What I’d like to suggest as a first step would be that the Member and myself and the deputy sit down to talk about the issue, frame it out thoroughly, see what’s possible, and then map out next steps from there.

I’d like to thank the Minister for that response. I recognize that we’re just going through the budget process now; however, I’m interested in seeing if the Minister can commit to adding more money that’s targeted directly to the communities in the area of environmental monitoring.

We’d be prepared to look at that whole issue, as I indicated, with the Member, myself, and the deputy, recognizing that the budget is currently before the House. While there may be some latitude, we may also want to consider how we would best address this through the upcoming business planning process, which will be starting once this particular budget is passed. I am willing to commit to sit down with the Member to look at this issue in its entirety.

I recognize that even in the recent federal budget announcement that there is money put in for environmental assessments all pertaining to the Mackenzie Gas Project. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could commit to increasing the GNWT’s share of the Interim Resource Management Agreement so that more money can be put into environmental monitoring in the non-settled areas.

Once again we can add that to the list. We’ll pull the IRMA agreement. The Member is very familiar with that. As we look at the issue and mapping out next steps, we’ll include that as part of the discussion, recognizing that there is also federal money in that mix.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Assembly, like many others, will always try to find a special hallmark to hang its hat when they’re finished their business at the end of their term. Helping the working family would certainly be a highlight of anyone’s career and a certain Assembly. I talked about rent control and my questions are directed to the Minister of Justice, who will be in charge of the overseeing of the Residential Tenancies Act rewrite. Would the Minister be willing to make sure that there is some element in that act that provides protection for renters out there?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The Residential Tenancies Act was passed in June of last year. Right now my department’s working on the regulations within that act itself. There are areas that we need to look at. One area of controlling the rent has a clause in there that once a year they can raise their rent. The

Member has alluded to that as well. Those are the areas we will be focusing on.

That certainly puts the average person, whether they’re single income, double income, whatever the case may be, at a significant disadvantage because, as I cited today, they’ve had increases of 16 percent in Yellowknife that have been quite regular over the last few years and certainly have a single example of 33 percent rental increase at an apartment unit. That’s barely affordable if it’s affordable at all. What is the Minister willing to do to put support behind the average family that’s out there trying to rent and get by at the same time?

The thing with the process of having a rental office and rental officer is the main point of contact, if there are disputes from the tenants and the landlords. According to the figures that we have since last year there were no applications made regarding rent increase. If there is such a thing then the rental officer should be notified and in due process they’ll follow through with the tenant as well.

I’m glad the Minister points out that annual report by the rental officer because, I’ll tell you, it doesn’t point to that. He’s quite correct because it’s not under the authority of the rental officer. So how would he monitor, gauge, or deal with anything of that nature? That’s the whole problem. There’s no way to deal with this under the mechanism. If somebody came to the rental officer and said my rent was raised twice within 12 months then the rental officer would have a case to stand on. If somebody came to the rental officer and said the landlord doubled my rent once this year, the rental officer would be forced to say, oh, well. That’s the problem. Would the Justice Minister go back and review this situation and recognize that in many jurisdictions, such as B.C., we have a 3.7 percent cap, in Ontario we have a 1.5 percent cap, and other jurisdictions are recognizing this. Would the Minister go back and review this file and take a look at it from the working family point of view?

This particular issue was before the standing committee and even passed in this House. We are working on regulations. There were a lot of questions from the Members and we took those into consideration and made some amendments to the act itself. Like I said earlier, there are rental officers that deal specifically with the issues or concerns from the tenants. There are certain protocols that they need to follow. There is a process through the rental office.

The Minister is right; there are things the tenant can take to the rental officer, such as the heat wasn’t there, the power wasn’t turned

on, maybe my lock was changed. But there’s nothing there about fair rent; fair and reasonable. Yes, I believe a landlord should be able to make a profit. Yes, recognizing that oil and power are going up, those things need to be protected, absolutely. But by raising rent at 33 percent, can the Minister explain to me how that would be considered fair and reasonable and what grounds would a tenant be able to challenge this under the existing rental act? Because there is none. Could the Minister show me how they could challenge that?

If there is an issue with an increase in rent, there is an avenue. The rental officer can deal with that with the tenants. That’s a process that we’ve initiated with the new act in play. Also we’re looking at the regulations. Like I said earlier, there is a process in place. There is a reason why we have a rental office. That’s the avenue that the complaints and issues can be brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier. It gets back to my Member’s statement where I talked about the state of consensus government in our Territory. The two events that I spoke of in my Member’s statement, both the proposed changes to the supp health benefits and more recently the initiative on board reform, these two issues just bring to light that there are problems with our system of government here in the Northwest Territories. I mentioned the fact that Regular Members need to form consensus. When we come to work every day that has to happen. But in Cabinet that doesn’t seem to be the case. The first question I have for the Premier is, why does Cabinet solidarity exist in our system of government today?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We could probably get into a long orientation about the structure of this government when it first moved up from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories. The Westminster Style of government that this is based on, yes, we call it consensus for the way we share information and work with committees and that we don’t have political parties, but the structure of the operation of this House itself is still based on those fundamental principles of Westminster Style of governance. So that’s one of the fundamental pieces in place. We share information as we do through budget, legislation, policy, and, as

highlighted here, we’ll continue to build on that through a set of protocols that will help clarify the relationship we can have with Members of this Assembly. But it takes everybody to work in a consensus style.

The process we operate under is one that has been existing for quite a number of years. In fact, many of the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories and aboriginal people say that this style is not representative of the people that live here in the North and that we should take a look at it. In fact, a number of processes were undergone. The 13th Assembly started some work; I believe it started in the 12th Assembly and went on into the 13th Assembly. In fact, I have recently spoken with the Dene national chief, Bill Erasmus, about looking at a process that would look at the Constitution, one, and a constitution of the Northwest Territories because there is not one right now. We operate under the NWT Act. First Nations and aboriginal governments working with self-government arrangements with the federal government, and we’re at the table. I would say that I agree that the consensus style of government and the system or, as some Members say, maybe the personalities at the table trying to make this work, we’ve been having quite a bit of difficulty. We need to take the next step to function and get things done for the people of the Northwest Territories. So I would say here’s the opportunity. Let’s take it up and let’s agree and let’s approach the aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories and set up a new process where we can review how the Northwest Territories will be governed overall.

I don’t know if that necessarily answered my question. I think the Premier is right in one regard. When you do have strong personalities in a system like we have today, just because we have the system today doesn’t make it right. But if you have seven individuals on that side of the

House and you’ve got two or three Members that pretty much run the show and others aren’t allowed to express their opinions or speak their mind, that causes problems. Like I said earlier, we want to be able to work together. When we go to P and P in the morning every Member is allowed to speak their mind. When we come to the House we’re allowed to speak our mind. And my belief is that if we had a more open system of government where everybody in this room, all 19 of us --18, sorry, Mr. Speaker -- could speak their mind.

I’d like to ask the Premier, how does he think this is going to work? What’s his plan going forward on trying to make this work? Does it include loosening up the control that they have on Cabinet?

The Member has a number of times used language in this House that I guess to some degree would be insulting to the ability of the Cabinet elected by this Assembly.

---Applause

The simple fact that we work on initiatives together, we’ve put items out on the table, and, yes, Members are free to speak their mind, but sometimes there’s little fact to when they speak on the issues around the table. We put proposals on the table. The Member said he’s willing to work in a consensus style and let’s put the personalities aside. Yet again today he fires off with much more rhetoric than substance. The fact is we’ve put an offer on the table. I’ve reached out to Members to say let’s make this work.

I think even a bigger opportunity here is if the concern about consensus government is real -- and I believe it is -- that we have to look at a structure within the Northwest Territories that does make sense. And it will be more than protocols that will have to be put in place. That’s where we look at a new constitutional process that involves aboriginal governments that we put in place that makes something happen for the Northwest Territories, not just recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.