Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I actually prepared detailed notes so it might take longer than ten minutes, but here it is. Buckle in.

Overall, I want to start by thanking the civil service for the work they put into these business plans within such a short timeframe and for the efforts that each department took to see itself in each priority even when the link is not obvious. So, for example, how ITI might see a role for itself in promoting access to health care, I think each department really did try to see itself in each of these priorities.

I do think that these business plans are a work in progress and that there's still a disconnect between the intentions we set out in our priorities and the targets and measures we see in these business plans. In some cases, I see important pieces that are entirely missing. In other cases, the objectives are not ambitious enough and, too often, the targets are entirely process-oriented instead of being outcome-oriented. For example, the target is the number of meetings held instead of what is actually accomplished in them. So I'm going to department by department. Here I go. I'm going to start with ECE.

I appreciate that the ECE targets are, for the most part, specific and measurable; however, one gaping absence in the business plan is a goal related to basic education and literacy, and that should be linked to the economic foundations priority because it's fundamentally how we build the workforce. So I would propose we add an objective that says improve literacy and numeracy outcomes amongst JK to 12 students. And I appreciate that the department should not be telling teachers which methods they should be using in their teaching, but we need to set concrete goals and expectations around literacy. I note that there's a contradiction between a goal stated in this business plan to maintain or increase uptake in the small community employment support program when we are at the same time seeing cuts in the main estimates to this, although I'll speak more to that later.

I support the commitment to work with ITI and GNWT partners to advance plans to transition the diamond mine workforce, but ECE does not specify any targets or measures on this one, saying it first wants to consult with partners. I have to say I find it rather astonishing that at this late stage of the game, ECE still cannot define its role in terms of transitioning the diamond mine workforce. I think there's been a lot of work with partners, and I think we're ready to know what the actions are to move forward.

In terms of the Giant Mine remediation project, the proposed action is to continue to participate in the project, and yet, the logic is that that will somehow lead us to meet or exceed the employment targets even though they haven't yet been met. So I would question that logic. And similarly, ECE commits to work with the mining sector and GNWT departments to make northern hiring requirements more clear and the idea is that will lead to increases in the number of residents -- northern residents hired and trained. I think that there's some analysis missing here in terms of what actions will actually lead to our desired outcomes instead of just continuing to do the same things we've been doing and expecting that's going to give us different results.

And finally, for ECE, the objective around access to health care is to focus on health promotion and preventative care in schools. So I agree that there's a place for this. I'm just concerned that the pendulum has swung too far away from recognizing the benefits of offering mental health counselling in schools, and we're exclusively focusing now on prevention and promotion, given that I don't see objectives mentioned at all in terms of clinical mental health counselling in schools. And I do think schools have a role in facilitating that. So now my comments on ECC.

While some of the targets laid out by ECC are meaningful, my main comments in this one are pointing out that often the measures are too process-oriented and somewhat meaningless. So the target of we're going to participate fully in the integrated resource management regime, I would argue doesn't say much. So on this note, I am begging all departments, please don't waste resources collecting or reporting on data such as number of files we post to an online portal or the number of routine meetings we hold. I don't think that's useful and so I would beg you not to collect that data. One important objective is the efficient and timely regulatory review and EA processes in decision-making, but disappointingly, once again the measures seem to be process-oriented such as the number of reviews that the department participates in, the number of processes coordinated by the department. But what we need is evidence that improvements are being made. On this, ITI's business plan is more helpful in terms of identifying goals, actually completing regulatory initiatives identified by the Mackenzie Valley operational dialogue. So these two business plans need to be dovetailed and aligned. I also see goals around completing and addressing recommendations in the 2025 Environmental Audit, which leads us to wonder what happened to the 2020 audit and why aren't we establishing goals to implement those recommendations.

In terms of supporting communities to access public land through individual parcel transfers and bulk land transfer processes, so ECC is promising to -- and I quote -- initiate all processes for land transfers. But clearly there's -- we're hinting here that there are some barriers to completing them. So I think we need to be more upfront about identifying those barriers and how we propose to address them, how the government proposes to address them, such as if there's resources needed for land surveying or changes needed to legislation, some indication of that needs to be in the business plan so we know how we can move forward.

Okay, next, Executive and Indigenous Affairs. So a significant new role that EIA is taking on is to lead GNWT efforts to support NGOs to secure sustainable multi-year funding. That's great. The catch is that all the actions seem to involve helping NGOs get funding from other parties, third parties. Even when NGOs are delivering core social services on behalf of the GNWT, yet they're still expected to cobble together funds from the federal government or private charitable donors. And so some of the actions identified, I would argue, are not helpful in many cases. So in many cases, NGOs don't need guidance in their funding submissions to other parties. They don't need more meetings. I think they would rather, honestly, just take the money and just -- just give the money directly to NGOs instead of having all those meetings and trying to help them with funding applications to other people. I think a more useful action in this regard would be to commit to implement the recommendations of the report, strengthening the nonprofit and charitable sector external advisory committee report that was tabled near the end of the last Assembly.

Okay, and in terms of the homelessness strategy, which EIA has also taking the lead on, there's a large disconnect here. So I appreciate that EIA states its goal is to implement the strategy, that's great. But the actions that it proposes will get us there are focused on putting together five teams of staff that are colocated and setting up regional committees. So that, on its own, is not going to solve homelessness, and I think we could all admit that. But I think these business plans should instead just adopt the goals and the measures that are already laid out in the homelessness plan itself. We've already got the targets and measures provided. Just adopt them, work them in to these business plans.

And, finally, in terms of EIA, in the list of departmental highlights, I would say that the project that sticks out like a sore thumb is the one gov project in terms of its disconnect from our core priorities. I would venture a guess that no one in this room campaigned on the idea of consolidating GNWT websites. So I would strongly question the urgency and the cost of this project.

On to finance. One action that I think is missing here in terms of addressing our labour market challenges is that we need to address our extremely long timelines for hiring. I've heard that we often lose out on good candidates because our hiring processes take much longer than anywhere else. So that's something that's tangible that we could put into that plan. Other than that, I actually think the targets and measures are well thought out for finance, and I'm encouraged that the department will advocate that all proposed initiatives undergo a Macro-Economic Policy Framework lens review. The problem I see is when the Department of Finance has other lenses it's requiring departments to consider, like the Government Renewal Initiative, the Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, that can sometimes be in conflict. And I could perhaps conclude if I was given a second chance, if others let me at a later time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.