Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. When the decision came down by the government in this House on October 30th not to proceed with the second and third phase, the 23 communities that were in the process of delivering junior kindergarten, we reached out to them and they provided a written response by the end of last year in December. There were some communities that decided to opt out. Out of 23, there are 19 communities that decided to continue with junior kindergarten, a majority of JK deliverance in the community for this year and also next year. Next year will be around 18 junior kindergartens being delivered in the Northwest Territories. Mahsi.
Thanks to the Minister. The Minister, the House knows, Members know, and I think the public knows that there’s now a review underway for junior kindergarten. The results are not likely to be known, I don’t imagine, before the election occurs.
I’d like to know what plans does Education, Culture and Employment have with regard to junior kindergarten for the 2015-16 year. Will it go beyond the 18 communities that the Minister just mentioned? Thank you.
Mahsi. We are currently, as the Member indicated, reviewing the overall JK, junior kindergarten deliverance for next year. The communities that provided written to opt out of junior kindergarten have been verified and next year the plan is to have 18 junior kindergartens to be delivered as part of the process. That’s where it stands. We go by what’s been written to our department by the DEAs and the DECs. Mahsi.
So, he said there are 18 that are going to continue next year. So that means there will be no additional junior kindergarten programs started in the school year for ’15-16. So given that, and given, as well, that the education authority budgets were reduced in the 2014-15 fiscal year, my belief is that the department has all the money that is needed to run junior kindergarten in school year ’15-16. If it’s 18, they actually have more because we’ve gone from 23 or 22 down to 18.
So, can education authorities expect any further contribution reductions for junior kindergarten implementation in their school year ’15-16? Thank you.
Mahsi. When the decision was made October 30th, the decision was that we’ll continue to deliver junior kindergarten this year and next year on the phase one approach with the existing funding that was allocated in working with the school boards. So that will continue, the decision that was made by this government. So that’s the process that we’ll continue to follow for next year. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to ask the question again. The education authorities were scheduled to be reduced, some of them were scheduled to be reduced three years running. The first year’s reductions have already taken place.
Will there be reductions to education authorities in the second year when there is no increase in the program offerings for junior kindergarten?
Mahsi. It is approximately $1.8 million to deliver junior kindergarten, and with the downsize to 19 and 18 there’s a small reduction that’s going back to the school boards. I must reiterate that the October 30th decision that was made by this House uses an existing fund that we’ve allocated. So, we’ll continue to go with that process, as well, for next year. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to ask yet another question. I’ll have a question for one of the Ministers of this particular government. With that, I’ll decide. In all honesty, I have questions for the Minister of Transportation. I happen to be looking at the statement of claim made in the Ontario Superior Court about the plaintiff against Deepak International.
We don’t talk particularly about affairs before the courts due to the sub judice matter, but what’s particularly interesting of the situation is when I asked the Minister of ITI the other day about the cutting of diamonds and when these things are happening, nothing has happened for the last two years since this company struck a deal in the Northwest Territories. Now, that’s a business decision to do business or not, but it’s got me thinking, has this company been making lease payments to the Department of Transportation regarding their lease on the airport property? Because if they owe over $615,000 to some finance company, have they been making payments to the Northwest Territories, and if they have not, how long have they been in arrears and for how much? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Business between the government and the proprietors out at Airport Road is a relationship that probably shouldn’t be brought to the floor of the Legislative Assembly. I will check on that information and can advise the Member as to what the results of that are. Thank you.
I can somewhat appreciate the last answer, but if this company is in arrears to the Government of the Northwest Territories, answers are owed to the people of the Northwest Territories.
Can the Minister speak to what arrears are outstanding? If there are any, can he explain for how long and how much? Thank you.
I cannot confirm here whether or not the company that the Member refers to has lease arrears with the Department of Transportation. Thank you.
Setting that aside, if a company owes money, if they owe arrears to the Government of the Northwest Territories, I need to appreciate how long we sit on this lack of payments. If there are any, we don’t know. I should be fair about that, we just don’t seem to know. There was no answer on that one way or another, so it’s not clear. But how long do we sit in a process of arrears before the Government of the Northwest Territories takes action? So I’d like to know what the policy is on that, because if somebody isn’t making lease payments, then we should be asking ourselves, when do we take action to ensure we protect the people’s interest? I’m referring to the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Usually it’s not an issue; people pay their leases. If a company was to fall into arrears, then as soon as the department identifies that as an arrears problem, then we would contact the company immediately and start taking action to recover our lease payments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Presently in Ontario Superior Court a $615,000 claim is being made against this particular company. I’m worried about the Northwest Territories’ particular interest, recognizing that this is approximately one-third of the value of the two buildings which were purchased and I’d hate to see the Northwest Territories lose its position on these growing bills.
So, my question again to the Minister, if he can clarify this, or certainly help me out and help everybody out on this, what is the policy that we allow arrears? For how long and how large can we allow arrears to build up before the Government of the Northwest Territories takes action for the people of the Northwest Territories to protect our interest? That’s what should really matter. Thank you.
If it was viewed by the government that lease payments were not being made, then it becomes a problem lease. Then any of the departments would then go to the Finance department and have the Finance department’s collection division deal with it. So as soon as it’s identified as a problem lease, we would then move the file to Finance for collections.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to speak to a personal circumstance. I had a summer student one year that was overpaid by accident by the machinery of government. The fact is, it was just a small accident and it wasn’t even a lot of money, but what was interesting is the collection agency was sent immediately. They sent the leg breakers there to pursue this over what was really a very small amount of money.
I’m trying to get to the understanding of what the policy is. Is this Minister able to speak to the size and volume of the policy that could be at risk here? I’m asking the Minister of Transportation how large and how long can someone be in arrears before the Government of the Northwest Territories takes any action on someone who hasn’t been making their payments.
As I indicated, as soon as it’s identified that this is a problem lease, having issues with collecting lease payments, then any department, Transportation in this case, would then have the Department of Finance start collection procedures. As immediately as it’s identified as a problem we would then go for collections.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Monday, February 23, 2015, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that the Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services clarify procedures for Stanton Territorial Hospital employees to follow when violent incidents occur, including procedures expressly for the use of physical restraint in these cases;
And further, that the Department of Health and Social Services direct Stanton Territorial Hospital management to hire security personnel with recognized training in non-violent crisis intervention and physical-restraint techniques;
And further, that security personnel at territorial health care facilities be hired as full-fledged employees of the Government of the Northwest Territories, guaranteeing continuity of service and benefits resulting from accumulated experience, institutional memory and professional training;
And furthermore, that the Department of Health and Social Services review its policies and procedures pertaining to security at territorial health care facilities and report back to the House within 120 days.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a motion to present to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion reads: WHEREAS lobbying government is a common activity;
AND WHEREAS most lobbying is legitimate and constructive, it is a common public perception that some lobbying may be inappropriate or contrary to the broad public interest;
AND WHEREAS the experience of these governments provides efficient examples for others to emulate and adapt to their own circumstances;
AND FURTHER, that the government provide a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to bring this motion before the House today. I’d like to thank Mr. Nadli for seconding this motion to allow its debate.
Personally, I don’t believe one could make a motion any clearer or to the point when it comes to the transparency and accountability of a government. As I have come to say numerous times in the House, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and a lobbyist registry is about as open and bright as it comes to cleansing the question of legitimacy of the House business. However, before we begin to look at the rationale for such need, we need to first put in the definition of what we mean when we say “lobbyist” or what is a lobbyist and why a registry.
There are many ways to define this, but in simple terms, we are talking about a list of people and interest groups trying to influence politicians and government. Many jurisdictions in Canada have more formal definitions of lobbying and lobbyists, but in almost all cases those who are paid or compensated to represent the concerns of others to influence legislative or spending of governments are referred to as lobbyists. These individuals must usually abide by a lobbyist code of conduct and register themselves accordingly. Consequently, those who lobby on a voluntary basis are not required to register nationally.
On top of that, some jurisdictions also base this activity to the following key principles of conduct. Some principles, for example, as found in the Lobbying Act of Canada, refer to such guidelines as that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest; that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity; that it is desirable for public office holders and the general public to be able to know who is engaged in lobbying activities; and finally, that a system of registration of paid lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government.
In essence, lobbying the government is in itself not a bad thing. Government can learn a lot from outside experts such as businesses, non-profits, environmental groups, religious organizations. You name it. As I said, it is legitimate and legal activity. It’s to the greater transparency of lobbying and the greater accountability of public officials where one needs to consider a tool that helps curb inappropriate influence to provide the public scrutiny for its elected decision-makers. Hence, the need and motion before us today.
Some may ask, what does government do now in the absence of a lobbyist registry? Any inquiries from the public or even MLAs have to be made to the official or agency in question. Certain records, in some cases, may be subject to access to information and privacy legislation which does not have a very strong mechanism to enforce compliance, but more importantly, this mechanism does not apply to the office of the Ministers, its Members, or the Legislative Assembly in general. Instead, the public and even Members of this House have no idea who is doing the lobbying, or who they represent, when they meet with specific officials in government and what topics are being discussed.
To the question of how a lobbyist registry would work in our unique consensus style of government, I turn your attention to cities such as Toronto whose municipal dealings are similar to consensus and have had a lobbyist registry in place since 2007. I see no issue that the scope of legislation with proper consultation and review could not produce a bill of high integrity dealing with our unique consensus style of government.
As well, to the question would lobbying to Regular MLAs and non-elected officials have to be reported, in my view, a GNWT registry should be covering lobbying of elected and non-elected officials with decision-making powers or significant influence. The new Financial Administration Act makes greater provision of power for deputy ministers; therefore, so should the transparency of their action.
As for MLAs, there is no dispute that we have significant powers over legislation and appropriations, so we would, in theory, not be immune to such a tool. Of course, all these issues would need to be considered carefully and with proper debate.
Finally, some may be wondering how much would such a lobbyist registry cost the GNWT. This is a great question, especially as we are tethering on the cliff of fiscal restraint. My goal, colleagues, is to keep this simple and efficient for the NWT and its residents. It must be kept in line with the size and activity of our jurisdiction with very modest resources. To put this modest dollar figure to the test, Mr. Speaker, one only needs to look at the budget for the Government of Canada Registry of $825,000 where more than 5,000 lobbyists are registered. By all accounts, a GNWT registry would be much more humble by design.
It all boils down to this: it’s about catching up with the rest of Canada and becoming part of that distinguished list of enlightened jurisdictions that keep track of lobbyist activities. As our responsibilities grow in the aftermath of devolution, all the more reason to get the job done now and show the people of the NWT we are truly an open and honest government.
I’d like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to thank Mr. Nadli for seconding and to my colleagues here today for their comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. I’ll allow the seconder to the motion, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this motion. I’d like to thank my colleague Mr. Dolynny for the work that he’s done and the passion that he’s brought to this motion on the floor of the House today.
As my colleagues would understand, I’m the chair of the Government Operations committee and the work of the committee is to ensure that there is a level of transparency and accountability on the part of government, and in that same spirit that this motion purports, is that there has to be a system of fairness that things be done in a fair, transparent and also, at the same time, an accountable manner. Such is the mission that we carry in terms of my colleagues that are part of the Government Operations committee.
In some instances, lobbying, what it’s all about is who is the loudest. In the Northwest Territories we try to be respectful, we try to work within the context of culture, cultural differences. At the same time, there’s a lot of western thought in terms of how the economy should work, the values that you bring with it, and sometimes it’s a mixture. At the same time, we stand proudly and we need to be very proud in terms of how we operate uniquely, which is northern and which is respectful. At the same time, we recognize the differences that we have and to try to work with each other. So that’s what we bring forth that’s a fairly common feature within the NWT.
Lobbying, of course, is an effort to try to bring influence to a cause. Of course, within governments there’s a lot of that that happens in terms of lobbying for positions, lobbying for contracts, lobbying for major initiatives and so forth. So that’s what happens. At the same time, there has been, at the federal level, an attempt to try to bring some discipline in terms of what our lobbyists do. At the federal level there has been precedence in terms of ensuring that there’s a system of order in terms of how it can be managed. I think, for the most part, devolution has changed the landscape within the NWT, how we do business, and this motion setting forth a lobbyist registry is timely in that we need to ensure that we do things in a fair, transparent, accountable manner. For those reasons, I stand in support of this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also am in support of this motion. I think it is a motion for a territory whose time has come. It has been mentioned already and it will be mentioned again, but devolution is part of our growing up as a territory and we are growing up. As we grow up, there are things that we need to do to accept the fact that we are growing up, to accept the fact that we are becoming a little more adult. There have been concerns in the past about people who have been making entreaties to Cabinet, to Ministers, to MLAs. There have been concerns that they may not have been doing them in a truly moral and ethical manner. Whether that’s valid or not I don’t know, but there certainly have been questions that have been raised in the general public about the number of people and/or the type of people and what the representation is of people who are making entreaties to the government.
So I think a lobbyist registry would certainly allow for a clarity of who is lobbying and why they are lobbying, because a registry would lay that out. I think it’s something that we ought to be moving towards.
One of the things that I would hope would be looked at, and that would be defined in the investigation of whether or not a registry would work, is a definition of what a lobbyist is, and Mr. Dolynny referenced some of those. There are certainly enough acts out there already with definitions that we don’t have to do a heck of a lot of work in order to get ourselves to the same point.
I think that it’s going to be a minimal cost. There probably is going to be a little bit of a cost, but I think it’s going to be minimal cost. Mr. Dolynny referenced 800-and-some thousand dollars for the federal government, who is going to have a heck of a lot more people on their registry than we will. So I see that it would be a very minimal cost, and looking at the cost should be part of the investigation that this motion calls for.
One of the things that I do want to state is that the investigation needs to look beyond just establishing a registry. Accountability and transparency are words that we hear quite often these days. In order for us to have transparency in what’s going on in the government, for us to have accountability of Ministers and Members and deputy ministers, I think that point is well taken, there needs to be a reporting mechanism. It’s one thing to have a list of people who are lobbying, it’s another thing to know how often they are lobbying and who they are lobbying, and basically the registry will show what they are lobbying for.
So I certainly hope that that’s going to be part of any investigation and this motion only looks or asks us to look at investigating whether or not a lobbyist registry should go forward because there’s no money involved in this at this point and I think it’s an investigation that could be done relatively easily, relatively quickly and I would hope that certainly the government would act on this and that we would get a report on it long before the end of the 17th Assembly.
So, with that, I am in support of the motion and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I begin, I’d just like to thank Mr. Dolynny and Mr. Nadli, as well as any other Members who have brought a lobbyist registry before government. I’m happy to speak on it today.
When we discussed this in committee, the first thing that came to mind was transparency and accountability on our government and our departments and how we do business throughout the Northwest Territories. The public and public offices have the right to know who is lobbying our government and who is going into contracts with our government. We need to know which groups, businesses and organizations meet with government, what was discussed and those need to be documented in terms of some of our local contractors not having that opportunity to get in those front doors.
With that said, I know we do have some people who get paid as lobbyists and I think the paid lobbyists should not impede the free and open access to government as well. So when we have organizations out there that would like to meet with our government that sometimes they might not get those appointments because there are other groups that are paying lobbyists to come and meet with government.
I know Members on this side of the House and even in the public, in the media, we have organizations that are concerned about the negotiated contracts that our government does make a common practice of. In some cases it’s great because we negotiate with local businesses and Aboriginal businesses. However, there’s not that fairness that Mr. Nadli has spoken about earlier in terms of moving forward on this. So I do have concerns with negotiated contracts and how those come out and I think a lobbyist registry will give me some answers and the public some answers on why contracts are negotiated, but also how this government makes their decisions and how dollars are spent and how taxpayer dollars are spent in some projects and programs and services throughout the Northwest Territories.
So with those all said, I did have a concern, though, just in the cost of creating this registry or if there’s going to be an office that’s going to be associated with it. I strongly support that it does need to be accessible 24/7 via the Internet and having some kind of a resource in that way, but I will support the motion, which asks to investigate the best way to implement a lobbyist registry that is publicly accessible via the Internet.
So I’d like to thank the Members again for bringing this motion forward and for being able to speak on it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have much more to add than the mover, the seconder and other speakers on this motion. I am rising in support of the motion. We do have more responsibility here in the Northwest Territories as a result of devolution. As a result, we have more at stake with our lands, waters and resources and, therefore, should have more accountability and transparency, and that’s why I will be voting in favour of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
I too will be supporting this motion, but I do have some questions going forward. I would like to see some of the framework and some of the assessment of this registry. There are some concerns for me. I think a lot of these registries are applying to a party politics situation. I think consensus government is quite a bit different. The Member has talked about Regular Members maybe having to be involved in this registry, as well, when we have meetings, because in order for a lot of things to get approved here, we have to have consensus. We have to have consensus, so we have to have Members on this side represented there, so we have to be involved as well.
I guess defining what a lobbyist is, is individuals who are getting paid. We have band members, companies, NGOs, different constituents in the territory that come talk to us about different issues, Mr. Speaker. Defining that going forward would be a big question mark for me.
I understand Members’ comments that now that devolution is here, some of the Ministers have a parallel responsibility, so we need to implement some sort of registry here.
I am voting in support of it. It will be critical in looking at how it goes forward, how this framework will be structured and how it will fit our consensus government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to my colleagues, again, from Range Lake and Deh Cho for bringing this forward. It’s an important mechanism for transparency and accountability. I really appreciate their doing so.
I would like to offer, first of all, strong support for the assumption behind this motion that a lobbyist registry is clearly needed. I think that’s a given. I would also offer strong support for the motion itself, which calls for exactly how this can be done.
To reflect most comments of my colleagues, devolution has added responsibility and a need for transparency that we didn’t have before, so I see this as being a timely and appropriate mechanism. Much has been discussed in this House about the need for Ministers who have been assigned new authorities, to be more objective, accountable and transparently, so again this is in line with that.
When assessing how to establish a lobbyist registry, it’s important to include how the public can easily and clearly see who is meeting with our Cabinet Ministers, how frequently and about what, as has been said by my colleagues. This is an important component in the public’s ask before bringing forward accountability.
I will leave it at that. I don’t know that this needs to extend to Regular Members, although certainly for myself I would be happy to report any meetings I have. The day we really have a consensus government, that might be appropriate. I don’t think we are anywhere close to that. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I will be supporting this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank Mr. Dolynny and Mr. Nadli for bringing this motion to the floor. I think this motion should be looked at sometime in the future, not today. I have thoughts on it and I don’t think that at this time a motion like this is needed in the Northwest Territories, especially in our small communities. I can see it in the larger centres like Yellowknife. You have a lot of people coming in here and meeting all the time and we don’t have that opportunity. In our small communities, we know who is actually coming to meet with even ourselves as MLAs. We can almost be the lobbyist ourselves because we want issues and things dealt with in our communities.
Right now this, for me, raises too many questions. I feel this is a consensus-style government, and with a lobbyist registry, I’m not really comfortable with it. You are going to have to be very, very careful. I don’t see a need for it right now, so I’m going to be abstaining from this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
