Debates of August 23, 2011 (day 16)

I move that subclause 10(2) of Bill 10 is amended by:

striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c);

deleting paragraph (d); and

adding the following paragraph after (c):

recommendations respecting whether the act should be amended to include a provision requiring a special majority to make further amendments to the act or to authorize transfers from the Heritage Fund; and

recommendations respecting any other amendments that should be made to the act.

A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. The motion is being circulated. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a particular issue that may not have been fully supported in committee but the spirit intended in this particular one is, as I’ve stated a few times, which is we want to make sure that the fund is protected and the act is protected so that people at a whim don’t decide that they’re going to spend the money without any due thought and support. The original concept didn’t get the support in committee and certainly by the Minister, but it was presented as a suggestion to put it in the review and allow the review to take that time and give it due consideration if it seems it’s warranted to go forward as an amendment to the act.

Just simply, this protects the act from political fettering, in my view, and it ensures that no whim drives how the act will be spent or even changed. This will help protect the act while it grows and goes forward for future generations. It’s just a protection mechanism, I believe, that will ensure the true principles of why the act is in existence, which is to provide opportunities for people in future generations. I don’t think it does anything more than that, and as I pointed out, it’s to be added in the review clause as an item for consideration. I certainly hope Cabinet has seen the light of the suggestion and will vote in favour of this suggestion, but we will have to see how the outcome rolls.

To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my colleague Mr. Hawkins did a good job describing what this is about. This is simply a motion to get the future government in 10 years to conduct a review of the concept of a special majority. It was brought forward by committee and it wasn’t fully supported by Cabinet. There is some merit to looking into it and exploring it and doing some research. It definitely requires some additional research and I think 10 years from now when this comes forward for review is a good time for us to review the concept of a special majority. There might actually be some rulings in the next 10 years to that effect, so why don’t we leave it in there so that we can put it as part of our official review of this act, because my colleague is right that we don’t want political interference to occur with this money. We want it to be aboveboard. I think having these discussions at that time is both appropriate and prudent.

To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Clause 10 as amended.

Agreed.

Clause 11.

---Clauses 11 through 12 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole as amended.

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 10 as amended is ready for third reading?

---Bill 10 as a whole as amended approved for third reading

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses out.

Does committee agree that we will now move on to Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act?

Agreed.

Can I have the Minister responsible for the bill to make his opening comments? Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today to speak about Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act. This bill will amend the Territorial Court Act to increase the monetary limit in civil cases from $10,000 to $35,000.

The Territorial Court provides an effective process for civil claims but the limit of $10,000 means that many lower-level civil claims must be heard in Supreme Court, which is much more complicated. Increasing the monetary limits will permit residents to bring forward claims in an affordable practical way and improve access to justice.

I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members may have regarding Bill 22.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time I would like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in any witnesses.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree that the Minister can bring in his witnesses?

Agreed.

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in.

Mr. Lafferty, for the record, could you introduce your witnesses.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. To my left is Karan Shaner, assistant deputy minister of Justice. To my right is Mark Aitken, part of the legislative counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Welcome, witnesses. For the record, there is no committee report on this particular matter because it was referred directly from second reading of bills right to Committee of the Whole. That’s why we’re not doing a report. General comments in regard to Bill 22. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill forward. It increases the monetary limit in civil cases from $10,000 to $35,000, as the Minister said. In committee this was discussed and it was felt that increasing it from $10,000 to $35,000 would speed up the court process as many people -- I think this is correct, correct me if I’m wrong -- a lot of housing issues that are going to the courts are forced to the Supreme Court because they’re just over $10,000, and this may expedite a number of those situations and allow us to clean up some of the cases outstanding with the Housing Corporation.

I do have a question. I’m curious if the Minister could give us a bit of a rundown on what the limit is for territorial courts, or I guess provincial courts, in other jurisdictions. How does the $35,000 stand up?

Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The . Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario, and Yukon have a limit of $25,000. Saskatchewan has a limit of $20,000. Manitoba and NWT, our jurisdiction, is $10,000. New Brunswick remains at $6,000 with plans to increase theirs to $30,000. PEI and Quebec respectively have limits of $8,000 and $7,000. So those are just some of the numbers we’ve received from other jurisdictions. Mahsi.

So it appears that with the exception of one that is going to be increased to $30,000, we’re at least $10,000 above any of the other jurisdictions. I’m wondering what was the research behind that. How did we determine or decide that $35,000 in the Northwest Territories is the appropriate amount?

Ms. Shaner.

We did our research by, in part, looking at jurisdiction across the country, factoring things in like the cost of living here, and, as well, we received that suggestion from some of the stakeholders including members of the Territorial Court bench.

In determining the amount and deciding to bring this bill forward, was there any assessment done as to the amount of reduced cases being brought to the Supreme Court, but in correlation, the increase in the work demand or workload on the Territorial Court as a result of these changes?

Yes. In fact, there was and it was determined that there would really be a miniscule amount of increased workload and it probably wouldn’t be felt at the Supreme Court level. Where it would make a difference, though, is for litigants who, of course, would have access to a much more streamlined system.

That sounds good and I agree and support that, but in the back of my mind it’s suggesting or screaming to me that it may actually increase the demands on the Territorial Court, because many people don’t file now if it’s above $10,000, between $10,000 and, say, $20,000, just to pick a number, because the amount of paperwork required and the fact that you need a lawyer to take it to the Supreme Court level can get quite expensive and there’s no guarantee that you’re ever going to be successful. Whereas if it’s at the Territorial Court and you don’t need a lawyer to be involved, people might be more willing or apt to take the chance; there’s less to lose.

I’m curious if any assessment was done to that degree, because I think and I feel that there is a chance that we could see a significant increase on our Territorial Court.

I guess the answer is that we did the assessment that we could with what we know. The assessment that we did was that in 2009 there were 12 court cases filed in Supreme Court with claim amounts between $10,000 and the proposed $35,000. In 2010 there were 16 such cases. That would result, I guess, in a corresponding increase in workload for the Territorial Court, but there’s no guarantee and there’s no way to know if more people would come forward and file claims.

I accept the argument or the evidence or the information provided. I mean, it’s easy to correlate that. What was there will likely be there, but now in the new…(inaudible)… But I still worry that there may be an increased demand as more people realize that it’s a territorial process instead of a Supreme Court process.

I guess my caution to the department is even though I do fully support the arguments behind doing this increase, I do fully support this increase and I fully support this bill coming forward, I do caution the department that it may result in an increase in workload and I hope the department is ready for that increase. I hope they have the resources within the department to handle the increased load.

I have a lot of respect for the people in the court system. I have a lot of respect for our GNWT staff who are the clerks and the sheriffs and the administrators. I think they have a hard job and an important job, and I want to make sure that they’re resourced and have the ability to do their job, and I worry about any increased work demand without an offset resource to balance that. I accept that you don’t think that there’s going to be. I accept that you believe it’s probably going to be the same numbers, but in the back of my brain I’m a little worried that if it’s an easier process, it may result in an increase. Just simply a caution and I’ll leave it with that. I do support this bill. Thanks for bringing it forward.

Bill 22, general comments. Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does this Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act streamline evictions?

Minister of Justice.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Those are streamlined in front of the rental officer.

But it still has to go to court, so if he could answer the question, yes or no, does it streamline evictions. Thank you.

Ms. Shaner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act that came into effect earlier, evictions can now be granted by the rental officer and no longer need to go to court. They also went to Supreme Court, not to Territorial Court in the past, so the answer is no.

General comments, Bill 22. Detail. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 and 2 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole.

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 22 is concluded?

Agreed.

---Bill 22 as a whole approved for third reading

With that, Bill 22 is now ready for third reading. Agreed?