Michael Miltenberger

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Education has elected boards for the most part. The one exception I believe exists was the arrangements made in Fort Smith where the DEA patterned itself under the health board arrangement where there were two seats for the band, two for the Metis, and two for the general public. But for the most part education boards are elected and health boards are appointed. And the LHO boards, as well, I believe are appointed.

Mr. Speaker, this process was stretched out with a long timeline to 2010-11, recognizing that there was going to be a lot of work to get us from where we start to where we may end up with the issue of board reform. We are not precluding those types of discussions at this point. We took the first step to say, here’s a model we think has applicability and we have been doing the work to get us to April that will give all the information for us collectively to talk about and look at to decide on next steps. If it is not that model, not that approach, then what approach and if the broader...

We appreciate the work that every board member has contributed over the years, but we also recognize that we have a system that has evolved without a lot of planning over the years, often by program area, by ministry, and we have evolved now where we have 150 boards for 42,000 people for a whole host of different program areas. We have 70 in health and social services, housing, and education alone. We are of the opinion that there are ways to provide enhanced decision-making at the regional community level at the same time as rationalizing some of the board structures.

Mr. Speaker, I would just be restating or repeating the answer that I just gave to the Member. Clearly, April is a milestone date we have targeted to see where we go from here. The Tlicho model is a made-in-the-North model that we looked at and we think had applicability. Our initial concept was to move that forward and that is what we have done, recognizing and building in the milestone date of April. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The broad issue is board reform. If that is not the way forward, what is the way forward on board reform? If the decision of the House is that board reform is off the table in its entirety that is a significantly different and more fundamental issue than we don’t like a particular concept. But we think there’s some value to board reform and what is that direction going to take.

Mr. Speaker, in the work plan that we laid out over the next seven weeks, some of that basic initial work on the concept is going to be completed by then. The modelling, the finance, the costs, those types of things, we have folks working on. That will be part of the discussion when we look at what is concluded, complete and available for information in April as we collectively decide on the next steps. Thank you.

There were case management issues, there were efficiencies through administration and finance we believe are there and are the two key areas that we think would allow us to rationalize that. It would hopefully in the long term allow us to put more money into programs and tie up as little as possible on the administration and finance and policy sides.

The issue of efficiencies within the current structures have been looked at as we’ve done business from Assembly to Assembly, depending on the fiscal circumstances. We took this on and there has been 10 years of work. I’ve laid out some of the reports that have been done: the Strength at Two Levels, the Cuff report, there was a report back to the 13th Assembly, the Deloitte Touche report. This is some of the work that has been done all for many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ve, as well, brought this up in the House with statements, it was reviewed in committee. There has been a lot of...

The Refocusing Government Committee of which the Member is a party or sits on, there were some of the longer-term questions that we are going to have to resolve. This House will continue to have a very clear and defining role than it currently has. The main estimates will continue to be voted. The money will still be voted. Business plans will still be done. The regional boards currently are there already. They exist. We are talking about change, scope and mandate, but the role of this Legislature will continue to remain paramount. Thank you.

We considered whether we would look at going with territorial boards only, which is not a model that made sense to us in terms of removing control from the regions and communities. We agreed from the very start as an Assembly that the status quo needed improving. The one model we had been looking at that seemed to have applicability was the regional service model as it’s been set up over the years in Tlicho.