Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the budget address the Finance Minister talked about streamlining government operations and improving effectiveness and efficiencies within government. After that statement is made in the budget address, there are four bullets. The only bullet I can find that actually speaks to those words that I just spoke is $300,000 for implementing the Shared Financial Services Model. I’d like to ask the Finance Minister where is the other work on streamlining government operations and improving effectiveness and efficiencies within government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We think there’s a significant opportunity. There’s money in the budget to look at the area of primary concern as has been identified by Members and is a primary concern in the communities, and that is in the area of the housing review. We know there have been opportunities identified by the Program Review Committee that will be within the purview of the 17th Assembly as we look at things like inclusive schooling and pupil/teacher ratios where we know that there are opportunities there, but as some Member said, maybe the information wasn’t clear enough so a decision point couldn’t be made. We also know -- and I said this repeatedly in my remarks -- that there is going to be difficult choices and we are going to have to broach those and they will have to be addressed by the 17th Assembly as we have tried to deal with the difficult ones here.
There is a very, very clear need and opportunity to look as we talk about the size of government. We talk about contractors and we also have the fact that we’ve got over 4,000 employees. We are one of the biggest employers in government. What does government do? What’s it supposed to do? What can it do? If we’re not going to do some things, what are those things? Those are all difficult political choices and one which after the debate is over, everyone wants to tend to leave to the next government to decide. Thank you.
I guess I’m just having trouble understanding how a Program Review Office that’s been in existence for two and a half years, how the Regular Members of this House could only be given one decision point, and that was the office space requirement here in Yellowknife, to actually make a decision on. Now it sounds like the government is going to put the tough decisions on the 17th Assembly when they’re elected in the fall.
Mr. Speaker, I think the obvious question I have is: have decision points come to this Cabinet that haven’t got through to the Regular Members so we could make a decision collectively? Thank you.
It’s my recollection and estimation that there was no appetite by this Assembly at this juncture to talk about a meaningful way about the pupil/teacher ratio and how it’s funded far above the legislative requirement or the opportunities for the reprofiling of money through the inclusive schooling system, for example.
We know that there are still opportunities that the next Assembly is going to have to deal with about board reform. That will be, once again, within the purview of the next Assembly. We know there are going to be decisions that are going to continue to be made about supplementary health. That was identified, as well, as something that requires more work, so that the next Assembly will be required to deal with that.
So we’ve identified a number of things. Some things there was a willingness, an appetite to deal with. There were many that will get put over. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure when we had the discussion collectively on pupil/teacher ratios. I don’t recall that discussion taking place, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister, is the Minister saying today that by the end of the life of this government in September -- that’s three years that this Program Review Office was up and running -- this government would have made one decision in regard to work coming out of that office. One decision in three years. Is that going to be accurate, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of decisions made. The big concrete one, of course, was the office building, which has a projected savings of $100 million over the life of the building. We, as well, looked at the work that was done. We had the discussion and the work continues to be done in a whole host of areas, some of which I identified in my statement today, and decisions were made not to proceed on some things because of our assessment that there was no political appetite to proceed with some of those particular issues. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, the office space requirement, that is the one that I’m talking about. Was it Cabinet’s assertion that they weren’t politically palatable, and if so, how come Regular Members weren’t given the opportunity to have any input on directions that those decisions may have taken? Thank you.
The office building was discussed fully. There was extensive work done. It went on for, actually, a number of years doing all the market analysis. The other work of the Program Review Committee: there were briefings on the work done and the issues raised and the complexity of some of the issues. Some of the other ones had to do with adult education and how it’s funded, how it could be improved, and once again my recollection was that there was no appetite to proceed with anything of that nature that would be controversial and require possible adjustments or changes or cuts. So the work is going to be there. It’s going to continue to be improved on and be ready there for the 17th Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
