Thank you, Mr. Moses. At this time I would like to ask Minister Ramsay if he has witnesses he’d like to bring into the Chamber.
I do, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.
Once again, for the record, Minister Ramsay, if you could please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right is Ms. Shirley Kemeys-Jones, assistant deputy minister, Office of the Solicitor General; and to my left, Cherie Jarock, legislative counsel, Department of Justice.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Are there any general comments on Bill 63? General comments. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and the department here today as we review this act. I guess, first and foremost, after being well schooled on the principles of this act and the mechanism behind this act, I had a concern with the title of this act, called the Victims of Crime Act. When you look at where this money is going and how this money is collected, victims of any crime do not receive a penny of this, this actually goes to rehabilitation of inmates and so I really strongly encourage the department to consider renaming this act to clearly reflect where this money is going to give nomenclature to these acts. It’s a bit of a misnomer that we’re misleading the public that victims are receiving this money. So that’s more of an observation as we move forward, Madam Chair.
What we have here are changes to the regulations that will follow with respect to increased surcharges, so if the department could give us a better idea and scope as to when this act, if it does pass, when will these changes take effect? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam. I’ll go to Ms. Kemeys-Jones for a more detailed response to the second part of Mr. Dolynny’s question, but I just wanted to say that we’re not out to try to fool the public or anything with the bill. The question about where the surcharges collected go, I can list off a few things: training to sensitize and inform community resource workers about the needs and circumstances of victims of crime; direct services that assist victims through crisis response personal support; follow-up assistance information and referrals; public awareness on the rights and responsibilities of victims; available services; the criminal justice system and its procedures or any other issues related to victims of crime; research into the needs and concerns of victims; distribution of victims’ service information; and promotion of services for victims so that the surcharges that we do collect go to help victims of crime. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Ms. Kemeys-Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to when the program would be in place, the allowing of people receiving fines to work off the surcharge to the Fine Option Act, we anticipate that will be January 2016.
Thank you, Ms. Kemeys-Jones. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do respect the Minister’s response and I do not want to split hairs with the Minister or department. I just think this nomenclature that we used to define this act is a bit misleading. A true victim here is a person who has had an act against them of violence or anything against them, and in a lot of cases I don’t think the victims themselves are recipients to the fines the way it’s set up by the courts. So I just want to make that perfectly clear.
There’s going to be a significant amount of impact and cost as these fines become higher and people or inmates are being released or being charged will be looking at the Fine Option Program to work off these debts because the fines are going to be substantially higher than the past. Which means that we’re going to have a lot more manpower in play to manage and mitigate a lot of this client option program.
What does the department expect to see in terms of costs associated with managing the influx that we may see with the Fine Option Act or a program in full effect with this act? Thank you.
Actually, the Fine Option Act has been in place for several years in the Northwest Territories and so we have been monitoring it through our probation offices and through our community justice committees and the coordinators that we have in the committees. The amendment to the act allows for, and it’s correct, will allow for more people to work off the surcharge through the Fine Option Act. So we will be monitoring through those same processes and we do have resources in place across the Territories in order to do that. Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate the response. We heard the term monitor, which I think is of importance to Members of this side of the House. So I guess the question we should be asking is in this monitoring there must be some measurable, there must be information that would be subscribed to in terms of finding efficiencies within this Fine Option Program.
Will the department and will the Minister commit on sharing that information as this act comes on board and be able to share the success or the failures of this program as it relates to this act being passed? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we can do that and we will do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you.
Next for general comments I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My concern when we discussed this act was similar to Mr. Dolynny and it was that there’s an anticipation that there would be a lot more people working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program. We asked the question and we didn’t really… It was sort of the same question that was asked here already, but we didn’t really get a definitive answer. The answer to Mr. Dolynny suggested to me that there’s no expectation that the number of offenders working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program is going to increase. I guess I’d like to get that confirmed. It would seem to me if we are making these amendments to the act that there’s going to be a lot more offenders who will be able to work off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program.
So I guess I would like to ask the Minister and the department, do you not expect that you’re going to get more people working off their surcharges and that there is going to be an impact on the correctional service? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No, it would be more beneficial if we had folks working off their surcharges as opposed to getting nothing. That’s why it’s the way it is. Thank you.
Thank you. I’m not suggesting it’s not beneficial, but the question is are you not anticipating more offenders will be working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program and they are going to be monitored and they’re going to be supervised by corrections services staff? So do you not see that there’s going to be an increase in the work involved by your corrections staff? Thank you.
Thank you. They’re usually working off their fines anyway. So now they’d be having the ability to work off the surcharge as well. So we don’t anticipate any further workload. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. So maybe I’m confused, but it begs the question to me why are we making the amendment? I thought we were making the amendment to make it easier for people to work off their fines and their surcharges and if that’s the case, we’re opening it up so that more offenders can work off their fines and their surcharges. Am I incorrect in that? If we have more offenders working them off is that not more work for staff? Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Prior to the amendments they didn’t have the ability to work off the surcharge. That’s the difference. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. General comments, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification on this bill, is it flexible enough that the offenders would be in their home communities working off their surcharge in the Fine Option Program? So a modern chain gang type of a method here.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Ms. Kemeys-Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Generally if the fine is given in the community then they would be working off the surcharge in their home community. There are times when someone is incarcerated and they have a fine and a surcharge, as well, and in those circumstances people in the facility would assist the inmate to work off the fine and surcharges prior to their release.
Thank you for the clarification, Ms. Kemeys-Jones. I want to ask about the Fine Option Program specifically in the communities that the offender then would work off their Fine Option Program through… Is it flexible enough that they could work it off through a community type of initiative? Say for example elders, they can go out to a fish lake; they can set the fishnets and provide fish for some of the elders and some of the older people for that type of initiative. So they would work it off and provide to the community as a whole to pay off their fine.
Yes. The program is flexible enough to allow communities to make decisions on what they would consider to be work in the community and a lot of times it is volunteer work in the community and much of the time that’s for elders.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No more questions. Let’s get this built fast.
That sounds good. Any more general comments?
Detail.
Detail. Okay, thank you. If Members could refer to their clauses, clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 5 inclusive approved
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 63 is ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Bill 63 is now ready for third reading. Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I will turn the floor over to Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to mention to the House that it’s the last time Ms. Kemeys-Jones is going to be appearing at the witness table at the Legislative Assembly. I want to thank her for all her work and I’m sure Members join me in thanking her very much for all her years of dedicated service to the people of the Northwest Territories. Thanks.
---Applause
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms if he will please escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
At this time, committee, at the Chair’s prerogative, we will have a break. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. Committee has agreed to consider Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Co-operative Associations Act. I will ask the Minister responsible for the bill for introductions. Minister Ramsay.
I am pleased to appear before the committee today as you consider Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Co-operative Associations Act.
The main focus of the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Associations Act is to address existing gaps and to clarify and revise outdated provisions. This will include amendments to eliminate overlapping responsibilities of the supervisor within the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment and the registrar with legal registries, as well as amendments to enact requirements that correspond more closely with the rules governing other businesses operating in the NWT. The bill also includes a number of non-substantive amendments to ensure consistency with current drafting standards.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment consulted on the proposed amendments with Arctic Co-operatives Ltd. on several occasions, as it operates as an umbrella organization encompassing many of the retail co-operatives operating in the Northwest Territories. The departments also provided a consultation draft of the bill with an explanation of the proposed amendments to all 19 existing co-operatives.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of Bill 64, including very constructive feedback and identification of a number of motions that improve the bill, which will be advanced this afternoon. I look forward to responding to any questions Members may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Now I will turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Co-operatives Association Act, on September 15, 2015. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day and the committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
Bill 64 amends the Co-operatives Associations Act to define the essential characteristics of the co-operative enterprise and improve procedures for incorporation, naming, amalgamation and continuance of co-operative associations. The bill clarifies the responsibilities of directors and members and streamlines the regulatory requirements.
During the course of the review, the Minister agreed to consider the committee’s request for motions to be drafted to amend the bill. The intent of the motions amending each of subclause 26(3) and 34(3) is to accomplish the objective of ensuring that co-operative associations can avail themselves of the services of credit unions as well as banks.
The intent of the motion amending clause 13 of the bill provides limitations to the criteria set out in the bill under which it is permissible for directors to delay the redemption and repayment of monies owing to a person whose membership in a co-operative association is terminated. The committee felt, and the department agreed, that the addition of these limitations improved the bill by better balancing the interests of the co-operative association against those of a terminated member. It was agreed that these three motions will be moved today during our Committee of the Whole considerations of the bill. This was done to exponentially allow the standing committee a clause-by-clause review to proceed at the September 15th meeting without causing any undue delays.
Upon the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Co-operative Associations Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 64. Individual Members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Ramsay, would you like to bring witnesses into the House?
