Debates of October 14, 2005 (day 10)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way the initial legislation was drafted was that it was acceptable to have notice of the event brought forward verbally to anybody who was on municipal council or senior staff. We wanted to make sure that this was clear that this was the process, and I’m sure that if the event was served as notice there was going to be an intent to follow up. Now what happens in other jurisdictions, maybe we’ll have our legal counsel talk to that.

Thank you. Ms. Heder.

I can actually speak more familiarly with Alberta. They actually have a 21-day notice requirement. I don’t have the legislation in front of me and I don’t recollect if it is specified in the legislation that it would go to a specific person; however, I would suspect that their administrative process would normally require that such a service does go to a particular person or at least a particular office and that that information would not be particularly difficult to obtain upon inquiry.

Thank you, Ms. Heder. Next, I have general comments on Bill 9. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a quick question on this enabling community governments to transfer charges for unpaid municipal services to properties. Maybe the Minister could just give me some clarification on how that would work or how this would enable communities to transfer charges for community services for squatters, for instance. Would this apply the same as the PATA act applies today as far as municipal property taxes in all the NWT communities that have squatters? Is this any different from what we have in place today?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure if anybody would have the title or label of squatters if they were paying taxes. I’m not clear on exactly what the Member is getting at. If he’s asking if services being provided to squatters would be transferred over to property taxes, unless they had land tenure, there’s no ability to do that. It doesn’t apply to all the communities, it applies only to the municipal taxation authorities which currently are only the tax-based municipalities.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess in Yellowknife, for example, there are quite a few squatters out on the Ingraham Trail and squatters do pay property taxes, as a matter of fact. But they just don’t have any legal title to their property, whether a lease or what have you.

I guess just to get away from that, it’s not so much the squatter issue, but I’m more or less concerned about the issue we have today about property taxes and outstanding arrears in the communities that haven’t been properly assessed and all that. Are we just giving these responsibilities that the government had to fix the situation of the property tax situation that we have in the NWT? Are we just handing ITI down to the community level now without really giving them any direction of what the situation is with the property assessment section, why communities aren’t assessed and what negotiations are going on with getting them assessed and correcting all the inadequacies that have been done in the past? How are the communities going to be able to fix something that the government hasn’t fixed yet? This is basically what I’m asking.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the comments may be a little outside of what we’re talking about in terms of amendments here. We’re not asking for an amendment so the government can start collecting water bills and sewer bills. The municipalities already do that. The municipalities already collect property taxes. In the case of transferring the unpaid charges, it only applies to tax-based municipalities. If the Member is saying how can we fix something we couldn’t fix, the responsibility has always been with the taxation body that collects it. This procedure was in place since the 1970s. There was an error when the new legislation was drafted up. Somehow it was left out, and the communities have asked us to put it back in place. So we’re not transferring any responsibility over to the City or to the municipal taxation authorities. We’re trying to rectify a problem that has occurred as a result of drafting new legislation, and we want them to have the ability to be able to collect unpaid service bills without having to go through the expense of hiring a collection agency or going to the courts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m confused a little bit here. The Minister is telling us this amendment only applies to municipal taxation authorities, yet the amendment applies to the Charter Communities Act and the Hamlets Act and the municipalities act. As far as I’m concerned, that includes all the communities of the NWT. I just don’t see. Are the MTAs only under the municipal taxation act? These amendments go right across the board to the Charter Communities Act and the Hamlets Act. Why is it that these amendments are only applicable, I guess, to the MTAs? Why do we have these other amendments in front of us? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize if we weren’t clear. There are three amendments we’re talking about today. The amendment referring to the unpaid charges and transferring them to property taxes applies only to municipal taxation authorities, and if you look at the three different acts or three different classifications of communities, you’ll see the wording is different. There is the opportunity. So it only applies to the municipal taxation authority. Right now there are only the tax-based communities that are part of that. This will apply to the hamlets and the charter communities once, and if, they decide to become taxation authorities, but they’re not at that level yet. So it only applies to the tax-based municipalities, and only this portion is different for the three different categories of communities.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify that provision again. Could I ask legal information about why we have to…If somebody doesn’t give notice of an event or doesn’t give it to the right person, would that then mean that he or she would be deprived of a chance to launch an action later on? Is there that direct correlation? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

We’ll have our legal counsel answer.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Heder.

Thank you. There is that possibility that they could be deprived. However, in the subsection that follows this particular section, in each piece of legislation there are a number of situations under which the 30-day notice may be waived. One is if the person provides a reasonable excuse. The other two, I think, aren’t particularly relevant to your question here in this situation. Reasonable excuse could entail a wide variety of a number of different situations. It may be that what you’re mentioning could be considered a reasonable excuse, although that would be completely based on the particular situation that occurred at that particular time.

Thank you, Ms. Heder. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think that is sufficient for me. By this amendment, we’re giving powers to the municipalities and municipal governments to enforce this, and I have to respect that. If they choose to do that and implement that, we’re just simply giving that power for them to do it.

I have another question about the questions about being able to transfer outstanding debts to…Sorry, I’m looking at the opening statement. You know the section that I’m talking about. The Minister mentioned earlier that the outstanding debts relate only to real property charges. So I’m interpreting that to say that real property charges would not include parking fees or library fees, but it would include something like water and sewer charges, I would think. So real property charges, meaning it has to be cost related to the land. Now I’m wondering, what other kinds of charges would there be that would go into that category other than property taxes and water and sewer charges? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I guess we should read it out. We offered to read it out earlier, what actually falls under that category. We could do so.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Lee.

Under section 62(1), a charter community may, for a municipal purpose…

Excuse me. Thank you. I’d like to recognize Ms. Heder again, please, for the record.

A charter community may, for a municipal purpose, establish, deliver and operate services, public utilities and facilities. What actually the next subsection describes is the powers of the municipal council to pass bylaws. It doesn’t actually list every single specific type of service. That would be something that’s more operational in nature. But I can continue reading the bylaw powers they have under 62(2). Subject to the Public Utilities Act, council shall, when exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) by bylaw, set the terms and conditions applicable to users; set reasonable rates or amounts of deposits, fees and other charges; provide for charging and collecting these deposits, fees and other charges; provide criteria for when service will be discontinued, disconnected and refused; and, provide for a right of entry onto private property to determine compliance with terms and conditions of use, to determine the amount of deposits, fees or other charges, or to disconnect a service. So that broadly describes the types of services that could be provided by the particular municipality.

Thank you, Ms. Heder. Ms. Lee.

I’m not sure if that really got to the kind of detail I was looking for, but I’ll just…that’s okay. I can see it has to do with the utilities and general kind of costs that the municipalities probably want to recover. I think they should be able to do that. I know I have to depart a little bit from other Members who had a problem with this provision in that it really is up to the municipalities to set this up. The homeowners probably have a choice of paying these fees or losing their house. Anyway, I won’t go there.

Could I just ask the Minister about whether these provisions…We’re just simply giving the power to the municipalities to enforce this or set this up. It’s up to them really, or are we giving them a mandatory requirement in passing these? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we’re just making the allowance in legislation. It’s up to the community whether or not they want to incorporate this as part of how they collect their fees.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think that is the crux of the merit in this legislation, and on that basis I am happy to support these because it is simply giving the powers to the municipal governments to do this, and it’s up to them, and they do account to their voters about these provisions. I think that’s it for my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister, any comment? Thank you. General comments on Bill 9 by Members? Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in favour of the bill and all the amendments. I believe there are some aspects of administration or understanding in here that can be resolved if they’re not already, you know, the resolution is already in the body of the act and the conduct of senior officers and administrators in the department and at the municipal level. I guess the kind of points my colleagues have raised have had a pretty good discussion here, and I think are indeed manageable.

I just have one question for clarification, and it relates to this condition whereby tax-based municipalities can bolt on unpaid municipal fines or services to the tax bill. The concern that if they’re disputed that could throw a taxpayer’s property in limbo -- I wanted to find out if a disputed cost is going to go onto my tax bill, have I had a chance to resolve that at some other level, or is the municipality just sort of going through the process and saying Mr. Braden didn’t pay his water bill; he’s going to have a big tax problem next year. Do I get a chance to address that dispute in some other context or some other different process before it gets strapped onto my tax bill?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it would be our expectation that the community or municipal government would give some form of notice to individuals who had arrears that they were in a position to be having their charges transferred to a property tax. However, having said that, there is no real formal notice requirement in this legislation that requires the municipal government to provide that in writing. It really would be what the communities decide to set up in terms of process. There is no other outside appeal mechanism aside from the municipal government.

Mr. Minister.

I guess the courts would be another avenue.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Alright, I'm not at all well versed in this kind of administration. As a taxpayer, I would like a chance to resolve a dispute over a water bill, library fine or a parking ticket in some kind of process before it would go to that higher level or that second tier, being my tax status. Would setting that kind of thing up or requiring it be a responsibility of the territorial government to ensure it's there, or is that something that each municipality has the jurisdiction to decide on? Is there any kind of clarity there? Whose job is it to make sure I have a reasonable chance to argue my case? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. At this time, I'll recognize the clock. We're hitting 2:00 here now, so at this time, I'll rise to report progress, and the Minister will have to answer that on Monday. Thank you. At this time I'd like to thank the Minister for appearing before us, plus the staff. Thank you very much. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort them out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act, and Bill 9, Municipal Amendments Act, and would like to report that Bill 8 is ready for third reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. The motion is in order. To the motion. Is there a seconder? Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The motion is in order. To the motion.