Thank you, Mr. Chair. And certainly it is difficult watching those resource revenues decline and even more difficult watching it divvied up and half of it sent to the feds and by the time we're done with it, there's not very much left. I am wondering, though, with the little amount that we are bringing in, considering how much it's reduced, I'm wondering if the Minister has considered increasing the percentage that we are contributing to the fund to try and take the small amount that we're getting -- I realize it is a very small amount -- and put it into this fund to help it grow. You know, I don't have a ton of time left, but I've noted in other discussions the different efforts that Alberta is making to grow their heritage fund and they're taking windfall profits and putting it in there and, you know, effectively trying a lot of different things to help grow the fund, and so I'm curious to hear from the Minister if the department has considered doing anything along those lines to account for the fact that the contributions are declining. Thank you.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's not a suggestion that we had received and -- or one that was being under consideration here. I mean, the sums are fairly small. They're not really on the scale of what, obviously, Alberta has the opportunities to bring in. I mean, the one exception would be in the extremely rare, and I think now going forward unlikely, circumstance where a few years ago there was a significant discovery license that was turned back in and there was a bit of a windfall from that but with the changes under the minimal resource regime that we are in, that is no longer to be -- likely to be the case, and so we are unlikely to be seeing any kinds of windfalls of that. With that, Mr. Chair, actually -- and I think I said a review. It was recommendations from one of the standing committees. So yeah, I mean, happy to go back and have a look at those. But, again, without these windfalls coming forward, which, again, with the changes they're unlikely, there's really not a lot now. You know, yeah, if, in fact, our mineral resource fortunes turn around in the next little while, perhaps it would be time for a review. I'll stop and leave some time on the clock. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. What we'll do is we'll take a short 25-minute break and we'll resume with the Member from Yellow North and the Member from Great Slave. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Okay, thank you. Welcome back, everybody. We're going to the next Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just let me get my stuff fired up here.
So I wanted to start by asking the Minister about the -- so the business plan talks about -- or it has in the past talked about seeking input or internal submissions from staff about ways to be more sustainable, and we've also heard about the red tape reduction working group, so efforts to try to streamline things within government, help small businesses, but also help identify, yeah, opportunities to streamline, you know, within different departments. So I'm wondering about the status of both the red tape reduction group and the sort of internal efforts at gathering information from staff as to how things can be streamlined and more sustainable. Can the Minister just start by talking about the status of those things. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, let me start with the deputy with respect to the red tape reduction working group, please.
Okay, thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So the red tape reduction working group was a working group which took suggestions from the public that identified areas where the government could perform functions or services more efficiently. They got a number of submissions which they undertook to address. So one of the bigger ones were just the hurdles it takes to start a business. So they made some progress on that and tried to reduce the time and effort it takes to start a business. So that was one of the things that they had accomplished. And then it was moved into -- from -- not that the Member probably cares about this, but it was moved from fiscal policy to management board secretariat and in the evaluation unit so that new programs can be evaluated through that red tape lens, and they can continue to look at other areas where they can reduce red tape. So part of that is -- the Member mentioned -- was hey took suggestions from the public service. And that suggestion box remains open. So as they come in, the red tape reduction working group examines them and sees what's kind of -- if they can undertake those actions. And the Minister mentioned a couple of things that came through, for instance trying to reduce the amount of paper that's used in the government, putting those into -- more things into electronic records. I mean, that was suggested multiple times but we have made progress in that. And then just recently, we launched what was called the Visa One program, which is a paperless Visa approval process, so -- and it also empowers employees a little more to make those decisions because the manager can then see online all of the Visas and all of the transactions so you don't have paper going from department to department. So all that to say red tape reduction's still working. It's still making progress. Always there -- probably more work that can be done, but there is an opportunity for the public service and the public to make suggestions to that group. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you for that. Do staff ever find out what is done with their recommendations or suggestions? Like, is there that feedback loop where you might go back directly to staff and tell them what you tried to do or did do or have further questions or clarification; what does that feedback loop like? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So admittedly, we do need to improve that. We do do reports from the red tape working group, but the last one was produced in 2022. So we are working on having more regular reporting as to what work the red tape reduction working group has done. And then one of the ways we are going to increase awareness, particularly among the public service, is to put updates on the Bear Net newsletter that goes out to all employees. So they'll -- it'll tell -- it will not signify specific employees or thank you for that suggestion, but it will say these are the suggestions we have adopted from employees. And we'll try to encourage people to continue submitting suggestions. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'll go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's one reason employees should be reading that Bear Net newsletter.
So I'll just move on now to the macroeconomic policy framework. I don't want to repeat what my colleague had talked about. One of the concerns that I have had -- I mean, I think this kind of thing is necessary. We do need to put a macroeconomic lens on decision-making. But when I've looked through the framework so far, it seems that there are no -- there's no direction or tools on how to compare the stats that are given to anything else. So if it says, okay, we've made this proposal, it's going to create five jobs in a certain community, it's like, okay, is that a lot? Is that a little for that amount of money? You know, if it's for a couple hundred thousand dollars, like wow, what a great deal. If it's for $10 million, maybe five jobs isn't a lot. But, like, in terms of the scale of whether the macroeconomic impact of a certain policy or project or initiative is, like, good value for money or is it the best option, like, if -- I don't see, but maybe the Minister can clarify if there's a way in that analysis to compare it to alternative options, like, this is the best option from a macroeconomic perspective as opposed to option B, C, and D, best value for money. You just kind of have this proposal sitting there with nothing to compare it to and you go, okay, I guess it seems like a good thing if it's going to create a couple of jobs but compared to what else? So can the Minister comment on whether that aspect is incorporated at all into the macroeconomic policy framework analysis? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, again, this is something that has evolved I think fairly significantly just in the last year or so as compared to where this policy has sat since 2007. It is something that gets filled out by the departments, but they can certainly and do seek support from management board secretariat, which is the division that supports the financial management board, and it's part of that element that goes in. But then one thing that happens is that the financial management board does get an analysis done in support -- that's meant to really support the financial management board, the same thing with Cabinet decision items. So there's an analysis that's done of a submission, and it includes an analysis of these kinds of things, of the -- sorry, these kinds of things. I'm looking at the macroeconomic policy framework. So that is where a comparison can arise, where you may say, you know, compared to a past submission, compared to another submission, you know, and the relative value of something is this. I'm giving examples because depending upon the decision that's being made or the matter that is at hand can determine the kind of information that might be provided and the extent of it. So this is a tool that is used first at that stage of the analysis as well as then by the decision makers who receive both this as well as the analysis I'm describing.
There is also -- so, you know, yeah, and it's, I would suggest, a challenge generally of trying to, you know, compare, but compare fairly things that are often very difficult to compare. I mean, we're faced with the decisions on the needs that are coming forward, some that are forced -- that may be a forced growth -- let's just say for forced growth, for instance. The needs of one department in the region are going to be very different than another department in another region. They may not compare very well but they both may be very relevant and they both might have, you know, various indicators.
So comparison is hard. We're trying to use this as a tool to provide more information in a way that you're getting at least the same information about all the things. As I said earlier, I'm happy to see this continue to evolve, so if there's more ways that we can continue to be more effective, I think that's good feedback to continue to receive.
The last note before I -- I'll make sure I leave some time here. There's indicators of progress. Those line up with the indicators you see every year in the budget papers. And those are things that we are now looking to try to utilize when we're evaluating whether or not it's been effective. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go back to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I know this is a much bigger discussion we'll continue having both in public and behind the scenes, so I'll just leave it there for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'll move to the Member from Frame Lake.
Do you mean Great Slave?
I think you mean Great Slave, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, my apologies again. Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I get my 15 seconds back? Thank you. Appreciate that. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
When it comes to the management secretariat, the Minister knows my absolute favourite topic is government renewal, and so I am curious if we could just start the conversation today about the progress on the government renewal initiative and on evaluation efforts generally across the GNWT. I realize that it's progressed so that departments are now proposing -- I'm not sure on a regular basis, a semi-annual basis -- lists of programs that they want to evaluate. But so far since, I believe it was 2020 or 2021 when the Minister first introduced this program or this initiative, what are the broad successes and what -- where does she see improvements that could be made? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first of all, Mr. Chair, I do have as part of our briefing materials an overview of all the departments that have gone through government renewal processes of the program and service that they had selected. So not every single program and service was selected for a detailed evaluation or for evaluation light, if you will, but there were selections made by each department based on both areas where there was considered to be higher need but also in areas where the department knew that there would, you know -- that they'd be useful. So, for example, the youth and child counselor program in ECE was one that had a full evaluation done -- I was going to say last year, but it was in 2024. So, you know, market housing, for example, was done for Housing NWT. And what I'd suggest I can do, Mr. Chair, is I can provide, by tabling or as the clerks deem appropriate, the full listing so that you can see which programs have all been evaluated or which are maybe still outstanding to be complete. We are anticipating a full completion of the slated programs by this spring.
With that, the program -- or the GRI does shift into being one of a standard approach where there's meant to be a cultural shift towards programs being evaluated on a regular basis and departments having the capacity to do so either directly or in work with the management board secretariat. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so something caught my ear just now. How does the Minister define higher need for evaluation and how will departments be supported as that function devolves into their hands to identify highest need programs for evaluation? What are we basing that decision on? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go back to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I could say some of the earlier iterations of briefing materials I had had more detail on how those decisions were made. At this point, we were just completing the work. So happy to provide the earlier tools that were used to determine which programs might be most appropriate. I don't -- yeah, I don't have it here. There was a matrix that departments were using to try to figure out which would be most appropriate and which programs might benefit from it. I mean, quite frankly, every program would benefit from it but the capacity to do that was simply -- is simply not there. And, really, the undertaking of that task, if you consider the extent of all programs and services across government, would really be quite overwhelming. But we are now getting into a place where four years or five years ago there was no organized or concerted evaluation progress. There was no dedicated place or program within which we would do these things, and there was no expectation that it would happen. That has all now changed, and departments can start to put their programs to a more organized way. So, again, I'm happy to put that matrix into the bucket of things that we'll put back before Members. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now the reason I bring it up is I do note that MBS is removed to two positions in this upcoming -- or this proposed budget and so when we talk about GRI, when we talk about red tape reduction, it does give me a little bit of pause. I do really appreciate their expert lens on these issues. And so I am very curious as the GRI evaluation -- whatever we're calling it moving forward -- moves forward, what sort of expectations, what sort of matrices that departments are going to make these decisions on what to evaluate, who holds them to account, will it still be MBS, is it just something they're running off and evaluating whatever they choose willy-nilly? Is there some sort of centralized function considered still to have that lens of a central agency on evaluation, what is prioritized for evaluation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just to describe the positions that were eliminated, I might direct it to the director, please.
Okay. Thank you. I'll go to the director.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have two positions being reduced for MBS. We have the management board secretariat analyst, and we have an office administrator. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thanks, I do appreciate that detail but it is still one analyst, so my previous question around who is overseeing a central function of evaluation, or is there a contemplation of a central function of evaluation throughout the GNWT and its agencies? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, it was a vacant position, or it is a vacant position right now. This is with respect to the analyst. The expectation is that with GRI as a sort of having kind of been spun up and had to be established, the full inventory had to get done of all programs and services, you know, the matrices of what programs come through had to be brought together, a lot of that preparatory work was no longer -- was not required, and so that's where it no longer needed to have quite the same level of capacity. Again, obviously everything we do could certainly benefit from more money, more people, more things, but being within reason the progress and the shift into being ongoing long-term policy evaluation, the department was confident that they'd be in a position to do that with the staffing complement that they have as they shift into being more a regular cultural approach to -- like a staff cultural approach to evaluation as opposed to a standalone thing. Obviously, we'll have to see, you know, over time. If that doesn't prove true, Mr. Chair, we can certainly come back to it but -- and, again, I'm happy to provide a bit more detail on, you know, where the department sees it going. I just don't -- you know, I don't have the GRI detail at that level in front of me. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you. And I do appreciate the Minister might not have the extensive detail I'm asking for today. But I do have one more question, which is, is there an expectation, then, that each department and agency will start to build up their monitoring and evaluation capacity? If not with PYs, perhaps with training of staff internally? I recognize that there are some departments who are already well on their way to -- or have had a monitoring and evaluation unit for quite some time, ECE being the most shining star in that bunch, but other departments and agencies are not in the same shoes. So is there a contemplation of training, if not PYs? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the management board secretariat does continue to play a role. It has -- just as it has throughout. There's some departments that simply wouldn't make sense to create these kinds of positions as standalones necessarily, and so that's where MBS can step in. But as far as some training components with that respect, if I could turn it over to the deputy, please.
Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there is training offered by MBS for staff to improve their evaluation function within departments. So that's also available, as the Minister mentioned. We're also undertaking a policy development course which is available to policy advisers, and that includes an evaluation component as well which is -- it's underway right now. So I think there's about 40 people enrolled in that policy development course. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Is there anything further question from the Member from Great Slave.
I'll give you your 10 seconds back, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Is there any further questions from Members? Okay, seeing none. No further questions, please turn to page 168.
Department of Finance, management board secretariat, $53,274,000. Does the committee agree?
