Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going through all the information that we’ve gotten for this department, there’s a lot of savings that have been made through this department. Just an example is the readiness for school. One of the positive things you can see out of that is this junior kindergarten, in my opinion. They’re addressing a lot of the needs in the small communities. You know how many times you hear, whether it’s Regular Members or Cabinet saying, we need to do things differently. We all know that a lot of the programs and services we provide in this territory aren’t really provided properly and maybe we need to make changes where we can. That’s what I think this department is doing.

On another one of the positive things I’ve seen come through this department is government service officers. That position is huge in the small communities. It might be simple for some people. For example, the elders, every year they need to fill out their fuel subsidy forms, a whole number of forms just to get certain funding whether it’s for fuel or other issues. That’s what that office does. It really helps the elderly people in the community.

I see the need for this department. I can’t support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. I have Mr. Yakeleya, followed by Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was involved with earlier discussion on the program review office concept. Some of the Members in Cabinet were also in this discussion. We thought it was a good thing because we were going to look the whole operation of the government and see where some of the programs make sense in our operations. Coming from a small community and jurisdiction, I thought this was good. A lot of the programs that are operating in the communities, the left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing and have efficiencies in our communities.

One of the programs I thought was going to be looked at on the lower list of programs to look at was ENR and ITI. ENR has trapping programs for trappers and harvesters, but ITI controls the money. That’s been told to me over the 10 years I’ve been an MLA, it makes it difficult for the trappers at times. They go to ENR and work with the furs and traps, but you have to go to ITI for the money. I thought that would be a good fit to put it together. So the trappers in their limited use of the English language to understand how the program works should go to one office. They are being bounced

from ITI to ENR. It would make it easier for the trappers and harvesters to be together. I thought something like that would be accomplished in our small communities. It makes sense.

Mr. Blake has noted some of the things that came out of the program review office that are helping. So this motion strongly recommends the government undertake a comprehensive review of the form and function and the operations. Is it still doing what it’s supposed to do in the spirit and intent of our putting this forward in the 16th Assembly? Do we have a

larger say into this? Are we meeting regularly? Are we looking at some of the issues? I believe we have done some of that work. What are the issues we are looking at?

I was quite taken aback when we had the $40 million building that Mrs. Groenewegen talked about. I didn’t know it was something that this government was looking at the whole operation here in Yellowknife. They spend millions and millions in Yellowknife. We need offices and infrastructure in our small communities.

So I guess I got a little bit turned off by seeing some of the things that just happened. I believe that we need to come back to the table, take the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and say, is this what it was intended to be? From a broader perspective, are the needs of the communities being met for the efficiency of programs and services in our communities? When this was first brought up, I was also inclined to say let’s delete this and this. People in government can do some of this work. So we’ve got somewhat softened. I’m still going to support the motion. This is another opportunity for Cabinet to look at this and come back to us. I look forward to that. I think we can do some good things. We just have to meet each other halfway.

In this sense, I don’t know if it makes sense that we’re a co-pilot in this office. If we’re not, we will have to have some more discussion. I know the government has sent us some information in the past through the meetings we’ve had. I don’t know if we’ve been heard strongly enough. I know some things were presented to us, but anyway, I take this motion as an opportunity to come back and look at this, let’s set some timelines and schedules to see what we can do. It’s not all bad. We just need to come back again. I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next I have Mr. Menicoche followed by Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Sometimes we create creatures in our government that takes on a life of its own. I share the concerns of my colleagues and feel that the program review office has created a life of its own. I really want to sit down with the Minister and do what the motion calls for. Let’s review this. Let’s

review the intention of this program review office and get back to the original intention, which was to try to find efficiencies and better ways of doing things in government. That’s all the motion calls for, so I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just briefly comment on the motion. I talked earlier about the program review office and my concerns with that office. That motion – I want to point out to my colleagues – does not call for the removal of the program review office, as much as Mr. Dolynny would like us to go there. His motion does not ask for the program review office to be deleted. It asks for a review of the program review office by the government and I think that certainly a review of any program, intermittently, is a good thing. This is a new program, it’s a new service, it’s a new office and I don’t believe it has been reviewed since it was first established. I think it is timely. There certainly is what I would consider to be a difference of opinion on the understanding of what the office either is doing or should do or has done. I think whether it’s a lack of information on the part of Members on this side or whether it’s just that the review office isn’t doing what they should be doing, there needs to be some kind of evaluation of this program review office.

The motion asks for a review. The motion asks for Regular Members to be consulted so we can have some input into what we think the office should be doing or should not be doing. Again, I want to reiterate it does not ask for this office to be removed. It asks for it to be looked at and made better. Any program, through an evaluation, I think could be made better. Maybe it’s a little bit better, maybe it’s a lot better, but there’s an opportunity for us to make this particular program review office to work to the best of all Members of the House. I certainly am in support of the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the motion. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to indicate to the Members we have provided all the reports to the committees over the period of time. We have also briefed and been asked for feedback as to the three-year work plan that the PRO has been working on. There were questions on the status of priorities. Aurora College student housing program review is currently underway. The residential care for children program review is delayed because of the Auditor General’s current review of the program. Energy use program review has been deferred due to overlap with other works. There is also a number of projects that have been initiated this year, the Sport and Recreational Council review, potential cost savings from updated

pharmaceutical policies and procedures, Yellowknife Airport governance model, the BDIC review, Single Window Service Centre update, Family Law Remediation Program, Territorial Midwifery Program evaluation. In addition, the PRO continues to develop capacity building within the Government of the Northwest Territories.

As a process of reporting, it has also resulted in considerable savings in the neighbourhood of about $100 million. Some of the programs and recommendations and major initiatives for the K to 12 school programs and PTR studies, health programs and services evaluation, general office space evaluation, adult education, rationalizing phones, faxes and printers, Harvesters Support Program review and, as mentioned, Single Window Service Centre Pilot Project. A large number of work is ongoing. I think that the PRO has resulted in considerable savings. There is a lot of work going on. We have offered a briefing to tie it in with the new Finance department. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am gratified to hear that the majority of Members see value to this type of operation. We are a corporation of $1.6 billion. We have over 5,000 employees. We have literally thousands of programs running all over the Northwest Territories, big communities, small communities in every conceivable service area, health, education, roads, housing, intergovernmental relations, you name it. No body this size, this complex can really consider itself to be functional because it doesn’t have the ability to have some type of evaluative function and efficiency function and review function. It’s really important even to those who want to cut it because they may not be happy with what they see. We need this type of investment that is critical that we do keep this going and that we don’t set up a process trying to find enough support to actually cut this program. We need objective assessment. We’ve put these folks to work looking at a whole host of areas. We heard it discussed around this table. The most recent one is junior kindergarten, government service officers. They are at work on red tape. Mr. Yakeleya has outlined some other areas where they could play a role. They do have a support function. Their job is to act on the direction from departments from their managers, their superiors. Their job is not to be out front, in public, high profile. They have done significant amounts of work. I well remember the work on education and health, the PTR, inclusive schooling, how the re-profiling that resulted and the money that has been moved into junior kindergarten.

This function, this office, is very critical to government, to a corporation the size of ours. We will continue to engage with committee. We have to

look to the future. We have to look at the work plan. Devolution is upon us. There are new responsibilities. We do have that work to do. That work is going to take place as a matter of course as opposed to what I think this motion will do, which is going to trigger an enormous amount of time, energy and focus instead of doing the work. It needs to get done to advance all the priorities of the government. We are going to end up spending an enormous amount of time and energy taking a look and potentially, I would suggest, paralyzing the program review office as it goes under the magnifying glass of scrutiny.

The other reason we need this third party operation is because I don’t think anybody would agree that we would expect Health or Education or any department to be able to critically look at themselves the way the program review office is asked to look at operations of government. With all of those concerns in mind, keeping in mind that we are going to move forward with the Premier’s offer to a briefing and mapping out the future, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting the motion too. My hope would be that as we spend the money that it is going to cost to do this and it is obviously well worth it and if it is not working in the consensus government context, I would urge the Cabinet to be sure to include Regular Members in the steering committee that guides the review or the two people that guide the review.

I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion.

Question has been called. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Thank you, committee. We are on page 5-21, activity summary, budget, treasury and debt management, operations expenditure summary, $27.8 million.

Thank you. Page 5-23, information item, budget, treasury and debt management, active positions. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Page 5-25, activity summary, office of the comptroller general, operations expenditure summary, $49.567 million. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Chair, I see that this office seems to have a role in collections. I am wondering if the comptroller general’s office does have a function in the administration or collection of the payroll tax. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Aumond.

Mr. Chair, the other function I see this office has is providing financial analysis, advice and interpretation, internal auditing and so on. The issue has been raised a number of times that there are compliance issues. It may be at play in collecting the payroll tax. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what those compliance issues are that the Minister has considered asking the program review office to look at. Thank you.