Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The standing committee on legislation dealt with these proposed amendments to the Real Estate Agents' Licensing Act at its public meeting on May 27, 1992. Bill 19 would amend the existing act to deal with the types of securities that can be posted by persons who apply for a real estate agent's licence. Currently, real estate agents must furnish a bond in the amount of $25,000 to cover certain classes of loss to customers. The standing committee understands that due to limitations within the insurance industry here in the Northwest Territories, some real estate companies and agents have encountered practical difficulties in finding firms capable of, or interested in, writing the required bond. The committee recognized that in certain cases it would be easier for an agent to obtain other forms of liquid security, such as a letter of credit from a lending institution. Bill 18 would amend the Real Estate Agents' Licensing Act to provide that these alternative forms of security would be posted by current or prospective agents. The amount of the alternative security would be required to be $25,000, the amount that is necessary when someone currently posts a bond. This amendment would not eliminate the option of using a bond if that was the form of liquid security the agent wished to furnish; however, it would allow the government superintendent of real estate to approve and accept other forms of credit in addition to the bond. The types of acceptable alternatives to bonding would be established in regulations made under the Real Estate Agents' Licensing Act, and all bonds and other securities would be in the hands of the government superintendent of real estate.

Mr. Chairman, the standing committee on legislation appreciated the appearance of the Minister of Safety and Public Services, the Hon. Dennis Patterson, at its public meeting on May 27. The Minister and his officials presented the bill for committee consideration and responded to Members' comments and questions. Members of the standing committee spent a good deal of time with the Minister to consider whether protection presently afforded the public under the existing legislation might be compromised through the use of alternative forms of security by real estate agents. In the end, Members were satisfied that this bill would make licensing requirements more flexible for agents while still maintaining a very adequate level of public protection.

Mr. Chairman, at its public meeting on May 27 the standing committee on legislation carried a motion to report Bill 19 to the Legislative Assembly as ready for committee of the whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister stated Bill 18 would amend the Young Offenders Act to allow the director of corrections to designate open custody facilities for young offenders. This amendment could make it possible for this government to take advantage of a federal/territorial cost-sharing program and recover a retroactive claim for dollars from the Government of Canada.

The standing committee was grateful to the Minister of Social Services, the Hon. Tony Whitford, and his officials for appearing at a public meeting of the committee on May 27, 1992. During this review the standing committee considered the proposed legislation from a range of perspectives. Questions were raised, for instance, about the government's liability for matters related to young offenders housed in non-designated open custody facilities since 1984. Committee will, no doubt, be interested in tracking any implications which arise from the fact that young offenders were, for a time, held in custody in facilities for which we had no statutory authority to designate. The standing committee also considered the process through which negotiations with the federal government would not proceed and questioned why the matter of cost-sharing young offenders costs in this manner had not been addressed earlier.

Members will continue to be interested in the negotiations for recovery of cost shared funding dollars which may have been lost without this amendment. While these matters are related to this bill, it should be neither necessary nor possible for the standing committee on legislation to do anything more than to raise these comments as an expression of general interest.

However, additional concerns were identified during the committee's public review and resulted in a motion which amended Bill 18. The first of these concerns related to the question of whether it is most appropriate for decisions about the designation of open custody facilities to be made by the director of corrections, or by the Minister. Members of the standing committee on legislation felt it was important that territorial young offenders' legislation be fashioned in such a way so as to ensure it was the Minister who would be held accountable for decisions related to the designation of facilities.

The committee has expressed its concern on a number of occasions about placing the statutory authority for critical regulatory activities with senior bureaucrats rather than the Members of cabinet. While it is quite appropriate for the Minister to delegate responsibility for decisions in these areas, the laws should be clear that it is the Minister who should be held accountable. The place where that accountability is exercised is here, in this Legislative Assembly. Honourable Members of the House are interested in ensuring the good government of the NWT, and those whom we have selected to form our Executive Council are responsible to the Assembly for their decisions. It is for this reason that the standing committee took the position that it should be the Minister who has the responsibility to determine which places or classes of places can be designated as open custody facilities for young offenders. There should be provisions which allow the Minister to delegate this decision-making authority where necessary, but the legislation must recognize that it is the Minister who accepts final responsibility for these decisions.

Members of the standing committee also noted that Bill 18 contained proposed amendments to section 28 of the existing legislation. One of these amendments would have added proposed subsection 28.(1.2) to illustrate the sorts of places which the Minister may wish to designate as open custody facilities.

Members noted that the types of places listed in proposed subsection 28. (1.3) included a private residence, a community residential centre, a group home, a child care institution, or a forest or wilderness camp. However, the standing committee on legislation was concerned that the bill seemed to exclude any reference to outpost camps. Since custodial placement of young offenders in outpost camps can be viewed as an a excellent rehabilitative option, Members of the committee were of the opinion that this was an admission that should be reversed.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the new legislative process adopted by the 12th Assembly allows changes to be made to the substance or wording of bills while they are at the committee stage. This is what happened with Bill 18. A motion was passed during the public meeting on May 27th to stand down consideration of the relevant clause, and an amendment to the bill was prepared. Later that same day, the standing committee reverted to again consider Bill 18, at which time a motion to amend clause 2 was made and carried.

This motion changed the bill to make it clear that it is the Minister's responsibility to designate open custody facilities; to grant the Minister authority to delegate the powers and duties associated with the designation of open custody facilities while still making it clear that it is a ministerial responsibility; and to add outpost camps to illustrative listing of the types of places which could be designated as open custody facilities.

Mr. Chairman, under our new legislative process, bills can be amended by a motion of the standing committee only if the Minister concurs with the amendment. In this case, the Minister concurred with the committee's motion to amend Bill 18. As a result, the bill which honourable Members see before them in committee of the whole has been reprinted and differs from the version that was voted on at second reading. It now contains those changes that were made to the designation authority and the inclusion of outpost camps.

The standing committee on legislation was satisfied with the amended substance of the bill and with the position taken by the Minister during the review process. On May 27th, the standing committee carried a motion to report Bill 18 to the House as amended for consideration by committee of the whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The standing committee on legislation completed its review of Bill 6, Purchasing Management Association Act, at a public meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1992. The standing committee was grateful to the Minister of Government Services, the Hon. John Ningark, for presenting the bill at this meeting and for responding fully to the questions and comments raised by Members. Although no public witnesses appeared before the standing committee to comment on this bill, the Minister was accompanied by the past president of the NWT district of the Purchasing Management Association, who is active as well on the national executive. Also present was the procurement manager in the Department of Government Services, who has also been active in the association. These gentlemen were able to brief the standing committee on some of the more specific considerations related to the role of the Purchasing Management Association in the Northwest Territories and the purpose of the proposed legislation.

Bill 6 would create a new statute that would recognize the Purchasing Management Association of Canada and give that organization the authority to set requirements and grant the designation of certified professional purchaser. The idea behind establishing the CPP designation is that it will identify persons who have met national standards by completing the extensive training and certification process. It provides employers, most of whom probably will be government departments and agencies, with an assurance that procurement and purchasing professionals holding the designation have been schooled in the most effective and efficient procedures as well as ethical standards in their field. This bill would create an offence for persons who might attempt to use this designation without permission and would establish a fine of up to $1000 upon summary conviction.

The standing committee on legislation understands that this bill is strongly supported by the NWT district of the Purchasing Management Association of Canada. This professional organization presently has some 65 to 70 members. About 60 per cent of these people work for government. The organization has been quite active in the training and professional support of native workers wishing to enter the purchasing profession. The standing committee on legislation found that this bill was technically sound and recognized the advantages inherent in establishing an offence for the illegitimate use of the CPP designation.

At the same time, our public review of this bill led to some discussion on a number of larger issues which may also apply to similar legislation dealing with professional bodies. The standing committee noted, for instance, that this was a bill that would have a direct effect on a relatively small number of people. Members of the committee were generally supportive of the Purchasing Management Association's efforts to develop and foster a professional core and agreed with the concept that establishing the designation in law would convey the government's recognition of the CPP as a symbol of purchasing excellence.

At the same time, though, the standing committee was also cognizant of the fact that the number of territorial statutes has increased steadily to the point where there is a fairly massive body of law on the books. While this is not inherently bad, this government, over its term in office, should be mindful of the need to carefully consider whether each legislative initiative is of sufficient significance to the people of the NWT to justify the decision to enact the law. Clearly, it will be difficult for every public professional affiliation, no matter how hard-working they are, no matter how valuable their contribution has been to the Northwest Territories, to have their own establishment act.

The standing committee on legislation concluded that this consideration was not sufficiently significant to proceed with amendments or further delay the passage of Bill 6. However, if the intent of legislating in this area is to recognize the existence of a professional association which self-regulates and acts on behalf of purchasers, the Minister and the PMAC

may wish, in their own good judgment, to come back to this point at some time in the future and add some other words which recognize that in the Territories the NWT district organization acts on behalf of the Purchasing Management Association of Canada.

These comments are brought forward to the House, Mr. Chairman, not to oppose the proposed Purchasing Management Association Act but rather to provide some guidance that the government should take into account when proceeding to legislate the affairs of professional organizations in the Northwest Territories.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I wish to report that on May 26, 1992, the standing committee on legislation passed a motion to report Bill 6 to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration by the committee of the whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The standing committee on legislation reviewed Bill 2 at its public meeting on May 27, 1992. The standing committee received a submission from the NWT Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists, as part of Its public review. The association representative indicated full agreement with the amendments included in Bill 2. The

standing committee was grateful to he Minister of Justice, the Hon. Dennis Patterson, for appearing to present the bill and to respond to Members comments and questions.

The committee felt that the amendment included in Bill 2 was straightforward, and Members were generally supportive of the concept that the Minister should not have to approve each of the by-laws of this self-regulating professional association.

In reviewing this bill, Members of the standing committee questioned the Minister about the process for disciplinary review and asked for assurances about public and government access to the association's by-laws. But generally, there was committee support for this amendment to the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, and, with that in mind, the standing committee on legislation carried a motion on May 27th that Bill 2 should be reported to the House as ready for committee of the whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question should have been a yes or no answer. This water pipeline has been requested for the past 10 years or so from the community of Arviat. I do not understand why all these studies could not have been done in that time. I still did not quite understand whether this will be operational this summer for the fall, or whether it will be operational next summer. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. I would like to know if he knows whether this water line will be built this summer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. I wanted to find out the progress of the water line in Arviat. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am personally very glad to see that there is this initial step toward decentralization. I fully support it, as I have indicated before. I would say, though, that there are some concerns that are being raised not just from the smaller communities but from the centre of the Territories itself, which is Yellowknife; and, as Mr. Lewis indicated yesterday, there is an economic downturn in Yellowknife as well. But aside from that, I think my major concern is that in the steps taken by the government toward decentralization, there was no consultation, prior to the decisions made by the cabinet, with the ordinary Members; and it may be that there was some consultation with the standing committee on finance, but I am not a Member of that committee. Therefore, I am left in the dark until the O and M budget comes out.

I think with regard to decentralization, there will always be concern by some Member of the Territories as to the way any step is taken. I think the communities that I represent are no exception, because the communities that are mentioned in this report are Fort Simpson and Rankin Inlet, being stranded in the never-never land. I am sure that it was not meant to say that those are the only communities which are in never-never land, because there are more. My communities of Baker Lake and Arviat are among them because they have the higher unemployment rates in the Keewatin.

I can see from the number of Members that are in here and the people who are concerned and are speaking out about the direction of this report, New Directions, that the smaller communities or the people who represent smaller communities are speaking out and are being very critical. But in order to get to where I think all of us as the Legislative Assembly want to see our Territories go, there has to be consultation before decisions are made. There was an example before, where the government had made moves and had not consulted with Members. I do not want to see any consequences of decentralization as a result of not consulting with other Members of the Assembly because I think all Members are in support of decentralization, I guess what I am trying to say is that I know cabinet is trying to consult with Members, but I think there should be more, especially when it comes to major issues like decentralization. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Rule 66(1) requires that a bill referred to a standing committee shall not be proceeded with until the Assembly receives a report of the committee or 120 days have passed since second reading. Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on legislation has not completed its review of Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Mining Safety Act. I therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to recommit Bill 4 to the standing committee on legislation under Rule 66(1).