Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill itself, again, as I stated, committee moved that the bill would be ready for Committee of the Whole, as amended and reprinted. We would wish that the Members of this Assembly would support it and proceed with this and forward it on to third reading. I have one other point that I'd like to raise, but it's more to the actual bill itself. As we were going through it, we found something in there and just would like a clarification from this. A number of committee Members noticed it, and it's in the summary section. So I would like some...I guess maybe it's later on when we actually get into the bill that we would be doing that. So I'll wait until we actually begin clause by clause and I'll address that concern that we picked up on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Does the Minister wish to bring in witnesses? Mr. Steen.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.

Does the committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in, please.

Mr. Minister, could you introduce your witnesses for the record, please.

Mr. Chairman, on my right is Debbie DeLancey, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, and on my left is Mark Aitken, director of legislation, Department of Justice.

Thank you, Minister Steen. The chair will open the floor to general comments. I will recognize Mr. Dent.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say again this is another one of those bills that I'm very happy to see come forward. There was a lot of concern a couple of years ago that it might not be coming forward, and I know over the past two years I've been hearing from members of our city council that they wanted to make sure that it came forward. So I'm glad we were able to get it to this point where we could consider it tonight. I know there was a significant concern that if we didn't bring it forward or didn't get it passed that it might have a significant impact on insurance rates for municipalities.

It was good to see it introduced, but then when it was introduced I started hearing from city council members that they had some concerns. I think from what I've seen of the committee report and from my conversations with council members that for the most part the committee and the Minister heard these concerns and made amendments. I know that in the city of Yellowknife there was a concern about the market disruption policy, and I'm pleased to see that the committee listened in that case to the concerns that were raised and that the Minister agreed with the committee on the removal of those requirements. So I think in its current form, for the most part this bill meets the expectations of the city and deals with most of the concerns that were raised.

There's one area, though, that didn't get addressed by the committee that I just need to make a comment on, and that's the long-term borrowing issue. My position would be that municipal governments are at least as responsible as this government. They are part of a democratic system. The same people who elect everybody who sits at this table elect municipal councillors. I think that we have to recognize their ability to take on the responsibility of deciding whether or not their corporation can afford to borrow money.

I'd just point out that if in fact it is the same people electing us, thank goodness we don't have to go to plebiscite every time we borrow money. The Finance Minister would be out running a plebiscite just about every second week the way we've been going lately. Given that, and the fact that we're not agreeing to long-term borrowings without going to voters' approval, I find it particularly interesting that the Association of Communities recommended that there be a requirement that municipalities prepare balanced budgets. I can remember how much pain and suffering we went through when we were required to have balanced budgets here, and I certainly haven't heard Mr. Handley calling for that sort of approach. So I think it's an indication of the maturity that's out there, the willingness to take on their own problems and deal with them. While I am disappointed that the committee didn't agree on that one, I still think we have basically pretty good legislation here and I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The chair will recognize Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to make a short comment, once again. I want to make a comment in support of this bill. As has been mentioned a couple of times already, this particular bill has been in the works for at least two or three assemblies. I am sure there are employees and people involved in this bill that are going to heave a big sigh of relief once we get this through here. I understand that even our sister territory, Nunavut, has passed their version of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I understand this bill to be one that will empower the municipalities to govern themselves and have more power to do so, and it will also reduce the liabilities that they are responsibility for at the moment where it's appropriate so that they could ease the burden of insurance premiums and such.

Throughout the review of this process, I do believe that the committee Members paid close attention with respect to balancing of interest between the municipal governments to do their job, versus the interest of the public and other stakeholders whose interest it was to protect. So there has been a lot of work done on this. Not only the employees, but the NWT Association of Communities has been very, very involved. Throughout the public hearing process, we've had the Yellowknife mayor appear before us as well as the president of the association and many other councillors and such. I do believe that this bill is a result of incorporating most of the suggestions that were made. For those suggestions that have not been incorporated, I believe it's one that the majority of the people who came to talk to us could live without because the interest is so high to have this legislation passed that all the parties involved were willing to make compromises to see the essence and the integral part of the legislation see the light of day.

I'm sure that I may have some other comments to make where it's necessary as we go through this bill. It is quite a lengthy bill and it's one that has seen lots of amendments and changes in its life until it got here. But by and large, the bill as a whole I do believe is very timely and one that a lot of people are anxious to get through. It is one that would give more power and independence to the municipal governments to make decisions about their borrowing and other aspects of liability and such. So I'll just conclude my statement there in support of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. General comments. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record stating that I support this bill. For a number of years I sat as a council member in the community of Fort Providence. We raised issues and we raised concerns that we didn't have enough authority and we didn't have the tools to do a lot of the things we wanted to do. We would look at our goals and objectives and a lot of them were out of our reach because we had no mechanism, no way to really do a lot of the things we wanted to do. We raised concern at that time to anybody who would listen. We went to a lot of meetings, not only myself but many of the councillors who were on the hamlet council of Fort Providence at the time, and it seemed like nobody was listening. So I was quite happy to see this whole bill come about. We weren't sure it was going to get to this point. It took a long time and it took a lot of work to make it become a reality.

With this bill, the communities that it affects in my riding are the community of Fort Providence and Kakisa. I don't believe the reserve is affected. But one of the communities that really had a lot of involvement and really wanted to see changes to legislation was Enterprise. Unfortunately they were not part of this as this bill does not apply to the settlements. I really encourage the department to make note of the motion that was put on the table by Mr. Roland and bring forward the appropriate amendments early in the life of the next Assembly.

I certainly welcome the new responsibilities that come with this bill, the new authority. My only concern would be if this bill adds more responsibilities and with more responsibilities comes more costs. I'm just hoping that we're not going to see any huge unexpected costs resulting from the fall of this bill. With that, I want to say that I'll be voting in favour of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. General comments. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I, too, support the amendments. I think they're long overdue. We had outdated legislation. We've seen a lot of our municipalities grow over the years and they've been asking to take on more responsibilities while having more control and say on exactly how their dollars are being administered and managed. Having the expectation from the people that they represent that they are able to have meaningful say in the growth and expansion of our communities and have the ability to have the resources to make the changes that people expect without having to continue depending on outside forces to help them make those decisions.

I think it's important that, through this legislation, we do thank those people that have worked on this for some time, going back to the 13th Assembly and now in the 14th Assembly. I think it's great to see we're now in Committee of the Whole dealing with this legislation and hopefully bringing it into force.

With that, I just want to state that I do support the amendment in the bill to ensure that we do give the communities the tools they're asking. I'd like to thank the Minister and his department for the long, drawn out process in those communities and the committee that has gone out of its way to ask for public input into these amendments. With that, I will be supporting the amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The chair will recognize Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns particularly with the proposed sections in this bill that would authorize municipal governments to run commercial activities. I'll refer to schedule B, Cities, Towns and Villages Act, proposed section 66, which says, "A municipal corporation may provide its services on a commercial basis, including using its equipment, materials and labour, to carry out private works on private property." Mr. Chairman, I think many taxpayers and businesspeople would find this provision somewhat troublesome.

Essentially, this allows municipal governments to compete against the private sector with GNWT money or, even worse, with their own tax dollars. For example, municipal equipment like graders or bulldozers is paid for by MACA or by taxes or a combination of both. This makes for a very unfair competitive advantage because a private construction company would have to finance its own equipment. It might be enough to put some companies out of business or to discourage new companies from starting up. How, I would like to know, would this benefit our communities?

I understand that there has been a concern from the private sector in Alberta, which has similar legislation. For example, there have been instances where municipal governments have underbid private companies on construction contracts in neighbouring communities.

The other concern I have is that taxpayers' money could be put into risky ventures. What happens if the municipal business does not do as well as expected or, worse yet, fails? Does this mean that other programs and services would have to be cut in the community? Does this mean the taxes would have to go up? This should not be allowed to happen.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns with mandatory market disruption policies and I understand that municipalities need revenue, but I think there has to be some mechanism to protect community residents and I do not think we should be restricting municipalities from renting out swimming pools for birthday parties or offering cooking classes. At the same time, I'm not satisfied with the suggestion that voters can have their say in municipal activities once every three years at election time. By the time residents go to the polls it may be too late. Businesses may have gone under and taxpayers' money may have been sunk into bad business ventures.

Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that the bill could be amended to require voter approval for any new commercial activities and this would ensure the community residents have a say more than once every three years. Anything a municipality is doing now should be allowed to continue without being subject to voter approval.

At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will be moving that these amendments be made to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Chairman, might I also add that I don't think this is as big an issue in the communities that are regulated outside of the Cities, Towns and Villages Act. I'm particularly concerned about this in tax-based municipalities where they have established businesses in most sectors. I think this is more of a risk and a problem in those areas. When I speak to this later on it will be in reference only to the Cities, Towns and Villages Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. General comments. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier, I'm just seeking some clarification here. When you look at the bill itself and look at the section that's stated summary, Mr. McLeod, the Member for Deh Cho, picked up on something. We've amended the bill, for example, in the area and we've reported it in our committee report and the Minister concurred with those changes, but in the summary section it still refers to allowing employees of hamlets and charter communities to sit as council members in similar circumstances.

I'd just like clarification that this has just been...Maybe the summary wasn't replaced or is it something else or is it actually part of the bill that we should be concerned about or is it not something? Maybe we can get that from the Law Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Can I ask the Law Clerk to give us a ruling on that?

Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Mr. Aitken, did you have anything to add to that? Mr. Aitken.