Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to speak principally to the elements of the bill dealing with contracting employment of Ministers and Members after they leave office. I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the independent commission and all the staff that have done considerable work towards putting this bill together and my colleagues for discussions we’ve had over it.

I’d like to go back to the public climate that focused attention on these matters. Members will remember particularly the case of two sole-sourced contracts with a total value of $225,000 awarded to two former Ministers providing exactly the same services during exactly the same period, both awarded sole source on the justification that the suppliers were uniquely able to provide the service. These events may have been fresh in the minds of commission members when they wrote the report.

On the subject of the tendered contracts, they wrote: The concerns involved the appearance of patronage, the unfairness of using inside information to obtain government contracts. They also wrote: When a former Minister accepts a contract from his or her former colleagues on Cabinet, it is difficult to avoid allegations of patronage.

On the subject of sole-sourced contracts awarded to former Ministers, the commission’s report noted: To avoid the perception of government corruption in these exceptional circumstances, the commission feels that the government should be prohibited from awarding sole-sourced contracts to former Ministers for a period of two years after the Minister leaves office.

The bill proposes to change the commission’s recommendations. First, while the bill progressively extends the commission recommendation from applying to just Minister’s departments to all government departments, boards and agencies for employment or contracts yet rejects the two-year prohibition and provides a redefined period of prohibition to the duration when a Minister receives a transition allowance after his or her employment, the transition allowance during that period post-employment is equal to a Regular MLAs’ pay of about $8,000 a month.

Currently a transition allowance is earned by Members at the rate of one month per year of service. However, the bill proposes exceptions be made for the Ministers. Ministers no longer have to earn this transition allowance. As soon as they are appointed they are granted a transition allowance of 12 months. Most Ministers have served a good part and sometimes all of this time by the time they become a Minister so this may not be a huge cost, but it is a new cost. However, this approach of an

automatic allowance was clearly, in my mind, not the intent of the commission’s recommendations.

Although the commission recognized these restrictions were not required for Regular Members because Regular Members clearly do not have the same degree of power relationships with other agencies and businesses and so on, or access to confidential information, this bill extends restrictions to include Regular Members for the transition period. In this case for Regular Members, the actual number of transition months earned is on the basis of service.

Again, treating Ministers and Regular MLAs the same for the purposes of prohibited activity hardly recognizes the difference in their respective roles and potential conflict of interest. In essence, by granting transitional allowances to Ministers regardless of years served is equivalent to robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don’t believe the commission would be particularly satisfied on this front.

Although I disagree with these aspects, there are a number of other quite progressive changes proposed in the bill and in particular I want to point to the enhanced role the Conflict of Interest Commissioner will play, which I also heard Mr. Beaulieu mention in his remarks, in avoiding such conflict. I think that’s a good progressive move as are the other changes proposed in this bill. That’s all I have.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to respond to the amendments made to the Executive Council Act. I think that you have to be realistic in most cases, that the North is a small place where everybody knows each other. A lot of times people who got into politics were in politics one way or another, such as myself where I was involved in Aboriginal politics and the consultant business. I think we also have to be realistic that there is a close-knit tie between the Aboriginal leadership and municipal leadership and those organizations, that we’ll probably end up being employed at in the community level. I think our services are still going to be required in those different areas and there’s still going to be that ongoing dialogue and discussions with former Ministers and government agents and whatnot.

We have to be realistic: the North operates by communication and dialogue. I think we can’t be putting ourselves under the microscope every time you want to talk to somebody. I think we have to realize that we are limited on human resources in the Northwest Territories especially in the area of political development, regardless if it’s in the Aboriginal field or self-government or even land claims negotiations or even devolution. I think we have to be realistic that we need all the capacity and the people we can to facilitate this transition in

the North by way of political development, economic development, social development in the Northwest Territories.

Again, personally, I think that it does hinder a person’s ability to really help the people regardless if we help them in this format as the Legislature or we help them in the format of us going back to our home communities and get elected to the local hamlet council or the band council or working for Aboriginal organizations. I think that sometimes great intentions really put barriers on achieving succession by way of moving this Territory forward.

I, for one, would like to say, again, we do have the ability to fall back on the Conflict Commissioner and, again, that element offers the...(inaudible)...that area, but again, we’ve got to be within reason to realize that we do have important roles to play regardless of where we go from this format. But again, there have been situations in the past that have caused us to come to this point because of how contracts were let or, more importantly, how appointments were made and basically who ended up in which area. I don’t want to call it patriotism, but as we all know in the North it’s a question of the skills that people provide and the skills that they are able to bring to the table. I think that we can’t lose sight of that knowledge that people encompass either in this setting or basically the political history and dialogue that people have been able to bring forward with the process of political and social development in the Northwest Territories.

Stating all that, I think that at the end of the day having the insight of the Conflict Commissioner there to give you that insight, I think again, that’s there to serve that purpose. But personally I think that we have to be realistic that sometimes we over restrict ourselves and restrict people in the Northwest Territories that have knowledge and ability to really help the North devolve and expand. I just want it leave it at that. I just wanted to put that on the public record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of comments I’d like to make. I’d like to start off, as well, by thanking the members of the commission for their work. I think they did an admirable job. I know it certainly was a lot of time that was put in. I think the result was a thorough and comprehensive report. It obviously was well researched and I think some thanks have to go to our staff for that, who provided an awful lot of support to the commission.

I think that some of the amendments that are coming forward provide clarification to a number of provisions around Members’ travel, constituency expenses and a few other procedural items. Some of them will be in regulations but there are also

some amendments to the act that clarify a number of things. I don’t see those as major changes, but I think it’s certainly a good thing to evaluate where our problems have been and to try to clarify them, and I think that this act does that.

I’m also very glad to see that we are putting restrictions on Regular Members, Cabinet Ministers and Speaker after they leave the Assembly. I think these amendments were really needed. There was an opportunity for Members who were no longer Members, previous Members, to either be employed or to enter into contracts with the government to be employed by someone with whom they’ve had significant dealings while they were a Cabinet Minister. It was very open. There really weren’t any restrictions in the act and this has tightened it up quite a bit. It could be tighter, but this is, I think, a solution that is a good one, and I support the solution as it is presented.

We, as Members, should not expect that we can leave here and automatically enter into employment, for instance, with the GNWT. We are given a transition allowance as former Members and I think that the amount of the transition allowance is such that it certainly can enable former Members to survive for a period of a year and they then can get into contracts and/or employment with the GNWT.

Along the same vein, I am really glad to see that we are suggesting that the restrictions not only apply to former Members and current Members, but it also applies to departments and employees of the GNWT. The onus is on employees as much as it is on Members not to enter into contracts with former Members. I think that’s a distinction that needs to be made.

Other than that, Mr. Chair, I don’t have any comments. I do think that the amendments as a whole are good ones. That’s it.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Is committee agreed that there are no further general comments?

I’ll now go to Mr. Beaulieu to respond to the general comments made so far.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments in response to the general comments. The transition allowance for the Ministers is directly tied to the prohibition for that Minister to work, so I think we felt that that was appropriate since a Minister would be unable to seek income with the various agencies of the government and the government and so on, so that prohibition with transitional allowance was tied directly to and that’s why we went with the 12 months, because of the restrictions to the Ministers. Also the fact that now that the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner is involved with the Members and can waive restrictions after the Member has left office. That’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Can we proceed with the clause-by-clause review of the bill?

Consideration of the bill begins on page 1. We’ll defer the bill number and title and we’ll proceed with the clause-by-clause. Is committee agreed?

Let’s go back to page 1. Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.

Does committee agree that Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, is now ready for third reading?

Thank you, committee. Bill 1 is now deemed ready for third reading. Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Can I get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses out of the Chamber. Thank you to the witnesses.

Is committee agreed that we proceed with Bill 2?

Okay. Thank you, committee. On that, we will go to the sponsor of that bill for some opening comments. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to provide opening comments on Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.

Mr. Chairman, as Members know, every four years the Assembly reviews its pension legislation with a view to ensuring that it remains current on pension trends as well as to make changes that are recommended by our pension plan administrators. This bill reflects the result of our review of the existing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this bill makes a number of changes to the pension plans. One of the most significant changes is that it provides a mechanism for the division of a Member’s pension upon the breakdown of a marriage or a common-law relationship. Previously, our legislation was silent on the right of the spouses in this regard. This change modernizes the pension plans and brings our legislation in line with pension legislation elsewhere. The legislation also reflects allowances for Members who cease service after October 18,

2007, by providing that Members’ pensions are based on the best four years of service. This is similar to what occurs in the public pension plans.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation also provides options for Members who choose to withdraw their pension funds from the registered pension plan. These options have no cost implications on the plan or for Members or for the taxpayer; they simply bring the legislation into line with pension legislation elsewhere in terms of options that are available to members of the plan.

Mr. Chairman, the bill also proposes a number of drafting and technical changes so as to ensure that the legislation continues to comply with the federal Income Tax Act and to improve the clarity of expression of both acts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that Members may have.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Would you like to bring witnesses into the House?

Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Is committee agreed?