Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right is Mr. Mark Aitken, assistant deputy minister, Attorney General’s office. To my left is Brian Asmundson, public trustee, Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Are there any general comments on Bill 59? Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister here today, and the witnesses. Just some points of clarification here so I can understand fully about the ramifications of the changes that we have before us on estate administration.
In the Minister’s opening comments, he claims that these will replace current probate rules and then there’s much reference to the new probate rules that are in the bill. It’s an issue of cost.
Is there going to be a huge cost to the court system to administer these new rules in terms of finding judgment, or person power, investigative powers, use of people and lawyers’ times to rectify estates that have no wills? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re looking at modernizing the rules that do date back to the 1970s. We’re not anticipating any additional costs or court time with this in our efforts to modernize. Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. When committee was first brought forward this bill, committee did write, at that time, to the Government House Leader to indicate in terms of the type of information and consultation that went on behind the scenes in preparation for this. The committee was led to believe that there was very little consultation with the Law Society or the Supreme Court of Canada or the Seniors’ Society. Since then, I know there has been some communication back and forth, but maybe the Minister can give us an update to make sure those three entities have had some input and we have a clear conscience that we have the blessing of, again, the Law Society, the Supreme Court and the Seniors’ Society. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We did undertake consultation with the Law Society. There was consultation on several occasions in different contexts with the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. As well, the public guardian was consulted both with respect to the original proposal for the bill and with respect to the bill itself. We did not go out to the seniors’ societies. It had not been contemplated at the time.
One thing I would note is that there’s nothing in this bill that does not bring the Northwest Territories either up to standards of elsewhere in Canada or that could otherwise have an adverse effect in any way on seniors. So that was part of the reason we kept the consultation to the entities that we did. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason why I brought up the Seniors’ Society is committee has been well versed and has indicated also to the department that we have a number of seniors out there that, for whatever reason, whether it’s cost or not understanding, whether it’s language barriers, a lot of our seniors and elders do not have wills in place. So, some of these changes could have an impact to them. Again, the more we talk about this when we look at legislation, it brings the overarching question of will preparation and preparation for estate planning. Again, we felt that the Seniors’ Society would have been a great opportunity for the department to consult in preparation for this bill and hence my question.
We know that within the confines of this legislation it proposes different actions between two different types of estates, and these estates are put in values. One value, estates under $35,000 where there is no will, and estates under $75,000 where there is no will.
How are these two sections, as amended in the act, how are they going to work together and is it going to be difficult to establish evaluation of estates given very small thresholds here between $75,000 and $35,000?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Asmundson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. What we anticipate is with respect to the estates under $35,000, if the public trustee is handling them, we will not be required to do an accounting to the court, but we will do an accounting to the court for estates between $35,000 to $75,000. As well, there will be, in the estate administration rules, a small estate rule that will allow people to simply get a court order for estates under $35,000, so it should be a little bit easier for somebody to administer an estate under $35,000 when the new estate administration rules are passed by the judges.
In the event of a family dispute over an estate, how does this act change the perspective of the public trustee gaining a higher priority in the administration of that said estate?
If there is a public dispute or a dispute between the beneficiaries before we start administering, that would be a factor in deciding whether or not we would be in a position to administer an estate. Normally, the public trustee has been quite successful in administering estates where there are family disputes because we are usually dealing with smaller estates and can usually reason with the parties. I don’t think things will really change under the new set of rules. It will probably be much the same as normal.
When we reviewed the estate administration rules, within the legislative proposal there was a component where exercise of that power could be subject to court supervision. The question is: How does this act empower the court to exercise that supervisory role where the public trustee has to intervene with their authority?
That’s a bit of a difficult question to answer in the abstract without knowing what the dispute is, but basically there is provision for the court to intervene and there’s also provision in here that the court can revoke the public trustee’s appointment if it’s requested. Those are both possibilities that the court might do if it’s satisfied that somebody else should be eligible to receive the grant.
Finally, any time we change laws with respect if there’s controversy, the issue of dispute resolution is always something I look at. Where are the powers in here for someone who has a problem with a public trustee in terms of their power or the management of an estate? What is the dispute resolution that is being offered to family members who may feel that the estate is not being managed in the appropriate manner?
There is a provision that the court, on hearing an application, can revoke a grant, which I’ve just sort of referred to. Apart from that, if the public trustee, myself, has been doing something inappropriate, a court application could be taken or potentially a political complaint could possibly be made, but there is always the possibility of a court application, which would probably be the most appropriate venue.
So what we’re saying here is if there is a dispute, I have to take my dispute to the courts. I may have to go even as high as the Supreme Court of the NWT to lodge a complaint, which could be very costly to the plaintiff in the event of a dispute.
Does the department consider or will they consider anything that will actually assist a dispute resolution with respect to probate?
Probates become very complicated. They become very emotional and sometimes you have to have safeguards to protect the estate, family members are usually involved and a public trustee is put in a position of power. Again, has there been thought about putting safeguards as some type of resolution or dispute resolution mechanisms to support this act?
Well, we haven’t actually had as many estate disputes as you might think. Usually it’s fairly easy to identify who the beneficiaries are, and in the case where this is not a will, the Intestate Succession Act is usually fairly clear on who the beneficiaries are, so we haven’t had a lot of disputes. But the court is still the mechanism that would have to be satisfied. I mean, we do try and resolve it within our office and within the beneficiaries, but often it’s a zero sum game where if somebody’s getting less, somebody’s getting more, but the estate will be distributed fully in the end.
Thank you, Mr. Asmundson. Are there any other general comments on Bill 59? Detail?
Agreed.
Clause 1. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that subclauses 1(2) and (3) of Bill 59 be deleted and the following substituted:
(2) Section 50 is repealed and the following is substituted:
Money and property owed to child
50. (1)
If a guardian has not been appointed for a child, a person who is obligated to pay money or to deliver personal property to the child may, in any year, pay not more than $4,000 or deliver personal property having a value not exceeding $4,000, to
the child, where the child has a legal obligation to support another person,
a parent with whom the child resides, or
a child who has lawful custody of the child,
and that payment or delivery discharges the obligation to the extent of the amount paid or the value of the personal property delivered.
Responsibility for money or property
(2) A parent or other person who has lawful custody of a child who receives and holds money or personal property under subsection (1), has the responsibility of a guardian for the care and management of the money or personal property.
Nonapplication
(3) This section does not apply in respect of
(a) wages and salary owing to a child; or
an amount payable or personal property that is to be delivered under a judgment or court order.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Clause 1 as amended.
---Clauses 1 through 7 inclusive approved
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Does committee agree that Bill 59 is ready for third reading as amended?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Bill 59 is now ready for third reading as amended. I’d like to thank Minister Ramsay and his officials for their attendance here today and I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
Does committee agree to move on to Bill 62, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask Minister Ramsay, please, if he would provide his opening remarks on Bill 62. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about Bill 62, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its careful review of the bill.
Bill 62 will amend the Coroners Act to create consistency in the powers that are afforded to coroners in the NWT and in other Canadian jurisdictions. The amendments will also:
expand the investigative powers of coroners;
expedite the investigative process where possible, in the interest of returning bodies to families in a more timely manner;
clarify what personal information can be disclosed; and
make minor improvements to various provisions of the act.
Delays in completing investigations can prove to be a hardship on the family of the deceased. The proposed amendments will help to strengthen the response times for those who need answers to provide closure.
In developing this bill, the department undertook consultations with the chief coroner, the Department of Health and Social Services and the NWT Information and Privacy Commissioner. The thoughtful input we received is much appreciated, as it helped to improve the bill before you today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members may have regarding this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I’d now like to call on Mr. Moses, the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, to provide the committee’s remarks. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 62, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act, on September 15, 2015. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
Bill 62 amends the Coroners Act to enhance the powers of the coroners in conducting investigations and inquests and in disclosing information to the public. The bill also clarifies the responsibilities of others with respect to the authority of coroners under the act and makes consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Vital Statistics Act.
Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 62, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 62. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. At this time I’ll ask Minister Ramsay if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber.
Yes, please, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.
Mr. Ramsay, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right is Mr. Mark Aitken, assistant deputy minister, Office of the Attorney General. To my left is Mr. Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel, Department of Justice.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I’ll now turn to Members and ask if there are any general comments on the bill. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of comments here. The powers of the coroner are increased quite a bit through these amendments. I and a couple of other members on the committee had some fairly serious concerns about whether or not the powers were going a little bit too far. In discussion during the public hearing and in discussion with the Minister and his officials, I certainly was reassured that these powers are necessary for the coroner to do her job, that they are not going over and above and beyond some of the concerns which I initially had when I first read the amendments to the act.
The other concern that was raised was the issue of privacy and transmission of information from one person to another as the coroner and his or her staff did their duty. Again, my concerns there were assuaged. I feel comfortable in passing this bill as it is.
So, I just wanted to point out that we did have some concern. I certainly am okay with the bill as it is now. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Member and thank the committee again for their input into the bill. We certainly listened intently to the questions that came up at the committee review and appreciate the Member’s input into the bill you see before you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. General comments. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.
