Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The honourable Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Glen Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The intent of the program is to encourage safe workplaces, which we stand by completely and support wholeheartedly. Our concern is about the actual administration of the program.
As I indicated before, based on the Q1 performance update 2012 balanced scorecard on WSCC’s website the 2012 target for time loss claims per 100 workers is 2.42. The GNWT currently rates at 1.8. We already exceed what their targets are, yet we continue to get some significant claims.
Our other concern is the fact that we are assessed as one GNWT as a whole, our whole payroll, and it wasn’t until recently that we were able to get them to provide it to us with breakdown. The breakdown is incredibly important to us, having the information by department, because then we can provide it to the different departments so they can assess where their challenges are and address those challenges specifically.
If we were assessed by individual departments, the claim on, the fine on the GNWT would be very, very small by comparison, because most of our departments don’t have claims records that are high enough to justify or warrant a fine. We have brought these concerns to the WSCC about the Safe Advantage program, once again, fully standing behind the intent of the program.
Our concerns are about administration. We have shared those concerns with the WSCC. When the program came forward, the WSCC indicated that they would be reviewing this program after five years. That five years is now. They have indicated that they are going to be doing an analysis of the WSCC Safe Advantage program to make sure that it still meets its mandate, that the administration is fair and reasonable, and we’ve asked for an opportunity to provide our input and provide our concerns to them so that they can be addressed, and they’ve said that they would.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to follow up on some of the questions raised by Mr. Bouchard. I was thinking about this recently, and I think the timing couldn’t have been better. He brought up the concern about the Deh Cho Bridge and, certainly, the tolls. As far as the tolls are concerned, a number of people in the Yellowknife and surrounding area are concerned about how the tolls are transferred to the general public. In essence, they’re afraid that there could be an opportunity for a cash grab.
In the context that a toll may run anywhere from $250 to even $300, what type of public consultation, if any, or what type of public information is being transmitted to the general public to demonstrate what the actual tolls are and how they may be seen on the everyday goods that people buy?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. David Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have that information on our website. We have had numerous discussions with transportation companies here in the Northwest Territories and in the South, in advance of the tolls being charged on the Deh Cho Bridge. For a breakdown of those meetings and discussions, I would be more than happy to get the Member and committee some detailed meeting times and organizations that we’ve met with.
I’d certainly take the information, but I think, in essence, it’s the public that’s more concerned. Not everyone has the time or energy or even interest to go to the GNWT website, let alone Transportation’s website. That’s not meant to be an insult; people are busy. The reality is that people are concerned about these tolls that are going to be coming forward and are they going to be excessively carrying the costs of the tolls. In other words, are the everyday moms and pops carrying the cost of paying for the bridge in an unfair manner? The one example provided is if it’s $250 per truckload going across that bridge, the reality is it’s only a couple of cents per item. People are afraid that it’s going to be several dollars per item every time they go to the store. How is the GNWT communicating the actual costs that will go down to the consumer?
Our belief as a government and department is that the cost will be offset because companies will have to stockpile goods. They will not have to store goods. There will not be the need for refrigerated units. There will be no need to fly things over during freeze-up and breakup. Those costs in warehousing that will be saved, the feeling is it will be a wash. Certainly, the toll that transportation companies are going to have to pay, it will be up to the companies whether or not and how they pass that onto businesses that they do business with.
There are endless examples and I won’t go through them here, but the point is that the average consumer doesn’t believe it’s going to be a wash. I appreciate the Minister feeling very confident in his belief that many of these trucking companies and businesses will eat these costs. I haven’t heard anybody who actually believes that.
What type of public consultation can the Minister of Transportation do to show people where there will be savings and where there will be potential costs on the individual consumer? That’s ultimately the issue.
This is a question that’s come up numerous times in this House over the past nine years. I’d be more than happy to get the Member and committee the information that the department has gathered over the years. It is our belief that over the course of the bridge and the collection of the tolls, that businesses will not be disadvantaged in the long-term because of paying the tolls.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hear the Minister and I’m not disagreeing with him, but I don’t think he’s hearing me. The issue is it’s not about what I believe, it’s what the public believes and perceives. The public is willing to pay their fair share. I’ve never heard any argument against that. The fear is that those costs will be unfairly passed on and unfairly distributed to the everyday consumer. All I’m asking is: What type of public consultation can the Minister provide some information in a form that makes sense to the general public so we can see and understand this?
The Deh Cho Bridge Project has been a project underway for the past several years. There have been a number of questions asked in the House related directly to the line of questioning the Member has. I would certainly be more than happy to get the Member and committee the dates and times where public consultation has taken place on this.
The bridge is set to open here in a few weeks. The tolling has been in place. The tolling system has been in place and the tolls have been well known now for a number of years, and we intend to open the bridge here in the next few weeks.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following two documents, entitled Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2012-13, and Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2012-2013.
As well, I wish to table the following two documents, entitled the Conference Management Authorities Species at Risk Annual Report 2011-2012, and the Northwest Territories Species at Risk Committee Annual Report 2011-2012.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, I will move that Bill 14, Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), 2013-2014, be read for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, No. 2 be read for the first time.
Bill 12 has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 13, An Act to Repeal the Credit Union Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 13 has had first reading.
---Carried
Item 19, second reading of bills. Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to proceed with second reading of Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, No. 2.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, No. 2 be read for the second time.
This bill amends the Human Rights Act to add as a prohibitive ground of discrimination a conviction that is subject to a records suspension.
Bill 12 has had second reading and is referred to committee.
---Carried
Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to proceed with second reading of Bill 13, An Act to Repeal the Credit Union Act.
---Consent granted
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 13, An Act to Repeal the Credit Union Act, be read for the second time.
This bill repeals the Credit Union Act and makes consequential amendments to the Co-operative Associations Act and the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Bill 13 has had second reading and is referred to committee.
---Carried
Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012; and Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Securities Act, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.
Good afternoon, committee. I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. We have on the order sheet here, Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012; and Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Securities Act. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The committee wishes to consider Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012, as well as Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Securities Act.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Great. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Committee, we will come back to order. We have agreed to consider Bill 2. The Minister responsible for Bill 2, Minister Abernethy, Minister of Justice, would you please introduce the bill?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here today to talk to you about Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012.
The purpose of Bill 2 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;
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 2 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 a nature that the preparation and legislative consideration of individual bills to correct each statute would be time consuming for the government and for the Legislative Assembly.
I am prepared to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. I would now like to go to the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, the committee which reviewed this bill, to make comments. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, on August 23, 2012. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill. The bill provides minor, uncontroversial amendments to several acts, most simply corrected translations and clarify wording in the acts. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 2. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
