Charles Dent

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that Bill 17, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I already committed in this House that by the time business plans are presented to the committees that I would update Members of the House on any actions I had taken to try and achieve this. As the Premier had noted earlier, there is an opportunity for all Members to lobby the federal Minister next week and I would certainly welcome the Members’ intervention on this issue as I would hope to intervene as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In many ways there isn’t a significant difference in the program. The biggest one is that adult basic education can be undertaken by anybody. The USEP is designed to provide travel expenses, living expenses, tuition and books for people who can achieve university level entrance within one year. That’s probably the biggest difference, because adult basic education could require somebody taking ABE programs two or three years to get to university level entrance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I noted earlier today in my statement, we’ve been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. To mark the occasion, there’s been a conference in town from the 8th through today, and with us today in the gallery we have 20 judges who have been participating in the conference. I’d like to introduce them. We have Justice Ted Richard from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

We have Justice John Vertes from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

We have Justice Virginia Schuler from the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

From Nunavut...

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is right. I’ve had some discussions with the deputy minister on this issue because it has been raised from the private sector over the past six months. We are, right now, in the process of trying to decide what level of consultation, and how much of the act we should take out for consultation or whether we should do a focused amendment or propose a focused amendment just for this one issue. Right now, that’s the stage we’re at, is trying to determine just how far to go with the proposed amendment. The answer to the Member’s question is, yes, we’re looking at...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Right now, under the Conflict of Interest Act, if two people are married and one person is a member of a board or a council, they have to follow the conflict of interest provision. I will just take an example that I am familiar with: the Legislative Assembly Executive Council Act. Under the conflict of interest provisions here, if a Member is married, they have to declare all of the interests of their spouse. They have to make sure that there isn’t a conflict of interest. However, if the couple is not married, it wouldn’t necessarily apply to them. So we are fixing...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If a DEA agrees that is the approach they want to take, they are welcome to take it and we will support them in doing it. We would be very happy to do that. There are an awful lot of innovative approaches being taken by DEAs across the Northwest Territories right now. In Lutselk’e they’ve been running an on-the-land program, which has been proven to dramatically increase the attendance rate for kids who are typically at risk for not attending. There are attendance programs that are run at schools all across the Northwest Territories. So this is an issue that I have...

Thank you, Madam Chair. What this is changing is, if you look at the first section in quotation marks where it says “section 6 of Bill,” there’s no number there and now it says “Bill 17.” At the time this was initially presented to committee we didn’t know what number it would be. So it would be a normal course of business to make this change as part of the committee review had they considered our bills. But this is to put the bill number in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this amendment is intended to do is to address the concern that conflicts of interest may well arise where couples live together for less than two years. The fact that they lived together may give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest. This amendment applies both to heterosexual couples and same-sex couples because, right now, for instance, in the Conflict of Interest Act, if a heterosexual couple were to be living together for six months in a conjugal relationship, the same act wouldn’t apply to them even though there may be the implication of a...