This is page numbers 6291 – 6330 of the Hansard for the 17th Assembly, 5th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was public.

Topics

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Okay. Well, we’ll try to be a little gentler. To the even bigger question, why has NTPC been overcharging Hay River for years? Many are asking, “Why didn’t this government collaborate with stakeholders to create an affordable level playing field in the South Slave?” So again, why would this government, this Minister, secretly support a 30 percent surcharge for Hay

River residents? Can the Minister please explain that? Thank you.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

We weren’t secretly supporting anything. The rates are there. There is a rate rebalancing process underway. It has been set at a 1 percent increase for this year and 3 percent for subsequent years as we move towards rebalancing. Rebalancing a rate structure that we inherited going back to federal times that is well superseded, in many cases, by the requirement for NTPC and the government to put money into things to protect the rates for all power users in the Northwest Territories, regardless of who provides or who distributes the power. I would refer specifically to things like the $37 million or so that we put towards cushioning rates over the last four years so that people across the Northwest Territories wouldn’t be unduly impacted, or the $20 million low water fee that protected all electrical users across the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

I might have to come for that answer in question period one more time.

For now, why is the government, this Minister, through its Crown company, picking and choosing which communities are getting the biggest benefit of NTPC subsidized power? Can the Minister educate us on this optically unfair model? Thank you.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

The Member is making assertions that are erroneous. The rates are set by the PUB. There are challenges across the system. We did have a huge rate restructuring in the last government and we continue to work on managing those cost pressures, both in diesel communities as well as in the hydro communities. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

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

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, what we’ve been able to calculate today with my statement and also the statement today by Mr. Bromley is that NTPC has been overcharging Hay River for years. Then, when you have the concept of this new secret Cabinet energy strategy, one must start to pattern this alleged fairness to transparency and openness with public money or the lack thereof.

Can the Minister inform the House if his definition of competitive process complies with this government’s stated philosophy on market disruption affecting the private sector?

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

The facts, when you take away all the bavardage and bafflegab, is that there is a 10 cent, 30 percent rate difference between Hay River and Fort Smith and Fort Resolution. The Town of Hay River has made a conscious decision to go out and start a public process to seek providers to distribute power under

a franchise agreement. We, the Power Corporation, are going to put a bid in. There is no guarantee that we are going to get it, be successful. Other bidders may be successful, if they choose to bid. That is yet to be seen.

What we do know is there are issues where there are, according to the town’s numbers, about $3 million a year that goes into the coffers of ATCO in Calgary, their downtown Calgary office, profit. Anything NTPC makes stays in the Northwest Territories. So the issue is very basic and clear. There is a 30 percent difference. Hay River wants to lower their cost of living. The Northwest Territories Power Corporation and the Government of the Northwest Territories have that as a priority, as well, across the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’ve certainly made me a happy man today. Let’s see if we can get some happy answers. We’ve been hearing a fair bit, and I wasn’t going to ask a question on this area, but I have to admit that I did hear a colleague on my right, Mr. Dolynny, ask questions about the Power Corporation and the bigger scheme of things. Although we don’t share perspectives, we share the perspective of the public information and what’s good for the public.

That said, there has been a campaign, in my words, of entitlement in the newspaper from a billion dollar industry that has been, in my opinion, a situation where Northerners need another option. We all know the cost of living. Part of their campaign, in my view, is they have been saying the government has been expropriating or attempting to expropriate their assets. I don’t share that perspective and I think there are mechanisms in place, actually, if it so happens that they don’t win the franchise agreement with the Town of Hay River.

Could the Minister responsible for the NWT Power Corporation explain and illustrate the process if the case happens to be that ATCO doesn’t win the franchise agreement? How do they proceed in changing agreements? I thought there was an act that spelled it out in negotiation. I will leave it to the Minister to clarify for the public record, because I have great concern of the word “expropriation” used repeatedly in the public.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister responsible for the Power Corporation, Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of who the successful

proponent is or bidder is for the franchise agreement, if it’s not ATCO, then there would be a business negotiation that would hopefully take place in terms of the transfer and selling of the assets, recognizing their assessed value, negotiating whatever other premiums and issues might be dealt with. Failing that, there’s an Arbitration Act, I understand, that would kick in if they reach a stalemate and there’s a need to resolve this issue where there would be binding arbitration.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

I appreciate you allowing me to sort of describe it at the beginning with great detail, because I think it’s important.

Would ATCO have had to sign their franchise agreement recognizing in some form or fashion this arbitration process?

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

I understand that fact is a standard reference in all franchise agreements.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

I’m going to ask the Minister this question. I’m not sure it’s the best question, per se, in the sense of it’s under his portfolio or his purview, but he’s certainly a wordsmith.

Is arbitration the same as expropriation in his position or his capacity? Could he best describe it for the House?

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

No, they are not the same.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, Members. The time for question period has expired. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Mr. Dolynny.

Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to report to the Assembly that the Standing Committee on Government Operations has reviewed Bill 37, Financial Administration Act, and wishes to report that Bill 37 as amended and reprinted is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Bill 37 as amended and reprinted is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Mr. Dolynny.

Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 75(5) to have Bill

37, Financial Administration Act, moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.

---Unanimous consent granted

Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Mr. Dolynny.

Bill 37: Financial Administration Act
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to Item 12 on the Order Paper, reports of standing and special committees.

---Unanimous consent granted

Daryl Dolynny

Daryl Dolynny Range Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 37: Financial Administration Act, and it commends it to the House.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Government Operations (“the standing committee”) is pleased to report on its review of Bill 37, Financial Administration Act (FAA).

Bill 37, sponsored by the Department of Finance, is intended to provide a legislative framework for the effective and efficient stewardship of government resources. It also sets out reporting requirements designed to ensure government accountability and transparency in the management and use of those resources.

Bill 37 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations on November 4, 2014. From the date of second reading, the Rules of the Legislative Assembly allow 120 calendar days for the standing committee to complete its review. Given the complexity of the bill, the standing committee requested an extension of the 120-day review period, as permitted by the rules.

Background

The last review of the FAA took place in 1987. Since that time there have been substantial changes in the operating environment of the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). These include changes in technology, public expectations for accountability and transparency, management and accounting standards, and business relationships between the GNWT, other governments and third parties. Over the years many issues and suggestions for improvement to

the GNWT’s financial management legislative framework have been identified by MLAs, the Office of the Auditor General and GNWT staff. As well, most other Canadian jurisdictions have undertaken major reviews or made significant changes to modernize their financial administration legislation.

In 2005 and 2006 the government developed a discussion paper and undertook initial consultations with senior GNWT staff and MLAs, including the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight. This was followed by an initial legislative proposal for a new FAA in 2011 and a revised legislative proposal in 2012. Bill 37, based on this revised legislative proposal, was developed as a consultation draft in July 2014, which was used by the Department of Finance as the basis for consultations with GNWT departments, boards and public agencies and the Office of the Auditor General.

Review Process

When reviewing a bill, a standing committee has the latitude to structure the process so that it is conducive to ensuring the most effective review, given the nature of the bill, the subject matter and the degree of public interest. Bill 37 is a fairly complex and technical piece of legislation. For this reason, the standing committee made the decision to retain a consultant to provide technical advice on certain aspects of the bill.

Consultant’s Report

The standing committee retained the services of Mr. Lew Voytilla, FCGA, to provide advice to assist the committee in its deliberations on Bill 37. Mr. Voytilla has extensive experience with GNWT financial operations, and specifically with the Financial Administration Act, having served in a number of key senior management positions over a period of 30 years, including GNWT comptroller general, deputy minister of the Financial Management Board Secretariat and secretary to the Financial Management Board. As a management consultant and chairman of the board of directors of the NWT Power Corporation, Mr. Voytilla obtained direct experience regarding the impact of the FAA on public agencies. Mr. Voytilla’s knowledge and experience proved a valuable asset to the standing committee during the review and the committee thanks Mr. Voytilla for his input. A copy of the report that Mr. Voytilla submitted to the standing committee was shared with the Department of Finance during the course of the review and is attached to this report as Appendix A.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn this over to my colleague Mr. Yakeleya to continue.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Yakeleya.

Norman Yakeleya

Norman Yakeleya Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Stakeholder Submissions

The standing committee sought the input of key stakeholders and members of the public with respect to Bill 37, through letters and newspaper advertisements inviting input.

One written submission was received from Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Northwest Territories. Ms. Keenan Bengts provided the standing committee with her observations on Bill 37, as it regards matters related to access to information and the protection of privacy under the NWT’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (ATIPP) Act. This submission was shared with the Minister of Finance and resulted in a motion to amend Bill 37, to clarify which act has paramountcy in the event of a conflict. A copy of this submission is attached to this report as Appendix B.

The standing committee held a public hearing on Bill 37 on May 26, 2015. No members of the public made submissions at that hearing. However, the standing committee allowed an opportunity for additional input from members of the public before the beginning of its clause-by-clause review of the bill on May 29, 2015. The standing committee received a verbal submission from Ms. Noeline Villebrun, a member of the public, at its meeting on May 29, 2015.

The standing committee would like to take this opportunity to thank the stakeholders who took the time to provide their input on Bill 37.

Collaboration

The standing committee wishes to comment on the high degree of collaboration and cooperation that took place between the standing committee and the Minister and Department of Finance during the course of the review of Bill 37.

The committee thanks Minister Miltenberger, his staff, and officials from the Department of Justice for making themselves readily available to discuss the bill. Minister Miltenberger met with the standing committee on a number of occasions, and his staff met with the standing committee’s staff and consultant to review several aspects of the bill.

As a result, this review was marked by an unprecedented degree of collegial work, which buoyed the committee and reminded Members that our consensus system of government can work well when participants have a spirit of collaboration. In the view of the standing committee, this cooperative approach has produced a final revised bill, which notably improves upon the draft originally submitted to the standing committee.

Issues

During the course of the review, the standing committee raised a number of concerns and issues with Bill 37. Some of these were articulated in the

consultant’s report and some were raised by committee members. Some resulted in amendments to the bill and others required clarification and/or resolution outside of the bill itself. These issues are summarized below:

Addressing Potential Conflict with ATIPP Act

As previously indicated, the standing committee received a submission from the NWT Information and Privacy Commissioner, which focused on access to information and protection of privacy matters under Bill 37. Ms. Keenan Bengts’ submission pointed out that there is a conflict between Section 3 of Bill 37 and Section 4 of the ATIPP Act. Both sections provide that each act applies where there is a conflict. If the wording of Bill 37 remained unchanged, a conflict arising from the two acts would be subject to interpretation by the courts. The standing committee discussed with and received the concurrence of the Minister to a motion to amend the bill, for greater legislative certainty, revising the wording of Bill 37 such that in the event of a conflict between the two acts, the ATIPP Act will prevail to the extent of the conflict.

I’ll now turn the report over to Mr. Moses.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Moses.