Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS all Members of this House are interested in the ongoing pursuit of efficiencies in government as stated in the priorities of the 16th Legislative Assembly;
AND WHEREAS many kinds of efficiencies are best determined by program staff and other employees and should not be imposed on organizations;
AND WHEREAS there are currently some examples of boards which have a long history of efficient, effective, democratic, and fiscally responsible performance that do not need reform;
AND WHEREAS the Premier established a Refocusing Government Strategic Initiative Committee, which was followed by Minister Miltenberger launching the Board Reform Initiative with a predetermined end point on seven regional services boards;
AND WHEREAS the Cabinet has not considered other options for board reform nor adequately consulted with education, health, and housing stakeholders, First Nations, aboriginal governments, and other community leaders;
AND WHEREAS the Cabinet has not undertaken any detailed analysis of the implications of the proposed board reform;
AND WHEREAS all Members know there will be numerous legislative amendments and legal challenges, significant costs, important implications for employees, complex negotiations to harmonize arrangements within self-government agreements, and the loss of principles which are fundamental to existing boards;
AND WHEREAS Northerners and current board members are very concerned about the proposed direction taken by Minister Miltenberger and the Cabinet;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that the Cabinet set aside its decisions and assumptions about board reform;
AND FURTHER, that the Cabinet immediately initiate a process without a predetermined end point with full public input to find efficiencies that improve the effectiveness of government processes and board structures, and that the benefits and disadvantages that may be associated with changes to board structures be discussed with Northerners, GNWT employees and managers, First Nations, aboriginal governments, and other community leaders, and Members of this House with the intent of openly and constructively working towards a viable solution satisfactory to all Northern residents.
---Applause
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. I’m going to remind the visitors in the gallery once more of the rules of visitors in the gallery is to hold their applause. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I bring this motion forward today as the chair of the Priorities and Planning committee. This motion as put together by all Members of the P and P committee and I merely bring it forward as their chair. To that end I will conclude the debate on this motion, but I would defer to my colleagues to begin to speak to the motion and I will speak at the end.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I obviously stand here today in full support of the motion that is before us for a variety of reasons, many of which I have outlined in this House since we have been back to work here. I’ll just go over a few more of them, if I could.
I’ve been in politics, in elected office, for over a decade now and five years here in this House in my role as MLA for Kam Lake. Decisions have been made here in this consensus style of government. We call it a consensus government, but the decisions seem to be made by Cabinet. When I talk about Cabinet I think it’s a couple of Cabinet Ministers that make decisions. The rest of Cabinet seem to follow along.
If you ask me what is wrong with consensus government and why we’ve gone down the path with proposed changes to supp health and now board reform, the reason is quite simple: Cabinet does not have free votes; they do not have a voice of their own. Each Cabinet Minister has to be muzzled by those that are pushing their own agenda. I think that in itself is something this Legislature really needs to come to terms with. If we want to have true consensus government here in the Northwest Territories we need to address that. We need to open up the barriers that exist on that side of the House. We need to allow free votes. We need to have each Minister over there able to speak their mind and able not to be fearful of retribution from any other Cabinet Minister or Members on this side of the House. We have to have that open communication and votes. I think that’s paramount. To me that is the big part of the problem that has been taking place here over the last 16 months or so.
The issues on board reform...I’ve talked about the diversity of regions and I don’t support the one-size-fits-all approach that the government seems intent on delivering. I think if the government wasn’t so lazy they could get out and do the work; they could tailor make a solution for each region by working with the MLAs, by working with the organizations in the various regions, and come up with a solution. Yes, there are efficiencies out there. But by just taking this heavy-handed approach on board reform and suggesting that the Tlicho model is a model that’s going to fit everywhere, it’s not going to work that way. It certainly won’t work here in Yellowknife. I would fight for the institutions that are here in Yellowknife to the end. If Cabinet wants to pursue board reform, they’re going to have a fight on their hands. That can be for sure.
I also appreciated my colleague Mr. Krutko talking about impending self-government and the fact that this may have some impact in that area as well. I believe the government has some work to do there, and Mr. Krutko talked about a legal review of that and I agree with him. I think the government should be looking at that.
I also believe that the consultation that’s taken place on this is so suspect and full of holes it’s laughable. Really it is laughable. How the government could come out with a list of nine questions, most of them presumptive, send them out to some organizations and call that consultation, that’s not consultation. It’s telling people what you’re going to do; not listening to them and not taking their advice on what they believe should happen. I think the government, like I said in my Member’s statement, has to take a lesson in consultation and what it means to really engage the public in a meaningful way. Not just the public, but the Members on this side of the House. We’ve been down that road a couple weeks ago with the motion that was before the House. We don’t want to have to go there again. Believe me, we don’t want to have to go there. I hope the government got the point and the message a couple weeks ago. This board reform is much the same as the supp health benefits proposed changes. No research. No analysis. You just threw it out there and people have enough things to worry about in their day-to-day lives than to be concerned about what the government’s going to try to do to them next. I think it’s an affront to the institutions that are out there. I don’t believe the government has met with the organizations, the DEAs, the school boards. I don’t think they’ve met with them in a consultative way. I think it’s been intimidation, fear, and that’s not the way for a government to operate.
I certainly will be supporting the motion that’s before us today. When Ministers get a chance, and I hope they do, I hope they get a chance to stand up here today in front of all the people who have gathered here in this House, and people who are watching on TV, and say whether or not they support Cabinet’s direction to move ahead with board reform to go from 70 to seven boards. I spoke of it earlier. I was glad to see the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Housing stand up in this House...
Finally.
Finally...and say something about board reform. Like I said earlier to the Minister of Education, if they’re not going to protect the institutions that are out there, the parents, the families, the children, the sick, the infirm, somebody has to do it. If they’re not going to do it, who is? The only Minister earlier today that made a Minister’s statement that said they supported the Board Reform Initiative was Minister McLeod, the Minister of the Housing Corporation. I didn’t hear the Minister of Health and Social Services say she supported it. I didn’t hear the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment say he supported it. When they do get a chance, please, folks, stand up and say whether or not you support board reform as proposed by this current Cabinet.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It takes a long time to get things to work. It takes a long time to get people to feel comfortable with their local organizations and agencies. In the Beaufort-Delta we are no different from anyone else.
We have local housing organizations that work pretty well. Yes, sometimes there are issues and challenges where sometimes things could work better.
We have to work with regional health and social services boards, which includes a person from each community. Yes, and we have hard times staying in the budget. Most health authorities do. Yes, they have difficult times staffing its positions. What health organization has an easy time staffing?
We have a divisional education board and our education results are improving as results improve across the NWT.
How does a new or larger board manage a deficit better than the existing board? How come the new board would have more success at staffing its positions than the existing board? Why would the people become more effective because they work for a new or larger board?
Most people in the Beaufort-Delta know that things don’t get better simply because some changes are made at the top. Things don’t get better because people change offices. Things don’t get better simply because someone gets a new computer. Yet all those changes cost a lot of money. Adding new employees to the public service, getting them in the GNWT computer services such as PeopleSoft, financial management systems, co-locating of office buildings. People don’t want to see money spent on this. People want the money spent on front-line services, better programs and schools, more local health services and more for seniors’ homes.
When the government keeps pushing a bad idea, the government starts to get a bad name. Many people think the Board Reform Initiatives are a bad idea. Many people are telling me that the government is starting to get a bad name. People are starting to give up and look elsewhere to put their energy and ideas. We need those people to work in their local organizations, to give those organizations their energy and ideas. When the government starts to get a bad name it reflects poorly on all Members, not just Cabinet Ministers.
Let’s stop Board Reform Initiatives. Let’s start working on finding ways to improve our services at the front line. I want to give government a good name in Nunakput communities and I will be supporting the motion.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is such a significant shift in government institutional change that it will have a major effect on the Government of the Northwest Territories’ ability to deliver programs and services, but more importantly to integrate those services into seven boards.
As I stated earlier, we have some 33 communities in the Northwest Territories. We have different institutions by way of housing authorities and DEAs. We also have regional bodies by way of divisional boards and regional health boards. I think as a government we realize that everyone has a significant role to play. I think we have to treat each one independently of the whole.
I think there are pros and cons to how we’re going to get there. Regardless if we have workshops, town hall meetings, regional conferences, we have to take the time and do it right. There are pros to doing everything, but there are cons as well. Making sure you get the checks and balances to ensure that we don’t find ourselves with court challenges and avoiding the legal ramifications of collective agreements and what the implications are going to be on the residents of the Northwest Territories on the basic programs and services they depend on.
Being here since the 13th Assembly, going on 12 years, we had some grand ideas back then too in regard to consolidation of three departments into one. Today, going back 12 years, those three bodies are now back in place, independent of each other, because we made a mistake. I think we should learn from our mistakes and not continue to do them over and over.
At the bottom, at the end of it all, I think we have to realize that everything to run a government, to run programs and services, costs money. If the goal at the end of the day is to improve programs and services for the Territory as a whole with regard to looking at those areas where cost savings can be met, I think every resident in the Northwest Territories will follow behind us. But if it ain’t going to do that, no one can be convinced otherwise.
With that, I will be supporting this motion and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the people of the Northwest Territories to improve the quality of programs and services in the Northwest Territories. I move forward, but move forward cautiously in regard to a major decision we’re all going to have make and live with for the rest of our days.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about this being the wrong approach. I’m reminded by Steven Cubby when he talks about begin with the end in mind. I questioned myself as to what the Minister decided at the very start as to where we’re going on this initiative. Did he decide that he’s going to eliminate all these boards? Or did he decide that he was going to strive for efficiencies? I would say he certainly didn’t get the second one right. I think he strived to eliminate boards and I think that is the wrong process.
He has said on record that there will be no efficiencies. So where will we get better services and better quality by rolling up the boards? I can’t see a single one.
I see no shame or loss of respect if this Minister and this Cabinet pulls this off the table today. I see that they speak clearly and hear clearly what the people really want by saying no, we were wrong, we’ll not proceed by doing this.
Clearly this will be a shotgun marriage. Who are we kidding? If you put housing, education, and health together it’s going to lead to nothing but fighting between these organizations over resources. Who is going to stare the housing representatives down and say sorry, you can’t have more money for cancer treatment because we want more gym time. They’ll say, well, do you not care about people? Those are the type of fundamental questions I don’t want this new board to struggle with. Should we worry about health or should we worry about education? What about those people who need housing?
This will bring significant principle errors to the way we should be treating our people. We should be treating them with respect and we should be giving them the leadership they want. They want boards representing them. They want duly elected boards.
What’s on the table today I think ignores everything that people have fought for. They’ve fought for grassroots leadership within their community on the issues they care about. This is one example of how to take it away.
Mixing mandates will never solve anything. We’ve clearly identified that there will be no cost savings. This will not identify efficiencies in any way. If the Minister wanted to deal with this issue up front he could have quite simply had a coffee with many of these boards and said, look, we want to work better together. How can we do this together? In my questions today all I heard was we’ve talked about this initiative for 10 years. I’ve not heard where in the last year the Minister’s gone over to one of the education board chairs, maybe a health board chair, and said, look, how do we work better together? Is it about money? If it is, then just say that. If it’s about process, just say that.
I haven’t heard one iota today or in the last six months about how we can serve the people better on this initiative. I’ve heard about how we can complicate this, about how we can frustrate people, about how we can annoy the heck out of them, and certainly we‘ve done that.
I don’t support this initiative that’s going forward. I think it would be a mistake. If we want to worry about just the principle of efficiencies, then I think we can sit down together and talk about working together closer in a smarter way rather than rolling them all up and calling them a super board. At the end of the day all you’re going to do is continue frustration and anguish, and that’s what we’re going to end up with and that’s not where I want to be.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, I know there are people coming and going all the time and I know that some of you are very interested in the issues being discussed here and are very passionate about this issue, but I would remind you again to respect the rules of the gallery and refrain from applauding. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned earlier today I have become quite concerned that the initial common agreement in this House that we should look at board and agency reform has changed from support to this side of the House being completely left behind. There is a number of reasons for this, but one is, of course, again the communications issue and the engendering of unnecessary angst and frustration with our public for the lack of communication and for the lack of meaningful information on which to base a public consultation. The word that is out there so far completely fails to recognize regional differences and completely fails to recognize where there has been successful operations for decades. The democratic issue is something I once again raised in question period and needs to be addressed.
I think, probably, Mr. Speaker, the best way that I could approach what we need here is to talk about a different process. That is what I would like to see and what I hope to achieve with this motion. I would like to see the Minister produce an analysis of the seven regions. What are the characteristics of those regions? What are the commonalities and what are the unique differences? Perhaps a first attempt even at identifying the opportunities within those regions, recognizing their differences. I would like to see him characterize the population, the cultural resources, the professional resources in those regions and bring that out in a format that the public can read and respond to. In identifying opportunities that are actually appropriate for regions, I would like to see the Minister actually discuss options rather than one-size-fits-all and rather than just one option for the region. Let’s give people something to really respond to meaningfully.
I would like to see this sort of report then vetted with the public, because obviously they have a lot of resources to bring to this issue, and see that incorporated into the analysis and then once again a further crystallization of the opportunities that we can detect. I would like to have departments detail their requirements and debate and refine that internally before once again taking it to the public for review, giving the public meaningful information. I would like to see some costing analysis of some of the opportunities that are identified and again internally reviewed and debated and with input from this side of the House, and again making this information available for public review and input.
Finally, I would like to see this information seek out cross-regional commonalities. Take what this process would produce, seek where there are commonalities, and could be dealt with on a larger scale, and then make proposals available; proposals that acknowledge and respond to actual regional characteristics and opportunities, real opportunities.
I have mentioned public review a number of times here and we have already heard lots of comments on that, Mr. Speaker, but public consultation needs to be comprehensive, well thought out, well scheduled and with a sincere attempt to seek and facilitate meaningful, informed and thoughtful input from Northerners, community leaders, members of boards and agencies, aboriginal governments and organizations, GNWT employees and managers, and Members of this House. This is an opportunity once again for this government to show they are hearing the voice of the people to make that decision, and to actually come out, in the longer terms, with a better product. Again, I stress that we started in common agreement, but somehow this government has left this side of the House, and certainly the public, far behind and we need to go back and correct that situation so that we can get really good input and come up with a good product. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member from Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion as well. In regard to addressing the motion, it is very difficult to know where to start. Like the supplementary health benefits proposal, this particular board reform proposal is wrong in so many places that I really don’t know where I should start to speak against it, so I will just start and carry on.
I have said before, and I think I said earlier today, that some board reform is necessary. I believe that we have too many boards and that there ought to be some consolidation of boards and we ought to try and find some efficiencies amongst the particular board system that we have. But I never imagined that any board reform would be like this, and I feel that the Minister and the Cabinet are naive to think that this is going to work.
I would like to acknowledge the work that was done by previous Assemblies and from previous studies, apparently there is a lot of work out there. The Minister of refocusing government didn’t actually give us an opportunity to see some of that work. We were given one model to look at and to try to respond to, and it is unfortunate that we didn’t get several different models to look at and to try and analyze. Several people have mentioned, what are we trying to fix? I haven’t yet heard an answer to that question and I pose it again to the Minister, and I would love to hear an answer.
This particular model, in my view, is not going to work in all areas of the Territories. We are very diverse in general. In some areas we are quite homogeneous and in other areas we are not homogeneous at all. We are quite diverse, even within various regions. The Tlicho model works quite well there, but even that model has its difficulties. It is my understanding that the health and the education aspects of that particular service board, even though they are under one same board, have two separate year end dates for their financials. So it is not quite as easy as has been proposed, never mind that in some areas of our lovely Territory, we have perhaps two different, very opposing views of how either self-government should go or how certain things ought to be done. We are definitely not homogeneous everywhere.
It has been mentioned before and I want to mention it again, currently, particularly education boards have elected board members. I feel very strongly, as a former education board member, that if all board members on these boards are appointed, it could almost be seen as an infringement of rights, of rights of the individual, rights of the people within the region who are presumably represented by this huge board and the rights, basically, of the general public. It could even be extended down to the rights of children that we are trying to educate or look after their health or house. I feel that if we are going to go with appointed board members that it is going to remove some of the responsibility from the local people, who currently feel passionate, in particular about education, because we have a lot of elected board members for education. I think it removes a lot of opportunity for local input. Appointed members don’t have the same feeling of attachment to a board as those who are elected. Some do, but not all.
The last thing that probably I think is going to make it most difficult to accept appointed members is that I think they are going to end up turning into bureaucrats. We have an awful lot of good bureaucrats in our government and I don’t want to speak badly of anyone in particular, but bureaucrats have a far different outlook than elected board members. I think that we are going to see these boards become boards of bureaucrats. They are going to think like bureaucrats and we won’t get that representation from the ground up that we need. I think that, as a result, we are going to get an impact on the various health and housing issues that arise, because bureaucrats certainly look at things differently than, say, a parent does. So if we have an education issue and you look at it from a bureaucratic point of view versus from a parental point of view, they are very, very different. So I think what is going to happen is we are going to get an impact on what actually happens in our schools, in our health centres and in our housing offices and that is not a good thing.
By extension, that sort of impact in the schools and health centres is going to trickle down on to the clients of those; that is our kids, our patients, that is the people we are putting into our houses. So I am really concerned that we have to be extremely careful on how the boards are made up.
It has been mentioned -- I can’t avoid mentioning -- that the combining of these three disciplines is going to be fraught with difficulties. There are legal issues. Education boards in Yellowknife, for instance, own property. Education boards in Yellowknife have the ability to tax. What is going to happen in that situation? It is going to take an awfully long time to work through some of those. The legislative issues have been mentioned. Those are going to take a long time, as well, and they are also going to be difficult to try and fix. There are staffing issues. We have different unions, even within the silo of education. Within those unions we have different contracts. We have different pensions. And presumably all these people who work for all these boards, these three disciplines, are going to be brought into the public service and all their contracts and all the elements of their contracts are going to be made homogenous. They’re all going to be the same. Pretty big issue. There’s going to be a huge cost associated with that. Staff working conditions differ. So those are probably going to change somewhat as well.
Most important for me is the focus is different. An education board has a different focus than a health board; a health board has a different focus from a housing office or local housing authority. To find board members who are going to be able to take each of those focuses and be true to that focus when they’re discussing a particular issue I think is going to be extremely difficult.
As well, we’re going to find within these large boards that there’s a grand temptation to move money from one section of the board to another. Particularly health is known as an entity that will just about drain anybody’s pocketbook. It’s been mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues, but I feel really strongly that there’s going to be a huge pressure on these board members to transfer money from one segment of their board to another. And they’ll be doing that presumably without any local input.
I mentioned in my Member’s statement, I asked where the analysis, the research, the background information is. It may be there, but there’s been no opportunity for certainly me as a Member and I think also members of the public to look at that research and for me to make my own decisions that, yes, this is the best model to go forward with. We have no proof that this is the best model. The background info that we were given basically is to me an op-ed piece. It’s somebody’s opinion. They’ve looked at a number of things and said, hmm, yes, here, and hmm, no, not there; yeah, okay, we’ll go with number two. I don’t call that research and analysis. I’m sorry.
There are huge costs associated with this amalgamation and board reform. Pay and benefits for staff, computers and IT systems -- that’s been mentioned -- office renovations and relocation, and there’s a cost of transition from the current system to a new system. I don’t know that that’s been considered, but that’s going to be huge. As has been mentioned, there’s a possible loss of jobs.
I have a particular concern about the North Slave regional board, which is going to be the area of Yellowknife and a little bit beyond. I have said before and I will say again, I think that a North Slave regional board is going to be a humongous entity. It’s going to be the size of a government department and it’s probably going to be run by a board of seven to 10 people, I’m guessing. That’s an awesome responsibility on people who are appointed. They’re not representing anybody in particular because they’re not elected. And they’re also not going to be there from day to day. I have a lot of concerns about how these board members are going to be able to deal with these three disciplines. What qualifications are we going to require of these board members? Are we going to take anybody off the street? Will they be able to do the job? Not that they...They probably will have the skills, but will they have the time and energy to deal with the problems that are going to arise?
I have seen briefly the presumed layout of the bureaucracy for this new board system. We’re going to have a super board, it’s been called, of chairs of the regional boards and we’re going to create a new Minister. A Minister of Boards, I think is what it’s going to be. So we’re going to have another Minister who is responsible for the regional boards. But we’re also going to have education Ministers and health Ministers and housing Ministers. I’m having a really difficult time figuring out how these four Ministers are going to deal with these three disciplines.
So to conclude, I’m very disappointed in how this particular proposed model has been brought forward. The consultation that has occurred, in my mind, is not consultation. Minister Miltenberger mentioned that this proposal was brought to Members at standing committee and, yes, it was. Most Members expressed grave concerns with the model as it was presented to us. We suggested what about looking at this particular way of doing it? What about looking at that particular way of doing it? Away they went and the next thing we heard from Cabinet was the same thing we heard the first time with no changes. So three times now I think we’ve probably been consulted. Well, twice we’ve been consulted, but three times we’ve heard the same message. I hardly call that consultation. The fact that we were presented with no options is a real concern for me. Again, we should have had a list of options that Members could consider and that the general public could consider, or we should have been presented with a blank page and said, here, fill it up for me, tell me what you think will work. We’ve had neither of those. Again, my disappointment is obviously showing.
In conclusion, I don’t have much to add except to say that I am certainly not in support of this board reform proposal and I will be supporting the motion.
---Applause
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this motion. To start I’d like to make some general comments on the Ministers’ statements made earlier today as I believe they are relevant to the motion at hand.
With respect to the statements made by the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, it was a nice statement. It didn’t really say anything. While listening I didn’t hear anything that would suggest the board reform is necessary or that education should be rolled into health and housing.
With respect to the Minister of Health and Social Services’ statement, it did identify some reasons for reform; however, it also offered a better solution, in my mind. The Minister talked about the joint leadership committee. Personally I believe that one health and social services authority or board is a better direction for the provision of health and social services in the Northwest Territories than combining them with education and housing.
With respect to the comments of the NWT Housing Corporation Minister, we already know that rolling public housing subsidy into ECE was, and is, a disaster. The local housing organizations are experiencing major deficits which they didn’t have before the change. Reinforcing an already bad decision by putting housing in with a super board is super bad.
Finally, with respect to the Premier’s statements, he referred a lot to the need for change. It is my opinion that change for the sake of change is insane.
There’s been a lot of talk, debate and concern raised about this government’s direction on board reform. According to the unedited Hansard of February 16th, Minister Miltenberger said, “When we got together at the start of the 16th Legislative Assembly a key message for Members was that we need to get on with board reform.” I remember it differently. I remember a significant amount of discussion on finding efficiencies within the government and our board structures. I remember talking about doing what’s right for the NWT and working in the best interests of our residents. I remember discussions on how to ensure that we are getting maximum benefit from every dollar that we spend. I remember our strategic plan and its goals of having an effective and efficient government. I don’t remember anybody talking about or suggesting that we gut the existing boards and combine them in super boards where conflicting mandates will have to struggle against each other on a daily basis. I know I would have remembered that conversation.
To me there are some things that we need to improve upon within the GNWT. Efficiencies must be found. With proper research, analysis, stakeholder engagement and modelling of alternatives this may even result in the reform of some boards. However, in the absence of any research stakeholder engagement or analysis, it’s way too early to commit to any plan. It’s time to take a step back and do the research and analysis. Let the findings of public consultation lead us into a direction that is in the best interest of the residents of the Northwest Territories.
When Minister Miltenberger first brought forward his plan for board reform and presented it to Priorities and Planning, the committee, of all of us Regular Members, I was immediately concerned and definitely not convinced that it was a good idea or in the best interest of Northerners. I’ve been opposing the direction since that time and will continue to do so. I was very concerned that amalgamating the different mandates under one might cause us all to suffer. Health and Social Services is a beast and could easily become the focus of any board responsible for different mandates. This could easily result in the loss of focus or direction in the other areas of education and housing.
Another major concern was that the Refocusing Government committee had decided to apply one model -- the Tlicho model -- in all regions, reducing the number of boards from 70 to seven. The Tlicho model appears to work, although it’s still going through some growing pains in the Tlicho region, because it was developed in partnership with the Tlicho Government based on how they wanted services provided in their region. It was developed with their input.
The important thing to remember here is that not every region is the same. All are unique and their differences and desires must be included in any changes that are put forward. Where the Tlicho model works in one area it does not mean it will work in all other areas. Yellowknife is a prime example. We have a regional health authority, two school boards with different mandates, and a number of housing boards -- Yellowknife and North Slave -- being thrown together. Combining these vastly different organizations together will hurt each and every one of them as they compete for combined resources. If the board members are more passionate about health care, then health care will take priority over education and housing will suffer. If the board members are more passionate about education, then health and housing will suffer. Simply, this can’t work in Yellowknife or, in my opinion, the majority of the regions throughout the Northwest Territories. Blind devotion to a set model undermines the entire review process and ensures that the wrong model will be implemented. Once again it appears as though Cabinet has made the decision in the absence of sound evidence and research and are moving forward with what they believe is right, regardless of evidence and public input.
As indicated earlier, I believe that the reason the Tlicho model works in the Tlicho is because the Tlicho Government had an opportunity to participate in its design. They are the architects of their own model based on their own needs. As the individual aboriginal groups move forward with their own self-government models they may find that the Tlicho model works for them. However, given the uniqueness of every region, it’s also fair to assume that they will desire a completely different and/or unique model. They will want to be the architects of their own model based on their own needs, just like the Tlicho. I believe it’s ignorant for this government to presuppose that we know what’s best, to believe that we know what will work for the different self-governments. If we move forward with this model today we may have to completely tear it apart region by region once self-government agreements are reached and implemented. I believe that we would be better off engaging these aboriginal groups now and work towards the future. Do it once and do it right. Don’t assume you know what’s best and have government pay for going through a duplicate process later on.
In my opinion the direction of the Refocusing Government committee and Cabinet are proposing, with respect to board reform, is bad. Not just because of the serious lack of information, but due to timing. As a government we have far more important issues to be dealing with; things like devolution, resource revenue sharing, population growth -- or as we’re experiencing, the lack thereof -- and our economy. The NWT is not immune to the global economic meltdown. We’re feeling it more and more every day. Yesterday approximately 33 employees of Arctic Sunwest -- and I might be a little off on those numbers -- were laid off. In addition to those individuals, the 40 that were laid off from Tiffany’s at their diamond polishing plant and the five more that were recently laid off from Arslanian’s diamond plant, Yellowknife has seen a total of 78 people become unemployed in just three businesses in less than two months. The numbers of unemployed are increasing elsewhere as well. For instance, there has been a significant reduction in exploration in the Beaufort-Delta this winter resulting in more unemployed in that region as well. Is now really the time for us to be focusing on board reform? Are there not more pressing issues that are on our plate? Board amalgamation will result in elimination of positions. There’s no way to deny that. People will be laid off as a result of board reform. Do we really need to be increasing the number of unemployed people in the Northwest Territories? Now? Given the economic realities?
There are opportunities to help stabilize our local economies and promote exploration and resource extraction. This should be our priority. So let’s revisit our priorities and work to get Northerners working. Let’s work to increase opportunities for employment in the NWT for current and new Northerners. Let’s work to increase our population, which will ensure that our federal transfer payments go up, not down. Let’s stop wasting time and chasing away people who we want to stay in the Northwest Territories. Let’s be practical and do what’s needed. Stop wasting time on things such as board reform that will do more damage to the Northwest Territories than it will do good.
Cabinet must discontinue board reform. Waiting until April when the Refocusing Government returns with the research and analysis based on their preferred model is not acceptable. We need to put our energies where they are required. Our people’s employment and maintaining or increasing our population is far more important and timely. Threatening people with amalgamating boards is destructive and counterproductive. As we put our energies where they should be, we should also continue to pursue efficiencies within the system. To do this government must conduct meaningful research with no preconceived notions and actively engage stakeholders and residents of the NWT to identify potential areas for improving efficiency of government and boards and agencies. A plan that works for each region based on what is best for them, the government, and all of the residents of the Northwest Territories must be developed. In some cases I expect things to stay as they are. In others there is room for improvement.
A number of Fridays ago we all talked about working together and how important it is for consensus government. Today a majority has spoken very clearly on behalf of all residents of the Northwest Territories. I encourage Cabinet to look at our gallery, our very full gallery, and in our packed Great Hall and on the streets. People are speaking clearly. They want board reform to stop. It’s now time for Cabinet to acknowledge what we are saying and what they are hearing on the streets. It’s time for them to stop board reform.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would add my comments to the motion here. In our pursuit of looking for efficiencies in the Government of the Northwest Territories as stated in the 16th Assembly, certainly in terms of efficiencies, it has to do with the interpretation as efficiencies. When you look at the efficiencies of the government, certainly we all strive to see where we can do better.
In terms of the interpretation of efficiencies with this government, if you look at, for example, the McDonald’s restaurant. They’re pretty efficient in terms of operating their organization and how they serve the customers. I don’t think in terms of efficiencies that that is the kind of services and programs that we want for our people in the Northwest Territories in terms of how to cut on money and how to cut on time and just to get the services across as quickly as possible.
We are having a hard time right now in our region in terms of programs and services. Now they’re suggesting that maybe we should go into a super board because of the efficiencies. The Minister has a good argument in terms of the economics and the dollars that are being spent on all the boards in the Northwest Territories. But in terms of the services to the boards and the agencies, I think sometimes people have to be put first before paper and profit. People have to be served in terms of what this government is here for, in terms of their quality of life in our small communities.
Our front-line workers have told me in the Sahtu where they can cut efficiencies. But it seems that our front-line workers are not being heard at a higher level at times. Our front-line workers know the difficulties when they operate in very severe conditions, and environment. They don’t have some of the supplies or materials for them and how they get these into our communities. The front-line workers are going to suffer dearly if we continue working into a Board Reform Initiative.
I think more support, more trust and more resources should be given to our front-line workers. We’ve got to have belief in our workers on how they can look at things. A case in point: When I went back into the Sahtu, many people stopped me on the road and said how things should be looked at in our communities. There are policies today and regulations today that prevent some efficiencies in our communities. So I think that’s what we need to look at in terms of any type of reform. What existing policies and regulations stop us from being a service to our people in our communities?
As I said before in my Member’s statement, the communities in my region have not been convinced enough to say even a maybe on this board reform. I’ve received phone calls, I’ve received letters, and I received a flat out no, do not proceed with the board reform. They are saying let’s look at what we have now and how we can improve it. They know some of the issues that are going to take a long time; issues that have been brought up over the years in terms of programs and services in our communities. We are saying in the process of this board reform, would it make a difference in our communities? Will Colville Lake get a nurse and mental health worker, a social worker, an RCMP officer? Will they have that if we are to go with board reform? Can we get some signal from this government saying, yes, Colville Lake will no longer have to be serviced by laypeople who have minimum training in terms of health care in Colville Lake? Can we say that to the people in Colville Lake that they will get a social worker, get home care services for the elders if we are to go with the board reform? We are fighting desperately for these basic services in my region up in the Northwest Territories in the Sahtu.
Mr. Speaker, we fight passionately, as I read in the newspapers, for the Yellowknife Catholic School Board to have a right for their own education in their own system. We have fought very hard in the Sahtu to have that, our own education system. We support our groups and agencies to also have that same right and accord us to have that same right. With the board reform, you will take this right away that we fought for. We are negotiating self-government agreements. The territorial government is at the table also with our self-government negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in our people. I have faith in my people when they say no to board reform. I have faith because I know things could be better and could be done differently if this government had come to my community and sat down with my elders and my people and said we want to do something like this, what do you think. What I heard from my region is that representatives came to my region and said this is what we are going to do. Tell me how you are going to fix it. I have an issue with that, because that type of a relationship and attitude put a lot of fear into my board members and they were angry, just as I see members from the gallery here who are concerned and angry. How would you want to go into somebody’s house and say, this is how I want you to run your house. I don’t think it is efficient or proper enough. I am going to be the boss of you in your house when you agree with me. How dare they come into the Sahtu house and tell us they should be respectful in terms of that nation building relationship with our people and sit down with us and say we know there are issues here. They don’t need to tell us. We know there are issues here, but when is the government going to come and look at the community level and say what can we work on them in a respectful way.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this morning I, too, was thinking about this issue here. The question came to me. What is government here for? Why are we around this room representing our people in a government institution? Isn’t the government here supposed to be for the people? Isn’t it we will put our representatives in our region? Isn’t this government created by the people to be of service to the people, to be led by the people? Isn’t government taking direction from the people? That is what I have been told about government from my people and from my elders.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to this motion here and ask Members here to think about our people and our communities. It is to have faith in people on the boards right now, education board, health board and the housing boards. Have people have faith in our people. They know a lot, and more than we think they do. They are very smart. They represent their people passionately and in their beliefs and values. Have faith in our people in the Sahtu. They may not quite see the way you see the world because my people are from the land. They are trappers, hunters and fishermen. But they also have a mixed nation of people in the Sahtu. They have to work together to survive up there. It is very difficult and challenging. It is all about building a relationship. So this is one issue that I can say that unifies the Sahtu region in terms of us coming together as one nation of people in my region. We need to really take this very seriously and have faith in what they are saying to us. We have to have faith in them, otherwise we won’t be here and they won’t be here. I think that is what government is all about.
Sometimes we lean too much on evidence which is okay, but I think that, above all, it is to have faith that things are going to work out okay for us. Like my elders say, always pray to the one who sits in the heavens. People call him God. People call him Creator. They always say that. If you are going to have a difficult road ahead, you always pray. So this is what this motion is, as I see it, Mr. Speaker.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, a question was asked to me this morning about the Roman Catholics. I said I don’t know; I’m not too sure. The reason I said that was because I have attended residential schools. I attended for a long time. In the schools, they have many stories. However, I was forced to go to the Roman Catholic Church and pray the Roman Catholic way. Throughout the years I learned one good thing about being in a residential school. That was to have faith. Faith I have always had. Work out to the best in your life. There is no right or wrong about that but that is what I learned. I learned from my people to have faith in them. I want to say, in closing, that I will be supporting this motion until I hear from my people otherwise on this board reform. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am in support of the motion. My reasons for supporting the motion and not supporting board reform as it stands are many; many of which I heard from other MLAs here today. One of my main reasons is that there are so many unknown factors because nobody really knows what the plan will come, how the plan will evolve.
No one I talked to likes the board reform. I’ve asked many people in my riding about the board reform and, honestly, not one person said, boy, that’s a good idea. You should go with it. I also feel that there is a tremendous lack of consultation, if any real consultation has occurred at all, with the organizations, some of the organizations associated with these three disciplines and also just with the governments of the communities and also the regional governments that support the communities at this time.
I also feel that the management of education at the community level, at all levels across the Territories, and the management of health and the management of housing are all very difficult jobs. They have vastly different mandates. I cannot fathom how we could find people that would be able to be efficient in managing all of the disciplines and how they could maintain focus and maintain the importance of all those disciplines when we have, as I indicated in my Member’s statement, health, which is very demand driven, and housing; also it is very demand driven. It may not be as demand driven as health because of the nature of both of those disciplines, yet the majority of education, aside from the income support portion of education, education is very, I’d say, proactive, thinking about the future, trying to figure out ways in the future and how to make the students feel good and have the students take as much education as possible with them throughout their life so that they become productive members of society. So housing and health, a couple of departments which are demand driven are, in a sense, very social departments, and well-educated people will have better health. That is a fact. Well-educated people will have less demands for social housing. One department is trying to be proactive. It is not because of the way that departments are, the people in it or anything, it is just the nature of the beast, I suppose. I feel that that focus will be lost with the amalgamation of these departments.
I also feel that this government has had amalgamation mishaps. I really do. Some they have undone to a great expense to the people of the Northwest Territories and some are just beginning to prove, but not without great expense and great frustration. We deal with some of the things that this government has done; the amalgamation of the Technical Services Centre. The objective was to create one department that would be efficient, supportive and more cost efficient as well as just being efficient at work. Yet I feel, although I don’t have the numbers myself, that was a tremendous cost and it is probably blown way beyond what the initial budgets were, the amalgamation of Human Resources and some of the things that were introduced into Human Resources. That has actually caused a tremendous amount of frustration amongst the public service. When you have high paid managers that have to sit there in front of the computer and figure out how to run a system to approve leave for their staff, Mr. Speaker...It was incredible. When HR was first being introduced and amalgamated, a lot of those things were wrong. It was frustrating. I was amazed that the government didn’t stop and say, whoa, I think this is a wrong idea. But that didn’t happen. I think things are improving now; again probably at a tremendous cost. But I don’t think we are doing this to save money anyways, so I really don’t know why.
I thought about it. Things are actually not too bad. I had an opportunity to go to St. Pat’s School with Minister Lafferty and meet some of the teachers, and some of the teachers from Lutselk’e and Fort Resolution were there. I know that there is a pride amongst the teachers, students and schools. I know for a fact that in this community of Yellowknife where I live, there is a pride. The kids that are in St. Pat’s are proud to be in St. Pat’s and the kids that are in Sir John Franklin are proud to be in Sir John Franklin. Those are tangibles that could potentially be removed. These are non-tangible items, but they are things that could be removed. Pride could be removed by just making everything the same, just putting everything together. There is nothing that stands out anymore. They are all going to be viewed as one. Sometimes you look at these things and you think about where these things evolved from. Mr. Speaker, whose idea was it? Sometimes you think, well, if you go back far enough, it is probably a southern consultant.
---Laughter
I thought that. Every time these southern consultants come in with great ideas -- maybe ideas that fit well when you are managing huge numbers of bureaucrats and huge populations that they are serving -- it doesn’t work well here. I don’t think there has ever really been a tendency for this government to look at more than consultants and the people that live here and know what will work. It is often the high-priced southern consultants that come up with these ideas that don’t really work, but no one ever admits that they don’t work so we just forge ahead.
The other thing I thought of was, as it is, is it too much work for the government? I can’t really see that being an issue because if they think managing 67 boards is cumbersome, try managing three disciplines in seven boards. I’m pretty sure that will be extremely cumbersome and frustrating and the loss of authority to the communities. That, I think, is one of my key issues with this whole thing. The people that want to assist their own kids to get educated, the people that have an interest at heart to make sure that their kids have the right stuff in their schools to be educated the way they want I think would be lost. I think that is going to be a management unit. I think that is what these boards will become, management units. How can they possibly pay specific, detailed attention to one area of housing, one area of health or an area of education? When we do things like this, we never look at things that are not tangible; things like pride. Teachers are proud to be teachers. Do they just want to be viewed as a bureaucrat that may deliver housing? Or maybe they are nurses. Who knows? Nurses are proud to be nurses too. Community development workers are proud to be community development workers. They don’t want to be all mashed together and managed together. They are people. They have special skills. They chose to be what they are. They shouldn’t be mixed in with other people that they didn’t choose to be managed together. It should be something that should be kept separate.
Most important, I think, is the students. I think it’s very important that we do what we can to try to keep things the same. None of the students are actually happy at all about this either. From what I heard anyway, the students are not happy. Those students are excited, especially here, especially in communities where there is more than one school. The students in Lutselk’e, the students in Res, they have pride and they are successful. They are becoming more successful and they have DEAs, local DEAs that watch out for these kids. Those boards will be gone under this model.
So for those reasons and all of the other reasons that I have heard around here today, I will support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much there, Mr. Speaker. I share my colleagues’ concerns and I, too, stand with them on this debate on the GNWT Board Reform Initiative. Effective and efficient is an expectation of our public and our people. The people are not convinced that this is what the Board Reform Initiative is about. There are still no clear and important reasons to make people understand why the changes should take place. I don’t think that people are afraid of change, Mr. Speaker, but they are afraid of not knowing; not knowing what these changes will bring.
Often in my experience with government, sometimes we’ve got good ideas out there and we work hard to find solutions to them, but sometimes those ideas fall apart when we choose to implement them. As other Members have spoken about recent experiences and the most recent one was the harmonization of income support. They had this great idea that they would create this one window for people that need income support, need housing assistance, we’ll put them in one central area and everybody goes there. But what happened there, Mr. Speaker, is it ended up being a detriment to the people. We created hardships and, in fact, in housing we created a whole group of people that are in arrears to our government and now they don’t have to answer those. Still, that was a good idea, a one-window approach, but implementing it was a huge fiasco and I still fundamentally oppose that. Just the same, that is the kind of feeling I am getting about the Board Reform Initiative.
At the best of times, government guidelines and policies are difficult to interpret and understand and now we are talking about creating a whole new way of administrating education, health and housing. In question period, we asked the Minister were there any other models or are there any other ways of presenting board reform and they really weren’t able to answer that. In fact, the rollout package only included one model, Mr. Speaker. At the minimum, it should have included this model or keep things the same. At least that’s an option, but the way it’s being presented, there are no options being given. I think that creates a lot of the concern, a lot of the pressures from the public saying wait, slow down, why are you trying to give us something that we know anything about.
In my Member’s statement, I spoke about apples and oranges, Mr. Speaker. That’s exactly what we are looking at. We want to take something that has its own unique way of doing things like in health and then we are taking education and we are actually trying to merge these two. They are fundamentally diametrically opposed. They are very, very different entities and now we want to throw in housing as well, Mr. Speaker.
The arguments that the Ministers use, they say they want to gain efficiencies, they want to join HR functions, they want to join administration functions and if they were to use those arguments, they could use those same arguments if they wanted to join, say, the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Power Corp Board, Mr. Speaker. Those two are just as fundamentally different as the organizations that the government is looking at joining as well. It really doesn’t make sense when you look at it this way.
Just yesterday, I was talking to a constituent that didn’t know as much as we do about the issues and I was trying to explain it to them. That person looked at me and said that doesn’t make sense and, she’s right, Mr. Speaker. It just doesn’t make sense.
---Laughter
So I think that the government has no doubt used many resources and staff dedicated to develop the plan as it is. But it will only be overshadowed by the huge resources that we dedicate to the implementation of this Board Reform Initiative. The public is, indeed, looking for leadership, Mr. Speaker, but there are other pressing, important issues in our Territory that demand our attention. There is the high cost of living, power rates, fuel costs, housing costs and, to add to the mix, an economic slowdown.
Our Territory is a year behind what’s happening in the United States and southern Canada. We are only going to be impacted at a later stage, probably at the same time the government would be implementing this. This plan is creating undue stress that our people do not need at this point, Mr. Speaker.
I will just conclude by saying that I believe that our current system is effective. I also believe that the proposed changes will not provided improved services to our people. I am not in favour of the proposed Board Reform Initiative, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of the motion. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard much today and in the days and weeks building up to this situation, whether it played out in the media or to the event here today. We’ve heard much today about the need to look again at the initiative. There’s been some very good comments made by folks around the table, but I need to set the record straight on a number of things. Number one, this is not a Minister Miltenberger initiative. This is an initiative that was originally looked at through the exercise of board reform that spilled over from previous governments and was supported by the 16th Assembly. Now, the work done to that moment to where we are has been undertaken under the lead hand of Minister Miltenberger and he’s taken that duty and he’s run with it and he’s put his energy into that.
Now, of course, as he’s stated recently and he continues to state, that if this was to proceed, we were working to the April date, not a decision for implementation, but a decision of what the next steps that will be, so we can sit down and put lots of the information Members have stated and have raised as an issue of -- the lack of information -- on the table.
With the motion that Members have put out here, Mr. Speaker, the need to look at this again and initiate a process without a predetermined end point with full public input and find efficiencies that improve the effectiveness of government processes and board structures. We do that in conjunction with our employees that deliver the program. We do that with the Members of this Assembly. We do that with aboriginal governments and First Nations. I would agree that we are going to take a different step, a different approach. We need to do that type of work and incorporate their input into this whole process. Obviously, the work that has been done previously by previous governments is not adequate to continue this process as the way it was highlighted here. I must say, though, that one of the Members -- the Member for Kam Lake -- spoke about, and quite a number of times, spoke in this House about past decisions, about past governments and how poor those decisions were. But when we reference past work by governments it’s sloughed off and no attention is paid to that. We have to take the work necessary to do proper implementation, for sure.
Now, also there was a call as process, Mr. Speaker, and for the public, because there was a call made out for the public and the people in the gallery that the process used when it comes to a motion of this House that it is a recommendation to government. Being a recommendation to government, our practice has been that we will sit and we will abstain from the vote and we will watch and see how the vote occurs in the House. Clearly, all Members are in support of that and we will take that under advisement. In fact, I would say that we would agree there needs to be a different process to this. In fact, I have approached the chair of the Priorities and Planning in hopes of finding a way past this, the next steps of we can look at this and try to come up with something that works for the people of the Northwest Territories. I think that’s the important thing here. Nobody here is looking for a fight, Mr. Speaker. I save that for the ice.
---Laughter
And it’s been many years and I don’t encourage it.
Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet process is one where we will watch the House and we will take that under recommendation. I would say now with the fact that there’s a motion here, we need to look at it, we need to work with committee, we need to work with aboriginal governments to come up with a better plan, because, as I believe the Member for Tu Nedhe had mentioned about the students, at the end of the day this is all about what we’re trying to do for the people of the Northwest Territories; not for government structures, not for the system as it is. We’re trying to improve how we deliver the programs, because many a times, and we can go to Hansard from this Assembly, from previous Assemblies, about the concern that’s raised around the delivery of housing, how it’s delivered in communities, the delivery of health care, how it’s delivered in communities, if there’s enough nurses, doctors’ visits, dental visits. As well, the quality of education has been raised numerous times during budget process, during questions in the House. That’s the impetus for looking at change. It is not just necessarily a southern contractor coming up with an idea, throwing it on the table and saying make it happen and it shall be done. No, Mr. Speaker, there has been much work done.
I can recall back in 1999 when I held, at the time, the portfolio of Health and Social Services, and back then Minister Miltenberger held the portfolio of Education, Culture and Employment. We approached the boards at one point and said we need to start working together to deal with the student that has trouble in the school room but has a health issue where the two departments can’t work together because of privacy policies; where an issue may spill over because of a housing issue but there are privacy policies. It’s that case management that we need to focus on and try to change so that we can fix the issues that people are facing in our smallest communities. It is a blessing the fact that if many of us that are healthy and don’t have to use those facilities, don’t have to see the doctor that often, and have good health care provision in our communities. We’re blessed with that, for sure. But there are many people who end up crossing all the boundaries, whether it is housing, education, justice, and our health care system. In fact, it’s such an issue, not just for the Territories but the rest of the country. For example, Mr. Speaker, between governments, even there needs to be a better system in place. I use the Jordan’s Principle as an example of where departments and governments had too many structures in place that didn’t allow an individual to get the proper kind of treatment that was needed. This is what was intended with trying to make some change.
We’ve heard from Members of this Assembly, we’ve heard from the people of the Northwest Territories, and would say that with the motion as its worded we would be supportive and look forward to sitting down with the Members on the next steps. How do we take the work -- some of it needs to be put aside, some of it is good work that gives us the detail that Members have started asking about -- how do we structure it, how do we look forward and how do we make it better for the people of the Northwest Territories? We continue to do that and, in fact, we will continue to do that. As one of the Members pointed out, that our fiscal situation isn’t better and it isn’t going to get better, so we need to find out how we can continue to operate or improve on the delivery of our systems in the Northwest Territories. That would be our goal overall.
As for apples, oranges, bananas, well, I guess if the Members stuck with that, we can make fruit salad and at least share that with the folks. Realistically, there are challenges when it comes to the professions in education, in health care and in housing. We fully recognize that and we know that’s a huge task, but we will definitely take this under advisement. I look forward to sitting down with Members to try and come up with a better approach as to how we can make it work for the people we represent in the spirit of consensus government.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Roland. I will go to the mover of the motion to close debate on the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. My colleagues here have spoken again very eloquently to the motion, have covered and canvassed almost every point that they could. I just have a few comments that I would like to add in closing.
Mr. Speaker, it’s been another interesting day at the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves why did we need to step forward at this point with a theme day and a motion on this particular topic. It’s because we have heard from our constituents. They feel strongly about this Board Reform Initiative and, therefore, we feel strongly about it. The Premier has said that no one here is looking for a fight, but when we see an initiative like this come forward and we feel that it is premised on a foundation of lack of information and principles that could do serious harm to the good work and establishment of the boards across the Northwest Territories, we on this side of the House are ready for a fight. I think we showed that today.
I do appreciate the Premier’s comments that their side of the House can support this motion, but trust me, without the work of the Regular Members on this side, this motion would never have made it to this and who knows how far this would have gone.
Mr. Speaker, the enemies of democracy are apathy and ignorance and I would suggest that by the participation here today of the public, I would say that democracy in the Northwest Territories is alive and well.
---Applause
People are neither apathetic nor ignorant of the issues; they are following what their elected government is doing.
Mr. Speaker, I still have to question why this government would pay such an insult to the leadership at different levels in this Territory. Mr. Speaker, this Assembly, these 19 Members, many of us got here, actually, because of our community participation at different levels of leadership. Many of us sat on town councils, we sat on health boards, we sat on education boards, and that’s how we got here, but we don’t have the market cornered on leadership in the Northwest Territories. That is what is so refreshing about the public input that we received on this, is that other people are also keenly aware of and concerned about the issues that we face as leaders in the Northwest Territories.
As one Member said, it is a shame in a lot of ways that we had to devote this much time and this much energy to something that...I guess we will look for those efficiencies. But when you look at the fact that people are worried about their jobs, people are worried about the cost of living, they have so many other pressing issues on their mind right now it does seem a little hollow that our government would expend such an effort on just trying to restructure governance for a reason that they can’t really convey to us what’s behind it.
Now, I have said this to Mr. Miltenberger before, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll say it again: Mr. Miltenberger has obviously never been involved in sales because if he thought he had such a great idea in board reform he should have brought the idea to it. He should have been able to lay it out and say, hey, Regular Members, I have got a great idea and here are the reasons why it’s great. He should have been able to sell us on it. He can’t even sell us. I don’t know how we’re going to sell the public. I have not heard any of that kind of talk from Mr. Miltenberger and, like I said, obviously he’s never had to try to sell anything.
Mr. Speaker, consensus is alive and well, but, as I said earlier today, it goes far beyond these doors and far beyond this dome that we sit under. We have a type of government here in the North where we will consult and we’ll take our direction from the people. As Mr. Yakeleya said, it’s people first. It’s the people who sent us here we serve. That’s where the direction has to come from. It has to come from the grassroots up, not from the top down. I don’t want to live in a Northwest Territories that is a totalitarian where we have a government that sits on their high and mighty horse and dictates to the people out there in the regions and the communities how things are going to work. I don’t want to be a part of that and I will certainly fight anybody who does.
Mr. Speaker, the theory of this initiative being a lack of communication and some of the most recent initiatives of this government being premised on a lack of communication, I am starting to believe it goes far beyond a lack of communication and I think the Cabinet needs to take a very sober, inward look at some of these initiatives they are putting out there because I am starting to perceive them as an attack on people in our Territory, whether it be the public service, whether it be the seniors for the supplementary health benefit, whether it be the people out there working in our boards and agencies. There’s a trend developing here. It’s starting to go beyond bad communications. We can try to mop up after the fact but, to a large extent, some of the damage is already done. Some of our credibility has already been eroded and it’s very, very hard to get that back.
Mr. Speaker, just on one issue as a personal note and I know we are in Yellowknife today and Yellowknife is the only community that has a Catholic School Board and I just have to share this small experience. I was at church on Sunday morning and we quite often have a sharing time and I shared my deep concern. I mean, I believe that all the teachers in all the schools are doing a very good job, but I shared my deep concern of the possibility that the work of the Catholic School Board would be eroded. When my children were in Yellowknife, I sent them to the Catholic school because that is not my denomination but that is my faith. I come from a background of a Christian faith. Mr. Speaker, if our government would have the audacity to go against what those teachers and what that school in their mission statement is trying to impart to children, which is about values, it’s about faith, it’s about things that are going to hold them through the valleys and the difficult times in life, it’s a choice that people make and it’s an opportunity that’s out there. On Sunday, I said to people, I was so distressed about this that I said I am going to use my Member’s statement and I am going to stand up for two and a half minutes in the Assembly and I am going to pray over our Territory. People said oh my gosh, you don’t have the nerve to do that. I said I was going to do it because I was afraid that I would chicken out by today and I wouldn’t do it.
Mr. Speaker, we have a wonderful Territory here. We have an awesome responsibility. We have good leadership here. We need to find a way we can work together but not put our people through the stress that we have with this Board Reform Initiative. So going forward, yes. The Premier did come to me and I will commit that we will try to, in a reasonable fashion, look for efficiencies, but we cannot do it in a heavy-handed way.
I heard with my own ears, even though he says Mr. Miltenberger is not the author of this initiative, I heard with my own ears numerous times on the radio, we are going from 70 to seven boards. When a leader of this magnitude in our Territory stands up and says stuff like that, of course the people are going to believe and they are going to have the anticipated reaction which we have seen.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do thank everybody for their input on this. It would appear that the Cabinet is not going to vote on this, but I do thank my colleagues for the work they have put into this motion and into this debate today. Again, thank you so much to the people who have participated by bringing their ideas forward to us and I will ask for a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
