Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister. I just want to get this stabilization fund straight. I know in the past when some communities paid a little more than they would have had to offset the higher cost of fuel in some of the other communities, that wouldn't affect the stabilization fund at all, or it shouldn't. What criteria are used to get this stabilization fund implemented to a community? Is there some kind of cost ratio that is used to determine when a community needs some of the stabilization money to offset the high price in retail gas prices? How does the government determine when the stabilization fund gets tapped into by a specific community other than fuel shortages like Lutselk'e with the planes going in? I am sure the stabilization fund kicked in on that. Other than that, besides the communities running out of fuel, what criteria are used? Is there a 30 cent difference, 10 cents or what? What is the government's rationale for when the stabilization fund kicks in for any community? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the stabilization fund, as it's set up, would not address community-by-community specifics. What we would look at doing, as we have done in this case, is to look at the total amount of the product cost and how much of an impact that would have. We set an across-the-board 10-cent reduction in the price of home heating oil. So in each community it isn't set at a flat rate, either. The cost of that product to get to that community is 100 percent cost recovery as we go forward here. Every community would pay for the price of the product, the

shipping and the contract of that community to have it delivered. So we wouldn't necessarily do it where one community saw a drastic increase and try to address just one community situation. Because the product price across the board has gone out so much, we looked at implementing just a 10-cent reduction on the home heating oil across the board. So that's for every community we service through the petroleum products division.

The formula that we would look at is based on when resupply is done; we would look at the amount of increase and look at the affordability issues. In this case, we focussed on home heating oil because home heating oil is essential compared to gas for vehicles, and so on. So that is why we've targeted the 10-cent reduction for home heating oil. For more detail on the stabilization fund, when you do receive costs or refuelling happens and the ratios used, I can have Mr. Aumond provide more detail if committee members want.

Thank you. Is that agreed by committee? Mr. Aumond.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. General comments. Are Members agreed to go clause by clause?

Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. Clause 1.

Clause 2.

Bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that Bill 8 is ready for third reading?

Bill 8 is now ready for third reading. Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you and your staff, Mr. Aumond and Ms. Heder. Thank you very much.

We will just wait for a staff change until we go on to Bill 9. Thank you.

Thank you, committee members. We will now proceed with Bill 9, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act. At this time, I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Michael McLeod, for his opening comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable Members. I am pleased to speak to you today about Bill 9, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development who conducted the public hearing on Tuesday, October 11th. Those Members were Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Hawkins under the able leadership of Mrs. Groenewegen, the chair, and they provided very thoughtful questions and comments on the proposed amendments. Bill 9 contains three amendments to the municipal statutes, which include the Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act the and Hamlets Act.

The bill before you proposes three changes to each of the municipal statutes, and all three changes are in the nature of housekeeping amendments. By way of background, the current municipal legislation was passed during the Sixth Session of the 14th Legislative Assembly and became effective on April 1, 2004. That legislation modernized the Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act and the Hamlets Act. Since then, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs and community governments have worked with the new legislation. That experience has made it apparent that the amendments contained in the bill before you are required.

The first amendment deals with refinancing of long-term debt. Under the current legislation, if a community government wishes to refinance long-term debt, they must seek further approval of the voters or the Minister or both. This is true even when the original debt was approved by the voters or the Minister. This procedure is both time consuming and very costly for the community governments.

The amendment we propose will enable community governments to create a bylaw authorizing refinancing of long-term debt that does not require the approval of either the voters or the Minister, so long as three conditions are met. First, long-term debt must be used solely for the purposes of refinancing an existing long-term debt. Second, approval of either the voters, the Minister or both was obtained for the original debt or it was exempt from such approvals. Third, the principal amount to be borrowed does not exceed the principal amount borrowed under the long-term debt being refinanced.

The second amendment proposed is for written notice. This amendment will require a person who intends to bring an action for loss or damage from snow and roadways or just repair of roads to provide written notice within 30 days of the event that gave rise to the action. Communities can establish a longer notice period through a bylaw.

Communities have expressed concern that currently, a person can indicate an intention to sue verbally to anyone associated with a municipality in an informal way that may not be recognized as serious notice that an event has occurred. The proposed amendment will clarify that if an event has occurred, it must be indicated in writing to the senior administrative officer. Clarifying the intent of this provision will have a positive impact on the liability exposure of community governments.

The third amendment deals with transferring of unpaid land-based service charges to property taxes in communities that are municipal taxing authorities. Before the coming into force of the new municipal legislation, municipal taxation authorities could transfer unpaid water and sewer bills to property taxes. That function was inadvertently omitted in the comprehensive amendments and needs to be reinstated. This amendment is intended to do just that.

Until this proposed amendment is passed, municipal taxation authorities have to carry the unpaid water and sewer charges while continuing to attempt to collect them. Once this amendment is approved, municipal taxing authorities will have again have the authority to transfer unpaid water and sewer charges to property taxes and effect collection through the property tax process.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to advise you that the department has consulted with the Northwest Territories Association of Communities and they are supportive of the proposed amendments. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions members of the Committee of the Whole may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen, opening comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development met on October 11, 2005, to review Bill 9, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act. This act makes minor amendments to the Charter Communities Act, the Cities, Towns and Villages Act and the Hamlets Act.

The committee asked for an explanation of the new amendment that deals with transferring unpaid service charges to property taxes. The amendment will allow a municipal taxing authority to recover any outstanding bills or fines that relate to real property and charge them against property taxes. A homeowner, for instance, could lose their property over unpaid parking tickets or library funds. The committee was particularly concerned that there is no dispute resolution mechanism associated with this municipal power.

The Minister and his staff advised that this function was inadvertently omitted in the comprehensive amendments and needs to be reinstated. The Minister further advised that communities have requested this amendment be made because they have had to carry unpaid water and sewer charges, while continuing to attempt to collect them, and this has caused a hardship.

As part of the New Deal, this is a tool that will allow all municipalities to collect outstanding fees that are owed to them. Finally, the Minister advised that there are no dispute mechanisms, but an appeal process can be put in place by the municipalities. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 9 to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole. This concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 9. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. At this time I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring in any witnesses.

Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please bring in the witnesses? Thank you. Does committee agree?

Agreed. Thank you, Mr. Minister. Can you introduce your staff please?