The Hotel Association as well as a number of people in the tourism organizations out there all would like a hotel tax. I think they’ve been advocating for this particular type of tax for some time now. This is not a new initiative that’s been suggested. The Minister talked about downloading it maybe to further governance but I don’t think that’s the ideal approach. What conditions would the Minister of Finance need to be in place or to see supported in order to make it a territorial hotel tax?

The Member is correct. In fact, this hotel tax initiative did come before this House back in 2000 and was not successful in being approved by this House, the concern being driving up the cost of doing business and putting an extra burden on the tourism industry. In this particular case, the Member’s line of questioning versus what we heard at the roundtable in October points to, at the very least, a need for further discussion. The Association of Communities made the request and supported the request that it be delegated, at their request, to the communities. The Member’s talking about a territorial-wide one. That alone in itself is a source of contention that would need some revision and work. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect under the Municipal Towns and Villages Act they have the ability to create a hotel tax, but that’s not exactly what they would like. They would rather see it as an across-the-board, fair, even policy created by the

Finance Minister and, if anything, allow it to be targeted at tourism initiatives, that it could be a tax targeted with a special purpose.

Mr. Speaker, is there apprehension from the Department of Finance to creating a territorial tax from doing this type of initiative or do they just not want to do the work? Because as I understand it, tourism wants it and the Hotel Association supports this. I’m just trying to get a sense of what’s stopping the Department of Finance from moving on this particular initiative other than finding reasons not to. Thank you.

His statement is the first awareness that I have, the first notice that I’ve had that the Hotel Association wants a tax imposed territory-wide. Unless I’ve missed it or I’ve forgotten it, I don’t recollect hearing this specifically before. He has raised this issue for the first time in the House. There was a different approach suggested by the Association of Communities. Once again, that alone, in terms of how it would be applied, is going to require some discussion. It’s not that we’re reluctant. There’s work being done. It has been done. We’ve indicated in this budget, in the House here a couple weeks ago when I did the budget address, that there are no new taxes planned for this particular budget. If there’s going to be further work done and a decision made on a hotel tax, then that work will be carried out to fruition by the 17

th

Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s not my intention to break the promise of the Finance Minister when he says he’s holding the line on taxes, so he should be assured that I’m not trying to trip him up on that promise to the people of the NWT. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance be willing to come to a meeting, if I was able to arrange it, with the Hotel Association and even some municipality officials on this particular issue about creating the hotel tax initiative? That money could be targeted at the tourism industry, an industry that could use more money to help bring new dollars into our economy, which is a very important base to our overall strength of our northern business. Thank you.

As a matter of practice, I look seriously at every invitation that I get, especially ones that are put forward by Members of the Legislative Assembly, and I will, of course, give such an invitation, should it come from the Member, every full and due consideration that it deserves. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my Member’s statement, that we get with the Wildlife Act, the document that is right as opposed to right now. This act affects everybody in the Northwest Territories, Aboriginal hunters, non-Aboriginal hunters, harvesters, industry, transportation. In fact, every person who goes outside is affected or will be affected by the Wildlife Act.

My question to the Minister is: what is the urgency? Why don’t we wait, go back out, talk to those people who have concerns, get the information and put forward an act that is right? We need to delay this, Mr. Speaker, so will the Minister commit to taking it off the table for March and putting it back on the table for maybe May or August? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

No, Mr. Speaker.

Wow, an answer. I really, really kind of like that. That’s, I think, the first one I’ve gotten from the Minister in three and a half years. But I will go back, Mr. Speaker. I mean, clearly there are issues and concerns out there with respect to this Wildlife Act. It needs to be thoroughly invested and thoroughly reviewed. The Minister hasn’t been able to provide any assurances that the people’s voices are heard. What is the Minister going to do, and I’ve asked this question before, but what is he going to do to make sure that these people’s voices are heard before we put this act in front of the House for consideration, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Member that he’s received many answers from me over the life of this Assembly; he just may not have liked them all. That does not consist not getting an answer.

In this particular case, we have done consultation. There was a publication sent out in 2009 that laid out all the main principles, proposed changes followed since that time with ongoing consultation. This act is a good act. I think it meets the test and I will also submit to this House that no matter what assurances I would provide to the Member except delaying and killing the bill, would not satisfy him with his insatiable focus on process. Thank you.

I think the Minister’s putting some words in my mouth. I have no interest whatsoever in killing this bill and I’ve been pretty clear along those lines ever since we started having conversation. I am concerned about process, because we are a public government, Mr. Speaker. We must be transparent in everything we do. We

must be accountable for our actions. In this case, I don’t believe the public consultation is particularly transparent or accountable. I’ve heard from representatives from the Government of the Northwest Territories, members of his own department, members from ITI, members from other departments with concerns about this act. I’ve heard from industry. I’ve heard from the Chamber of Mines. I’ve heard from the NWT Wildlife Federation. I have heard from people on the street that have concerns. There are many, many people out there who are frustrated and concerned about this process. All I’m asking is let’s go back and give these organizations an opportunity to have a conversation with the Minister and his department to solve some of these issues that they have, to make sure that their voices are heard. I’m not suggesting that he agree with them. It’s okay to disagree, but it’s not okay to ignore, and that’s what I feel is happening in this situation.

I would like the Minister to not ignore these industries, not ignore these organizations, not ignore our people, Mr. Speaker, and go out and listen to them. If it takes a little bit more time, it takes a little bit more time. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: what is the harm in waiting? What is the harm in getting the input from these people and providing them with reasonable expectation or reasonable certainty that they have been heard? What is the harm, Mr. Speaker?

I believe at the end of the day we will have addressed the majority of concerns of the groups that Member keeps referring to. I mean, I’ve seen the correspondence, I’ve seen the various iterations of the act, I’ve looked at the changes, so I’m confident that we have done the work necessary to bring this act to the House. It gets first and second reading and then it will go to committee, then the committee will have an opportunity to take in on the road to consult, which will be another opportunity to come back before third reading to see what other further changes may be necessary and agreed to.

The Member well knows that this has been a priority of this Assembly; it’s been a priority since almost 1990 when the issue first came up. Some groups have been waiting 27 years to have their land claims reflected in this act, some 18 years. This act is seriously out of date and the Member knows on the timelines before us that his talk about what is the harm, let’s just delay this, is that this bill would not see the light of day in this government and it would be the new government and a year or two years or depends how successful the Member would be in terms of process, maybe sometime not even in the life of the 17

th

Assembly to finally hit the

floor of this Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I disagree with the Minister. I think it won’t need a significant amount of time. It needs time to guarantee that the people have been heard. His argument is convenient but not particularly practical. We need to get out there, Mr. Speaker. People on the street are saying it and I don’t know how the Minister is missing it, quite frankly. It’s in the paper, it’s on the street. People are talking about it. People are concerned. A delay and giving these organizations reasonable opportunity to have the conversation with the Minister, and like I said, not necessarily agree, but are certain that they’ve been heard is enough. He didn’t really answer the question. I’m curious; what is the harm in delaying this until we get the input and the confidence that he and his department haven’t heard? It’s not there, Mr. Speaker. What is the harm?

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just in our own political timeline, this particular session will go to the 7

th

of March. There

will be a prorogation and on the 7

th

of March there

will be a new session starting which will be an opportunity to bring into the House this bill and other legislation for first and second reading which gives the committee 120 days to do their work and report back to the House, which means in all probability the last session in August. If, in fact, we wait until May or June, then we will totally miss any opportunity in the life of this government to bring this bill to the floor of the House. This has been identified as a priority and the intention is to give notice on March 7

th

for first reading on the 9

th

.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member knows, since the Foundation for Change action plan was unveiled in 2009, it was made clear that it is a three-year action plan. It is

one of the important foundation documents that we are using to change our system and to make our system work together as a system and work better. Mr. Speaker, since that, we have had regional dialogues in every region of the Northwest Territories. We have had them on the website. I have made numerous statements in the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we have been doing a lot of work to disseminate the information within the system and out. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Foundation for Change was unveiled in 2009, as the Minister stated. I know the Standing Committee on Social Programs has been updated a couple of times on the Foundation for Change. When will the next update be coming on the Foundation for Change? When might the committee and Members of this government... Is this government actually going to act on any of the findings of the recommendations from the Foundation for Change? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.