Debates of March 8, 2005 (day 51)

Pages 2-104 and 2-105. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move back to page 2-99. My apologies. We have a motion.

Is committee agreed that we go back to page 2-99?

Agreed.

Thank you, committee, for allowing us to go back to page 2-99. Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that the Premier come forward to the Accountability and Oversight committee prior to the review of the 2006-2009 Business Plans with options to re-profile the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the intergovernmental relations and strategic planning division of the Executive offices;

And further, that the proposed option to address the existing problem of duplication of responsibilities and identified possible associated cost reductions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you.

---Carried

---Applause

We’ll go back to pages 2-104 and 2-105, Aboriginal Affairs, active positions.

Agreed.

Page 2-106, 2-107 and 2-108, work done on behalf of others.

Agreed.

For a total of $456,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. We’ll now go back to page 2-95. That’s the program summary, operations expenditure summary, $8.198 million.

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. We’ll now turn into volume two here. On page 2-11. I’ll give you a second here to pull out your volume two to page 2-11. Under program summary, infrastructure investment summary, total net book value and work in progress, $142,000.

Agreed.

Page 2-12, Aboriginal Affairs, infrastructure investment summary, total net book value and work in progress, $142,000.

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. Does the committee agree that consideration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is concluded?

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank you, Mr. Handley, Ms. Puskas and Mr. McLeod. Thank you. Thank you, committee.

I will now ask the Minister responsible for Executive Offices to provide his opening comments on departmental estimates. Mr. Handley.

I am pleased to present the 2005-2006 Main Estimates for the Department of Executive.

For 2005-06, the Department of Executive is requesting a budget of $8.946 million, which represents a .83 percent, or $76,000, increase from the restated 2004-2005 Main Estimates.

The Department of Executive has identified economizing measures in the amount of $314,000 from the restated 2004-2005 Main Estimates.

$42,000 for the Beaufort-Delta office. When the department was first asked to identify areas of reduction, the regional office in Inuvik was explored as potentially rendering savings. At that time, the department identified a $42,000 reduction by eliminating the executive assistant position. Since that review, much has happened in the Beaufort-Delta. In April 2004, the Beaufort-Delta Regional Council, BDRC, completed development of the Beaufort-Delta Agenda, a document that details the vision and priorities of the Beaufort-Delta region. In response to the Beaufort-Delta Agenda, the GNWT and the BDRC agreed to work collaboratively towards the development of a joint work plan to further the priorities contained in the agenda. The GNWT has also undertaken an independent functional review of the executive office in the Beaufort-Delta that made several recommendations on what form this office should take in the future. The Executive Council has reviewed the functional review and developed a draft response, which was shared with AOC on March 2, 2005. In this context, the department will be revisiting the reduction and the required resources to further the objectives of the proposed office;

$100,000 reduction achieved through the elimination of two positions that have been vacant for a significant period of time. These positions are located in the Commissioner's office and in the Public Utilities Board. Of course, there is a need to ensure these offices have adequate resources to carry out the core functions of these positions. This will be done through the amalgamation of duties with other positions or through contracts;

$30,000 reduction in the Minister's home travel budget;

$50,000 reduction in the Premier's travel budget; and,

$92,000 reduction across various other O and M funding in all divisions in the Executive.

As Members are aware, this government is involved in considerably heightened intergovernmental work and, as such, is requesting a one-time target adjustment in the amount of $355,000. The Northern Strategy, devolution, resource revenue sharing, effective participation in the Council of the Federation, First Ministers' meetings, Western Premiers' Conference and their associated committees and working groups have required greater coordination and effort within our government to continue to advance in these areas. The department will track all costs and will provide justification for an ongoing target adjustment in the 2006-2009 business plans to be reviewed in the fall of 2005.

These main estimates also includes a 2005-06 and ongoing target adjustment of $30,000 to help the corporate communications and protocol division properly manage the GNWT's trademarks and copyrights, known in law as "intellectual property."

Finally, recognizing the importance of women's issues, the department will once again be providing a grant-in-kind to the Native Women's Association, in the form of free use of government office space. The cost of this grant-in-kind has increased and, therefore, the department is seeking an increase of $15,000. This is a non-cash requirement and will be offset by a similar increase to grant-in-kind revenue in the Department of Public Works and Services.

I am now prepared to answer any questions that committee members may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Hawkins for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the review of the 2005-5006 Draft Main Estimates, the committee had an opportunity to speak with the Premier about the federal initiative to establish an expert panel to look into issues related to equalization payments to provinces, and the proposed sub-panel that will consider the financing formulas that govern the flow of federal money to the territories. The committee was pleased to hear of this initiative and is hopeful this process will lead to an improved financing formula that addresses many of the shortcomings of previous financial arrangements with the federal government.

The committee was even more pleased to hear of the First Ministers’ intentions to establish a corresponding panel, through the Council of the Federation, to look at the fiscal imbalances of federal financing, the amount of money that goes to the federal government as compared to what stays with the provinces and territories. Both panels will report back by the end of December 2005.

The Premier advised Members that he had had some opportunity to provide input into the composition of the Panel on Fiscal Imbalance. The committee feels it is absolutely crucial that the sub-panel on formula financing and the panel on fiscal imbalance have representation from individuals familiar with the NWT’s issues, given that the fiscal history of the GNWT is not widely known. The committee looks forward to being advised of the composition of these panels once it has been established.

Understanding that the work this group will undertake has the potential to have an enormous and far-reaching affect on the fiscal situation of the NWT, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight strongly believes that it is essential that the history and current situation of the territory be clearly communicated to the panel: billions of dollars in resource royalty revenue, collected from the extraction of territorial resources over the years, have been funnelled into federal coffers.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends a proactive approach to communication with the Expert Panel on Equalization and the Council of the Federation Panel on Fiscal Imbalance to ensure the NWT’s position is fully understood and represented;

And further, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight also recommends that the government adopt a collaborative approach with the Aboriginal Summit with respect to a communications plan for input into the two panels.

The Beaufort-Delta regional office was established during the 2003-04 fiscal year to assist the region to coordinate its preparation for the implementation of a final regional self-government agreement. The office was to be implemented on a one-year trial basis, and evaluated after that period to determine if it should be continued.

The regional superintendent of Education, Culture and Employment took on the Beaufort-Delta regional director position on a trial basis. In September 2004, the Premier advised the committee that he had met with the incumbent who informed him that in her view, the workload at the Beaufort-Delta regional office did not, at that time, merit a full-time position. She suggested she could do her former position and the new position simultaneously. In addition, the fiscal restraint and government-wide cost-cutting initiatives led to the decision to eliminate the office’s administrative assistant position.

After the one-year trial period, the Premier advised the committee that the regional director would be producing a progress report on the work of the regional office, to be submitted by December 31, 2004. The committee was, therefore, surprised to learn that, in fact, a private contractor had been commissioned to write another report on the need for the Beaufort regional office. The committee is somewhat critical of the decision to hire another contractor to review the regional office. This is seen as yet another example of using scarce funds to hire costly outside contractors to provide "expert" advice on a situation that consultation with internal staff would reveal just as effectively. The Premier had received the report at the time of the review of the 2005-2006 Draft Main Estimates and he committed to sharing it with the committee after Cabinet had been briefed.

The standing committee is of the opinion that the initiative to establish a regional office in the Beaufort-Delta was commendable and that there is a strong need to formalize GNWT coordination in the Beaufort-Delta and other regions. The complex political environment in the regions, which is in part a result of self-government negotiations and agreements and rapid resource development initiatives, demands a stepped up coordinated effort on the part of the Government of the Northwest Territories. A coordinated presence in the regions is essential. As it stands, circumstantial evidence suggests that interdepartmental coordination and communication at the regional level is inadequate.

Regional directors were eliminated in 1996, as a substantial cost-saving initiative. The role of regional directors was replaced by a somewhat haphazard approach coordinated through a committee of regional superintendents, with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the region. Since then there have been considerable changes in regions as self-government negotiations advance. The committee is of the opinion that the establishment of the Beaufort-Delta regional office on a trial basis indicates the government’s willingness to explore the possibility of formalizing much needed regional coordination and is pleased with this effort. The committee looks forward to reviewing the two reports on the Beaufort-Delta regional office, and exploring possible options to move forward on regional coordination in the Beaufort-Delta and other regions.

The committee recommends that the Department of Executive consider different options to use already existing personnel and resources to create a consistent system of coordination in the regions;

And further, that the options be presented to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight prior to the committee review of 2006-2009 Business Plans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Would you like to call in your witnesses, Mr. Premier?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Is the committee agreed?

Agreed.

Can the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the witnesses in? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Handley, can you introduce your witnesses, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me are Bob McLeod, deputy minister for the Executive, on my left; and Carl Bird, director of corporate services for the Executive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. General comments. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Among the many different areas that this very active and diverse and, I should say from my perspective, pretty efficient group does is the overall communication mandate for the GNWT. Although it is disseminated, Mr. Chairman, across our departments, there is a policy function, I believe, that is vested in the Executive and a kind of umbrella coordinating function and expectation for consistency and performance that has its home in this government’s Executive department.

We talked about this at some length in the committee’s reviews with the Minister, Mr. Chairman, and I find it very interesting to read all departments' business plans, especially their environmental scan, Mr. Chairman. These are publicly available documents which I find well-written; they tend to be fairly candid and objective in their outlook and I found the Department of Executive’s was no different.

I found it was a good read for me, Mr. Chairman, and the Executive plugged in their situation with the overall goals that this Legislative Assembly has established. Those are very high level goals, but when it comes to accountability in things, we need to make some connection with what it is this Assembly says it wants our civil service to do and how they’re going to go about it.

In this examination, Mr. Chairman, the department makes the point…I’m just going to read a couple of lines here. Attached to goal number three, that residents of the NWT have knowledge about and can actively support the government’s agenda and they’re able to access and contribute to the development of the programs and the services of the government. The part that I found interesting was -- and this is authored by the department -- it says that it can be argued that the success of GNWT programs and initiatives is predicated not only upon how well the programs are planned and executed, but how well they are communicated to the public and understood by the public within the overall context of the government’s agenda and stated objectives.

The expectations that we all have on departments is growing, Mr. Chairman. With all that, as the department has pointed out, the need to be able to communicate in a timely and accurate and accessible way is absolutely essential to how people hold us accountable and whether or not they feel that in some cases their tax dollars are being put into the places where they need to be and that maybe once every four years, if Members so choose, they deserve to get re-elected. These are very much the things that I need to know about as an MLA.

The department, Mr. Chairman, points out that there has been an increase in the requests from Cabinet to departments for proof of communication, but it also goes on to say that departments are not evenly resourced. There is a notable lack of senior level communications positions. The policy directors and managers are not required to undertake training and communications planning. Our communications policy is not adequately understood or enforced. The organizational structure of our government does not facilitate coordinated across-departmental communications. I’m just paraphrasing here and I’ll stop lifting things out. As I say, Mr. Chairman, this document is available and can be seen.

It points to some faults and some shortcomings and actually quite a tall order for this department to tackle that communications function, Mr. Chairman, and bring it back to a point where indeed it is going to help us along. According to the description that we have here, we are badly hobbled, maybe even handicapped in the communication area. So with that outline from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to hear where the Minister, where the Premier would like to take this part of his mandate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The communications is one of those tasks that has sort of a never-ending potential, never-ending shortfalls. No matter how much we do, there’s always some that we miss somehow. We just don’t quite get to doing it all. In light of the restraint that was exercised when we developed this business plan and this budget, we maintained ourselves with just the three positions in corporate communications and protocol. There is the director of that section or assistant secretary responsible for communications protocol, one communications specialist and a protocol officer who works with them in that office. So it’s a fairly small office, a very busy office, and a hard-working office. They have a huge task to do and I’m impressed with the Member’s thoroughness of reading our business plan because we do outline a lot of responsibilities in there.

I think it has been reasonably effective, at least in helping us to maintain a fairly good level of coordination on the government-wide initiatives, trying to coordinate or integrate a lot of corporate approaches as a government. I think we’ve done not bad, given the limited resources we have. This is certainly one of the areas that I will be looking at as we begin to plan for our 2006-2009 Business Plans because I would not want to try to defend the limited resources we have in this area as being the idea. It isn’t, but it’s a matter of whether or not we can afford to put more into this area.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that as well as these individuals who coordinate all our activities, many departments, most departments also have a communications person or, in some cases, more than one. So it’s not as if they are the only three who are doing the work in this area right across government. It’s a matter of us trying to coordinate it and stay focused and stay on message as a government. I think we’ve done quite well in the last year. I hope this year goes well. We’ve not found ourselves getting far off message, so far. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Braden.

I guess the aspect that I was looking at, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier referred to it, was really the across-government. Not so much I don’t want to isolate the Executive or any department, but it’s that across-government expectation of communication. One aspect of this is, as the Premier pointed out, where each department has one or two communicators and many of our boards and agencies also have those kind of functions within them, we’ve seen a couple of interesting moves fairly recently, Mr. Chairman, with technology where we’ve kind of brought together our IT people into a service centre. We’re about to engage in that kind of thing with our human resources. Is communications something that may be within the same realm where there are some government-wide policies, services, resources, whatever, that could be applied for everyone’s benefit? I really want to avoid the word centralization because communications cannot be centralized, but the delivery and the mandate to do so I believe could be better coordinated without any increase in resources. Would the Premier care to comment on that bit of speculation? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the Member that we don’t want to centralize communications. I think that would cause immense failure in our communications as a government. We’re not thinking at all of going in that direction. But I think through technology there are ways for us to continually improve our communications. One, of course, is right to the basics of our communications people meeting regularly. On top of that, there may be things that we can do with better web sites and other ways of ensuring the communications is coordinated.

We are looking at ways of doing that but, as I said, centralizing or trying to control department communications more, going beyond just helping to make sure we’re focused on message is a little bit risky and it could backfire on us because it starts to appear like centralization and people begin to lose some of the identity of the department. So, Mr. Chairman, I understand what the Member is saying. I agree with him and certainly any thoughts Members may have with how we may improve our communications, I’m receptive to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. General comments. Does the committee wish to proceed into the details of the estimates?

Agreed.

Can you turn to page 2-19, Commissioner’s office, operations expenditure summary, $182,000. Volume one. Sorry. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What page are we on? Thank you.

Page 2-19, volume one.

Agreed.

Just for the record, I’ll read it over. Commissioner’s office, operations expenditure summary, $182,000.

Agreed.

Pages 2-20 and 2-21, Commissioner’s office, active positions.

Agreed.