So all of the preliminary analysis was based on one model and all of the serious analysis that we’re asking about is going to happen in the next seven weeks. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask this Minister why would you launch a plan or a model or a scenario with none of that stuff having been done? This whole initiative should be dubbed failure to launch, because, yet again, another ill-conceived, ill-prepared idea thrown out there into the public. Why wasn’t the research done in advance before putting this out? Thank you.
---Applause
Mr. Speaker, there has been about a decade or so of work: Strength at Two Levels; the Cuff report; the Deloitte Touche report on governance, on boards; the work done by the Boards and Agencies committee; the recommendations for a whole host of different approaches to how we deliver services in the regions. We looked at all that. All that was there. It’s all documented. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars going back to the last century with the Minister of the time -- I believe it was Minister Ng -- started with a $400,000 report. Over the last 10 years I would suggest we probably spent a couple million dollars studying this issue. We’ve looked at all that. We’ve looked at things like experiences that people have had in the business. We’ve looked at the Tlicho model and we made some decisions to move forward. There is no easy way to do this type of process that’s going to cause restructuring, that’s going to change the status quo when it involves so many boards and so many people. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is for the Minister of refocusing government. What’s the benefit from doing this if there’s no cost savings? Why? Was there any time on this and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The lead Minister for refocusing government, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I’d be more than happy to let my colleague...(inaudible)...
---Laughter
Mr. Speaker, this issue is trying to improve the governance, improve how we deliver the service which would improve the service, we believe, to individual community members. At one time or another every program area has struggled with the governance structure, with deficits, with other issues, with rental arrears, with cost overruns, with those types of things. To say if the system is not broke, why would we want to fix it? The constant concerns we get about health, housing, education are the top three in this government and have been in the 14 years that I’ve been here, usually with housing at the top followed a close second by health and then education. We have to look at all these particular factors and how we’re spending our money. As just a finance context here, we are moving in, we are in one of the most difficult times financially since the Great Depression, and things are continuing to get worse daily. We are going to be charged to be as effective, as efficient as we can. For those factors is why we thought we wanted to move on this and it’s been identified as an initiative of the 16th Assembly. Thank you.
Mr. Minister, how will this benefit my constituents of Nunakput other than getting headaches worrying? Let the different boards take care of themselves and let us take care of our own people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the intent is to facilitate the things we’ve been talking about in this House with case planning, the ability to better coordinate the decision-making, to thin out the financial admin overhead in the governance, to put as much money possible at the program level recognizing that we are always going to be challenged with more needs than our resources. It’s for those reasons that we believe that this board reform will, if done right, improve how services are delivered at the community level. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister indicated that he has roughly about seven weeks before we decide as to go/no-go or to go forward in terms of this seven weeks to put some discussions on the table in the regions; 70 boards into seven. Can the Minister outline to me exactly the process that the people in the Sahtu region can satisfactorily say, yes, we had a meaningful consultation in terms of looking at this initiative here and we think that this is the way to go? Can the Minister safely say in seven weeks here, come back and say I had a meaningful consultation where people in my communities are saying today no to this initiative. What would make them change their minds in terms of this seven weeks’ length here?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The lead Minister for refocusing government, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, we’ve laid out the timeline to 2010-11. We have a very intensive amount of work that we’re going to conclude by April. I can commit to the Member that as board reform proceeds past April there will be a very thorough consultation process built in to take forward whatever the final decision is on next steps. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member supplementary questions. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that in April he will have some other discussions. I guess what I’m asking here in terms of building from the community from the bottom up and looking at initiatives here in the Sahtu region. I guess I’m asking in terms of what or how many more red flags does this government need, and this Minister need to say this is a no-go process here, we should be looking at something else other than board reform in terms of it moving forward with this government.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of board reform or not is a decision we can make in this House. Decision of board reform, but not 70 to seven but some other configuration is also a decision. We’ve been moving to respond to a priority of the 16th Legislative Assembly. We’ve put forward a concept. We’ve been doing the work to prove it up. April has been determined as a date and the Member will be fully involved in April when we do this review. It’s been indicated that there is a motion coming forward; we’ll be looking to see what that says. It will help clarify the next steps. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would again request to the Minister in terms of what in theory sounds good but in practical reality is not very good for our region or for the people in the Northwest Territories in terms of this initiative. When the Minister took the Agencies and Boards committee’s recommendations on the inventory, what process did he fail to allude to the Regular Members in the communities that we’re now looking at a Board Reform Initiative? There was a gap missing there. What steps has the Minister not taken?
Mr. Speaker, we believe at this point we’ve taken the steps that we can to advance this initiative. We’ve built in a milestone date, there’s a tremendous amount of work being done. All the senior people from all the involved departments have been involved in the work. We’ve sent out hundreds of packages. We’ve crossed the land, in terms of consulting. I’ve been to a number of regions and met with boards, health and education, so has the Premier, so have the Ministers. We recognize that there’s more work to be done after April, once we decide on next steps. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7 on the orders, oral questions. Thank you.
---Unanimous consent granted
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Minister Miltenberger, Minister for refocusing government. I’d like to ask the Minister what meaningful work and consultation has been done with the boards to find efficiencies prior to taking the singular approach of a board roll-up. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Lead Minister for refocusing government, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, for my entire time in this Assembly the boards, like every other part of government, has worked with the government-of-the-day to hit the various targets as we struggled with efficiencies, as we struggled with deficits. The first budget of this Assembly is a case in point where we had to struggle with reductions. All the boards were involved in their respective areas along with the rest of government. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that no consultation about this approach was taken in advance to discuss, design, find efficiencies prior to the roll-up decision? Thank you.
The issue of efficiencies within the current structures have been looked at as we’ve done business from Assembly to Assembly, depending on the fiscal circumstances. We took this on and there has been 10 years of work. I’ve laid out some of the reports that have been done: the Strength at Two Levels, the Cuff report, there was a report back to the 13th Assembly, the Deloitte Touche report. This is some of the work that has been done all for many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ve, as well, brought this up in the House with statements, it was reviewed in committee. There has been a lot of lead up to this. This is not an issue that just came on to the table. It’s been with us now for a decade or so. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled Northwest Territories Public Utilities Board 2008 Annual Report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Friday, February 20, 2009, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that the Cabinet set aside its decisions and assumptions about board reform;
And further, that the Cabinet initiate a process without a predetermined end point, with full public input, to find efficiencies that improve the effectiveness of government processes and board structures, and that the benefits and disadvantages that may be associated with changes to board structures be discussed with Northerners, GNWT employees and managers, First Nations, aboriginal governments and other community leaders, and Members of this House, with the intent of openly and constructively working towards a viable solution satisfactory to all northern residents.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with this motion today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion I gave notice of earlier today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS all Members of this House are interested in the ongoing pursuit of efficiencies in government as stated in the priorities of the 16th Legislative Assembly;
AND WHEREAS many kinds of efficiencies are best determined by program staff and other employees and should not be imposed on organizations;
AND WHEREAS there are currently some examples of boards which have a long history of efficient, effective, democratic, and fiscally responsible performance that do not need reform;
AND WHEREAS the Premier established a Refocusing Government Strategic Initiative Committee, which was followed by Minister Miltenberger launching the Board Reform Initiative with a predetermined end point on seven regional services boards;
AND WHEREAS the Cabinet has not considered other options for board reform nor adequately consulted with education, health, and housing stakeholders, First Nations, aboriginal governments, and other community leaders;
AND WHEREAS the Cabinet has not undertaken any detailed analysis of the implications of the proposed board reform;
AND WHEREAS all Members know there will be numerous legislative amendments and legal challenges, significant costs, important implications for employees, complex negotiations to harmonize arrangements within self-government agreements, and the loss of principles which are fundamental to existing boards;
AND WHEREAS Northerners and current board members are very concerned about the proposed direction taken by Minister Miltenberger and the Cabinet;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that the Cabinet set aside its decisions and assumptions about board reform;
AND FURTHER, that the Cabinet immediately initiate a process without a predetermined end point with full public input to find efficiencies that improve the effectiveness of government processes and board structures, and that the benefits and disadvantages that may be associated with changes to board structures be discussed with Northerners, GNWT employees and managers, First Nations, aboriginal governments, and other community leaders, and Members of this House with the intent of openly and constructively working towards a viable solution satisfactory to all Northern residents.
---Applause
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. I’m going to remind the visitors in the gallery once more of the rules of visitors in the gallery is to hold their applause. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I bring this motion forward today as the chair of the Priorities and Planning committee. This motion as put together by all Members of the P and P committee and I merely bring it forward as their chair. To that end I will conclude the debate on this motion, but I would defer to my colleagues to begin to speak to the motion and I will speak at the end.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I obviously stand here today in full support of the motion that is before us for a variety of reasons, many of which I have outlined in this House since we have been back to work here. I’ll just go over a few more of them, if I could.
I’ve been in politics, in elected office, for over a decade now and five years here in this House in my role as MLA for Kam Lake. Decisions have been made here in this consensus style of government. We call it a consensus government, but the decisions seem to be made by Cabinet. When I talk about Cabinet I think it’s a couple of Cabinet Ministers that make decisions. The rest of Cabinet seem to follow along.
If you ask me what is wrong with consensus government and why we’ve gone down the path with proposed changes to supp health and now board reform, the reason is quite simple: Cabinet does not have free votes; they do not have a voice of their own. Each Cabinet Minister has to be muzzled by those that are pushing their own agenda. I think that in itself is something this Legislature really needs to come to terms with. If we want to have true consensus government here in the Northwest Territories we need to address that. We need to open up the barriers that exist on that side of the House. We need to allow free votes. We need to have each Minister over there able to speak their mind and able not to be fearful of retribution from any other Cabinet Minister or Members on this side of the House. We have to have that open communication and votes. I think that’s paramount. To me that is the big part of the problem that has been taking place here over the last 16 months or so.
The issues on board reform...I’ve talked about the diversity of regions and I don’t support the one-size-fits-all approach that the government seems intent on delivering. I think if the government wasn’t so lazy they could get out and do the work; they could tailor make a solution for each region by working with the MLAs, by working with the organizations in the various regions, and come up with a solution. Yes, there are efficiencies out there. But by just taking this heavy-handed approach on board reform and suggesting that the Tlicho model is a model that’s going to fit everywhere, it’s not going to work that way. It certainly won’t work here in Yellowknife. I would fight for the institutions that are here in Yellowknife to the end. If Cabinet wants to pursue board reform, they’re going to have a fight on their hands. That can be for sure.
I also appreciated my colleague Mr. Krutko talking about impending self-government and the fact that this may have some impact in that area as well. I believe the government has some work to do there, and Mr. Krutko talked about a legal review of that and I agree with him. I think the government should be looking at that.
I also believe that the consultation that’s taken place on this is so suspect and full of holes it’s laughable. Really it is laughable. How the government could come out with a list of nine questions, most of them presumptive, send them out to some organizations and call that consultation, that’s not consultation. It’s telling people what you’re going to do; not listening to them and not taking their advice on what they believe should happen. I think the government, like I said in my Member’s statement, has to take a lesson in consultation and what it means to really engage the public in a meaningful way. Not just the public, but the Members on this side of the House. We’ve been down that road a couple weeks ago with the motion that was before the House. We don’t want to have to go there again. Believe me, we don’t want to have to go there. I hope the government got the point and the message a couple weeks ago. This board reform is much the same as the supp health benefits proposed changes. No research. No analysis. You just threw it out there and people have enough things to worry about in their day-to-day lives than to be concerned about what the government’s going to try to do to them next. I think it’s an affront to the institutions that are out there. I don’t believe the government has met with the organizations, the DEAs, the school boards. I don’t think they’ve met with them in a consultative way. I think it’s been intimidation, fear, and that’s not the way for a government to operate.
I certainly will be supporting the motion that’s before us today. When Ministers get a chance, and I hope they do, I hope they get a chance to stand up here today in front of all the people who have gathered here in this House, and people who are watching on TV, and say whether or not they support Cabinet’s direction to move ahead with board reform to go from 70 to seven boards. I spoke of it earlier. I was glad to see the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Housing stand up in this House...
Finally.
Finally...and say something about board reform. Like I said earlier to the Minister of Education, if they’re not going to protect the institutions that are out there, the parents, the families, the children, the sick, the infirm, somebody has to do it. If they’re not going to do it, who is? The only Minister earlier today that made a Minister’s statement that said they supported the Board Reform Initiative was Minister McLeod, the Minister of the Housing Corporation. I didn’t hear the Minister of Health and Social Services say she supported it. I didn’t hear the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment say he supported it. When they do get a chance, please, folks, stand up and say whether or not you support board reform as proposed by this current Cabinet.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It takes a long time to get things to work. It takes a long time to get people to feel comfortable with their local organizations and agencies. In the Beaufort-Delta we are no different from anyone else.
We have local housing organizations that work pretty well. Yes, sometimes there are issues and challenges where sometimes things could work better.
We have to work with regional health and social services boards, which includes a person from each community. Yes, and we have hard times staying in the budget. Most health authorities do. Yes, they have difficult times staffing its positions. What health organization has an easy time staffing?
We have a divisional education board and our education results are improving as results improve across the NWT.
How does a new or larger board manage a deficit better than the existing board? How come the new board would have more success at staffing its positions than the existing board? Why would the people become more effective because they work for a new or larger board?
Most people in the Beaufort-Delta know that things don’t get better simply because some changes are made at the top. Things don’t get better because people change offices. Things don’t get better simply because someone gets a new computer. Yet all those changes cost a lot of money. Adding new employees to the public service, getting them in the GNWT computer services such as PeopleSoft, financial management systems, co-locating of office buildings. People don’t want to see money spent on this. People want the money spent on front-line services, better programs and schools, more local health services and more for seniors’ homes.
When the government keeps pushing a bad idea, the government starts to get a bad name. Many people think the Board Reform Initiatives are a bad idea. Many people are telling me that the government is starting to get a bad name. People are starting to give up and look elsewhere to put their energy and ideas. We need those people to work in their local organizations, to give those organizations their energy and ideas. When the government starts to get a bad name it reflects poorly on all Members, not just Cabinet Ministers.
Let’s stop Board Reform Initiatives. Let’s start working on finding ways to improve our services at the front line. I want to give government a good name in Nunakput communities and I will be supporting the motion.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is such a significant shift in government institutional change that it will have a major effect on the Government of the Northwest Territories’ ability to deliver programs and services, but more importantly to integrate those services into seven boards.
As I stated earlier, we have some 33 communities in the Northwest Territories. We have different institutions by way of housing authorities and DEAs. We also have regional bodies by way of divisional boards and regional health boards. I think as a government we realize that everyone has a significant role to play. I think we have to treat each one independently of the whole.
I think there are pros and cons to how we’re going to get there. Regardless if we have workshops, town hall meetings, regional conferences, we have to take the time and do it right. There are pros to doing everything, but there are cons as well. Making sure you get the checks and balances to ensure that we don’t find ourselves with court challenges and avoiding the legal ramifications of collective agreements and what the implications are going to be on the residents of the Northwest Territories on the basic programs and services they depend on.
Being here since the 13th Assembly, going on 12 years, we had some grand ideas back then too in regard to consolidation of three departments into one. Today, going back 12 years, those three bodies are now back in place, independent of each other, because we made a mistake. I think we should learn from our mistakes and not continue to do them over and over.
At the bottom, at the end of it all, I think we have to realize that everything to run a government, to run programs and services, costs money. If the goal at the end of the day is to improve programs and services for the Territory as a whole with regard to looking at those areas where cost savings can be met, I think every resident in the Northwest Territories will follow behind us. But if it ain’t going to do that, no one can be convinced otherwise.
With that, I will be supporting this motion and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the people of the Northwest Territories to improve the quality of programs and services in the Northwest Territories. I move forward, but move forward cautiously in regard to a major decision we’re all going to have make and live with for the rest of our days.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about this being the wrong approach. I’m reminded by Steven Cubby when he talks about begin with the end in mind. I questioned myself as to what the Minister decided at the very start as to where we’re going on this initiative. Did he decide that he’s going to eliminate all these boards? Or did he decide that he was going to strive for efficiencies? I would say he certainly didn’t get the second one right. I think he strived to eliminate boards and I think that is the wrong process.
He has said on record that there will be no efficiencies. So where will we get better services and better quality by rolling up the boards? I can’t see a single one.
I see no shame or loss of respect if this Minister and this Cabinet pulls this off the table today. I see that they speak clearly and hear clearly what the people really want by saying no, we were wrong, we’ll not proceed by doing this.
Clearly this will be a shotgun marriage. Who are we kidding? If you put housing, education, and health together it’s going to lead to nothing but fighting between these organizations over resources. Who is going to stare the housing representatives down and say sorry, you can’t have more money for cancer treatment because we want more gym time. They’ll say, well, do you not care about people? Those are the type of fundamental questions I don’t want this new board to struggle with. Should we worry about health or should we worry about education? What about those people who need housing?
This will bring significant principle errors to the way we should be treating our people. We should be treating them with respect and we should be giving them the leadership they want. They want boards representing them. They want duly elected boards.
What’s on the table today I think ignores everything that people have fought for. They’ve fought for grassroots leadership within their community on the issues they care about. This is one example of how to take it away.
Mixing mandates will never solve anything. We’ve clearly identified that there will be no cost savings. This will not identify efficiencies in any way. If the Minister wanted to deal with this issue up front he could have quite simply had a coffee with many of these boards and said, look, we want to work better together. How can we do this together? In my questions today all I heard was we’ve talked about this initiative for 10 years. I’ve not heard where in the last year the Minister’s gone over to one of the education board chairs, maybe a health board chair, and said, look, how do we work better together? Is it about money? If it is, then just say that. If it’s about process, just say that.
I haven’t heard one iota today or in the last six months about how we can serve the people better on this initiative. I’ve heard about how we can complicate this, about how we can frustrate people, about how we can annoy the heck out of them, and certainly we‘ve done that.
I don’t support this initiative that’s going forward. I think it would be a mistake. If we want to worry about just the principle of efficiencies, then I think we can sit down together and talk about working together closer in a smarter way rather than rolling them all up and calling them a super board. At the end of the day all you’re going to do is continue frustration and anguish, and that’s what we’re going to end up with and that’s not where I want to be.
---Applause
