I realize that and committee has had extensive discussions on opening it up to the possibility of employers contributing more, because we believe that there were, in fact, some that did. My question is: Are there any that do provide more than 50 percent?

No, not that I’m aware of.

I’ll accept that and maybe just

ask the Minister to confirm that so that he does know later. I’m willing to go forward for now.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Committee, general comments. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As was stated by the Minister, this bill was a real collaborative effort. I noted in the Minister’s opening comments, he said it was a priority of the 17th Assembly. I’m

very glad that it was and I’m very glad we’re to this point, because it has been some 10 years that NEBS has been trying to get legislation to govern their operations, and it’s very gratifying that we are finally to this point where we’re just about ready to see third reading for this bill.

I want to echo the comments that have already been made about the uniqueness of the process. It certainly was unusual. It has been done before, but unusual for me that we were dealing with a bill and trying to mirror a bill in another jurisdiction at the same time that we were dealing with our bill. The collaboration between both governments and both standing committees was excellent. I have to compliment the work of the Law Clerks on both sides of this issue, both in the NWT Assembly and

in the Nunavut Assembly. They did a huge amount of work, and also the Clerk staff did a huge amount of work to coordinate things, the back and forth, talking about language and getting the language the same and making sure that the bills are exactly the same.

We did delay the first reporting. The first deadline for reporting came and went. We asked for an extension and got that. I think it was an excellent decision and I’m glad the House supported that, because it allowed us the time to coordinate with Nunavut and also allowed us to comprehensively look at the concerns which had been brought forward by the many stakeholders that we heard from.

It has been said that maybe we were a little surprised by the interest, and the consultation can be viewed both ways. Some people thought there was lots of consultation and other people thought there was none. I think, as Mr. Bromley stated, it means that the government, any time they bring a bill forward, needs to probably think outside the box in terms of their consultation. They need to make sure that they do more consultation rather than less and consider who they’re consulting with and if it really is going to get to the people who are going to be affected by the piece of legislation. In this case the consultation may have been done by NEBS, but it c

ertainly didn’t translate into what the actual

pension holders heard as any kind of a concern until we kind of came to the 11th hour.

But that said, there were a very large number of concerns that were raised, very valid concerns. As a committee, with the extra time we were able to consider those concerns in depth, we were able to get advice from both our Clerk and from the Law Clerk and to consider whether or not changes were necessary. I think it

’s 12 motions that we brought

forward during the clause-by-clause review, all 12 of which were supported by the Minister.

It’s led us to a far better piece of legislation than what we started out with. It addresses the concerns of the stakeholders; it addresses the concerns of the sponsors of the bill; and I think

it’s going to be a

piece of legislation that’s going to last without amendment for a fairly long period of time, at least I hope it will.

It certainly gives certainty to NEBS, who runs the program, to the pension committee that does all the work for the pension holders, and I think for the pension holders and the employees and the employers it’s going to provide much more certainty than we had before.

I think that’s it, Mr. Chair. I’m just really pleased that we are to this point. I look forward to NEBS operating as well as they have in the past as we go forward.

I guess I did want to say that there’s absolutely no concern on the part of me, and I think most of committee, that we had any concerns with how NEBS has been operating the plan over the last numbe

r of years without legislation. They’ve done

an excellent job. But they requested the legislation, we knew that the legislation needed to be put in place, and now that it’s here, it’s just going to provide certainty, as I said, for everybody involved. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next on my list I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would again like to welcome the Minister and the department here today. Like my colleagues have already indicated, we’re very pleased with the final end product, but I think it’s an opportunity at this time to do a little bit of rear-view mirror analysis of how we got here today.

The Minister was right; this was a very unique and collaborative effort right from the get-go. I have to admit that there was a bit of concern in terms of how the GNWT’s close involvement with NEBS in the

development

of

this

bill

may

have

compromised, to some degree, the objectivity of the department and the bill being presented as it is. I’m hoping that in the future if the department is to undertake such initiatives and using co-sponsors to the bill that we may want to be very careful to go down that road again. I believe we need to have objectivity moving forward, and having the ability of a non-elected, non-political contributor that is sitting at the table with the Minister during public hearings that might have set I almost consider a dangerous legislative precedent, which may prompt other interest groups to expect to enjoy a similar close relationship with the Minister and department in developing legislation. I’m trying to keep impartiality at bay in saying that.

As I said, using a rear-view mirror approach, the term “meaningful consultation” came to mind. Although the committee was presented the fact that there was, or at least indicated that there was meaningful consultation, it was clear on two separate occasions, the first of which was on September 25, 2014, and then on October 17, 2014. It was apparent with the turnout of stakeholders who were here to demonstrate their concerns for the bill, clearly showed that there was a lack of consultation. Again, I do caution the department; I do caution Ministers who are bringing forward bills that consultation could be considered an important attribute that we need to look at. We not only have to walk the talk, we also have to make sure that we are living true to those terminologies.

At the end of the day, I’m pleased with the final result. I think that we did have some ambiguity at the beginning of this process within the definitions

of “defined” and “targeted.” I think we’ve got that clear now. I think the stakeholders who have been involved

in

providing

committee

the

recommendations, now see clarity in those terminologies. So I believe, moving forward, we may not yet have every aspect of every stakeholder’s wish in terms of bringing all those wishes forward. But I could assure the public and I can assure Members that the committee looked at every aspect and tried to be fair and balanced in taking into consideration all consultation and public input.

I’m really pleased with the final result. As I said, we may not hit a home run with every stakeholder who had a concern, but I think at the end of the day, when you add up all the dots, we have a bill before us and we have a bill before Nunavut which clearly echoes and mirrors the wishes of the residents it serves. With that, those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too want to lend my support to our committee chair, Mr. Nadli, for the guidance and working with the Members here to have this bill before us. I also congratulate Mr. Miltenberger and his team for bringing this forward and having the flexibility and the foresight to see to this day here that the bill could come forward. It required some of the NEBS membership, also, and the hard work they’ve done with putting together with our Nunavut counterparts.

Also, more important were the hearings that we had here in Yellowknife that brought out some of these issues that make it what it is today. I certainly want to say that this bill will benefit a lot of people. I think most of my colleagues said some good things in this bill here, so I just want to say it was good work by all parties that had to be involved in this process here. That’s it, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list I have Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Along with the members from commi

ttee, I’d also like to just

acknowledge the hard work of our staff. Law Clerks and research were doing all the work and obviously coordinating with the staff in Nunavut to bring this bill before us.

It is history in terms of having mirror legislation between two jurisdictions and working with the department to make sure that we get the best piece of legislation out there for the ones who are going to be affected by this bill. I think it goes to show that there was definitely interest in terms of, as Mr. Dolynny put it, with the consultation or lack of consultation that was discussed when we had our public meeting on September 25th of last year. I

think it was very well done on the part of committee,

to take those steps necessary to look at those concerns that were brought from the stakeholders. I think, from some of the comments that were made on our second view in the clause-by-clause, a lot of the stakeholders were happy in terms of the amendments that were made.

As you’ve heard earlier, there are about 12 amendments that were brought forth. I think committee and the government and all parties involved deserve credit for all the hard work that was done. I know this has been a long process for committee as well as previous governments. I just appreciate the work that everybody put into this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Committee, we’re looking for general comments.

Is committee agreed we’ll do the clause-by-clause review of Bill 12?

Is committee agreed that we’ll go through the clauses 10 at a time?

Clauses 1 to 10.

---Clauses 1 through 63 inclusive approved

Bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that Bill 12 is ready for third reading?

Bill 12 is now ready for third reading. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.

Alright, committee, next we will be working on Committee Report 12-17(5), Standing Committee on Social Programs Report on the Review of Bill 36: Health and Social Services Professions Act. I will go to the chair responsible for Social Programs, Mr. Moses, for opening comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee

on

Social

Programs

has

been

considering Bill 36, Health and Social Services Professions Act. Members may recall last week we read a five-

page report on the committee’s review

of Bill 36 that was presented to the Legislative Assembly on March 5, 2015.

By motion, the House received the report and it was moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. The committee commends the Minister for developing the bill as a result of five years of hard work by the Department of Health and

Social Services, professional stakeholders and the public.

The committee believes the act will enhance public safety,

improve

the

level

of

care

and

professionalism in the Northwest Territories and bring our jurisdiction into step with other parts of Canada. During the committee’s review of the bill, comments were received from over a dozen stakeholders. Overall, these stakeholders believe this legislation will enhance public safety and improve the level of professionalism in our jurisdiction.

The committee’s substantive report on Bill 36 elaborated on stakeholder comments and included several

recommendations

pertaining

to

implementation of the new legislation.

The standing committee would, once again, like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who participated in the review of Bill 36. A clause-by-clause review was held on January 19, 2015. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 36 as amended and reprinted to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Chair, this concludes the committee’s opening remarks on Committee Report 12-17(5) and on Bill 36. Individual Members may have comments or questions as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.