Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a GNWT communications functional review that captured this and did their review and took a look at what was needed to enhance our capacity. We’ve attempted to be very reasonable that what was in an ideal communications systems would require a much greater investment, but once again, I’d ask if the Premier wants to add anything further to that.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’ll go to Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did a communications review that looked at all of our responsibilities. They also interviewed deputy ministers and senior management and offered to interview MLAs. We also recognize the fact that, as we stated, we have new authorities, new legislation and program responsibilities, and also the communications environment is changing very rapidly with the advent of social media, 24/7 news cycles, and we also focused on communications professions standards such as communications policy, currency and congruence, strategic management of the communications function, professional functional excellence. We did look at other jurisdictions, the other territories which have smaller public service sizes and less government expenditures and smaller populations, where the Yukon government, for example, has 59 communications staff, the Government of Nunavut has 32, and the Northwest Territories has the largest public service size, the largest government expenditures, the largest population and we currently have 27 communications staff. So we took all of those into consideration. Functions review made some recommendations and we determined, through the results of the review, that three positions in the public communications sector and two in Cabinet communications will fulfill the responsibilities in the communications area that we feel are required. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks again to the Minister. I have a few more questions here. First of all, this is being funded through transition funding, but presumably once it has been funded through our devolution transition funding, it’s then going to be added to the base. So, this is an increase to our budget, I’m presuming.
The Premier mentioned that through this report and through comparing Yukon, Nunavut and NWT, the determination was to add five PYs. Does that mean that this is the final decision that we’re adding five PYs to our communications and our staffing complement is going to be 32 now, or is there going to be further additions to our communications staffing later on down the line? Thank you.
For that we’ll go directly to Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the review, we feel that would be sufficient to fulfill all of the responsibilities. As a government, we constantly review our programs and services. So, at this time, we expect this will fulfill all of those responsibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just with regard to the nature of the funding, this is coming out of implementation funding to the A-base, so it will be ongoing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have 18 seconds, so will fit another question in here. I appreciate the clarification on the funding, but we have just recently approved an operations budget in early March. We are now being asked to spend an additional $800,000.
Why was this expense not put into the operations budget which we approved just a few months ago? Why does it have to come forward as a supp? Thank you.
The work was still being concluded. The report has been written, the assessments made. We had to take it back through the due process and we weren’t able to get it done in time. That would have been our initial preference, but it was not possible, hence this request through the supplementary appropriation process. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list I have Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Ms. Bisaro covered a lot of the questions I had, but I will ask some of the questions a bit differently. I have concern with the fact that we’re equating these positions and this funding through our devolution fund reserves that we have, but after the devolution money has been spent, this becomes part of the cost of the GNWT. Obviously, on top of the positions we’ve added to devolution, we’re adding five more positions into Yellowknife. Is there any way we can make these term positions and we look at the assessment and the effectiveness after the devolution money has dried up after spending all this money on these positions?
I’m having a difficulty with the fact that we’re creating more bureaucracy and I’m not sure what we’re going to communicate more to the public. Often we get criticized with government about our communications, so I’m not exactly sure what these five positions are going to do with the communications of government. Could the Minister answer some of that information?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With devolution there were two funds. There was one-time transition money to help us over the course of the year to get up and running and then there was implementation funding where we negotiated a global figure, $65.3 million a year tied to our formula that will increase as our formula increases and goes into our A-base. It’s out of that $65.3 million that these positions are being funded from. That money will go into the A-base. It’s not coming out of existing government expenditures, nor will it. That funding is covered there. Then the issue is, just to quickly restate, we have a system that hasn’t been looked at in over 20 years, a communications system that has been the target of a lot of concern and unhappiness.
We’ve taken on a lot of responsibilities. We have funding available into our A-base where there is some funding available to help us pick up our game when it comes to a communications system. First we did a review that laid out the things we need to do, areas that need to be addressed. There are four areas: We are under-resourced on a comparative basis, we need to better define the roles and purposes, which we are doing, we need to work on consistent messaging, and we have to make sure that what we’re providing is what is needed by the citizens. All this requires and points to the fact that we’re not as well organized as we should be and we are significantly under-resourced. We think this will address that issue. Thank you.
I’m trying to get clarification. I think on Ms. Bisaro’s question, the Minister indicated it was going to be added to our ongoing costs and you just indicated to me that it wouldn’t be added to our ongoing cost, but be part of ongoing devolution money. Can I get more detail? How are these positions going to be funded after devolution money has been expended completely?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. For that response, we’ll go to Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the Minister stated, we have negotiated an A-base transfer of $65.3 million to undertake the responsibilities related to devolution that goes into our formula. Of that $65.3 million, if Members will recall when we put together the original budget, we left aside about $10 million of contingency to deal with any issues that came up. So we still have some of that contingency money available and subject to the Legislative Assembly’s approval of this request, there will still be about $4.31 million of surplus money available from devolution implementation money. While it will be an ongoing expense, we were provided funding to offset that expense. So, to restate what the Minister said, this is not coming out of existing programs and service expenditures, but it’s coming from that $65.3 million that we got an A-base transfer for, for funding those activities related to devolution. Thank you
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Bouchard.
So I think I’m getting the picture here. This is funding from the federal government on an ongoing basis. Why would we continue to have these positions if part of these positions are just to assess our communications system now? The Minister indicated we need to assess our communications system and the way we communicate. In my perspective, that would be reviewing something that would only be a short period of time, something we would need as a term, not a full-time position where after the assessment is done, we don’t need that position anymore. Why wouldn’t we do that as a term position or why wouldn’t we do it as a contract to have the assessment done?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough. This was a two-step process. We did the functional review of our communications system which gave us the information that pointed to areas of concern, including the under-resourcing and being better organized to take on these new responsibilities. Based on that work, which is already done, we’ve come forward with this request to put some resources into the communication systems to make sure we can address those issues, improve the communication systems and incorporate all the work that needs to be done with the new authorities.
So, I apologize to the Member if I wasn’t clear enough, but both those things were done. Thank you.
Then I guess I’ve got a question about this communication report that was done. We’ve been given the information, as far as this report was done, in November. So, it should have gone through our regular budgeting process.
Why cannot we, as a government, get a report in November and have it ready for our March implementation of funding in the March review? Now we’re back here on June 1st looking at something that we don’t really have full direction on, we haven’t had full discretion about it, we haven’t had a business planning process to go through. I guess, why does it take so long to get that process going forward?
You know, then I guess the other question that I have while I have time here is: What happens if this wasn’t approved? These positions would have to be reviewed in the fall, into our budget process, put into a business planning process and then approved through this Assembly that way. If we delayed this for a year, what would it do to our communications system?
This report was done in November when the budgets were pretty well set. There was, as well, significant internal review, assessment, debate, discussion going back and forth about what was exactly the best way to proceed. When we finally reached that consensus, we had missed that window. So we identified, as have Members and the public, significant shortcomings in our communications system. So, if this money is not voted on and it doesn’t get approved, it would be about another year to potentially get the resources to work to do the improvements that are needed today. Thank you.
If I could get a little bit more detail. When we talk about communication, communication seems to me like consulting. I mean, anything can be communicating. We’re communicating here in this House today.
What exactly does communicating mean? Does that mean we’re communicating with the general public? Is that communication between Cabinet and Regular Members? Is that communication a communication system as far as telecommunications? What does communication mean when we’re talking about these types of positions and what these people will be doing?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. For that reply we’ll go to Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’ve broken it out into two functions. One is corporate communications, that’s communications coming from the departments whereby the departmental people know what’s going on and they’re communicating to the public and operational requirements and so on; and we also have Cabinet communications where we communicate new changes, new policies, explain new ways of doing business to the public and to the rest of the people in the Northwest Territories.
The review that was done concluded that the GNWT communications function is not being managed strategically. Communicators are being used as technicians, not strategic advisors. Communicators are not well-positioned in our organization to support planning and decision-making. Functional scope, roles, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities are unclear. There’s policy enhancement needed to modernize and to provide guidelines, directives and processes that are missing and, as well, as I said earlier, there will be an additional focus on capacity to accommodate social media, online citizen engagement and other digital strategies as well as specific two-way strategies for remote and small communities. We have 18 to 20 government services officers and we need to address those specific communication challenges and needs of small communities. We also want to address communications, as we discussed here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Premier. Continuing on with questions on this activity, I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again here I see, without informing us on the thinking and where things are at, we’re being asked to spend the taxpayer’s dollar and I think that’s the under-riding and overriding concern here. We did have some discussions on this. I know the Premier will recall committee sent a letter back agreeing with the need for better communications but raising a number of concerns about the report.
Just to follow up on the number of positions we’re talking about here, we’re talking about five here, $185,000 apiece. The briefing material said… Well, let me start with the review. The review said, in fact, the proposal was for adding I think it was 13 full-time equivalents plus up to three for each department and agency, which would amount to up to 45 to 54 positions. So, an amazing expansion from our current 27.
So I’m wondering – that’s in contrast to the Premier’s remarks – are there more positions to follow? Briefing material indicated there was, but the Premier is saying there isn’t. The problem is that we have no context for any of this other than the earlier discussions that weren’t concluded, so maybe I could just ask that question again. Which is it? Are we proposing to add questions eventually here or not?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that we’ll go over to Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did have that discussion and our estimation was that five would fill the requirements that were identified after the communications review. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess where the debate becomes important is this 900-and-whatever-thousand dollars, over ten years that’s $9 million. These are significant dollars that we’re talking about, and we know that there are very serious needs in a number of priorities – and I know the Premier and the Minister would agree – and we have not had that debate on where these dollars would go towards the delivery of our new priorities. That’s talking about the $63,000 million, $65 million. So that’s a process problem again.
The last communications we had from the Premier on this was that the Cabinet has made no decisions with respect to the recommendations of the report, so that’s why committee, I guess, is surprised and disappointed at this coming forward in a supp when we see the process would call for it to come forward in a budget, as per what my colleague Mr. Bouchard said earlier.
So, I ask again, can this be brought forward through normal process, budgeting process, rather than in this supp without the background that we need on which to base our decisions?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money that we’ve got into our A-base, $65.3 million, is for specific functions tied to land, water and resource development. We don’t have the latitude to be able to say we’ve decided we’re going to spend half of it now on social programs, for example. We have obligations tied to devolution and agreements we signed to honour that commitment and fund those critical functions tied to land, water and issues related to managing that and the resource development.
In regard to the question about the layout, I’ll defer to the Premier, Mr. Chair, with your concurrence.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If it’s a delay, then we’ll have the same problems that were identified in the communications review and we would not be able to provide the new services that will allow us to fulfill the new responsibilities that we have taken over.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that sums it up. With regard to Minister Miltenberger’s comments, I had specified specifically the 63 or 65-point-whatever million of our new responsibilities, so that’s what I’m talking about, indeed, and I think there is a lot of room here, although committee has never really been included in the discussion of the allocation of those funds, but that’s the discussion that’s missing here.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just restate, the conditions of this A-based transfer is to provide the functions that we negotiated with the federal government, AANDC, and we’re committed to that. That money is built into our A-base to provide those functions that we’ve taken over that were formerly delivered by the federal government, and we don’t have the latitude to arbitrarily say now that we’re going to start taking that money and doing other things that what we negotiated and signed an agreement on.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I completely agree with the Minister. My comments are in line with that. For example, I see development of the energy policy with our new responsibilities, and particularly renewable energy, as some real opportunities for spending some of those remaining dollars, and I think we need a debate on whether it’s best needed there or any other area such as that that committee might come up with versus the communications side of things. Committee did offer comments with respect to the communications side of things that we weren’t convinced that we needed a change in structure, and we didn’t have a response or a discussion following up from that, nor evidence provided that the current staff are insufficient or unable to do the work, so there is, again, communications that have not been completed here. Just a comment.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. As indicated, a comment. With that, I’ll continue on questions with Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some really good comments and questions by committee members on how we got to these two issues of the five positions that we’re discussing here. When you look at the review that was done in November, there were a lot of key findings, and I think Mr. Bromley alluded to briefly here in terms of just better management within our current system, and in terms of communicating to the public, do we need to fill more positions out there to try to do what other people are supposed to be doing right now.
I know all of our departments have communications staff. We have communications here in the Legislative Assembly, and I think it just needs better leadership and better management moving forward and addressing some key findings. Has the department done any… I know they did, last year, talk about fiscal responsibility and telling all the departments to look at cutting down their funding. Has the department looked within the departments to find ways they can better do their communication, considering the findings that were found in November, rather than just throwing more positions out there and looking at how we can improve our communication system? What are some of the key findings that were described under this report?
Thank you, Mr. Moses. We’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a considerable review done on this, which is one of the reasons it took so long. As Mr. Bromley pointed out, the initial report, if it was accepted at full face value, would be coming forward with dozens and dozens of new jobs, which we knew in our day and age of ongoing fiscal restraint was not sustainable, supportable or acceptable, so we’ve worked at how we could address this and do some of the improvements. We’ve taken over, once again, $65 million worth of new programs, hundreds of staff, in addition to the fact that it has been clearly pointed out to us that our current system is not up to the task for the government pre-devolution, and post-devolution we know we have to up our game, and it covers all aspects of communication in a government that now has about 5,600 employees, 14 departments, just about a $2 billion budget that covers a whole range of services across the whole spectrum from the health and social service side to building roads and everything in between. We have looked at this and what we’ve come forward with is what we think is the barest minimum we need to keep managing on a go-forward basis and look at some of the improvements that are expected, both by this Assembly and the public.
I appreciate the responses from the Minister and our Premier. As mentioned, when these positions come in and looking at things as policies and directives, we’re taking on more responsibilities, especially in the land and water and looking at developing our… We’re unique up here in the North in terms of how we do business, especially more unique because we have so many Aboriginal governments and groups. But you’d think that looking at creating policies and new directives for the departments might be more of a priority with these kinds of dollars coming out of this transition funding, and as you’ve heard already, that discussion hasn’t taken place with committee on how these dollars are going to be spent.
As I said, we’ve got some departments here that need some upgrades on their policies as well. I understand that the Communications Strategy hasn’t been updated in 20 years or so. I just wonder, coming out with how we’re spending this A-base transfer funding and having those discussions and whether or not it’s policies and directives, or should we possibly be getting more positions for those is more of a priority than just the Communications Strategy?
