Mr. Speaker, when we sat down as Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, just after territorial elections, we’d heard from people of the territory; they wanted to see things done differently. They wanted to see us continue to reinvest, as well as take control of where we were going. We’ve heard things almost from the day of the announcement that reductions needed to be done and that we would be focusing on reinvestments. That’s been the message from day one: We need to cap or manage our growth and look at the reinvestments. Those reinvestments, Members were aware, would have to come from the internal piece. As well, the idea of revenue growth is looked at. In fact, we want to go out and have that discussion later on in the year, so that we can be properly prepared for the people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard much about the growth of government and some of the graphs that are laid out there. This budget presents a balanced approach to investments and people in the Northwest Territories and some new initiatives to start looking at areas that we’ve continually looked over. Returning Members are well aware that there are more than numerous requests that are left on the floor when any budget is prepared, because there are just never enough resources to implement, whether it’s a new initiative by a department, a new initiative suggested by a Member or a new initiative that’s jointly suggested by Members in Cabinet.
Let’s talk about revenue growth. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the graph on B2 of the Budget Address, that begins to look at our fiscal picture as the Government of the Northwest Territories. We talk about balancing and the room we have available, as Members would put it. We’ve had the UNW and other unions out there saying, “There’s plenty of time. Don’t do anything. Protect us and we’re going to be okay.”
Mr. Speaker, when you look at from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, that’s the last government that was in place. Let’s account for the revenue that actually came in at that time. We had three different formula financing arrangements. One that we complained about didn’t work. We had agreement from across the country that it needed to be changed. By doing that, we got a bump-up of revenue to a temporary amount. Further to that, the second and final one.… The formula financing arrangement we are now in, for the life of this Assembly, sets a very clear path of what the growth will be based on. We also got another bump-up at that time, so in that time slot, between 2004–2005 and 2007–2008, we had two rather large increments made by the federal government as an investment in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at that graph, we started out at around about $850 million. We ended up, in that term of government, being well over a billion dollars in expenditures. With that rate of expenditure growth, we won’t be able to survive as a Government of the Northwest Territories.
This budget puts in place a vision of where we can go. Yes, there are some difficulties in the choices we have to make today, but Mr. Speaker, this budget puts in place a reduction target. In fact, when you look at what was accepted, we’re far short of our targets. What was accepted equals about 2.8 per cent of $1.2 billion. When Members say, “There’s nothing being spent in my community,” I’m waiting for the debate we will have in the House to show the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars we’re investing in our communities in O&M services — whether it’s that nurse, whether it’s that teacher, whether it’s the Power Corporation, whether it’s the Territorial Power Support Program — that grows on an annual basis.
Yes, we need to do it better. As I stood to run for this position, I talked about a need to change the way we do business. That’s what I presented to Members. I made commitments to the Members: let’s do it differently; let’s sit down more often and have that debate and that discussion on how our plan is coming forth. In fact, I got some feedback from Members. For example, the Infrastructure Committee that’s looking at how we spend infrastructure in this bill was accepted by Members as a good way of doing business.
Although we’ve heard Members talk about the Building Canada Fund, Mr. Speaker, the Building Canada Fund was brought to Members before we sent it back down to Ottawa, and that’s not a final list. Ottawa is doing that. And, in fact, we have a Member who had his bypass road project added to it, since our discussion.
So, Mr. Speaker, we’ve got some things here that show we’ve responded to committee requests. We’ve made some changes and we need to make more changes, I agree. I don’t think there’s anybody on this side of the House that would disagree with a need to look at things differently.
The simple fact that the Refocusing Government initiative will take on a huge workload in the next cycle is because we looked at what was presented as trying to meet the initial targets. If we accepted those initial recommendations from departments of targets, we would be gutting many of our communities. So we sent those back and said that we’ve got to look at this differently.
I went to Members and asked for more time to give us a thorough review so we could have this back and forth. And I’ll say for the record, a couple of Members of this House convinced a lot of the new Members that there needs to be a change. They didn’t like what was being presented. It was convoluted, hard to understand. I was talking like a Chinese fortune cookie, I guess.
But, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been already told probably three times, by Mrs. Groenewegen, that if she were Premier, she would say it this way or would have done it this other way — once in the House, actually.
Mr. Speaker, we’re here as 19 Members. I presented an opportunity to change, and I’ve continued to present that. But imagine if we were to meet our targets that we set, after we talked to Members, if we met our targets…. I mean, it’s 2.8 per cent right now. What are we going to do with what we have to do for 10 per cent? By further delaying the process, we would be causing harm at that point.
Mr. Speaker, this budget starts to lay the vision of what the future can be in the Northwest Territories. The reinvestment, going away from the hat-in-hand mentality we’ve had, going to Ottawa saying, “Give us more, because we need more to turn the corner,” and saying, “In the Northwest Territories, we can begin to make our own decisions….”
Mr. Speaker, a lot of this is based on previous directions. We’re building on the foundation that was laid before, Building Our Future. We’re looking to implement phase two of the framework for action on family violence as a part of this budget. Encourage healthy choices and address addictions — part of this. Safety and security in communities — part of this budget. And they are a small part of it.
As Mr. Ramsay stated, he should send us back to the drawing board for another review. He even stated over the summer you might not get much. What will you get in the fall time — more of the same? Ninety-five per cent of it is accepted with some tinkering around.
That’s what we tried to change. Members accepted the need for change. The change still can happen. I believe this starts to set the base for that change.
And when you look at these investments that are being proposed — the forced growth that happens — this wasn’t a budget that was randomly thrown together. It’s based on the $1.2 billion expended based on the previous year — forced growth.
The call letters go out in June. New initiatives. Call letters go out later on that summer. Capital investment requests go out that summer as well. A lot of that work was done by the previous government. And I came to Members, and said, “Let’s take that budget and let’s redo it for ourselves.” So we went with an interim appropriation. I came back and I said that we need more time.
Now I believe what we’ve put together is a balanced approach. It is the beginning of change. I think, as we get into the detail, you’ll be able to see that change, the investments made in the Northwest Territories, the investments that start changing the way we do business and thinking as the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Yes, we need to make some more change. But if we continue down the same path we are, the operation and expenditures will outgrow and outstrip the resources. Capital infrastructure Members are talking about in their communities will not be affordable, have not been affordable because we haven’t been able to move along. We need to create that flexibility.
Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to change is here. We can make that change. I’ve asked Members to help with that. Yes, we’ve had to go back. Members can’t deny that when this came up, we were going to go back to the meeting of May-June, and we were going to put this together. But we go back to the typical way of doing business.
So even this isn’t a departure from what was done for the Assemblies that I’ve been involved with. And for those who say that there was no indication that we’re in trouble financially as a Government of the Northwest Territories, I just refer you back to my last Budget Address in the last Assembly. The fact is, we knew there was a growing problem and presented that to Members; Members have agreed. Now that we’re starting to see that detail, Members are concerned. I share that concern. My community is the second-largest hit, when you talk about position reductions. I look at that and say, well, why is that? Well, we are a regional centre. It’s not that we’ve picked on communities; we’ve tried to reduce that.
We went back to departments and gave them targets. They had to review that. They came back forward with initiatives. Like I said, we turned many back. We’re far short of meeting that target. That’s why we had to reduce in reinvestments as well, and we’ll have to continue to do that same thing if this is passed. The government will have to look at not making reinvestments. Guaranteed, if you don’t reinvest in critical areas, you will be guaranteeing status quo. The system does not want to change, and I call the system “government.”
There’s an opportunity to start that change; it’s got to start somewhere. If you don’t start to make that change now, I can guarantee you, the system will stay the same and the status quo is what you’ll have.
I listened to Members; you shared that about notification. Let’s go back to near the equivalent amount. In 1995–1996, $150 million was taken out of government expenditures. A large part of that was capital expenditures. The total amount of impacted individuals in the Northwest Territories was close to 700, and it was discussed at that time. We have $135 million, we’re suggesting, and we’re reinvesting. We’ve limited that now, as we’ve heard from the Minister of Human Resources, to about 118 and we’re working with the rest of them to find alternate placements and potentially early retirement. So we’re working with people and being proactive in that manner.
Encouraged by Members: let them know early. Encouraged by the union: let them know early. We did that, and yes, there was an error in HR of getting that information out before Members had a chance to look at the details of all the community impact. There was an error, and I accepted that. I admitted it. I went to Members and I said, “We should have got you the information up front. That was supposed to be what happened.” So I’ve accepted that. We’ve erred in that area, and we won’t be making that kind of an error again. But that wasn’t trying to address what Members are saying. So we have a lot of work to do, and there’s a lot of detail in this document.
Between infrastructure and O&M, close to $1.3 billion is being spent in the Northwest Territories. Let’s not turn a blind eye to that. Let’s not turn away from the opportunity that does present itself, so that change can happen and it starts today, with this process. That’s where we come to you and say, “Here’s an opportunity” — and I thank Members who support this at least for the debate — “for doing that.” Members are aware, Mr. Speaker; they know where I stand about this budget bill. So they can look at it how they like; but the fact is, this bill has been put together with a lot of work, a lot of effort. Unfortunately, we’ve had some steps here that have upset Members, and there’s an impact on communities. Some would say there’s no impact on their communities, or little impact, and there’s little reinvestment. Well, we want to change that. We want to make that happen.
When I first got elected, I came down here thinking I could make a change now. Well, it took a while, and those Members that have been around — there are four of us that have been around since the 13th Legislative Assembly — know it takes a while to get things into the books, because there’s so much demand pent up for additional reinvestments.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will have lots of debate about what is actually in the document, about what is being spent in our communities and what is being reinvested in our communities. Because we’re trying to change things, but change does not come easy, I’ll tell you that, and I’ve been part of this eight months trying to make change happen. It’s a painful process. But status quo will not get the Northwest Territories from where we’re going to head. I would encourage Members to look at that graph that was pointed out earlier, when you looked at B2, the growth — that’s the path of where we should come from.
The fact is we know our future now. We know our revenue situation, and in fact we’ve got some big hurdles coming up and we have to address those. If we don’t address those, then this is going to be.... This budget would be considered a minimal change in the way we do business. If we don’t take advantage and draft what the future may hold and take hold of that and start to change it today — just thinking about the impact today — it’s going to be greater the next day. And when you look at B3 when you talk about the reduction and the debt situation we have as a government, there will be no reinvestments. We will only be paying for fuel and electricity costs in the existing way.
This budget starts to look at alternative forms, and we will continue to try to do that. But we need to hear from you — agreed, absolutely. And my commitment is still there. When we get past this process and we get into actual business plans, there will be more sit-down meetings about what’s being developed, not what’s being already presented and stamped. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A recorded vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.
Mr. Roland, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bob McLeod, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen.
All those abstaining, please stand.
Ms. Bisaro.
The results of the vote: 11 for, six against, one abstained. The motion is carried. Bill 8 has had second reading and stands before Committee of the Whole.
Motion carried; Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 4, Bill 7, Bill 8, Committee Report 2-16(2), Committee Report 3-16(2), Committee Report 4-16(2) and Tabled Document 37-16(2), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.
I’ll call Committee of the Whole to order.
We have consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 4, Bill 7, Committee Report 2-16(2), Committee Report 3-16(2), Committee Report 4-16(2), Tabled Document 37-16(2), Main Estimates. What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
We would like to deal with Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, and Bill 7, Securities Act.
Is the committee agreed?
Agreed.
With that, we will take a short break and continue on with those matters.
The Committee of the Whole took a short recess.
I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. We will consider Bills 4 and 7.
At this time, I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has any comments in regard to introduction of the bill. Mr. Jackson Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The purpose of the bill — Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 — is to amend various statutes of the Northwest Territories for which minor changes are proposed, or errors or inconsistencies have been identified.
Each amendment included in the bill had to meet the following criteria:
It must not be controversial;
It must not involve the spending of public funds;
It must not prejudicially affect rights; and
It must not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
Departments responsible for the various statutes being amended have reviewed and approved the changes. Most amendments proposed in Bill 4 are minor in nature, and many consist of technical corrections to a statute.
Other changes have the effect of repealing certain enactments or statutory provisions that have expired or have otherwise ceased to have effect.
The amendments are of such nature that the preparation and legislative consideration of individual bills to correct each statute would be time consuming for the government and the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of this bill. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time, I would like to ask the Chair of the committee which is overseeing the bill if he has any opening comments. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs met on April 25, 2008, to review Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act, 2008.
During the clause-by-clause review, the committee passed two motions to make minor technical amendments to the bill. The Minister concurred with the amendments.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 4, as amended and reprinted, to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 4. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. At this time, I'd like to ask the Minister if he would be bringing any witnesses into the House.
Yes, I will.
Does committee agree that the Minister brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Agreed. SergeantatArms, escort the witnesses in. Mr. Minister, can you introduce your witness, please?
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have with me here today to introduce Bill 4 Mark Aitken, director of the legislation division.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Welcome, Mr. Aitken.
General comments. Are there any general comments? The floor is open to general comments. Is the committee agreed we go into detail?
Agreed.
Agreed. Tab 4 in the grey binders. Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Clause 1.
Clauses 1 through 20 inclusive approved.
The bill as a whole.
Bill 4 as a whole approved.
Does the committee agree that Bill 4 is ready for third reading?
Bill 4 as a whole approved for third reading.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, witness. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witness out.
Bill 7, Securities Act. It's in tab 7 of your grey binder.
I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Jackson Lafferty, to introduce the bill.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to appear before the committee today to review Bill 7, a new Securities Act.
The present Securities Act is outdated and inadequate to address the many changes that have occurred — particularly in recent years — in the capital markets and the regulation of those markets in Canada since it was enacted.
The lack of harmonized legislation has been identified as a significant weakness in the current regulation of securities trading in Canada.
Cross-border trading in securities is now the rule rather than the exception. Securities legislation that is not uniform or harmonized leads to inefficiencies in the raising of capital, and inconsistent and unequal protection for investors.
In 2004 an inter-provincial Memorandum of Understanding was developed with a goal of improving securities regulations in Canada.
The MOU established a Council of Ministers responsible for securities regulations and identified several key objectives, the most important of which are:
the implementation of a passport system, where an issuer or a registrant need only deal with the primary regulator and comply with the laws of that regulator’s jurisdiction in order to operate in any or all other provinces and territories; and
the harmonization of securities legislation, in particular to improve enforcement, investor protection and inter-jurisdictional cooperation.
The Council of Ministers identified a wide range of recommended changes to securities legislation to support the passport system and to strengthen the coordinated national system of regulation in Canada. As the scope of these amendments grew, it became clear that it would be easier to accommodate these improvements within a new act, rather than in an amendment to the current legislation.
Officials in Prince Edward Island, Nunavut and Yukon drew the same conclusion in respect of their legislation. This led to the idea that the four jurisdictions should join forces to develop a uniformmodel act that would include all of the measures proposed by the Council of Ministers that are suitable for smaller Canadian jurisdictions.
They began with model legislation that had been developed by the securities regulators from all of the provinces and territories and that had been completed in 2003. The Council of Ministers Task Force supported them in their work. A request for public comments on a Northwest Territories version of the model was circulated last fall. P.E.I. and Yukon did likewise with their versions.
Few comments were expected, given the objective is harmonization with laws already applicable to the industry in other jurisdictions. There were several minor suggestions, all of which were addressed in the bill.
A new act has now been enacted in P.E.I. and Yukon. In Nunavut a bill to enact the model is at a second reading.
The purpose of securities legislation is to facilitate the raising of capital in the private sector while providing appropriate protections and remedies for investors. A new Securities Act would not necessarily promote capital investment in the Northwest Territories, but it would remove obstacles that arise from legislation that is outdated and out of step with legislation elsewhere in Canada.
Most importantly, this bill includes new and significantly improved enforcement and investor protection measures in line with those that have been recently enacted in many provinces.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of this bill. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time, I’d like to ask the committee responsible for overseeing this bill if they have any general comments. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs held public hearings on Bill 7, Securities Act, between April 25 and May 1, 2008. No witnesses spoke to the bill other than the Minister and his officials.
The clause-by-clause review of the bill took place on May 20, 2008. During the clause-by-clause review, the committee passed three motions to make minor technical amendments to the bill. The Minister concurred with the amendments. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 7, as amended and reprinted, to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 7. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. At this time, I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the bill if he’d be bringing any witnesses. Mr. Lafferty.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree that the Minister brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
SergeantatArms, escort the witness in. Mr. Lafferty, can you introduce your witnesses for the record.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I have with me here Mr. Gary MacDougall, director of legal registries, and Mr. Mark Aitken, director of legislation division. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses.
I would like now to open the floor for general comments on Bill 7. Does the committee agree that no further general comments are needed and we can go clause by clause to review Bill 7? Members may note that Bill 7 consists of 186 clauses. For the interests of efficiency, I suggest to the Members that we deal with the clauses in groups of about 19 to 20. Members will, of course, have the ability to ask questions on any of the clauses within that grouping. Do Members agree with this approach?
Agreed.
Thank you. We will proceed with consideration on Bill 7, clause by clause. Clauses 1 to 20.
Clauses 1 through 20 inclusive approved.
Clauses 21 to 40, pages 40-47.
Clauses 21 through 40 inclusive approved.
Clauses 41 to 60.
Clauses 41 through 60 inclusive approved.
Clauses 61 to 80, pages 57-68.
Clauses 61 through 80 inclusive approved.
