Statements in Debates
These are fees to increase revenue. There are certain fees charged by the government that are cost recovery. Thank you.
I might ask Mr. Aitken to help me with this, but I believe that it is going to be about $500,000 after the three years.
Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair. Thanks.
The fees had not been changed in many, many years, and we thought it wise to update the fees.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right is Mr. Mark Aitken, assistant deputy minister of Justice. To my left is Ms. Laura Jeffrey, legislative counsel. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today to discuss Bill 58: Justice Administration Statutes Amendment Act. This bill proposes to make targeted and necessary legislative amendments to acts that support the justice system in the Northwest Territories.
This bill amends various statutes administered by the Department of Justice to:
repeal provisions of An Act to Amend the Children's Law Act and amend the Children's Law Act to establish a recalculation service;
amend the Coroners Act to clarify the responsibilities of the Chief Coroner and coroners in respect of inquests and authorize the...
Of course, if the value of your house is a lower amount, then the fees are lower, too. A fee on a $300,000 house is higher than it would be on a $250,000 house. If you bought at $300,000 and paid a fee then and then someone else buys the house or you buy another house at $250,000, you are going to pay less than you would have. The point is the fees are based on the value of the property or the size of the mortgage. If the market is in decline, we will be collecting fewer fees. Thank you.
Well, I'd like to deal first with the issue of the $500,000 of which I spoke of and which was referenced earlier. It's not as though this will all come from Yellowknife; land transfer in Fort Smith or Hay River would likely also be effected. We didn't want to have a revenue shock, if I can put it that way, on the consumers who would be paying this, so that is why it was decided that a most reasonable approach would be to phase it in over time. As I say, the rates had not been changed in approximately 25 years, maybe slightly more, slightly less, but it has been a long time with no change.
They were already not cost recovery; they were revenue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify, when I said $500,000, that would be the amount per year that we would be getting after the three years, so it would ramp up to that amount, I assume.
I am not sure if I understood the other portion of the question. I was having a bit of trouble listening. Perhaps it could be repeated?