Debates of August 23, 2011 (day 16)

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a document entitled Proposal to Enhance the Promotion and Delivery of Sport and Recreation Activities to the Aboriginal Population in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, August 25, 2011, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that the following persons be recommended to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for reappointment as members of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel, effective on December 1, 2011, for a term of four years: Ms. Joan Mercredi of Fort Smith and Mr. Adrian Wright of Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 6-16(6), Report on the Review of Bill 10, Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act; Bill 9, Wildlife Act; Bill 10, Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act; Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act; and Bill 23, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, with Mr. Krutko in the chair.

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. We have Committee Report 6-16(6), Bills 9, 10, 22, 23. What is the wish of committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee today wishes to deal with Committee Report 6-16(6), Bill 10, Bill 22, and Bill 23. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee agree?

Agreed.

So with that, we’ll take a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Prior to the break we agreed to start with Committee Report 6-16(6), Report on the Review of Bill 10, Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act. So at this time I’d like to ask the chair of the committee if he’d like to respond to the report. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Government Operations held a public hearing on May 21, 2011, to review Bill 10, Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act. The clause-by-clause review of the bill with the Minister took place on August 12, 2011.

The committee wishes to thank interveners for their oral and written submissions, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Alternatives North, West Point First Nation, Pembina Institute, Ecology North, and MLA Bob Bromley.

There was unanimous support for a Heritage Fund, but there was also a chorus wanting improvement to the act including management that is more independent.

In response to this input, the committee, with the Minister’s concurrence, made four substantial amendments during its clause-by-clause review of the bill.

First, the purpose of the fund is spelled out to benefit future generations from economic development, including exploitation of non-renewable resources.

Second, the period of investment in the fund before any withdrawal was lengthened from 10 to 20 years.

Third, the requirement for annual public reporting is clarified.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, there will be a review of the Heritage Fund Act in approximately 10 years, well before any money is withdrawn.

This review will include recommendations respecting independent oversight and management of the fund. All these changes strengthen the bill and it will be up to future governments to identify sources of funds to build the legacy it enables.

Following the clause-by-clause review a motion was carried to report Bill 10 as amended to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 10. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Any comments in regard to the report of the standing committee report on the review of Bill 10? General comments. Does the committee agree that Committee Report 6-16(6)... Mr. Hawkins.

Not yet, Mr. Chairman, I’m waiting for the vote. Thank you.

General comments in regard to Committee Report 6-16(6). Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a note that I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, but I did participate in some of the review and I appreciate that opportunity. I had occasion to make a number of comments and have the committee consider those. I particularly appreciate the chair’s willingness to consider a couple of suggestions for motions.

One of the things we’ve heard a lot from the public on various bills, but I would say particularly this one and another one before the House, is a desire to have some input to the regulations and this is not right now a standard operating procedure for committees to have regulations, which are typically developed well after the bills, come back to the committee for consideration, but in this case committee did support that suggestion. The public had mentioned a number of times materials that were provided during the public hearings and I believe included in the report in a couple of the recommendations. So I think the other aspect of that was the annual report. I believe we do have a mechanism through rules and procedures to actually implement a mechanism where annual reports are brought before committee for discussion. I think that happens in some of the Auditor General reports and Language Commissioner reports and so on. So I was particularly appreciative of committee putting forward a motion for that to be done in the case of the Heritage Act. So that’s all I had, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make those two comments on the committee report. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. General comments in regard to Committee Report 6-16(6) in regards to the committee report, review of the Heritage Act. Comments? Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not speaking for committee, but I certainly am sure in some ways when I say this is a very exciting opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories to have this fund come forward.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped over the years, over the course of the last four years that the government would develop what I call a revenue stabilization fund to help assist with corporate revenues when they go down due to downturns or re-filing of corporate taxes, and the problem with the Northwest Territories is we have a very challenging opportunity before us when we need to raise own source revenues. So when $10 million falls out of the kitty due to some re-filing of taxes or there’s a downturn in the economy, it’s really challenging for the Northwest Territories to respond. But in response to that request, the Finance Minister had suggested the Heritage Fund would be more likely the opportunity to respond to those types of needs, and I would say that that probably can be the solution, although it’s not necessarily the one I think would work best, but the Heritage Act in and of itself is a brilliant piece of work, whereas we are developing a trust fund for the people in perpetuity that is.

There are some things that I’d wished were included and I’m sure you’ll hear other Members in some ways or forms suggest that as well, that they wished things were slightly different than what’s being proposed today. But I would say that today marks a clear and positive occasion for this Assembly that we’re really doing something for future generations and I certainly believe that we will truly get the most out of resource revenues by banking them and putting them in this type of vehicle. I think over the long haul, well, certainly over the short-term, people won’t see any significant gains on this, but this is about the long haul and I’m certainly glad that it’s coming into existence. Thank you.

General comments in regard to Committee Report 6-16(6). Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to provide a few comments on Bill 10, the Heritage Act.

When I was first elected in 2003 it was one of the first issues I raised back eight years ago and I’m glad to finally see it move forward in a bill. I’m going to support Bill 10 moving forward. I think it is a move in the right direction, but it falls short of where, you know, when I envisioned a Heritage Act or a Heritage Fund, it would be more closely modeled on the permanent fund in the State of Alaska that pays a yearly dividend to each and every resident in the State of Alaska.

The Northwest Territories is a resource-rich territory. I think with devolution on the horizon we will be seeing much more in the area of resource royalties. If those are put in the right places, I think 20 or 30 years from now there’s no reason why the Northwest Territories with a small population couldn’t be looking at paying a dividend to each and every resident in the Northwest Territories to help offset the high cost of living here. I think for me that was one of the most important things, was that the money would go back to the people because really it does belong to the people. Of course, limiting government’s availing themselves of money to do with what they want, that was an important thing to try to mitigate that whenever we could.

So, again, I just wanted to put that on the record. I do support this bill and I’m glad to see that at least something is finally moving forward so we can get into a savings of some type. Although it seems a bit odd, given our financial status today, I can see a day when we might be able to actually put some money aside, when and if devolution is ever finally negotiated. That’s probably three or four years away before we hammer out a final agreement with the feds, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the Standing Committee on Gov Ops, too, for the work that they’ve put into this. Thanks.

Any other general comments in regard to Committee Report 6-16(6)? Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the 17th Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures strongly consider adding the automatic referral of the annual reports of the Northwest Territories Heritage Fund to the terms of reference of the appropriate standing committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m very happy to see the committee proposing this motion. I think the basic relationship here is that we are proposing to move public funds into an investment fund until such time as we have a sufficient accumulation to draw from it, the interest of it, and basically it is destined to benefit future, largely future residents and to some extent existing residents. So I want to say that I very much support any measures we can take to ensure the clear and frequent opportunity for the public to have some input and some clear opportunities to express their views on how these public funds should be invested.

So, once again, I support this motion and I just want to point out the importance of these sorts of mechanisms to establish an opportunity for the public voice to be heard.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to express my appreciation for this motion coming forward. I feel really strongly that any funds within the Heritage Fund belong to the people of the NWT; they don’t belong to the Assembly. I think that there needs to be a certain amount of public oversight on the fund itself and the reporting of the fund needs to be monitored to a certain extent by the public. I appreciate the recommendation from the Minister, and it was accepted by committee, that we don’t need an arm’s length body to monitor the fund in the first period while we are not withdrawing funds. I think this is sort of a good compromise that the reports from the Heritage Fund will go to a standing committee for review and for consideration. I would encourage that that standing committee would make it as public a process as possible. There certainly are organizations and individuals that live within the NWT who have an interest in monitoring what we do with the Heritage Fund, how it’s performing, whether it’s performing as they believe it should, and they need the opportunity for input. I’m really glad to see that this motion is here and I strongly support it.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee recommends that the government draft regulations for the operation of the Heritage Fund and refer them to the appropriate standing committee in a timely manner for review and feedback.

A motion is on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I’m very pleased to support this motion and happy to see the committee bringing it forward. I think again it is an opportunity for the public to be heard on this.

I know that the committee is stepping out a little bit. This is not, again, a typical order of things, but it speaks to this being a different act that is dealing with the public purse and has the added responsibility of ensuring abundant opportunities for the public to be heard on their shepherding. Once again, I support this motion and I appreciate the committee bringing it forward. I will be supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that this committee recommends that the Caucus of the 17th Legislative Assembly establish a process convention to facilitate the referral of a limited category of regulations to standing committee for review and comment prior to their final enactment.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. A motion is on the floor. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of brief comments here. I have felt for quite some time that the inability of either standing committee and/or the general public to have any input on the development of regulations is a fault with our system, and I think the consideration by Caucus of establishing a process convention to refer regulations, not all of them because there certainly is some legislation that will not require extensive regulations, but there certainly are some pieces of legislation which should allow for input from standing committee and the public into the development of regulations. I’m really glad to see this coming forward and I hope that the 17th Assembly follows through on this.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up on the comments of my colleague Ms. Bisaro. Over the last four years it’s come up many times where certain regulations would have benefited from a review of Regular Members prior to being enacted. I would say that often this would be the exception as opposed to the rule. Many regulations will not likely ever need to come to this level to be approved, but clearly, without question, there will be those certain or specific regs which would benefit from that public review as well as review by the Members of the Assembly. The reason it’s here is because the Heritage Act is one of those regs that we feel would benefit significantly through discussion with the Regular Members. So I support this motion, recognizing that it is for some regs, not all regs, and it will be up to the 17th Assembly to decide what that regulation or protocol will look like in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be voting in favour of this particular motion, but I would like to caution Members, as well as future Members, who will be dealing with this type of challenge. We must clearly distinguish the role that we represent.

It’s Cabinet’s typical role of developing legislation, proposing it to the Members, and the Members will review it, respond to it, and dispose of it appropriately in the House. I caution this because if we are reviewing or commenting on regulations, I then beg to say on this particular case is the next logical step that our MLAs on the Members’ side now developing policy and where does it continue? I think it’s a slippery slope when the Members themselves are developing specific regulations or overseeing them. I think that’s a strong role that should be left up to the departments and they have the authority to do that.

This motion specifically really looks at the process and convention to facilitate that, and I think that’s the type of discussion that really needs to happen here and we need to make sure that the roles are clearly defined. I’m not sure if there’s really an excuse for a particular occasion other than the fact that people want to be involved. I can appreciate that Members want to be involved in regulation writing but, quite frankly, they’re not, on the Members’ side, you’re not mini-Ministers. People have to remember that. We’re not a true opposition, which certainly makes this particular issue, I think, complicated, and I think we have to spend time examining again maybe the Members’ role. Perhaps maybe there’s a reason we should be involved, perhaps there isn’t, but I do look forward to the future discussion on this particular issue and I think it would be very helpful going forward.