Debates of August 23, 2011 (day 16)

I appreciate those comments from the Minister. It’s good to get some of that history. I guess and I suspect others have tried to get a good discussion going on a resource tax during this term and I regard that to mean some research done and some considerations presented to us by Cabinet on what would be involved, what the difficulties are and so on. I’m wondering if the Minister is planning to raise this in the transition document, and resource taxes are just my sort of pet idea, but how is the Minister going to profile this in the transition document of the idea of getting some dollars into this fund and dealing with the hard decisions that he has mentioned and several of us recognize are needed.

As we look to the transition document, there will be a revenue option section when it comes to finance providing fiscal update information that’s available and the tools that are going to be available to the 17th Legislative Assembly in terms of generating revenue. There has been this issue of the resource tax that came up during the revenue options roundtable in this particular Assembly. We’ve also had different types of discussions about things that the Member holds dear as well. Things like what do you do with the carbon tax, and it’s been a discussion that’s been approached carefully by most people. We’ve got it in looking at a Greenhouse Gas Strategy, how we’d manage our emissions and the future discussions that would have to take place around that subject. So there will be a revenue options section for the 17th Assembly to consider. Thank you.

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks again. I’m glad to hear that it will be mentioned at least there. I guess my last point here is the opportunity to establish an ethical investment protocol for when funds are in there, and I did make the comment during the committee review, clause-by-clause, that standards should be established to ensure income from the fund principal is obtained from ethical investments, which observe environmental human rights and labour standards and avoid investment in socially harmful enterprises such as tobacco and arms production, and that we should consider a provision to allow the Heritage Fund, for example, to issue bonds from time to time, possibly an appealing mechanism for the public with the bonds to be guaranteed by the government. In this way the public, whose this fund really is, would secure some indirect ownership of the Heritage Fund through the public’s bond purchases.

The other aspect I mentioned was that income earned on fund investment should be used to promote the NWT’s environment, economic and social sustainability, and that a list of suitable projects should be established and should include such projects as infrastructure development aimed at energy conservation initiatives, development of renewable energy sources, resources to support long-term social benefit such as the building of early childhood programs, elder support and cultural centre, and community-based economic diversification. Obviously, these now are the 17th Assembly’s bailiwick. But again, are these things going to be profiled in that transition document and does the act, the bill, provide any provisions for direction towards these objectives? Thank you.

As we develop the regulations around the fund, the issue of the investment guidelines in terms of not only being conservative but if there is the will to look at investment in ethical funds if those funds exist, those funds are available and that can easily be built in. I wasn’t quite clear on the whole comment the Member made about bonds, but once again going forward all this information will be available to the 17th Assembly. The 17th Assembly will decide on how this fund is to be fleshed out and if it’s to be invested in and where the money is going to come from and how the investments will be made, under what conditions.

The issue of a list of prescribed projects that it would be used for, the money would be used for eventually, I suggest would be a subject of some significant debate listening to the discussion around the table from the MLAs from small communities, for example. All that will be possible in the 17th Assembly.

General comments. Detail?

Agreed.

Turn to page 3. Before we begin maybe I’ll just, for the benefit of the Minister, committee, suggest that we allow the Minister to remain in his seat if there are any votes to take place in the House so that he doesn’t have to… So because of his hardship, we’ll allow that to happen at this time so he can stay seated. Bill 10, Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act, clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved

Clause 4. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is obviously a fundamental clause. It provides some guidance on how the fund will be managed. I just want to note that the public spoke very clearly and fairly consistently on this aspect and thought that there should be arm’s length administration of the fund and that it should not be under the trusteeship of the Financial Management Board. An arm’s length agency could indeed report to the Legislative Assembly and could be subject to verification by an independent auditor. This would allow for and promote public involvement in the administration and guiding vision of the fund. Members of the independent agency could be drawn from the public at large and represent a cross-section of cultures, genders, economic and social interests, and geographic regions. Consideration could be given to having two political representatives on the board, though not as chair. For example, one from Cabinet and one from regular priorities and planning. I guess I would like to hear what the Minister thinks of this consideration. It didn’t make it into this version of the bill. Is this something we could consider in the future? Does the Minister have particular reasons why he’s insisting in here that the Financial Management Board would be the trustee of the Heritage Fund?

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The thinking was that the fund, we’re creating an instrument that at this point is only that. It’s a tool that’s an instrument that’s there to be invested in. We have work to do. We have not decided if there’s going to be money put into it. We anticipated for the first 10 years to get the fund up and running it would be best done through the Financial Management Board through the policies and procedures that are currently in place. The main concern being not wanting to generate expenses when we have no revenues in which to cover those if we have to create a board and an arm’s length operation. Clause 10 of this bill at the review period lays out very clearly that that would be one of the things that could be considered at that time, whether such a board may be necessary or called for at that particular point.

Page 4, clause 4. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that I fully concur with the Minister’s answer and completely disagree with Mr. Bromley’s ascertain to what should be done in this particular case. Wasting money by administering something that doesn’t make any money at that time seems to be a bit of a pointless, fruitless argument at this time. I think the 10-year review and every 10-year review after that will address those types of questions as need be.

Agreed.

That was more of a general comment. We’re on page 4, clause 4.

---Clauses 4 through 9 inclusive approved

Clause 10. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to now move a motion.

I move that subclause 10(2) of Bill 10 is amended by:

striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c);

deleting paragraph (d); and

adding the following paragraph after (c):

recommendations respecting whether the act should be amended to include a provision requiring a special majority to make further amendments to the act or to authorize transfers from the Heritage Fund; and

recommendations respecting any other amendments that should be made to the act.

A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. The motion is being circulated. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a particular issue that may not have been fully supported in committee but the spirit intended in this particular one is, as I’ve stated a few times, which is we want to make sure that the fund is protected and the act is protected so that people at a whim don’t decide that they’re going to spend the money without any due thought and support. The original concept didn’t get the support in committee and certainly by the Minister, but it was presented as a suggestion to put it in the review and allow the review to take that time and give it due consideration if it seems it’s warranted to go forward as an amendment to the act.

Just simply, this protects the act from political fettering, in my view, and it ensures that no whim drives how the act will be spent or even changed. This will help protect the act while it grows and goes forward for future generations. It’s just a protection mechanism, I believe, that will ensure the true principles of why the act is in existence, which is to provide opportunities for people in future generations. I don’t think it does anything more than that, and as I pointed out, it’s to be added in the review clause as an item for consideration. I certainly hope Cabinet has seen the light of the suggestion and will vote in favour of this suggestion, but we will have to see how the outcome rolls.

To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my colleague Mr. Hawkins did a good job describing what this is about. This is simply a motion to get the future government in 10 years to conduct a review of the concept of a special majority. It was brought forward by committee and it wasn’t fully supported by Cabinet. There is some merit to looking into it and exploring it and doing some research. It definitely requires some additional research and I think 10 years from now when this comes forward for review is a good time for us to review the concept of a special majority. There might actually be some rulings in the next 10 years to that effect, so why don’t we leave it in there so that we can put it as part of our official review of this act, because my colleague is right that we don’t want political interference to occur with this money. We want it to be aboveboard. I think having these discussions at that time is both appropriate and prudent.

To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Clause 10 as amended.

Agreed.

Clause 11.

---Clauses 11 through 12 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole as amended.

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 10 as amended is ready for third reading?

---Bill 10 as a whole as amended approved for third reading

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses out.

Does committee agree that we will now move on to Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act?

Agreed.

Can I have the Minister responsible for the bill to make his opening comments? Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today to speak about Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act. This bill will amend the Territorial Court Act to increase the monetary limit in civil cases from $10,000 to $35,000.

The Territorial Court provides an effective process for civil claims but the limit of $10,000 means that many lower-level civil claims must be heard in Supreme Court, which is much more complicated. Increasing the monetary limits will permit residents to bring forward claims in an affordable practical way and improve access to justice.

I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members may have regarding Bill 22.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time I would like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in any witnesses.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree that the Minister can bring in his witnesses?

Agreed.

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in.

Mr. Lafferty, for the record, could you introduce your witnesses.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. To my left is Karan Shaner, assistant deputy minister of Justice. To my right is Mark Aitken, part of the legislative counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Welcome, witnesses. For the record, there is no committee report on this particular matter because it was referred directly from second reading of bills right to Committee of the Whole. That’s why we’re not doing a report. General comments in regard to Bill 22. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill forward. It increases the monetary limit in civil cases from $10,000 to $35,000, as the Minister said. In committee this was discussed and it was felt that increasing it from $10,000 to $35,000 would speed up the court process as many people -- I think this is correct, correct me if I’m wrong -- a lot of housing issues that are going to the courts are forced to the Supreme Court because they’re just over $10,000, and this may expedite a number of those situations and allow us to clean up some of the cases outstanding with the Housing Corporation.

I do have a question. I’m curious if the Minister could give us a bit of a rundown on what the limit is for territorial courts, or I guess provincial courts, in other jurisdictions. How does the $35,000 stand up?

Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The . Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario, and Yukon have a limit of $25,000. Saskatchewan has a limit of $20,000. Manitoba and NWT, our jurisdiction, is $10,000. New Brunswick remains at $6,000 with plans to increase theirs to $30,000. PEI and Quebec respectively have limits of $8,000 and $7,000. So those are just some of the numbers we’ve received from other jurisdictions. Mahsi.

So it appears that with the exception of one that is going to be increased to $30,000, we’re at least $10,000 above any of the other jurisdictions. I’m wondering what was the research behind that. How did we determine or decide that $35,000 in the Northwest Territories is the appropriate amount?

Ms. Shaner.

We did our research by, in part, looking at jurisdiction across the country, factoring things in like the cost of living here, and, as well, we received that suggestion from some of the stakeholders including members of the Territorial Court bench.

In determining the amount and deciding to bring this bill forward, was there any assessment done as to the amount of reduced cases being brought to the Supreme Court, but in correlation, the increase in the work demand or workload on the Territorial Court as a result of these changes?