We are looking at all those issues, the structural issues, the policy issues, all the things that drive how we’re structured. That’s one big issue. The other issue is enough resources to, in fact, take all those improved structures, infrastructure policy base, and allow us to implement it in a more improved fashion.
I appreciate that and also just looking at we do have a bigger population, a bigger public service than Nunavut and the Yukon and that they have more communications personnel within their departments working for them. I like the fact that you want to upgrade and you want to add these positions, but just having that lack of discussion on how these dollars are being spent is a concern to, I know, some committee members, because we haven’t really had that discussion and we’re seeing some of these dollars being spent already. More of a comment as to having that initial discussion.
We’ve been doing some really good things here in terms of work that government has been doing with some committees, and I think this one is just something that also needs to be had in terms of how the dollars are being spent looking at these reviews as a government and not just making, I wouldn’t say decisions on the fly, but making decisions when we could have had a more in-depth discussion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. As you indicated there, a comment, but we’ll allow the Minister a final say on this. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s comments and I would just make the observation that having been in now my fifth Assembly pre-division, post-division, pre-devolution, post-devolution, every Assembly I’ve been in there’s a struggle with communications. Having gone through all these big transitions and transformations and now compound that with the speed of light change to the infrastructure in a world and the demands of individuals, MLAs, the public, this is an issue that has been unaddressed for a long time. We would hate to lose another year because we didn’t want to make the investment today for process reasons, even though we recognize that there are improvements that are needed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Committee, we are on page 7. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to bring up a couple of other issues. The difficulty that I’m having with this process is the timing of it. Like I indicated, the fact that this communication report was done in November, I guess committee has had some discussion with the department about it, and I think it was brought up on Friday about the supplementary exercises we are going through and some of the short notices we are getting on the reviews and the process and the fact that all of a sudden we hear now this money, these five positions are being added to the budget.
It seems like a very quick process for us on the Regular Members’ side. I think some of us are having concerns on how this was all laid out. I understand the government had to do a review, but I’m having trouble swallowing the fact that we did a review in November and we couldn’t get that information to this House by February or March to get approval. It just seems like it’s taking us six to eight months to get the process of approval for any funding you want to do. It seems very difficult to us.
Now we’re being asked to approve it in the supp when the supp only came to us a week ago. I’m just having difficulties on the process and the steps of how we got here.
Could the Minister give me more detail on was there a holdup in their area and why would it take us that long to go through the process and why couldn’t we have seen this in February or March when we looked at the budgets? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in terms of the timelines, it did come out in December. The budget for the fiscal year is closed off at the end of November. There was a significant amount of work that took place within the government, as Mr. Bromley pointed out, when there was an initial ask, potentially a recommendation of many dozens of positions. It required a lot of internal review and adjustment to come up with what we have come up with. We missed that window, and once the budget is set in the process for review, it’s very difficult after the fact to try to add things. By the time this was all said and done, the other process was too far along, hence this request for a supplementary process.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We’ll go to Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, I would like to point out that we wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Priorities on November 6th, offering a briefing of committee and asking for comments by December 1, 2014. We did get some feedback dated December 5th. I don’t have a date stamp on the actual day we received it, but those were communications that happened at the front end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some of those documents in front of me here too. I have a document dated December 18th, when we actually got the plan of the final report that we’re making decisions on. So, that’s my difficulty in the fact that we got it December 18th, but there was no indication that it was coming into a supp into the new year, or there’s no discussion of it being added to our January discussions to get a briefing in January to talk about getting this put in the budget.
I don’t have the details, but I do believe we have, in the past, added this stuff to the budgets in a quick manner. We have meetings in January; we have meetings at the beginning of February; we have six weeks of session in February/March to deal with this type of stuff. If the Cabinet and the Executive deemed it as an exercise that had to be done as soon as possible, then we would have looked at it at that time. But for us to look at it in a supplementary in one of our last sessions, with limited time to review and discuss, and this is the only place on the floor that we have it today to discuss this issue, I guess I’m having difficulties in the fact that we’re forced to either allow the process to move forward or maybe we just hold the whole thing to a grind and we don’t approve this and we let it go to the business plan process for the next Assembly.
I guess my concerns are how do we move forward when this type of stuff gets held back and we’re forced to make emergency decisions based on the floor of this House? Again, I guess I’m having difficulty with the fact of what happens if this goes forward if we don’t have this funding approved.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been pointed out, we’re here at the will of the House. We’ve identified an issue that we think has some urgency in being addressed, which is why it’s here. There are a number of factors that caused us to get here, not get involved or inserted into the budget process. So, if this is not proceeded with, then we will be one year further behind in terms of addressing some of the key issues tied to improving our communications infrastructure. Thank you.
Again, I guess we’re being handcuffed and pressured into just approving this $800,000 expenditure, because Cabinet has put it in a supplementary estimate that we have had limited time to review, have had limited time to have that discussion. I mean, we expressed our concerns last week, but with limited input and time to do anything about it. We’re talking about positions and we talked about positions and we talked about the budgets going up every year, and now we’re going to add another five positions to it. Never mind all the discussions I’ve talked about in this House about decentralization, now we’re adding five more positions into Yellowknife, into headquarters, into the departments that are swimming in positions already. So, I have problems with this expenditure and I feel that we should be not allowing this to go forward. That’s my point.
I appreciate the Member’s comments and fervour, and I want to reassure him on the communications side we’re not swimming in positions, and that’s one of the issues. One of the decisions that has to be made today by this Assembly is what trumps what in terms of as a government do we invest in the money to improve our services and systems or because there are process concerns separate from the validity of the request that would cause us to defer this for, potentially, at least a year or so. Thank you.
I guess I want this House and the Minister to understand that I don’t disagree with the fact that… I see the information before us that we probably had less than other jurisdictions in these areas. I’m concerned about the GNWT positions overall. I’ve had those concerns before. The question I have in this House is whether we allow this to continue. They may have a valid point for these positions. My point is we really haven’t had an in-depth discussion here and had that discussion with Regular Members because this came to us a week ago, less than a week ago probably. I am having trouble swallowing this expenditure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. I will treat that as a comment. I didn’t hear a question in there. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we report progress.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Kalgutkar and Mr. Aumond, for joining us today. We’ll definitely see you folks tomorrow. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the House. With that, I will now rise and report progress.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 248-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 1, 2015-2016, and I would like to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Do I have a seconder? Mr. Moses. To the motion.
Question.
The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that Bill 57, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2014-2015, be read for the third time. Thank you.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 57, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2014-2015, has had third reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Bill 58, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-2016, be read for the third time. Thank you.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 58, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-2016, has had third reading.
---Carried
Orders of the day for Tuesday, June 2, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.:
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
First Reading of Bills
Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 55, Mental Health Act
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Tabled Document 248-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 1, 2015-2016
Bill 37, Financial Administration Act
Committee Report 15-17(5), Report on the Review of Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, June 2nd, at 1:30 p.m.
---ADJOURNMENT
48 p.m.
