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.
