Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 65 be amended by adding the following after clause 93:
Consequential Amendments
93.1.(1) The Land Titles Act is amended by this section.
(2) Each of the following provisions is amended by striking out "mechanics' lien" and substituting "builders' lien":
(a) subsection 24(2);
(b) subsection 96(2).
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.
Carried
Clause 93.1, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 94, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, to the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 65, Builders' Lien Act as amended, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee has agreed that Bill 65, Builders' Lien Act as amended, is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 65, Builders' Lien Act?
Agreed.
Thank you, Minister. And thank you to your witnesses. Sergeantatarms, please escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
Committee, we've agreed to consider Bill 84, An Act to Amend the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Act. I will ask the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment to introduce the bill. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am here to present this evening Bill 84, An Act to Amend the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Act.
The Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Act and regulations have not been comprehensively updated since their introduction in 2005, despite there being significant market changes over the years. Based on recommendations in the last fiveyear program review of the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation and direction received from the Board of Directors, an indepth legislative review with public engagement over the last 18 months was conducted.
I would like to extend my gratitude to the 130 businesses and stakeholders who invested their time and resources to participate in the research and public engagement sessions. I also want to thank the chairpersons and members of the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation board of directors, both former and current, who played a central role in identifying the opportunity for change and who were involved throughout the legislative development process. Having an independent and public board supports an arm's length structure and offers a level of independence for the organization, which is highly valued and preferred by the public.
The result of this extensive undertaking by the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation and its board is Bill 84. Bill 84 modernizes and amends the act to enhance clarity, transparency, and valueadded supports to NWT entrepreneurs and businesses. There are nine amendments being put forth that will create flexibility for the organization to better respond to business needs which can quickly change, especially during times of emergencies or crisis, like the wildfires, and will help community businesses thrive in the territory.
To support these proposed amendments and the organization's strategic direction, a new name for the organization is also being proposed. The proposed name, Prosper NWT, will enable the organization to overcome the significant challenges that exist with the current name, Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation, and better aligns to the ultimate purpose and goal of the organization which is to help bring greater prosperity to the Northwest Territories.
Prosper NWT has generated much interest from my colleagues. I want to assure my colleagues and the public, of two things: First, I am confident that the new name is a wellinformed, meaningful, and strategic choice made only after significant research; and second, that I have had the benefit of very strong boards, board chairs, and management staff on whom to rely for these recommendations, that remain arm's length and responsive to the needs of the private sector in a way that government cannot always achieve.
A comprehensive and professional approach was taken to arrive to this name, a process that is typically followed by many other companies and organizations, balancing stakeholder engagement with the expertise of branding professionals, legal considerations, and the organization's overall goals and vision. Of note, the proposed name, Prosper NWT, does appear to have support from the business community as demonstrated by a recent poll conducted by the Northwest Territories Chamber.
I strongly believe that with the proposed amendments in Bill 84, including the new name for the organization, we will be able to do more and do things differently to better support Northwest Territories businesses, contributing to a stronger and more diversified economy.
That concludes my opening remarks, Madam Chair. I would be happy to answer questions committee may have.
Thank you, Minister. Would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Sergeantatarms, please escort the witness into the Chamber. Minister, please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two witnesses with me today. On my right, Ms. Joyce Taylor, the chief executive officer of the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation. And on my left, Christina Duffy, director of legislation division with the Department of Justice.
Welcome. I will now turn to the chair on the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, the standing committee that reviewed the bill, for any opening comments on Bill 84. Member for Nunakput.
Madam Chair, Bill 84, An Act to Amend the Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Act, received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on March 30th, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment for review.
Bill 84 is proposed to make numerous changes to legislation that impacts the operations of the corporation. The bill would have also changed the name of the corporation to Prosper NWT. At the time, the committee had concerns about the board of the corporation, from the vacant board positions, inadequate representation from the communities. Further, the committee believes that the Crown corporation of the government, the corporation should have interacted more with the public when going through a rebranding exercise. While the amendment could not have been addressed the concerns about the board's composition, the lack of transparency, the name selection procedure could not be changed at the stage of the process. That is why the committee decided to do its clause by clause on Bill 84 on July 25th, 2023, that the bill was not ready to move forward.
I would like to thank the committee for its work on the review of Bill 84. Individuals and Members may have additional comments.
But before I hand it over to back to you, Madam Chair, I'd just like on a personal note, Prosper NWT, BDIC, it doesn't matter. As the chair, or board for myself, I just want to make sure access to funds for small businesses are into the communities. And I really think this is a really good program for our small businesses across the territory. And I think it doesn't matter the name in regards to it, just as long as it's getting out the door and helping who needs help. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 84. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd like to thank the committee for the work they did as well, and I will support this bill. I like some of the changes there. The name, I guess, always it seemed to be a concern to some. And I guess it was to me at the beginning but then I thought about it after a while, and Prosper NWT it's actually welcoming. And that's what we need that office to be is to allow people to go in there and feel like they're welcomed there and that they are going to get the support. And then I also see some of the other stuff.
Like, you know, to provide nonfinancial support, which is very important to its clientele, I think. And so there are a number of good items in there. It's the meat of it that I'm looking at. The name, again, like, my colleague just stated, you know, it doesn't matter to me that much. But I think it's probably an okay name. And like I say, you know, anything that makes it better, makes it more accessible, and provides more support to our business community, then I'm in support of that. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other general comments? Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I participated in the review of the bill. And I want to say I support the bill, except for the name change. And the other items in here, though, are good items that are covered here. They are in response to three independent reviews that were done of BDIC. And if I get the dates right, 2013, 2014, 20 I don't know 16 or something, 2018. Anyways, that part of the bill, I don't have any problems with, and I think they're helpful changes that will allow BDIC to do more of what it can and should be doing.
The name change, though, very problematic. And look, I want BDIC to be independent. I want them to be arm's length from the government. I want them to have a full functioning board that's probably more representative than what's there now. And I might speak to that a little bit more. But, you know, the name change was not part of the whole plan. You know, we got a legislative proposal as Regular MLAs. Can't talk about it. But what I can talk about is the discussion paper that was put out. The public engagement that was undertaken. The name change wasn't part of that process. And all of a sudden, it bubbled up in the bill. It was a complete surprise to committee. So we tried to find out what it was all about. We had to ask, I think, three times to get the information. Committee shouldn't have to ask three times to get information, and committee was ready to use its power to compel production of a document. That doesn't happen very often in the eight years I've been here. I just don't know why it had to go that far.
So the Minister talked about how, in her view, this was a well-informed decision. When committee got the documentation and I can't talk about it because it's top secret there was well, I think I can say that there was nothing in there about a name change. So then we had to go back and ask a second time, where's the information where's the background stuff for the name change. So then we got some more stuff.
And I disagree completely with the Minister's assessment that this is a well-informed decision. And I respect the board. I want boards to be independent. But it's not a well-informed decision. I read the stuff. I'm a details guy. And I don't think it was done well. So anyways, one question I do want to ask is can the Minister agree to make that background work and if some of it needs to be redacted in some way, can the Minister agree to make that information public? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we have had a fairly significant disagreement about the really, about the process of getting information to committee on this one. And I will say, Madam Chair, it is unusual, but we're also not dealing with a department of a government here. We are dealing with an entity that is meant to be arm's length in which, to be quite frank, over many years was not necessarily given as greater latitude as it could have been to be truly at arm's length from the department, from the Minister, from the Minister's office. So I certainly made it my point to really embody the idea of arm's length, to be committed to the notion of independence. And so when the board and their staff undertook this process which I would note, Madam Chair, that in our legislative proposal, we did say that they would be undertaking a rebranding exercise and that that had yet to be finalized.
So that was in the legislative proposal. When they undertook that process, Madam Chair, they undertook that process internally. There was research done that did engage market research obviously looking at the market. So they then felt strongly that they're the process they undertook was not meant to be one that would then turn around and be shared. The products that were produced for that process were not meant to be produced for public consumption. I respected that, and so that's where unfortunately we did get into this dispute with committee. It was never meant to be anything other than that. And I think that that had left us with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths which was, again, unfortunate because it could otherwise be a positive name change.
Madam Chair, I fear I'm now in the same situation. I'm sitting in front of committee. I'm now sitting in front of Committee of the Whole. It's a public question. And I'm in the same boat where I have a board and staff of an entity that's arm's length where they're asking me to keep their materials that were not created for public consumption to not be going out to public consumption. The situation hasn't changed. I was able to share with committee under the conventions of this House. I can't do the same thing if I'm sharing it to the public. I'm sure, Madam Chair, we could come up with a draft document that would summarize the market research, that would summarize the process of the market research, and I would commit to putting that type of document out to the public. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, that's all great. And I do appreciate this Minister's approach to BDIC. And I think the new management has been great there too. I've heard lots of positive things. And I want to say that publicly. So, you know sorry, I'm picking on you on the name change, but the rest of it has been good. Everything I've heard. But I have heard complaints from small businesses about the name change. People feel some businesses don't think it's a good idea. They don't like it. And I guess what I'm getting at here is that there wasn't, in my opinion, and from having reviewed the documents, that I'm not allowed to talk about, adequate public engagement to support the name change. And I'm not trying to reach in and interfere with what the board does. But it's just not there. Plus, I think it also sets a bad precedent where we say we're going to do something, people are engaged, and then all of a sudden, wow, something knew is thrown in at the end without an opportunity for people to express views or concerns, whatever, about it. So that's a bad precedent. And I'm sorry, I can't support a bad precedent in that way. But in any event, I've asked the questions about trying to get more information out there about the basis for the name change and how that was done.
The Minister is of the view it was well informed. I disagree completely, having seen the information. I think there can and should have been public engagement around that. And if it if it had been up to me, I would have found a way to try to split this bill so we deal with the stuff that we can all agree on, which is getting these improvements to BDIC so that they can get money out the door and do their job better. That's different than the name change. That's a completely different thing. And that was not part of the original package. Rebranding might have been but I didn't clue to the fact that this was going to result in a name change. But maybe that's my fault, my failing. So.
At the end of the day, Madam Chair, I'm not sure I can support this bill because it sets a bad precedent where something pops up at the end of the process and wasn't people didn't have a chance to participate and express views about it. So the rest of it, good stuff. Keep doing what you're doing. And I want BDIC to continue to invest in things like the Fort McPherson Tent & Canvas, Dene Fur Clouds, the Fort Liard arts and crafts stuff. Those are great projects. It's at your own initiative. I believe in government intervention. I believe in government creating jobs in communities. And that is a big part of BDIC's mandate, and I want to see more of that, please. Please do it. So that's it. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I I like the discussion we're having here right now. In regards to government rebranding and, you know, you have to think about that too as well. I know, you know you know, we take a look at housing corporation, NWT Housing Corporation. They went through a whole exercise and at the end, they called it Housing NWT. But the policies are still the same. The people are still the same. The monies are still the same. Everything I mean, when you really look at it, it's just a different set of clothes the next day they're wearing. Everything else is still the same.
In regards to changing the name for BDIC to Prosper NWT, I'm not really sure you know, I think a lot of people here in the Northwest Territories are familiar with the term BCIA, BNI, so it was called BCIC? Is that what it is? Yeah, but, anyway, you know, I just wanted to know like, I'm surprised that this came up now. But at the same time, had the board had an opportunity to be part of this process and when you said you had 130 business people and stakeholders, what were their thoughts on this idea of changing the name? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Madam Chair, again, this was led by the board and their director, CEOs. So I'd like to turn it over to the CEO, please.
Ms. Taylor.
Yes, the board was engaged throughout the process. With the board of eight members at the time, they initiated the process through the strategic planning process to look into improving the image of the BDIC and to look into branding as a part of the mandate under my tenure. They also engaged in the conversations with the 11 engagement sessions that were held with the stakeholders. And during that time, it was continually expressed that there was a ton of confusion, especially with BDIC, and BDC, as well as at least ten other organizations. And there was continual concern that there was bad goodwill coming from other organizations. And that was also exemplified today in the newspaper for the Yellowknifer.
The media confused the BDIC with the BDC. There was allegations of fraud in the newspaper where the tag line referred to BDIC when, in fact, the loan was from the BDC. We had nothing to do with that lending and that media and confusion continues. So the board throughout the process looked at and discussed the name and they looked at what the professionals had stated should be done. They deferred it to the marketing and communications specialist that indicated that there was a problem with our branding. There was extensive confusion with the BDIC and the BDC and to create a simple ownable name that was easy in English, easy in French, and could be also identified easily in the communities as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Like, again, I know the rebranding portion, you know, I mean, we're changing the housing corporation to Housing NWT. Maybe we could have build ten houses just on that note, all the letterheads and everything else, the cost of doing all that. You know, this can be just a simple fix, you know. All you got to do is where it says BDIC, just put a little polar bear there or something like that. And the other ones BDC, that's a federal organization. Put a Canada flag or something there. But anyway, I guess I'm just wondering, Madam Chair, can you maybe elaborate a little bit more as to how your engagement process of this bill with your board and in the what kind of feedbacks you were getting from or some of the concerns as well in regards to this bill from your board. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I mean, as a general process, again, I suppose it's sorry, I'm struggling with the long question. There was a lot I mean, one of the things I guess I would speak to would be the need to get the venture program to a place where it was more accessible and more useable. There was significant interest in being able to deliver business supports, business programs in a way that right now under the current legislation was not authorized. There was a desire to move an authority from an executive council, which requires all of Cabinet, to the ministerial level, but also to give greater authority directly to the board itself so that we're not, again, as reliant upon the department of ITI or the Minister.
You know, again, there was recognition of you know, if we're talking if we're still talking about the rebranding, I'm not sure. But certainly, again, the concern being I mean, the Member mentioned earlier BCIC. So, yes, there's BCIC, BDIC, BDC. There's I mean, First Nations Financial. There's other financials. There's this financial. So there was a long list of names and, again, there was a marketing a whole marketing process undertaken to do the research on this. I am not an expert in that. I'm quite content to rely on those who are the experts in that. There was a need to define conflicts of interest. This has come up in the time that I've been in this role. So, yes, I mean, all of those things were you know, the occasions when the board gets together, have a chance to meet with me as well. They had done the What We Heard report on this was fairly extensive and lengthy and spoke to a lot of these issues. So I Madam Chair, I'm not sure where else to go. I don't want to take all the Member's time. So I'll pause there and see if there's one that he would like more information on. Thanks.
Thank you. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Take all my time, add another ten minutes. I'm just kidding. No, no. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Minister, for that response.
So you talked about the involvement of your board. How about the independent board? I know BDIC has an independent board. Can you let me know how were they involved in this bill and what kind of comments and feedback were you getting from them as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me turn that to Ms. Taylor.
Ms. Taylor.
So thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the board was initially from the strategic planning session to involvement in the drafting of the discussion paper after the engagement through surveys, 78 survey respondents as to what we should address. They were also involved in the engagement sessions with the public prior, and there were 51 participants in 11 sessions. That spanned from May of 2022 right through to July of 2022, and they were held in French and English. They were held for the regions at different times of the day to accommodate.
The board spoke to them. The board was involved in the review of the What We Heard report. And then they were also involved with the drafting of the legislation and the changes that were proposed that came out of the What We Heard report in response to what the public and the various stakeholders had to say. And then they were also engaged as a part of the interview process where there were 11 interviews with business advisory, businesses themselves, board members, senior management.
There were representatives from the business communities at an association level speaking to the whole issue of the brand audit. And they contributed to that process. There were and then once the branding audit results came, they saw what the experts had said. They also had presentations on the proposed names. 50 names were reviewed. So, anyway, their involvement was throughout. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you for that response. I guess my last question would be for the Minister is what does she feel will be the biggest impacts for NWT businesses with the proposed amendments of this bill? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm happy to give my own views on it. I do think it would be beneficial to also hear from the CEO. But, I mean, I suppose at this point I'd probably highlight I don't like to pick favourites; it's like picking your favorite child. But, I mean, to be to be quite honest, actually, I would actually put the rebranding on there because there is confusion in the space, in the ecosystem of supports for businesses. I'm not it doesn't even matter to me necessarily. As it has been said already, whether it's Prosper NWT or something different, but it needs to be something different. I'm glad that it is something that has been done by a professional organization to make that determination because there needs to be clarity around the business ecosystems that are available to support businesses in the Northwest Territories. There's not right now. They don't know who to go to for what level of service or for what type of service. And so second to that, I would say is the ability here for BDIC to provide business supports, which right now have to go through the Minister if they can be supported at all. So the ability for them to start to do that on their own in a responsive way will be more responsive and more timely. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Prosper NWT is the greatest name ever; I love it, I'm excited. I'm really excited for the CEO and board and to truly become arm's length and hopefully they don't have to deal with any more MLAs for a long time. My only concern, though, is I think the board right now has four Yellowknife Members and one Fort Smith Member, and then has some vacancies. Can I get an update on how we're doing with trying to add some diversity to the board. Thank you.
