Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my earlier Member’s statement with questions to the Minister for Education, Culture and Employment. During the last election campaign, the NWT Status of Women Council in the NWT asked all candidates the following: “If elected, would you commit to helping all communities in the NWT build affordable, quality, licensed child care facilities”? I will be tabling that later today.
I’m happy to report that candidates Bob McLeod, Glen Abernethy and Tom Beaulieu, and most of us on this side of the House made that commitment. The Minister himself did not reply.
Could the Minister answer the question today? Now that you have been elected and put on Cabinet with this responsibility, how is this government planning to fulfill your colleagues’ commitment to helping all communities in the NWT build affordable, quality licensed child care facilities? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the Northwest Territories we have child care centres and also daycare establishments, and throughout Yellowknife as well. At the same time, there is always room for improvement, as well, within my department. We’re always exploring ways of improving, whether it be the facility, whether it be changing the policies or programming. We’ve done that in the past where we’ve provided funding to the daycare establishment, where we pay for part of the mortgage and part of the operation cost as well. We will continue to make those changes that will reflect and be a positive outcome for the children in the centres.
This is an area that we are also discussing with the Early Childhood Development Framework, an overall framework. Now we are going to be focusing on the action plan. As we move forward, these are some of the changes that will be coming. Mahsi.
Thanks to the Minister. We are certainly a planning Assembly, and we are hoping for action. After two years in office, people, of course, are starting to get tired of hearing statements of commitment and intentions. I feel that they are starting to look for actual actions.
Could the Minister estimate how many affordable daycare spaces have been created since we were elected?
I don’t have those exact details, dates and times for establishment of those facilities, but I will provide that to the Members.
Again, with the Early Childhood Development Framework, we’ve engaged the general public, the educators, the daycare workers, on what’s required, what’s needed. That is just some of the feedback we received through my department and also Health and Social Services, Again, as we move forward, those are some of the discussions that we will be starting to implement, along with the support or guidance of the standing committee as we move forward.
We are in the process of reviewing the capital budget, and the government claims its spending the vast majority of the available funds building highways is an investment in our future. I would suggest that investing in our children has been demonstrated to have a better result, including economic result.
How much money is the government planning to invest in new daycare spaces over the remainder of our term in office as of today?
I agree with the Member that investing in our children is a priority of this government and we must continue to drive that forward. With respect to the capital planning process, we are still going through the process itself on an annual basis. We provide that information through the capital planning process and we will continue to do so. Next year, the following year, we have two years in our terms, and we will continue to push that forward with respect to the centres in the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister. It’s clear. The data are in and they’re accumulating more rapidly by the day. Universal daycare provides huge returns. The Quebec and Scandinavian examples prove those returns on dollars invested. Most recently, Quebec, Canada, $1.49 for every dollar invested, Mr. Finance Minister.
Will the Minister commit to examining this model closely and reporting back to committee soon so we can take action? I know he did express interest when this was brought up in committee. Sorry. I retract that remark. I know that the Minister is interested in this question, so will he look closely at it and bring it to committee for discussion?
We have been gathering information or doing our research, especially with respect to Quebec, the daycare, the $7 daycare a day, and also just recently, 2013-2014, they are beginning their junior kindergarten. Those are some of the things that we are monitoring, and we are moving forward within our own initiatives, as well, and then we will provide that information to the Members, that research that we’ve done throughout the other jurisdictions as well.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a given that privacy is the very hallmark of security we have bargained for in subjecting ourselves to the rule of law. However, in the same breath, access to information for Members of this House is the cornerstone of democracy, consensus government, transparency and accountability. Democracy itself is weakened and public accountability crippled when access to important information is hampered or refused.
As a follow-up to my Member’s statement today, I wish to address questions to the Justice Minister on improving access to information for Members of this House and the public at large.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories has recommended numerous times, through her annual reporting, a need for the Department of Justice to review the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. What have been the barriers for the Department of Justice not to follow through with these repeated requests?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Member’s comments, and I understand the desire for Members to have access to all information that the Government of the Northwest Territories has, but I can’t stress enough that individuals do have a right to privacy, as do corporations. We do have a process where Members who need or desire specific information can request information, and if we, as Members and Ministers on this side, know who it’s coming from, we’re certainly happy to work with the Members to provide as much information as we can. But there will be situations where there are individuals or corporations who have specific information that they have a right to have private, and we have to all, as Members, respect that.
My question didn’t ask for a schooling on the rule of law here. My question simply is: When will the Justice department begin a comprehensive review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was recently recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and, as well, by the Standing Committee on Government Operations?
The standing committee made a number of recommendations with respect to the ATIPP Act, and recommendation number three asked the exact question that the Member is asking here today. In our response, which was tabled earlier this week, we indicated that we are doing that detailed progress report, and we will certainly have that to the committee within this current fiscal year.
It’s encouraging that we’re hearing a progress report, but will the Minister of Justice commit to the Members of this House that when we do this ATIPP review that one of the goals of this review will be to investigate MLAs having a broader range of information access under such rule of law?
Recognizing that individuals do have a right to privacy and there is certainly information that individuals and corporations may not want in the public sphere, including in the hands of MLAs, we are happy to work with committee on this request.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s response. The Minister mentioned earlier about a progress report, but will the Minister ensure that a complete review of the ATIPP Act is completed in time for all amendments to come forward within the life of the 17th Assembly?
If that is the wish of committee, we are happy to work with them.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Colleagues, before we continue on with Members’ oral questions, I’d like to welcome Mr. Geoff Wiest, chair of the Independent Commission on Members’ Compensation and Benefits; and Mr. David Krutko, a former Member and member of the commission. Welcome to the House.
The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to follow up with some questions to one of my Member’s statements earlier today on the coroner’s report. I have been reviewing some of the coroner’s reports since 2002, looking at some of the recommendations. I want to ask the Minister of Justice when the coroner’s reports come out of his department, who is responsible for addressing those recommendations out of the reports? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member obviously has taken a look at a number of the coroner’s reports. When looking at the reports, he will recognize that many of the recommendations are to different organizations, sometimes different departments within the Government of the Northwest Territories. When it is to a specific department, that department is responsible for responding to those recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my next question in terms of the responses to these recommendations: Is there a regulated guideline or regulation or some type of guideline to develop a timely response or a timely action to address these recommendations so that incidences that result in death don’t happen again? Is there something regulated in place right now? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, no, there is nothing regulated indicating a timeline for turnaround on recommendations. The recommendations themselves are not legally binding, but the coroner does expect responses within three months after releasing her report. If she doesn’t receive the responses to the recommendations within three months, she usually follows up with the individual to whom the recommendation is made.
Just as a note, it’s important that we do get responses to these recommendations because the coroner does use these responses to inform future decisions, so it’s important that we do get responses. As a government, we are committed to responding to recommendations when they are made to us in individual departments or as the government as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, over the last week, since we came back in session, there have been discussions about medical detox and treatment and psychiatrists within the NWT. In the 2002 coroner’s report, the same recommendations came out that we need a detox facility and we need more resident psychiatrists.
I know the Minister can’t speak for all the government, but would the Minister look at seeing what recommendations are made for his department and commit to looking at doing an audit over the last 10 years in which recommendations his department would be able to address and get those addressed? The longer we don’t address these recommendations, it just means people are continuing to slip through the hole and that is not acceptable. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If committee wants that information, I am happy to provide that information. Granted, over a 10-year period of time, it might take quite a bit of resources and time to pull that data together. A specific ask might be a little bit easier to accommodate, but regardless, if that’s what committee wants, I am happy to provide that information. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe 10 years is a little bit too long, but maybe I can ask the Minister to ensure his department, since the coroner’s office falls under his department, takes responsibility to ensure that other departments act on the recommendations in the reports, not for the last 10 years, but just try one year and try the last report, which was the 2011 report. Can I ask the Minister to at least attempt to do that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously happy to follow the request from committee, if that is what committee wants. We are happy to look at the last coroner’s report and provide a bit of an analysis from the Department of Justice perspective on actions taken. At the same time, the Member may want to have some discussions with some of the other Ministers where recommendations were made specifically to them as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to follow up on my Member’s statement from today and I have some questions today for the Minister of Justice. I discussed proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act in my Member’s statement, and a discussion paper which the Minister had put out during the month of September. One of the items in the discussion paper that I did not mention is titled Consistency with the Condominium Act and there are several provisions in there which the department is suggesting to bring the Residential Tenancies Act in line with the Condominium Act. I agree with the proposal that is suggested, but I think there is one missing. I think the Residential Tenancies Act should also look at providing easy access or a mechanism for a condo corporation to collect on arrears. Condo members have condo fees. When they don’t pay them, they are in arrears.
I would like to know from the Minister whether or not anything exists now for a condo corporation if they have members who are heavily in arrears, is there a mechanism for them to collect and if there is not, would he consider adding it. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not aware of every specific clause within the Condominium Act, but I’m happy to have the department take a look at it and provide some additional information to the Member. As far as committing to something I haven’t read, that’s not something I’m prepared to do at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks to the Minister. Good on you for not agreeing to something you haven’t read. I am right there with you on that one.
One of the things I highlighted in my statement was rent controls and limits on rental increases. Rent controls are highly debatable. There will be probably as many people on the no side as there are on the yes side on rent controls. I highlighted that there is no option for tenants if there is what they consider to be an unfair increase in their rent.
I would like to know whether or not the Justice department, in looking at this Residential Tenancies Act and their paper, did they look at this issue of unjustified rent. And if so, why is it not part of their discussion paper? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we did go out with a discussion paper that had eight key themes. We did get a significant number of responses to that discussion paper. We are currently pulling together a “what we heard” document which we are hoping to have out later this fall, which we will be happy and absolutely we will be taking it to committee to discuss before we move forward with an LP. We do hope to move forward with a legislative proposal either shortly before Christmas or shortly after Christmas, where we have an opportunity to work with committee on how we move forward with this particular legislation. Obviously, as the Member said, there is a lot of debate on both sides of the rent control issue and we’re happy to have those conversations as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister for answering my last question. It is very nice to hear things are moving forward and to get a time frame for it.
My Member’s statement suggested three possible solutions to helping tenants if they have what they consider to be a heavy rent increase or put some sort of limits on landlords. I would like to ask the Minister if, having heard them now, although the discussion paper is closed and the review is underway, will the Minister consider the three solutions that I mentioned in my statement. Will he consider them as they look at amendments to the act? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the question and answer period doesn’t provide a lot of opportunities for the Member to provide the details. I have a vague idea of what the Member is alluding to and I’m happy to work with committee to have these conversations and move forward to have a Residential Tenancies Act that works for all residents in the Northwest Territories, both landlords and tenants. I would be happy to have the conversation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. 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. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, and commends it to the House.
Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, is a private member’s bill introduced by Norman Yakeleya, the MLA for Sahtu.
Although Mr. Yakeleya is a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, he declared a conflict of interest with respect to all committee discussions related to Bill 24, and did not attend the meetings or portions of the meetings where such discussion took place. Mr. Yakeleya, in his role as the sponsor of the bill, did attend all public hearings related to Bill 24.
The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review on June 6, 2013.
Passage of the bill would allow Sahtu communities to ask the Minister of Finance to hold a regional vote on limiting sales to individuals at a liquor store in the region. Currently, the only liquor store in the Sahtu region is in Norman Wells.
The bill provides the Minister with the option to order a vote if resolutions are received within a six-month period from councils representing at least three of the five Sahtu communities, provided they represent more than half the region’s population. The communities would have to agree on the proposal to be voted on.
Although the Norman Wells liquor store supplies all five Sahtu communities, the Liquor Act currently allows only Norman Wells residents to have a say on restrictions on sales to individuals.
On December 5, 2011, the people of Norman Wells voted by a narrow margin to lift liquor restrictions in their community. The restrictions had been in place since the 1970s. At that time the following daily limits were set on sales at the liquor stores in Norman Wells and Fort Simpson:
1140 ml of spirits and 12 beer; or
1140 ml of spirits and 2 litres of wine; or
2 litres of wine and 12 beer; or
24 beer and 1 litre of wine.
The liquor rationing system in Norman Wells was removed on February 1, 2012. However, Deline, Fort Good Hope and Tulita have restrictions on the amount of alcohol a person can bring into the community, similar to the maximum sales that were allowed at the liquor store in Norman Wells. The other Sahtu community, Colville Lake, has no restrictions.
Sales at the Norman Wells liquor outlet have increased since the lifting of restrictions. However, the change in restrictions appears to be only one of several factors that could account for rising sales.
In light of significant public interest, and the fact that Bill 24 represents the first request for a region to have a role in a liquor plebiscite, the standing committee decided to hold public hearings in Norman Wells, Deline, Tulita and Fort Good Hope.
The hearings took place between September 9 and 26, 2013. The turnout was strong in every community, resulting in total attendance of approximately 160 people. The committee received submissions from a range of individuals and organizations, both orally and in writing. Every community participated in the hearings, as a delegation from Colville Lake was present at the Norman Wells event.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now pass it to my colleague Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The overwhelming majority of submissions supported Bill 24 and, indeed, a return to restricted sales at the Norman Wells liquor outlet. Of course, the latter is not the issue at hand, which is solely how a plebiscite may be requested.
In all the small communities, people pointed out that bootlegging has increased since restrictions on sales were lifted in Norman Wells. Bootlegging is predominantly in hard liquor, much of it in small “mickey” bottles, which reportedly sell for $85 each in Tulita. Two RCMP officers attended the hearing in that community. One confirmed that calls for service were up since restrictions were lifted in Norman Wells.
Bootlegging is against the law but difficult to control. Police are not able to intercept it all. Alcohol is smuggled into communities by plane, boat, road and snowmobile. Bootlegging was cited as a serious problem in every community, including Norman Wells.
Changes proposed in Bill 24 are not considered to be “the solution” that will stop bootlegging in any community. Rather, there was consistent opinion that the provisions of Bill 24 would help reduce bootlegging.
People in every community spoke passionately about the impact of alcohol abuse, which include many deaths and hair-raising close calls. People spoke of living in fear, of police being unable to respond quickly to complaints, and of the tactics bootleggers use to avoid being caught.
In Fort Good Hope, elder Gabriel Kochon spoke of the deaths of his son and nephew. “Today,” he said, “there are children 8 years old [who are] drinking.”
The committee heard time and again that children and elders are suffering the most.
Opinion on Bill 24 was more divided in Norman Wells, but the majority of speakers supported it, including several young people.
Nevertheless, Bill 24 was strongly opposed by the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce, the contractor who runs the liquor outlet on behalf of the NWT Liquor Commission, and several other individuals.
Opponents of the bill consider that it interferes in a business, sets up a regime unique to the Sahtu region, and that involvement in plebiscites by other communities is unfair to residents of Norman Wells and will not stop rampant alcohol abuse. The Chamber of Commerce labeled the bill “unconstitutional.”
The committee considered this objection but does not accept its validity. The committee carefully considered applicable human rights legislation in the Northwest Territories as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The committee does not believe that the bill denies residents any good, service or accommodation on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination, or that it otherwise constitutes unlawful discrimination without a bona fide and reasonable justification. Further, the committee notes that the Northwest Territories Act grants the Legislative Assembly the authority to legislate intoxicants in the Northwest Territories.
Some of the arguments against the bill were echoed by the Minister of Finance. In a letter to the committee on September 26th, he stated that he and his Cabinet colleagues will not support the bill. The Minister cited his desire for consistency of plebiscite policy across the Northwest Territories.
For clarity, the Liquor Act mandates the Finance Minister to regulate sales of alcohol. The NWT Liquor Commission, which contracts and supplies all liquor stores in the territory, also operates under the authority of the Minister of Finance.
Standing committee members were impressed by the submissions they received in every community, and found considerable merit in the arguments both for and against Bill 24.
The committee agrees that fundamental democratic principles must be upheld. In this case, that means a request for a plebiscite should come from communities comprising more than half the population of the Sahtu. An amendment to this effect was made during the public hearing in Yellowknife on October 16, 2013, with the consent of MLA Yakeleya, Bill 24’s sponsor.
However, the will of the people, as expressed in four lengthy public hearings, was loud and clear in support of Bill 24. What committee members heard was in fact a cry for help, which brings us to some important matters well beyond the scope of the bill.
I’d like to pass the report on to my colleague Ms. Bisaro.
