Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

...And you can get lost out of hand because there is no competition to provide the same product at less cost and there is little accountability except to the politicians, but they are dependent on you for information. If you tell them everything is going well, how can they say otherwise? After all, they are well-meaning amateurs while you are the professional. Public servants simply know better.

Is government really this dysfunctional? To me, it's hard to tell because I don't know the public service today. I do know that from the ones I've talked to, many public servants elsewhere like this person who, by the way, is a Member of the Yukon government, is very disillusioned and they are very disillusioned. Perhaps it is time for us to find out as well what the morale is within our government and to deal with some of the problems facing that morale.

We're the leaders of the government. We here can make the changes. There are tremendously important resource for us here in the North. Perhaps it's time for us to think about different methods and different approaches and become unconventional in government ways of treating our public servants. Perhaps, like industry, we have to establish some incentives for our public servants. Hypothetically, if it's a deputy minister or assistant deputy minster, perhaps even program managers, there is a financial incentive. If they bring their budgets in line, then they get rewarded. If they overspend they get tagged for that and perhaps there's a penalty for it. If they bring it in under budget perhaps there's a reward for them.

I think we have to start thinking of these types of incentives when we face the kind of budget cuts that we're looking at. Thank you.

I seek permission to carry on.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a commentary in the Globe and Mail titled: "Civil Servants Lead Lives of Quiet Collusion." It is by a fellow named Chris Dray. I will just refer to portions of it.

I am a public servant. I have been in the workforce for 20 years and spent half that time as an employee of one government or another. I have always done my best to do good work and like so many public servants, I have seen most of that work come to nothing. Programs go off the rails, studies get shelved, ideas get dropped or sent round and round from desk to desk until they grow stale or get lost along the way. At times it has been hard for me to justify the lack of results after all the hours of effort and money expended.

There is a quiet collusion amongst public servants about this kind of thing. We acknowledge that government is ineffective. We tell each other that there is nothing we can do about it. We absolve each other of responsibility. We blame others or the system for the global conditions. Yet, somewhere deep within us, there is an unthinkable thought that rises like bile to sour our outlook. Once you have to have that unthinkable thought, you pass beyond the comfort of absolution. As I sit at my desk, a single public servant very deep within the bowels of government, the unthinkable thought comes to me as a litany.

Whether you produce results or not, the pay is the same; whether you work hard or not, the pay is the same; whether you care or not, the pay is the same.

And as long as you don't take a risk, question too deeply or speak the truth to power, the pay cheques keep rolling in like waves on a beach.

In business, if you forget who your customer is or produce a poor product or let costs get out of hand, you fail and the price of failure is clear; You go out of business. This is not the case with government. In government, you can ignore the customer, as long as you satisfy the politicians, because that's who the money comes from. You can produce a poor product because, in most cases, the customer...

You can if you want? Since no one had any general comments, I will make some comments with regard to the document that the Premier presented yesterday. In general, I guess I am certainly in favour of most of the areas. There are some areas that I feel I have some objections to.

I would like to make a comment about the statement that the deficit will be eliminated over two years. I have a concern in that area. First of all, we are looking at a $150 million deficit. We are also looking at eliminating that over a two-year period. What happens if we have further cutbacks from the federal government? From what I understand, that may be a likelihood. That means we have a further deficit in the upcoming year. That could really put us in a difficult situation. It might mean even if we plan this over two years, we will have three years in order to eliminate the deficit. We have to remember that our term really is only three years. I really don't want to go into two new territories with a deficit.

There was a comment made that we can no longer afford to be spending nearly half of every dollar for administration costs. I would like to clarify that because the percentage of spending by the GNWT administration is only 17 per cent of the budget, but 20 per cent is spent on boards and agencies.

I am very glad to hear that the Premier is looking at tackling this particular problem of the boards and agencies. They spend more than the administration of this government. My attitude would be let's immediately start tackling that and I would hope that that is being tackled from today on. The longer we talk about this, the more that is being spent. These are areas that can be tackled quickly.

With respect to the amalgamation of Renewable Resources, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and ED&T, I am certainly one that is in favour of that. I think it will become a more efficient administration. But I would also like to know if the Executive has considered developing an economic revenue-generating plan. All we are doing is looking at amalgamating, reducing and so forth. This particular department will be the only one in the government that is a revenue generator. It is extremely important for us to tackle that area and to have some foresight.

I can't remember the figures those departments generate now, but I am sure that can be improved. For instance, there is a good program in Coral Harbour for caribou hunting. I understand that more of that product can be sold. Muskox can potentially be sold. The forestry area is a great economic generator. That is an area that can be developed.

Regarding the transfer of occupational health and safety from the Department of Safety and Public Services to the Workers' Compensation Board, at the moment I have a lot of questions in that area because I wonder what the philosophy behind this is. My concern is that this is transferred to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Workers' Compensation Board is driven by industry and employers. They pay the bill. If occupational health and safety is transferred there, could we possibly have pressure placed on the Workers' Compensation Board by the employers to say we don't want to pay this much for health and safety; therefore, we are going to lobby to reduce the inspections, et cetera? That is an area of concern I have. Again, I would like to hear some comments about the philosophy behind the transfer.

I certainly agree with the Premier's statement that we can no longer afford expensive procedures and delivery systems. Too many government departments, too many committees and too many boards and agencies, but I would like to refer later on where the Premier states: "I intend to move quickly to establish a panel of independent advisors on the economy and employment and on how to improve the business climate to attract jobs, investment and capital to the Northwest Territories." In other words, we have too many boards and agencies and now we are going to establish another panel of independent advisors to advise us how to handle and look at the economy and employment. I have some concerns in this area, one is we all have our network of people who we want to be consultants and so forth.

I would hope that, if this comes about, there would be a very good cross-representation of individuals.

There are some extremely good business people in this territory. I don't believe we need anyone from the South, number one, to help us consult on how we generate revenue up here. We know that ourselves. This is the first time I have seen this.

Another area I am concerned about is in this Legislature we have a number of people who are former business people and I am wondering if it wouldn't be advisable to have a committee of people from this Legislature to have a first crack at this and to pass back some comments to the Premier and Minister before we get into establishing committees and so forth. I don't see any reason also why the Premier and the Minister can't call on the people they know for ideas and so forth and feed them into a group of people here for consultation.

The Premier spoke about having met with the aboriginal summit and the development of protocol agreements. I am wondering if the Premier could explain how this works. Since there is a Constitutional Development Steering Committee, how does this tie in with that committee? We all are Members of the Constitutional Development Steering Committee. I am wondering if that protocol will be something he will seek consultation from us on, as well as from the Constitutional Development Steering Committee.

The northern accord is an area that is certainly of great interest to me. I think we all see the need for developing that. Could I get an explanation of why the northern accord didn't succeed the last time? What are the reasons for the failure? Why do we think we can accomplish a northern accord now, especially considering the possibility of some mines going ahead? That possibility is extremely good. I lost my train of thought, I am sorry. I'll let someone else carry on from here. Thank you.

---Applause

We don't have to stand up?

---Interjection

General Comments

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document: Tabled Document 2-13(2), a discussion paper in support of an architectural profession act for the Northwest Territories. This is from the Northwest Territories Architectural Society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister advise when this could be considered to be slotted in to be drafted and when work could start on drafting such legislation?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Justice. I received a discussion paper from the Northwest Territories Architectural Society about the lack of territorial legislation for architectural practice. Unlike provincial jurisdictions which have regulated the architectural profession, the Northwest Territories has yet to enact legislation or set standards for training, skill qualifications and experience of building designers, except where the national building code requires fully-trained designers in engineering specialties.

Any person can provide building design services with no assurance to the public that he or she has the experience, training or skills in this highly technical area. I have been advised by the members of the Northwest Territories Architectural Society that the society has been seeking to have an act developed for several years. My question to the Minister is, could he please advise if the Department of Justice is working on drafting an architectural professional act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering what value the Premier places on our present employees? I certainly wouldn't look to the outside to hire employees when we have a very efficient staff within the GNWT to take any one of these positions; there are many, many people there. We're looking at lay-offs and with amalgamation of three departments, there must be redundancy there. I would like assurances -- and I would ask the question again -- I would like assurances that first priority be given to our existing staff considering the lay-offs. Thank you.