Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The audit committee approved 12 audit projects in 2013-14 based on the audit risk assessment methodology which is used to identify or determine systemic risks inherent in government programs and services associated with governance framework, internal audits and…(inaudible)… independent oversights. Eight of the approved 12 projects were assessed as being ready for audit by the Audit Bureau in 2013. Four of the proposed 12 projects were deferred based on management feedback. In some cases, new business processes were being designed and that required time to be implemented. In 2013-14 a total of seven audit projects were completed by the Audit Bureau. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we did get some information here, but I do have another question to gather a little bit more statistics.

Another important measure of success of the implementation of audit recommendations by management is addressing these so-called outstanding high risks.

Can the Minister indicate to the House how many of these recommendations were reported in the 2013-2014 fiscal year and what percentage of these recommendations were actually implemented? Thank you.

In the seven audit projects concluded, the audit reports completed in 2013-14 made 46 recommendations. Twenty-two of the 46 audit recommendations have been implemented to date. Thank you.

So that number is about half. So what we’ve been able to piece together today is that the government has a corporate risk management framework, it follows some of its audit recommendations that we heard, about half of them and, again, it’s if they choose, it doesn’t report any

of these findings publicly and it doesn’t share this information with Regular Members.

Can the Minister of Finance agree this is a correct summation? Thank you.

I’d like to add a bit more information before we get to that conclusion the Member has made.

It takes time for departments to address issues that arise from an audit. For example, all the recommendations from 2011-12 audits are now complete, while only 62 percent of the recommendations of the 2012-13 audits are currently considered complete. These things take time. Some of them are more complex and stretch out a little bit longer.

Audit reports, recommendations and follow-up are internal management documents. In that regard, the GNWT follows a standard set out by the Institute of Internal Auditors. The audit reports are not shared with MLAs, standing committee or the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is at the root of my problem here today. As I said earlier, the sharing of information within a consensus government is critical, yet it appears that we have a division of this government which apparently acts above such law of the land when it comes to transparency and accountability to its people.

Will the Minister commit to the sharing, with committee, and hopefully with the public someday, the current findings and past audit findings within the context of corporate risk management? Thank you.

We, of course, whenever possible, share as fully as we can as a matter of practice with internal audits. There is sometimes highly sensitive, sometimes personnel information, sometimes information that may form the basis for a criminal investigation, so I am unable to commit to the request by the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I spoke about this Forfeiture Act and the proceeds of crime legislation. There are jurisdictions in Canada right now, such as BC, Alberta and Nova Scotia, most recently, that have a Civil Forfeiture Act and it has been brought up in the House before on this side of the House.

I would just like to ask the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice, is the department looking at establishing such legislation for the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister of Justice, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes. We have had that concern come up previously. We are currently talking to other jurisdictions about their experience with this. Some of the preliminary discussions we’ve had with other jurisdictions indicate that we really need to be careful, because in a lot of cases the cost to store the assets seized sometimes ends up costing more than the assets themselves at the end of the day.

We have some discussions ongoing with other jurisdictions and I am glad that the Member brought the issue up again today. Thank you.

The assets that would be seized, I know that storage has become an issue, but we also have some departments that have big compounds that might have storage space that we can use.

Would the Minister, seeing that is an issue he said has been brought up in discussions, would he work with other departments, such as Public Works and Services, Department of Transportation and possibly MACA, to see what kind of storage space they have in their compounds to utilize those for such property that would be seized? Thank you.

Yes, if we get to that stage, we certainly will have to talk to departments that have facilities or places to store things around the territory because, of course, not all communities have secure storage facilities, not all communities have towing equipment and the ability to seize a truck, a trailer, skidoo or ATV and get it from point A to point B. That’s something that as we go forward with looking at this, these are all things that we will have to take a look at. Thank you.

Earlier in my Member’s statement, I mentioned that specific… I have stood up in this House and talked about the bootleggers, drug dealers and the way they transport these illicit drugs and the alcohol to the communities.

I would like to ask the Minister, would he be willing to put in, I wouldn’t say a pilot, but putting in a temporary Forfeiture Act as such, specific to illicit drugs in terms of selling as well as alcohol and the bootlegging? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, seizing vehicles has occurred in the past when it comes to bootleggers. It continues to be an option where it is feasible. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Canada in respect of sharing the proceeds and disposition of forfeited property, the sharing of the amounts paid

or recovered on account of certain fines and sharing of certain monies transferred to Canada by the governments of foreign states. We have an MOU in place with the Government of Canada that allows us to share some of those funds. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of my colleagues just made a good suggestion here that when we do seize some of these assets, that if we sell them that we can start building some compounds to store them, so that might be an option here.

I would just like to ask the Minister, in terms of seizing property, has the Minister looked at doing any types of freezing on businesses that run illegal activity, freezing either if it’s a hotel or maybe a restaurant, has he done any of that type of freezing in terms of the Forfeiture Act? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I don’t recall a business or a restaurant or things of that nature being seized.

I will respond to the Members concern about the proceeds that we do get. These funds that we receive under the MOU that I mentioned earlier are used to fund crime prevention activities here in the Northwest Territories. Currently, there is about $125,000 in that fund. In the past three years, the department has received the following: in ‘11-12, just over $44,000; ‘13-14, about $25,000; ‘14-15, about $55,000, so that gives us a total in the account of about $125,000.

I will mention – I know the Member is a big supporter of the Not Us! campaign – in ‘11-12 we took $80,000 and helped pay for that program through the proceeds of crime, so that was a good initiative. Also in ‘11-12 we provided $20,000 in additional funding toward the development of the Domestic Violence Treatment Option Initiative and we are currently assessing other projects where we can take some of that $125,000 that we have and direct it in areas where it’s going to make a difference. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We set up an office of the oil and gas regulator separate from the ITI department. It’s in a different building. It’s a stand-alone operation. I’ve delegated the day-to-day authority in most cases to the chief conservation officer, who is the executive director of our oil and gas regulator office, and we’ve set it up in a way that allows me to continue to do my job as Minister and also be the regulator. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister for that. So, the Minister has delegated his authority as regulator and yet he still references himself as regulator. So I’m struggling to understand, and I think the public is probably wanting to know, how does the Minister call himself a regulator and yet delegate the authority to someone within his department well within the oil and gas department section of his department.

So, how does he reconcile that he is the regulator but he has delegated that authority as well? Thank you.