details as to the work that was done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Cleveland.

Thank you, Mr. Cleveland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when Mr. Roland just made specific reference to go into the Audit Bureau, then I am to understand that nothing has transpired since 2000 involving the Audit Bureau in a report to look at the issue of a human resource management software. That is my question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I would have to go back to see if I had actually mentioned the Audit Bureau as being the one, but what we have done, as Mr. Cleveland has stated, is the initial look at implementation done in 2000. But while the systems were still within FMBS before we created or just shortly after creating the Department of Human Resources, there was another activity looked at. We hired an outside group to review the work that was being done and how we were using the PeopleSoft system and how we continue to use our processes. That was done by the Hackett Group. It was mentioned here in this House actually in a similar scenario in a supplementary appropriation of the money that was requested to have them do the review and the functions we were using and not using and the recommendations made on that basis as we proceeded forward. That is the process going from 8.3 to 8.9 as we are now in process. I have been informed that all modules are working except for the absence management module, which is a new module that wasn't being used previously. There were a number of them that were not being used. As I stated earlier, when the government had used it in a customized manner, there were a lot of pieces that were not being used. Instead, we continued to use our paper transaction style of doing business. When reviewing this, the question was why did we continue to do these transactions the old way when the program itself is actually built to do these things? When we looked at that, as well as the fact that we had to go from 8.3 to 8.9, a number of versions upgrade, we had to decide that we needed to go with the vanilla version, as termed, or the pure form of PeopleSoft 8.9. I don't know if Mr. Dent may have further information to this, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Roland has pretty adequately answered the question. The review in 2005, though, did determine that much of the functionality of PeopleSoft or the program had either been turned off or hidden and the recommendation was that when we got to a system that was not customized and could turn those on, it would make the system much more functional for us. As Mr. Roland has already noted, the big problem has been in trying to convert the data from a program where the program itself was modified in such a way that the new version of the program doesn't recognize the information coming forward in most cases.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I am hearing both Minister Roland and Minister Dent telling us is that there is no report except for the Hackett report which was done in 2005 with respect to the implementation of this new software. There has been no report by the Audit Bureau that would speak to things like the confidentiality breach or things like the protocol that should have been followed by the government when they were implementing these changes to the software. There was no report that talked about that protocol that wasn't followed before some of these pieces went live, so to speak. I just want to hear the Minister say that there is no report like that, because I have been told there is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as stated by Mr. Cleveland, in 2000 there was a post-implementation report done and 2005, after a number of issues that occurred, some of it not related to the program itself but to the equipment. In 2005, backup equipment and so on and realizing this fact that we're not going to be able to continue to use the 8.3 version, that we would have to upgrade to the 8.9 version. We had that looked at by the Hackett Group to see what was being done and our processes and how that would best fit with going to the newer version. As a result of some of the incidents that occurred that the Members raised, there wasn't any report done. The specific incident of the information that was out there as to a number of the problems that occurred, was looked at, not a report on the whole system but specific to that piece was done. Well, it was looked at. I don't believe the Minister himself has that, but I know we looked at that, but we haven't done a full implementation package. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Oh my goodness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now if that was not the most difficult thing to understand, that might win an award. Okay, so back to my question. Maybe I'm not calling it the right thing, but with respect to the recent difficulty that everybody is aware of, hello out there in the public service, everybody knows what I'm talking about, the implementation of the upgrade and the changes and the patches and things that were all done pre and post this thing going live and there being problems with it, and the denial by the Minister in this House that there had been a breech of confidential information. There was a report done on this. If there's a report, I want to know where is the report? You said it is done, but the Minister doesn't have a copy of it. Does anybody know what I'm talking about here? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there was not a full report, as the Member stated, about all of the factors and it doesn't go into the fact that the Member has raised about the Minister said no, there was no breech. There was a specific case looked at, but as a department we would look at doing a full review of the conversion back to 8.9 and implementation. Once it's complete we would look at doing that. The specific issue itself, the Minister hasn't been given a copy of the specific incident. That hasn't been supplied to myself as Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister on the Health and Social Services operations expenditures specific to the $150,000 that's going to the Nurse Practitioner Program in terms of this funding that we receive from the federal government on these patient wait time guarantees in terms of how is this going to help people in our regions and our small communities in terms of this specific initiative? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize. I was conferring on that. Can I have the Member repeat what his question was? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The patients' wait time guarantees in regards to how this will impact or have an impact in our communities in the regions. I know there will be some with the larger communities with the hospitals, but I want to focus on the ones that don't have that type of service in the larger centres, communities that are somewhat left out. I don't want to say left out, but that hang in terms of services. So how is this going to work with our communities in terms of this patient time guarantees for our people in the smaller communities? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the patient wait times guaranteed trust funding, we've worked with the federal government to come up with a plan of how we think in the Northwest Territories would have best impact for front line and that is targeted at some of the smaller community issues. We have difficulty getting nurses into our smaller centres and having the adequate training to go into the smaller centres. So what we've worked on is a number of programs where we see front line being critical to the delivery of health care in the Northwest Territories. One is a Community Health Nurse Development Program and the Nurse Practitioners Program. The Community Health Nurse Development Program is something where we're looking at taking our new graduates out of our Aurora College program or those from southern Canada, if they're willing to come north, and provide them additional education opportunities so that they can have the adequate levels of expertise to go into our communities so that we can have nurses in those communities and not have to rely on agency nurses as we proceed forward. So there's a couple of things there.

Another one is the Nurse Practitioner Program and that will also help in the delivery in our more remote communities as well as our larger centres. That funding is identified to help nurses in the field move to the Nurse Practitioner Program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The other question I have for the Minister has to do with the $2.5 million for creation and implementation of a Tourism Product Diversification and Marketing Program. I'll ask the Minister in terms of this project here in terms of I guess I'm curious as to where did this come out from in terms of a lot of questions around this here? So I'll ask the Minister in terms of a very brief, very brief summary.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Can I ask Members to stick to the opening remarks of the Minister? It seems like sometimes we get into detail. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this request has come forward from the Department of ITI. The department itself came forward with its Tourism 2010 plan and it came forward for a request of funding. At that point there was not enough money identified as we felt and we gave it a bit of support. This is intended to increase that as well as deal with some of the impact of the changing environment that the tourism outfitters are working with in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

I apologize, Mr. Chair; I got ahead of the boat here so I'm going to leave the rest for details. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to put on record I raised the PeopleSoft issue last week and it's easy to sort of get all wound up and excited about a process and a problem, but when the Minister replied, it was Minister Dent at the time, that they were going back to the original platform sometimes referred to as vanilla, well I wish we would just clearly state for the record the original platform rather than mixing it up with all these odds and sod names.

I got some feedback from a constituent who actually is a government employee who was listening in and I want to say for the record...

Wait until I make the statement. It's a good news statement in the sense that there's some satisfaction that the government is dealing with it and I think our employees are the ones that feel the integrity was not there for some time, but yet the response being the government has chosen to go back to the original program, the one that obviously works. So there is a satisfaction out there that it's being dealt with. I think that also needs to be highlighted here.

Now there are other questions Members are raising and I don't want to underscore the validity of those. They're very important questions, but from my point of view when I was raising it last week it was about what are we doing and what are we doing to go forward, because there was some confusion. So the long and short of it is, I think that point needs to be put on record. I mean if we're going to have a public service that has to have confidence in our system, we better make sure our system works very well for them because we can't abuse that trust. I'd like to think I highlighted very well last week the issue of if our pay and benefits systems is eroded and falls out underneath us, I mean that's a very important fabric of our life. If you can't make that mortgage payment, you can't make that child support payment, all those types of things, you know, your world almost ends to a larger part. No matter how many nice apologies you can get from the Minister of Human Resources, you're still in a whole lot of ugliness until those things get sorted out. Like I say, I just wanted to put on record there was some feedback, the fact that going back to the original program was a satisfactory step from out there. Anyway, I felt it was important to put it on the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I, as well, have touched base with folks from my constituency and those that are involved. This program affects government employees and our programming is internal. A lot of the people outside hear it from those that they talk with in passing about the problems within government, computer programs and so on, but I've also heard from those who are involved in this process and feel that once the system is up and running the way it was designed, it will be a much better system. We're hopeful that we can get there and get there soon, but there are issues that we will have to look into and do an evaluation of the whole process from beginning to implement to where it is today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. There is just one other area I wouldn't mind highlighting while I have the floor here, which is there was some mention made earlier about some training and wanting to make sure our employees are up to speed on the return to the original program, and if the Minister has some highlights he can point out in this particular area I think that will just sort of end the areas of questioning I have at this time. I just want to make sure that our employees have the proper training to the new PeopleSoft if that's the case or if we're going back to the old version, the new old version, whatever, who wants to look at it as. At the end of the day, I want to make sure our employees are skilled in this area so they are provided practical and proper service for the rest of the public service. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yes, the training is becoming a more and more important part of the whole program itself. The program that was designed had a training component that could be used, but with the way it was implemented was not a usual function of the platform that we finally put in place. Version 8.9 does have that feature available and we will be using that and working with all departments as has been occurring recently. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe in thinking about the time here, maybe we could go into detail and I can ask specific questions as we move through the detail.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Does committee agree to go into detail?

Okay, can I ask committee to turn to page 5. Bill 18, page 5. Executive, operations expenditures, Human Resources, Human Resource Strategy and policy, not previously authorized, negative $523,000.

Total Human Resources, not previously authorized, negative $523,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, negative $523,000.

Page 6, Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $64,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, $64,000.

Turn to page 7, Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, program delivery support, not previously authorized, $940,000.

Health services programs, not previously authorized, negative $417,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, $523,000.

Page 8, Justice, operations expenditures, courts, not previously authorized, $21,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, $21,000.

Page 9, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $856,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, $856,000.