I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole back to order. I’d just like to read out the items for Committee of the Whole: Bills 2, 12, 15, Committee Reports 37-16(3), 36-16(3), 35-16(3), and, again, Committee Report 5-16(3), Tabled Documents 37-16(3), 36-16(3), 35-16(3). I’d just to get clarification. What’s the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The wish of the committee is, in fact, to deal with Bills 2, 12, 15 and Tabled Documents 37-16(3), 35-16(3) and 36-16(3). Thank you.

Agreed?

Okay. With that, we’ll begin with Bill 2, Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act. Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to appear before the committee today to review Bill 2, Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act. The purpose of the bill is to provide for adoption in the Northwest Territories of the Convention on the Settlement on Investment

Disputes between States and National of Other States. The convention established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an institution of the World Bank, in the belief that the centre would promote international investment, especially in developing countries where people are fearful of investing because of the lack of an effective means to resolve disputes.

The convention is intended to assist with the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors, providing the parties with dispute resolution services on a user-pay basis. The use of the arbitration or conciliation services is voluntary, by agreement between the parties. This bill, based on the model act developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, provides for the recognition and enforcement of decisions in the Northwest Territories that are made through the centre.

Over 140 countries have ratified the Convention, but Canada has not done so as it required legislation in every province and territory. The Government of Canada passed implementing legislation in March 2008, and is now making ratification of the convention a priority. Ratification of the convention would be seen as making Canada a more attractive place to do business, thereby promoting foreign investment in Canada. To date, five Canadian jurisdictions have enacted legislation to implement the convention.

The convention would provide NWT residents investing abroad and NWT companies doing business with member states with an additional option for resolving disputes, a significant benefit in member states where the courts are not as experienced or considered to be as reputable as those in Canada.

The centre would also be available to this government as an alternative means of resolving disputes in agreements that it may have with foreign companies or investors operating in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Social Programs for their review and comments on the bill and would be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have regarding Bill 2. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time I’d like to call the chair of the standing committee which reviewed the bill to make comments. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 2, Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, on May 25, 2009. Bill 2 will allow for the adoption of the convention on the Settlement on Investment Disputes between States and National of Other States. The Settlement of

International Investment Disputes Act will allow parties to use the rules for arbitration or conciliation under this convention to settle disputes that deal with international investments. The use of the convention is voluntary, however, once the parties have agreed to use the mechanisms and a decision has been made, the contracting states are required to have mechanisms in place to enforce any award that has been granted as an outcome of arbitration or conciliation. This bill allows the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories to have jurisdiction and powers with respect to the recognition and enforcement of such awards.

Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 2, Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole. This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 2. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. At this time I’d like to ask the Minister sponsoring the bill if he would bring in any witnesses. Mr. Lafferty.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree that the Minister brings in his witnesses?

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

Minister Lafferty, for the record, could you introduce your witnesses.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I have Mark Aitken, director of legislation, and Gary MacDougall, director of legal registries. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. General comments in regard to Bill 2. Clause by clause?

Thank you. With that, I’d just like to defer you, in consideration of the clause-by-clause, we start in regard to the schedule of the bill, which is on page 5. So we can turn to page 5. Does committee agree that we defer to clauses and deal with the schedule first?

Okay. Turn to page 5. Page 5 in regard to the schedule. Agree to the schedule?

Can we turn back to page 2. Bill 2, Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 13 inclusive approved

Bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that we have concluded Bill 2, and it is now ready for third reading?

---Bill 2 as a whole approved for third reading