Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for that. Mr. Speaker, I don’t expect the sport organizations to say that they would like to give up any of their revenue so I’m not sure that really will achieve the ends that I’m looking for here. The information I have is that lotteries contribute $4 million a year to sports organizations, and I take the Minister’s point that this is physical activity. I don’t know how the money invested in sports compares to the money invested in arts, all things being equal for that same age group. I wonder if the Minister could commit to producing that information as a starting point to having this conversation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is absolutely correct, I don’t think the sporting organizations would say we want to water down our investment any further, much like if you asked the arts community if they want to spread that $2 million plus they get between another 30 different organizations. I don’t think they’d be in favour of that as well.
I mean, there’s opportunities here to get some feedback and I will commit to the Member that I’ll spend the next little while exploring these options a little further and then we’ll continue to have a dialogue. I’ll talk to the sporting organizations during my forum with them and seek their input, and we’ve got the input from the Member obviously, and I’ll continue to seek more input.
It has to be balanced, Mr. Speaker. There’s a very healthy investment in the arts for such a small jurisdiction and we have a healthy investment into the overall physical activity and healthy choices and supporting activity in Northwest Territories, so we have to find a good balance there, but I’ll commit to the Member that I’ll continue working on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Mr. Speaker, it’s been a couple of years since we had a commitment in this House for a full-time LPN in Tsiigehtchic. I’d like to ask the Minister, what is the latest update on this? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that commitment was made prior to my term as the Minister of Health and Social Services and we have had debates in this House before. At this point in time we’re not planning to put an LPN in the community but we have been working with the community to come up with an alternative, a community-based solution. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to get into the community a number of times to work out that pilot with the community where we think there’s a significant opportunity to train somebody local to provide some of the emergency response as well as some of the other services in the community. Unfortunately, all the meetings that we’ve had have been cancelled due to unfortunate circumstances beyond anybody’s control. I will commit to having our staff go in there. In fact, we have been able to confirm a date. Our staff are going in to meet with the community on August 29th, which I know is a little ways a way and I understand how frustrating that can be considering how long it’s taken us to get there, but we are committed to getting this done; we know there’s interest in the community, and we have a date. Hopefully, you know, barring any unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances we’ll get in there and we’ll start developing that pilot. It’s going to be a great opportunity to work with the community to develop something specific that works with the community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you know I’ve said a number of times in this House every spring and fall we have a nurse in the community for a total of close to five months out of the year, which is great for the community. If the community had a nurse that is willing to live and work in the community would the department be open to this?
Mr. Speaker, the challenge of that is if we put one nurse in the community we could actually create some liability issues. I know we do it during freeze-up or break-up but we don’t have one-nurse stations here in the Northwest Territories; we’re trying to ensure that there’s proper and adequate backup so that the individuals who are on call during the evening don’t have to be on call every day 24/7. It can be quite extensive. I’m happy to have that discussion. If the Member can have that person share their information with us and let them express their desire, we’ll certainly have that discussion. Our concern is having a 24/7 person in that community. One person can’t reasonably do it. We would be looking at the alternative that we’ve discussed and coming up with a community-based solution.
I thank the Minister for that, that’s very promising. One thing the department should know that everybody that lives in Tsiigehtchic is pretty much on 24-hour call all the time because we don’t have nursing services or policing service, so the community is always the first people to act, Mr. Speaker. With that then I will be sure to pass that on to the person that is interested and get in contact with the Minister as well.
Masi. I’ll take that as a comment. Oral questions. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marci cho, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness to the Minister, I’m going to be asking my questions in my own language.
[English translation not provided.] Marci cho, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little bit of a delay there. Pine Point, as the Member stated, was around for a long time and for a number of years it’s been shut down as I know, as I’m a resident very close to that community. Pre-devolution I believe the Pine Point mine site would have been a federal responsibility and I would have to look into that matter, but I believe prior to devolution it was under the responsibility of the federal government. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.
[English translation not provided]. Marci cho, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to check with the federal government if this is part of the devolution final agreement on contaminated sites and get back to the Member where that’s at if it’s part of devolution.
Marci cho, Mr. Speaker. [English translation not provided.]
I have had the opportunity to meet the Minister from the federal government, my counterpart, but we not had direct discussions on Pine Point Mine site.
Oral Questions. Member for Tu-Nedhe-Wiilideh
Marci, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, [Translation] the people are saying there the Pine Point Mine, the work that was worked on all the chemicals that was used would be going into the water. The Fort Resolution bay might be affected by the chemicals that were used for the mine. It seems like the people are getting sick from it and we don’t know. I would like to ask the Minister when are you going to start doing an assessment on how the land is impacted, the extent of the impact? When are you going to do that? [Translation ends].
The Pine Point site falls under the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. ENR works closely with all other departments. Related to this land use it would be the Department of Lands and ENR. Under ENR we’d have a water licence and all these things are monitored adverse to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Back to the federal government, if it’s a federal government responsibility and we’re still trying to figure out how that’s working with devolution. The remediation plan will have to be coming probably from the federal government; no different than other federal sites.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a document that was tabled yesterday by the Minister of Justice and it hasn’t really received much press so I’d just maybe like to ask the Minister about it. It’s the Report of the Northwest Territories Judicial Remuneration Commission. I was looking at it and I guess it’s like negotiations with judges for judicial remuneration, and I see that they got about $1000 a month raise. I’d like to ask the Minister is this correct? That’s it for now. Thank you.
Masi. Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of a democracy is an independent judiciary. In 1997 the Supreme Court stated that there were three components of judicial independence: security of tenure, administrative independence, and financial security. As a result of that case, every jurisdiction set up a commission, a Judicial Remuneration Commission, including ours, and every four years they give us a report. I think this is the third or fourth report. It’s not a negotiation in a sense but both sides, if I can put it that way, represented by counsel, put their arguments forward. The commission determined that an increase was merited. In the first year it’ll be approximately 4.5 per cent and the three following years it’ll be the Consumer Price Index plus 1.5 per cent. There is an increase and this increase is not really subject to any further negotiation. We’ve agreed to be bound by the findings of the commission. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I respect the separation of the judiciary from the Legislature. Does this increase have any sort of effect on ongoing negotiations or can it be used as precedent? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, this is quite different in my understanding from other negotiations, because it’s not a negotiation in the normal sense; it goes to a commission. It would be more like a binding arbitration. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is quite different than any other negotiation the government is entering into or conducting at this time and could not be treated as a precedent. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How well do we pay our judges compared to other jurisdictions in Canada? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the commission looked at was salaries of other judges and I think the salaries of our judges are on a par with other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, there are some challenges certainly in living in the Northwest Territories and the judges must travel far more than judges do in the south, so it’s more demanding from that point of view. The salaries certainly are not out of line with the salaries in other jurisdictions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just thought that was something the public should be informed of so I wanted to get the Minister out of his seat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Laughter
Masi. I’ll take that as a comment. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. On June 1st, budget day, I asked the Minister of Finance if we could get a table that would lay out the job changes that were being proposed in the budget, things like whether the positions were vacant or not; whether these changes were a result of reductions, sunsets, or new initiatives full-time, part-time, and I’m still waiting for that information. I raised it again with the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment a couple of days ago and he committed to work with his Cabinet colleagues on this. Mr. Speaker, we’ve now finished four of the departments and this is an important piece of information that this side of the House would like to get to help us with our review of the budget. I’m just wondering if I could ask the Minister when I might expect to get this information and if he can’t give an immediate answer can he take it as notice. Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
I could give the Member an answer but I will take it as notice and I will commit to getting the information put together. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in the House to reply to the budget address. Mr. Speaker, last week we heard the presentation of this Assembly’s budget. As we stand here today, if we turned back the time to last year or last Assembly’s budget deliberations to unwind our current financial position, we would only find ourselves faced in a similar decision about our financial destiny. This budget is based on current challenges to reach balanced financial positions on terms developed by our peers and colleagues across the floor. It is said, and I agree, that the best social programs are wage-earning opportunities that bring security and self-reliance to all who participate on infrastructure and proposed infrastructure development.
Mr. Speaker, governance means setting priorities to achieve the goals and aspirations our voters expect of us for the delivery of programs and services. Our population living in small communities has and will contribute to the totals gained through the federal transfer payments. Given that calculations are equal to those living in larger centres, together the income makes up for over half of the GNWT’s income. The smaller communities’ populations therefore must be served with the same privileges as any other Northern residents. Mr. Speaker, that privilege includes the right to develop their own lands for economic opportunities. We cannot afford to sit idle on this vast land of potential and wait for the TFF payment. When it comes to infrastructure development, Mr. Speaker, let us review the principles of engagement for the stakeholders on the proposed Mackenzie Valley Highway extension: the portion from Wrigley to Norman Wells is 330 kilometres in distance. Of that right-of-way 72 per cent is in the Sahtu region and 28 per cent in the Deh Cho. The capital cost of this project is applied for at $700 million. During the previous years, this government participated and assisted the regions to develop a project description report. This report in our area, or Sahtu area, shows granular embankment volumes in excess of 8.5 million cubic metres of granular material. If you multiply that by a rate of your choice on the royalties, you would see significant income from that commodity by itself. I only can assume it would take place over several years, thus creating multi-year activity at a time of great need. As stewards of the land and elected officials of this government, it is incumbent upon us to provide growth opportunities based on the principles of commerce and trade.
Mr. Speaker, let us review some elements of the ROI or return on investment for this proposed capital project. Tourism is already worth over $100 million in annual income for our territory, and by creating affordable access to the central Mackenzie Valley area further attractions to that area would bring additional traffic and higher revenues. By developing oil and gas and mineral potential in the area we could reasonably expect resource royalties to contribute in excess of $30 million in annual income to this government. Savings to this government also should be realized through more affordable construction, shipping, and overall mobility. In our selected options for revenue generation, we risk being viewed as the Sheriff of Nottingham by placing additional taxes on our few northern residents.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Mackenzie Valley Highway is supported by Members of the previous Assembly, the Sahtu Secretariat, various NWT chamber organizations, Alberta NGOs, and the recommendations made in the Transport Canada’s recent National Transportation Review, as well as many other representatives of governments and industry. We will be resilient. Through sound and prudent financial planning I believe we can overcome this troubled financial inheritance and work together to create a prosperous future for all residents of the NWT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few general comments in reply to the budget address and I’ll save my specifics for when we debate the main estimates. This budget process has been quite a unique experience. We have an unprecedented number of first-term MLAs, elected during a time when commodity prices were falling to ten-year lows, investment in the territory was waning, and no new mining projects were on the horizon. The Department of Finance told us that we need to find $150 million in savings, and because the previous Assembly saw fit to extend its term, we were forced to compress a budget process that usually takes about six months into three. These factors provide the backdrop to this budget and are contributing factors to the frustration expressed by Members on this side of the House.
One of the biggest contributing factors, as I see it, was the expectation for change. We were elected on the heels of sweeping changes to federal and provincial governments, whose partisan systems allowed changes in ideologies to be superimposed on an existing government structure. Our system is different. We’re not party politicians who adhere to a party mantra handed down from on high. We each think for ourselves, and our policies are driven by the wants and needs of our individual constituencies. That means that change comes slower than it would in a party system. We cannot immediately imprint our way of doing business on the apparatus of government, because it takes time to figure out what our way of doing business is. This has drawbacks and benefits. It provides stability by reducing the risk of wild shifts in policies after each election. The mandate document produced by this Assembly is an example of us trying to find our common vision. Regardless of our individual political leanings there is something in the Mandate for all of us. The left-leaning priorities are countered by right-leaning priorities. The aggregate is a middle of the road document. Without strong leadership and collaboration among all Members, the stability that consensus government provides can also be its biggest drawback.
You’ll notice that our mandate is full of references to ongoing GNWT initiatives and many vague and non-committal phrases. Without a unified vision, we defer to the expertise of departments and their stable guidance. We continue on the middle-of-the-road policies from the previous Assembly, which followed the same middle-of-the-road policies as the Assembly before that and so on. Now in this 18th Assembly we’re expecting a change in the functioning of a government apparatus whose mode of operations is fully entrenched. We had unrealistic expectations about change: not about the amount of change, but about the speed of change. Even when there is political will, change is slow. The Premier or a Minister cannot perform the actions of government. He or she relies on departmental senior management to dutifully carry out orders. If the orders do not follow the middle-of-the-road path that a department is used to, there can be resistance. It appears to me that some departments think the best political input is no political input. At times the Regular MLAs have been inundated with unrequested information, while at the same time being forced to wait weeks for pertinent and time-sensitive information that we did request. This lack of information and input is the source of my frustration. When combined with the truncated timeframe and the opaque nature of the main estimates, the first steps towards finding $150 million in cuts or revenues is happening without Members being given the proper tools to provide adequate input or oversight. Don’t be mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I will attest that everyone on this side of the House is working hard and doing the best possible job with the information we have; we just need more information. With all that being said, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that I actually do see change happening. We, the Regular Members, did not get everything we want in the budget consultations leading up to the debates on the main estimates, just as I’m sure each Minister didn’t get everything he or she wanted when Cabinet was debating the budget internally. However, I will give credit where credit is due. There have been instances where Cabinet was responsive and by working with them we were able to maintain millions of dollars in programs and jobs.
---Applause
It’s my understanding that in previous Assemblies, such compromise was unheard of. Despite not getting as much information as I would like or want we were privy to a level of detail that, again, was unprecedented in previous Assemblies. That fact that these comments seem at odds with my earlier statements about the lack of information speaks to how slowly change occurs and how far we still have to go. While there may be countervailing views, I don’t believe that we’ve hit a brick wall in Cabinet relations; I believe we’re making progress. Has the Premier fulfilled every promise he made when he ran for the position? No, but he hasn’t turned his back on those promises either. Even our Finance Minister is softening his steely persona, as evidenced in the House these past few days.
---Laughter
I join my other colleagues and question the need for the $150 million in cuts. I’ve been asking but I have yet to receive a satisfactory or detailed answer to how that number came about. Regardless, that’s the number that they’re sticking with. The exercise to find $150 million was a perfect opportunity to find efficiencies and streamline departments. If a corporation, which always has the bottom line in mind, wants to find efficiencies and improve operations and accountability, they will undertake an internal audit. Effective internal audits adhere to universally accepted best practices that require an objective and independent auditor who has the freedom to speak to every member of a department in confidence and provide an unbiased appraisal directly to a Minister.
Unfortunately, the approach that this government took was to give each department a reduction total and let them figure it out. What the departments came back with is what we’d expect: cuts to frontline staff and programs with no substantial changes in department structure or senior management staff. But really, what else could they do? The job of senior management is to run the departments efficiently. If that’s the case then they should have already found all the efficiencies and a different approach to the reductions should have been taken. By tasking the departments with this reduction exercise the government passively prioritized cutting spending through layoffs and program cuts over finding money through innovation, identifying efficiencies, and addressing the structural problems within departments. I’m not opposed to the idea of reducing spending. Like my colleague Mr. McNeely stated, we can’t just sit on our resources and wait for the next federal transfer payment. We can generate the revenue we need to provide services without attracting significant new investments in the resource extraction industry, and that requires us to make investments in transportation infrastructure. However, the manner in which the reductions were done has the appearance of favouring bureaucracy over efficiency. This government can do better. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are just my general observations as a Member of this Assembly six months into my first term, part way through my first budget session. Despite my criticisms, I’m still confident that we will ultimately be able to do good for the people of this territory. I encourage Members on both sides to strive to work together so we can give our citizens the change they voted for. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the government has brought its budget for the coming year. I am pleased to see it is not in fact an austerity budget, rather is one of status quo. It balances reductions with new spending in an effort to meet the shared priorities of both sides of this House. While I’m pleased with this outcome, I cannot say the same for the efforts undertaken by the leadership of the Premier and Cabinet to communicate these spending measures. In fact, I do not believe that any reasonable Northerner would have believed in the months leading up to the introduction of the budget that this plan was anything else than one of damaging cuts and significant job losses. Great pains were taken by this government to spread the message of economic uncertainty at a time when Northerners needed hope and a vision for growth and stability as the 18th Assembly came into its own. This message was soundly rejected by the Regular Members of the Legislative Assembly and our desire for a stronger economic plan for our future was widely supported by our constituents at home across the territory. I continue to question why this heavy-handed rhetoric of austerity and fiscal crisis was ever required given the final outcome of this budget process and I have great confidence that it had everything to do with the hard work and undaunted advocacy of Regular Members calling for real growth and programs that respond to the priorities of our people. I give a great deal of credit to the Premier and Cabinet for listening to the concerns of Northerners and of their representatives and tempering the message of fiscal doom and gloom while offering a budget that maintains a healthy level of government investment in our economy and communities. Clearly there is still hope for our consensus government system as we work together for a prosperous and healthy future for the Northwest Territories.
While this government was warning against so-called reckless spending that would beggar our grandchildren, the Premier and Cabinet eagerly await handouts from a government in Ottawa that, by their own assessment, is doing exactly that. I am, for one, grateful to have a willing partner in the federal government in Prime Minister Trudeau that understands the need to grow and diversify the national economy through significant spending and by taking ambitious risks that will pay off with increased growth and new job opportunities. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe in fiscal prudence or removing the weight of tax burdens governments sometimes implement on the shoulders of their citizens. Being that there is no new oil and gas production activity happening within the Northwest Territories, the closing of the Mackenzie Valley Petroleum Office makes good fiscal sense, while reducing taxes on small businesses will invigorate entrepreneurs to do what they do best, innovate.
This is more important than ever in this current economic climate for the Northwest Territories. Bedrocks of our economy, mining and mineral exploration, are in trouble and we, as leaders, must do whatever we can to restore this industry to growth, to create jobs and lasting prosperity for our communities. Increasing the Mining Incentive Program, as I promised I would fight for in my campaign, is the right course of action to help our partners in the mining industry achieve new opportunities for exploration so we can be ready to develop new mines when commodity prices return to health.
This government’s commitment to review the Heritage Act will ensure that resource royalties from mining will provide economic benefits to future generations and provide new and sustainable revenues for this government moving forward. Film, agriculture, manufacturing, tourism and the support of an evolving knowledge economy is where I know we must aim if we are to diversify our commodity-dominated economy like most other jurisdictions have in the past. Supporting the same through tourism, product diversification and the film rebate program is a good start, and I agree in principle with the Convention Bureau, but I need more clarification to reassure me that we are not just creating an advertising department for one hotel in our capital. We need more infrastructure to support our tourism industry and make the north as spectacular as our marketing slogan is. Bring more people here. Show them how beautiful it is and allow them to make the decision on their own to relocate here and increase our population base. Tourism 2020 can be a key component to beginning our long road to diversification, for as rich as we are in minerals, the natural beauty of our lands and the thriving culture of our peoples is on par with any jurisdiction in our great nation or the world. As the government puts it: we are spectacular!
I’m troubled by the fact the government has only thought of utilizing Aurora College as a proponent of the knowledge economy. Although it is a great institution unto itself, it’s not the only option. Dechinta and College nordique francophone are offering great programs that can relieve pressures and expectations currently solely invested in Aurora College, and we can act as their partner in attaining the knowledge economy that this territory truly needs. I’m not unrealistic; I know we are almost always a one-horse economy. Mining and mineral exploration have not only been the dominant and economic force in our past but without question will remain that way for our foreseeable future. For if we wish to return to the robust growth that we have become accustomed to only a few short years ago, it will be upon the back of that industry. We are a volatile economy, if not the most in the country. We are dominated by the price of the commodities and as I stated earlier, I believe diversification is vital for long-term economic stability but that is still a while away.
I believe the government made the right choice in not implementing austerity and I applaud the Minister of Finance for that because if this government would have taken such action it would have only added to the suffering of those most affected by an economic downturn: the working poor and employees in the natural resource sector. I will be keeping my eye on the Department of Finance in future budgets and I pledge I will never support a government that puts its bottom line over the well-being of its people, its stakeholders, and employees. On that note, the Department of Finance has become the perennial bearer of bad news, providing a constant reminder of fiscal trouble and economic downturn. Even when other departments deliver positive results relating to tourism, agriculture, and other areas of economic growth it all ends when the next fiscal update hits the floor, and that’s why I would strongly advise this government take into account the need for change of tone when presenting fiscal updates to the public. The Minister of Finance has also become the grim reaper of the public service. An undeserved reputation given that cuts are, in fact, balanced with new positions and new spending. Indeed, the sense of concern is borne not of action but instead from a persistent communications campaign that has promised cuts without promising growth. I urge this government to develop stronger communications plans in the future that emphasize the positive aspects of our economic outlook and plan budget measures. Hope for the future is always stronger than the fear that this government has nurtured over our economy and fiscal future. Voters in the last election chose a new government and demanded new leadership and a new way of doing business. While they certainly did not vote for cuts and austerity, equally, they did not vote for the status quo. While I am grateful that the Premier has listened to the concerns of Regular Members and has been working with this side of the House on creating a balanced approached to this budget, I’m disappointed that this budget does not go far enough to deliver real change. The Finance Minister said our economy is the most volatile in Canada and in principle I concur. It’s clear we need to make stabilizing our economic growth a critical priority for this and future governments, and achieve this stability by investing in jobs and economic diversification. There’s real potential in growing our agricultural, manufacturing, tourism and arts industries along with pursuing innovation through new opportunities and clean energy and renewable resources.
Mining and mineral exploration industry is still our economic bread and butter and we have a duty to support them, for if even one disagrees with that industry there are real people involved who suffer when commodities are down and we, as their representatives, cannot let that suffering go unanswered. On November 23, 2015, I had the honour of being elected by the constituents of Kam Lake to implement real change and I do not take that responsibility lightly. What the North needs is not the status quo but rather the transformative change that puts our economy on a new sustainable course for the future. I declare here, though, if the government does shy from that responsibility to ensure this change we, on this side of the House, will not. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I noted on my first day that I arrived here, I’ll have to get used to going last with a name like Vanthuyne. Mr. Speaker, I am joining my colleagues today in replying to the budget address. The Members on this side of the House who have spoken before me, have provided thoughtful insights on the processes we have collectively experienced since we took office. They have also spoken, more specifically, about their observations on the standing committee’s review of business plans and the budget deliberations now underway in the Legislative Assembly. I appreciate the views they have shared. I am also grateful for this opportunity to add my perspective on the work of the government and the role of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I believe we all share the view expressed yesterday by our colleague Mr. Beaulieu, who adamantly noted in his reply to the budget address, “government must change the way we do business!” I couldn’t agree more. With this goal in mind, the challenge is to determine how to deliver better government for NWT residents.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that there is much that is good about our government and government in general. I have a personal vested interest in government. I have spent seven years now as an elected official on two levels of government because I care about my community and I care about the North. I want to give back to the North because it has given so much to me. I want to do my part and bring about effective change, positive and productive change for our territory, in an effort to allow all Northerners the opportunity to have their dreams come true. I believe deeply in government. However, I am also deeply concerned about some of the problems we face today: an economic downturn, poverty and homelessness, escalating health costs, climate change, the list goes on. How do we address these problems? We can start by addressing them as a collective body, as one government. Mr. Speaker, many people believe that this government should run more like a business. As a small business owner you might think I’d be one of those believers. Yet, I acknowledge that government and business are, for a variety of reasons, fundamentally different institutions. In fact, I believe most people would not really want to see this government act like a business: making quick decisions, behind closed doors, with no need to consult. Wait a second. Just kidding! Just kidding, Mr. Speaker.
---Laughter
One of the fundamental differences between government and business is that business is driven by the profit motive: the best decisions are those which increase the bottom line. Government, on the other hand, is geared towards balancing the needs and rights of many people with varied interests, with the goal of creating a better society. While government cannot be run like a business, it can adapt the very best aspects of the business model by becoming more entrepreneurial. Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference between bureaucratic behaviour and entrepreneurial behaviour. Our government’s bureaucratic behaviour receives failing grades, treats citizens like clients, and is criticized for being slow and cumbersome, where no one is willing to take action unless it is covered by a policy. Entrepreneurial behaviour is innovative, creative, more effective and efficient, and does more with less. I believe most people would like to see our government be less bureaucratic. I also believe that with a change in attitude that fosters an entrepreneurial spirit, government can surely begin to shift its position on that scale. Naturally, we value our education, our health care, and the necessary infrastructure to deliver these programs. We don’t want higher taxes that lead to a higher cost-of-living in an already very expensive region, and we don’t want cuts that lead to layoffs, lost jobs and reductions to valued programs and services. The government has told our residents, our business community, our NGOs, and our employees that there are only two ways out of our fiscal predicament: we can raise taxes or we can cut spending. People are tired of this messaging and are ready for a new alternative, a third choice. Mr. Speaker, if I may be blunt, what needs to be cut is government waste. Unfortunately, waste within our government does not come in a convenient little garbage bag, ready to be tossed to the curb. It is marbled throughout our bureaucracies. It is embedded in the way we conduct our business. Waste is employees on idle, working at half-speed or barely working at all, and often at no fault of their own, but due to lacking orientation, training, direction, and leadership. It’s people working hard at tasks that simply aren’t worth doing, following policies that should have never been written, filling out documents, spreadsheets, and forms that should have never been developed. As all of us know, our fiscal system encourages departments to waste money. If managers don’t spend their entire budget by the end of the fiscal year, two things happen: they lose the money they have saved and they get less next year, hence the time-honoured government rush to spend all funds by the end of the fiscal year. Waste in government is staggering, but we cannot get at it by wading through budgets and cutting line items. We must turn our bureaucratic departments into entrepreneurial operations ready to identify and drop obsolete initiatives, willing to do more with less, eager to absorb new and innovative ideas, and encourage employees to be creative and resourceful. In other words, be entrepreneurial, use resources in new ways to maximize productivity and effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear, the great folks who work in our government are not the problem, it’s the bureaucratic systems they work in that are the problem. In no way am I criticizing any of our employees; in fact, I am trying to give them hope. We have roughly 4,500 employees in the GNWT and many others throughout other orders of government. That’s a tremendous proportion of our northern workforce, and they are talented, responsible, dedicated people trapped in archaic systems that frustrate them, limit their creativity, and zap their energy. As I noted above, I believe the systems need to be changed so we can liberate the enormous creative energy these great individuals have and bring new life to public service.
Mr. Speaker, the lessons are there, this is not new. Many governments are faced with the same challenges of growing demands for more programs, services and infrastructure, while having limited revenues. Many of these governments have been in much more dire circumstances than ours and they have found ways to look within and get lean. Like them, we have to be creative. We can’t keep looking at our problems the same old way, blind to the solutions that lie right in front of us. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear again, it’s not about how much government we have, it’s about what kind of government we have. Too many of our past Assemblies have taken the two-option model as a given, and that was tax increases or no tax increase; more cuts or no cuts. Our fundamental problem is not too much or too little government. Lord knows many Assemblies have debated that issue endlessly and it has not solved our challenges. The fundamental problem is that we have the wrong kind of government. I know there are many bureaucratic systems that are still working well in different parts of the world. That’s fine if the situation is stable, the tasks are straightforward and simple, and if everyone wants the same outcomes. Here in the North we live in a time of dramatic change, whether it’s the effects of climate change, our diverse population, balance between traditional and knowledge-based economies, land claims, social challenges, and the ever-advancing wants and needs of Northerners. In this environment, our bureaucratic systems are failing us. Northerners want to see our government be more flexible and adaptable. As we all learned and observed on the campaign trail, residents are demanding higher quality programs and services and insisting that we squeeze more bang out of every buck. What does all this mean? It means our government must become responsive to our people and offer more options and choices, getting off of standardized services. It means communicating with persuasion and incentives rather than commands. It means giving our employees meaning, control, even ownership. It means no more prescribing policy after policy that takes away their ability to use good judgment. Most importantly, it means empowering our citizens and communities rather than simply serving them, treating them like clients. The intention is not to criticize government, we know that goes on enough already; in fact, the hope is to renew it. My sense in the election and more recently among new Members especially, is that there is a need for fundamental change. We’ve heard it in this room. We don’t want to belabour another strategy, another plan, another survey, more policies, more regulation and acts; we want to be part of a government that transforms itself from entangled bureaucracies into an innovative, flexible and responsive government.
It is on our shoulders as Members, and perhaps more importantly as Ministers, to lead this change. The leadership of a government or a company can tell you a lot about how it is run and the way it does its business. If we want these changes, we must lead the way, enabling and inspiring our managers and employees to do the best work of their lives. All should feel the strength of the team and the support of the leaders in making change happen. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we don’t need more, we don’t need less, we need better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS Section 16.2 of the Human Rights Act provides that the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission is composed of such members, between three and five in number, as may be appointed by the Commissioner on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly;
AND WHEREAS there will be three vacancies on the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission as of June 30, 2016;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha that the Legislative Assembly recommend the reappointment of the following individuals to the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission:
Ms. Marion Berls of the Town of Fort Smith, for a term of four years; and
Mr. Charles Dent of the City of Yellowknife, for a term of four years;
AND FURTHER that the Speaker be authorized to communicate the effective date of these appointments to the Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Motion’s in order. To the motion.
Question.
