Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about the youth, and programs and infrastructure that are needed for the youth in the communities. I have questions for the Minister of youth. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister what this government is going to do to ensure that some of the much needed infrastructure that was built for the youth is going to continue on to the other communities that don’t have that infrastructure yet. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister responsible for youth, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The communities have done a really good job at identifying projects for the youth and they’ve been identifying dollars. They’ve actually been putting money towards it, and that’s been encouraging. I think one of the legacies of the 16th Legislative Assembly could be the amount of money that this Assembly has put into youth. Never has any Assembly before us put as much money into youth as we have, and it’s through the work of all Members of this Assembly identifying that youth are a priority, not only identifying that they’re a priority but actually putting money towards it to the tune of almost $4 million. So I think that’s been a significant investment in youth by the 16th Legislative Assembly. Thank you.
That’s a good response; I appreciate that. The infrastructure that I referred to, again, is there has been a good response from the government. But again, not all the communities have the much needed infrastructure. So I guess recognizing the fact that the communities have the capital dollars in their possession to do with as they please, spending it in their community. However, I’m wondering if the department, MACA, in response with the youth, has provided some sort of support to the communities to ensure that this start of the infrastructure, this $4 million in infrastructure that has come will continue to the communities even if the money has to be found from outside the GNWT. Thank you.
The communities themselves are getting their capital dollars and they’ve put a lot of money into youth infrastructure. I’ve been fortunate that I’ve been able to attend the opening of the youth centre in Paulatuk, and community centres, and in Fort Resolution they’re doing a youth centre there and a lot of it is a decision that’s made by the community. What our role is, is we continue to support them through the Youth Centre Initiative, which the money in the Youth Centre Initiative has almost doubled and the uptake in it has gone from 17 to about 34 community youth centres taken. So that’s where we see our role.
We continue to work with the communities. They identify their five-year capital plans and, again, I’ve been quite encouraged by the amount of money that they’ve identified and put towards youth infrastructure in their community. Thank you.
Does this government plan on moving forward with any transitional document to try to provide support for the communities to hire qualified youth workers? I think that if we have some program dollars, or we have some infrastructure, the one piece of the puzzle that seems to be missing is qualified youth workers who work with the youth so that they have programs that are viable at the community level.
Each community will usually have a recreation coordinator and they’ll hire their own youth workers as their budget allows.
What we’ve been able to do through the work of this Assembly is put more money into regional youth officers to work with the communities. We’ve also made the multi-sport games and the Youth Ambassador Program permanent line items in the budget. That assures us that those items are going to stay as part of the Legislative Assembly’s way of doing business.
The youth centre, the youth sports event through the work of the Rural and Remote Communities Committee have put almost $400,000 into multi-sport or regional sport games so the youth have an opportunity. We’ll continue to work with the communities.
The Member also makes a good point that we need to ensure this is all part of a transition document so that the 17th Legislative Assembly can carry on some of the work that was started in the 16th.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see that the government has supported community-built infrastructure and supported communities for some programming money. The one piece of the puzzle that is actually missing is our actual youth workers at the community level. I think they have recreation workers. The money is flowing to the communities. In trying to make the government understand, I think that’s probably the most essential. Providing qualified youth workers working at the community level I think will gain the greatest results for the success of the youth. I’d like to ask the Minister again if that is something that his department could look at to see the benefits of having actual qualified youth workers at the community level.
I can assure the Member that is something that we can have a look at. Whether we’re able to do it financially is another question, and decisions such as that would have to be something that the 17th Legislative Assembly would have to take into consideration. We could also make our thoughts and recommendations to them in the form of transition documents. I can assure the Member that we will have a look at it.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I talked in my Member’s statement about the Financial Administration Act and I took a look at the opportunity before us that is potentially to be reviewed. Right now we’re in the coming days that will enter into the new government. I highlighted the importance of value for money audits, which are also referred to as performance audits. If the review of the FAA is actually being considered at this time, it would be probably wise for the government to consider a comprehensive opportunity like this to include performance audits on our corporations to ensure that they’re done on a regular basis to ensure that we’re getting the best value for these corporations.
My question will be directed to the Premier today and my question specifically will be: if the FAA is being updated at this particular time with an eye to the future, would the Premier be willing to put down as part of the development opportunity of the FAA, to put in performance audits as a fundamental element on our corporations to be done, say, every five years, as it is done federally?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On top of the process that we have in place where our corporations table their annual reports and business plans in this Assembly, that’s one method where Members have access and can measure how our corporations have done business. As for the ongoing work around the Financial Administration Act, I will have to speak to the Minister on that work and see what’s been incorporated and the timelines for that.
I appreciate the Premier’s answer about the corporations tabling their annual reports, but, quite frankly, most Members I would be surprised have an auditing or accounting background. Therefore we read them for what they are, to ensure that the ledger sheets are balanced.
Performance audits, as cited by the Auditor General of Canada, really look at assets, safeguards, controls, human, physical, and financial resource management, and ensure that operations are carried out efficiently. That’s not addressed in the table of the annual reports. That’s really what I’m getting down to. That type of work needs to be done on a regular basis, as cited by the Auditor General of Canada that she does do. I should say the former Auditor General of Canada. Can the Premier cite any occasion that he’s aware of where the Business Development Corporation, the NWT Power Corporation, or the Business Development Corporation have had performance audits of this nature that I have been referring to?
One of the things we’ve done in the life of this government is looking at how departments have been performing with budgets, and look at the growing demand for more resources, and have an internal look at it that way as we do the work around refocusing our government. The additional work of these types of audits has been done in the past on a number of our corporations. That is as the Auditor General of Canada’s office makes that request, we co-operate and they do that review. The other way is Members of this Assembly can call on that and we wait for a response from the Auditor General. That is one of the methods that we do use, and a number of our corporations have been called into this review process.
I appreciate the answer from the Premier. As the former Auditor General has clearly stated, they do not have the mandate to perform these performance audits on territorial corporations unless, of course, the House passes a direct motion that issues that request. At the same time, the former Auditor General has put into writing that they would be more than willing to do those types of audits if granted the authority to do that. In essence, if the FAA is up for debate and review, this would be a good opportunity to invoke that offer. As well, all Members know that there is little or no cost to the territorial government if the Auditor General of Canada actually does them. That’s the question I’m really asking the Premier, is would he encourage the Minister of Finance to look at this particular issue, seize the opportunity before us, whereas we can have the Auditor General ensure our corporations are running as efficiently as possible by doing regular performance audits.
That’s one of the wonderful things about our consensus style of government: Members are fully aware of the work that’s going on. The Minister updates the committee and he would be able to inform them as to what level of work is going on, and the future Assembly could also make recommendations as this work will have to continue on into the 17th Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gave the Premier credit for the first three answers but certainly not the last one, because I’m still working and I think this Assembly should still be working on these particular issues. That’s why I’m thinking it’s quite important, if not critical, that we continue to work on these issues going forward, because we still have a mandate. Although technically it may end shortly, it’s still active. That’s why I’m asking for this.
Would the Premier inquire with the Finance Minister at the appropriate time to see if they could incorporate this opportunity again while the FAA is being reviewed? There is no better time to take these types of issues for consideration. We will let it be weighed, measured, and treated accordingly, if it’s seen to fit the business of the government going forward.
As I tried to respond to the Member earlier about the fact that the Minister brings that work, the review to committee for their input as to how that work is going, and their response and advice to our Ministers helps us guide in that work.
As we’re having this discussion here in this Assembly, I’m sure he will be able to pick up on it. I will speak to him on the work that is ongoing. Clearly, that work will not be completed in the life of this government and that’s why I say as that work continues and the 17th Assembly will have to make final discussions and give final direction as to the depth of that work that’s ongoing within the Financial Administration Act work.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The time for question period has expired. Before going to the next item on the orders of the day, I’d like to acknowledge the presence of Chief Clifford Daniels, who has joined us in the House.
Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to provide its report on Bill 9, Wildlife Act, and commends it to this House.
Bill 9, Wildlife Act, was the product of more than 10 years of work to replace the existing legislation which dates back to 1978. The committee conducted extensive public hearings on it and had several amendments prepared to address specific concerns brought forward by Members of the public. Members are mindful of the substantial time and money invested in the development and consideration of this bill, and our decision to report it back as not ready for consideration by Committee of the Whole was a difficult one to make. Nonetheless, after careful deliberations, the committee has determined that the bill should not proceed at this time for the reasons set out below.
Bill 9 was referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure on March 10, 2011. Between April and June 2011 the committee held public hearings in Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Ulukhaktok, Aklavik, Inuvik, Hay River, Whati, Dettah, Deline, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, Fort Liard, Jean Marie River, and Fort Simpson. The committee heard from many individuals, organizations, Aboriginal governments, and renewable resource boards and councils during the public review process, both at our hearings and via written submissions. We’d like to thank all the participants in those public hearings.
Committee members are concerned about the overall readiness of this bill for enactment. During the public review process we heard from some individuals and organizations that the bill is long overdue and should proceed. However, other individuals and groups indicated that they had not had sufficient opportunity to participate in its development. Some also commented that they felt the bill was being rushed. The government itself was still conducting legal reviews months after the bill was introduced and brought forward over 30 proposed amendments to address issues it had identified. Further, as the next section of this report describes, no agreement has been reached on provisions to create a wildlife management conference, which is an essential component of the bill.
The composition of the proposed Northwest Territories Wildlife Management Conference was a concern that was brought to the committee’s attention early in the public review process. The conference was to be an advisory body similar to that created in the Species at Risk NWT Act, and its roles were to include addressing wildlife management issues of common interest, reporting annually to the Minister, and providing reports to assist the Legislative Assembly in its review of the act which were to take place every seven years.
In November 2010 the government released a consultation draft of the bill. In this draft the conference membership included renewable resource boards established under land claim agreements: the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Tlicho Government, the GNWT, and Canada. The draft also included a provision allowing representatives of Aboriginal or treaty rights holders from unsettled claim areas to be invited to participate in conference meetings. It is the committee’s understanding that this was the composition agreed to by the settled land claim area members of the working group which collaborated on the bill’s development and was made up of representatives from the GNWT, the Tlicho Government, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Northwest Territories Metis Nation, and the renewable resources councils from the four settled land claim areas.
When the Minister introduced Bill 9 in March 2011, the provisions had changed from the draft to include Aboriginal representatives from unsettled claim areas in the conference membership: the Dehcho First Nations, the Northwest Territories Metis Nation, and the NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation. The committee heard objections to this change from the Inuvialuit, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu, and the Tlicho representatives. A key concern was that the new board composition included a mixture of political governments and members representing authorities with legislated wildlife management responsibilities. Some felt that this structure would be unworkable and strayed from the original intent of the conference agreed to by the working group, which was to create a forum for wildlife management authorities. Some suggested that a separate political forum could be established if necessary.
The NWT Wildlife Federation also objected to the lack of representation for non-Aboriginal harvesters on the conference. The Minister has suggested, and some committee members agree, that the federation can be represented through the GNWT-appointed members; however, the public raising the concern want the bill to reflect an agreed upon process that clearly identifies how those without treaty and Aboriginal rights will have input.
The committee carefully considered all of the concerns raised, and proposed to the Minister that an amendment be made to the bill that would retain the membership as outlined in November 2010 consultation draft but that would make it a requirement that the conference invite the participation of representatives from unsettled claim areas as well as prescribed organizations representing persons with an interest in wildlife management and harvesting in the NWT. Unfortunately, the government also released the committee’s proposals to some working group members without the committee’s knowledge or consent, which added to the confusion and bad feelings surrounding the bill. Those without a process to be involved were not consulted at all.
Although some of the committee felt that the proposed amendment was a reasonable compromise, the Minister rejected it twice. Instead, the committee has been advised that the Minister proposes to remove the conference provisions altogether, allowing the matter of the conference membership to be addressed by amending legislation in future years. With respect, the committee cannot agree to this approach which will leave a significant gap in the bill and the wildlife management regime in the Northwest Territories. The issues that have made the conference provision so contentious will not be any easier to resolve in the future, and if we as the legislators of today cannot see our way to address them, then it is the committee’s position that this bill is not ready to proceed at this time. If it is the intent of some committee members to reintroduce our proposed amendment to the conference provisions during Committee of the Whole deliberations and should that motion pass at that time, some members may be able to support the bill going forward.
The committee is well aware of the importance of new wildlife legislation to Northerners and would have liked to see the initiative completed during the life of the 16th Assembly. However, the impending dissolution of this Assembly is an artificial deadline and is no reason to enact a bill that is not ready. Should the bill not pass during this sitting, committee members are confident that the Assembly will be able to build on the significant work already undertaken and see it through to completion, and we would strongly urge them to do so in the first year of that mandate.
Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure on the review of Bill 9, Wildlife Act.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Committee Report 7-16(6) will be moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled Northwest Territories Health Status Report, August 2011. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a letter sent to me from the Auditor General of Canada, dated the 26th of February 2007, and it’s regarding my issue of concerns for performance audits on northern corporations. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table six letters before the House today, all with concerns with the recent changes to the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Speaker, the first letter is from the Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board to the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure on Bill 9, the Wildlife Act.
The second letter, Mr. Speaker, is the Wildlife Management Advisory Council of the Northwest Territories, dated July 29, 2011, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Wildlife Management Advisory Committee on Bill 9, the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Speaker, the third one is the Inuvialuit Game Council, dated August 3, 2011, to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Bill 9, NWT Wildlife Act.
The fourth, Mr. Speaker, is the Gwich’in Tribal Council, dated August 15, 2011, to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources regarding the completion of the Wildlife Act project.
Mr. Speaker, the fifth is the Tlicho Government, dated August 17, 2011, to the Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Tlicho Government’s position on proposed changes to Bill 9, the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Speaker, also, the sixth letter is the Gwich’in Tribal Council, dated August 3, 2011, to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding Bill 9, NWT Wildlife Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Pursuant to Section 40.23(2) of the Public Service Act, I wish to table the Annual Report of the Equal Pay Commissioner for the Northwest Territories for the period July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, August 24, 2011, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the GNWT suspend devolution negotiations for 12 months, or until such time as a general agreement to proceed has been reached;
And further, to accomplish this goal, that the GNWT establish an Aboriginal devolution commission, comprised of representatives of all the NWT’s Aboriginal governments of land claim organizations;
And furthermore, that the Aboriginal devolution commission’s mandate be a review of the current agreement-in-principle on devolution to assess the benefits for Aboriginal groups, and to make recommendations to the GNWT respecting a fully cooperative process of reaching a final agreement within 12 months of the commission’s establishment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, August 24, 2011, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that the Government of the Northwest Territories begin research to examine options and potential benefits for introduction of a mental health court diversion program as an adjunct to the new court system;
And further, that this government make note of this initiative as a recommendation included in the transition advice being offered to the 17th Legislative Assembly. Mahsi.
