Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’d like to welcome the department here today proposing a bill. I want to say, first and foremost, I have utmost respect for the chief coroner’s office and all the people who work in the coroners division. I’m glad to see we have some stronger legislation before us to make their jobs much more enriched and much more powerful for the people that they serve.
As we heard earlier here from Madam Bisaro, this new bill expands the coroner’s ability to collect information without a warrant, or what we like to call warrantless access. I know that the Information and Privacy Commissioner did have some concern. She wrote to the committee about those concerns. I know we discussed them in committee. I know there’s a fine line between when a coroner ceases collecting information and notifies the appropriate authorities. But right now in the current system, in order for a coroner to satisfy a warrant, they need to go to a justice of the peace and have reasonable probable grounds to do so. So this act is going to be speeding up that process and allow a lot more wider powers of enforcement.
Again, I’m comfortable as it’s written, but I think a lot of Members were still a little bit concerned that we were giving the coroner and the coroner’s office high power or greater powers than that of a peace officer, so I will ask that question today here in the House.
Is this act in any way, shape or form giving the coroner’s office any higher power for a warrantless seizure? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of the time the coroner would be invited into the premises. In the case that they’re not, that’s something that is included in the bill and can be addressed. I’m going to go to Mr. Aitken for some further detail on that.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you. The point Mr. Dolynny made about whether or not the coroner has powers that exceed that of a peace officer, it’s important to note that the coroner is not a peace officer. The coroner’s service is not a fault-finding body. The coroner’s investigation does not result in charges being laid against a party. They’re merely trying to get to the circumstance of the death so that in the future, deaths can be prevented in similar circumstances.
We did a lot of research on this particular issue that Mr. Dolynny is concerned about, and one of the things that struck us was that in six coroner jurisdictions in Canada we looked at, five did not require a warrant in the circumstances Mr. Dolynny is concerned about. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that response. I know we’ve had that high-level discussion already in committee.
Just for the sake of reminding me, we talked about six jurisdictions that were investigated. If we were to pass this act as is, we would probably be the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to basically appease this warrantless seizure of information.
Where are the other five jurisdictions in Canada? Which ones are they? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you. Mr. Dolynny asked the same of standing committee and I couldn’t find it in my materials then and I’ve finally found it now after a bit of delay. The coroner jurisdictions that we looked at – and there may be others in Canada – are British Columbia, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and New Brunswick and, in addition, the territory of Nunavut is also using the Coroners Act, but they use the same act that we have, so that would make seven. Thank you.
Not that I want to get into specifics, but if we deal with it in general comments it will make the clause-by-clause here a lot more efficient. In Section 14 it talks about the coroner examining and cross-examining witnesses, which is basically a fairly high judicial capacity. When that occurs, are witnesses able to have, or are they offered any legal counsel? Do we supply that? Is there any type of memorandum of rights given to witnesses to have a legal counsel without delay in a cross-examination? Thank you.
This provision is inserted just to permit the presiding coroner at an inquest to qualify matters for the jurors. There are times when, as a result of examination and cross-examinations of witnesses, you may have an obvious question that the jury is curious about but has not been asked and this gives an opportunity for the presiding coroner to ask those questions. There would be no more requirement for legal counsel for the witness in responding to questions of the coroner than there would be for any other questions that are asked during the course of the inquest. Thank you.
My former question, especially going back to warrantless seizures – I’ll have to take a look through my notes here – is when we look at any type of case precedent in this area the term “reasonableness” comes to the forefront each and every time when provisions are talked about in terms of warrantless search and seizures and these fall under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, I guess, from the department’s perspective, what legal advice can you give us as Members of the House as to what is that degree of reasonableness that would be passed to the coroner in the event of making that determination of a warrantless seizure? Thank you.
The proposed act has restrictions that relate to what kind of material can be seized. In Section C it says that the coroner can seize anything that the coroner believes is material to the investigation. So there is a test, the coroner has to have a reasonable belief that it’s material to the investigation. Where it relates to records, the coroner must believe it’s material to the investigation. It’s not a fishing expedition where the coroner can seize anything that they find in the home that’s of interest to them; it has to in some way relate to the death or the circumstances of the death. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Any further general comments?
Detail.
Detail. If committee’s agreed, we’ll group the clauses for Bill 62. Clauses 1 to 5.
---Clauses 1 through 20 inclusive approved
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Agreed. Does the committee agree that Bill 62 is ready for a third reading?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Bill 62 is now ready for third reading. I would like to thank Minister Ramsay and his officials for their attendance here and I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
If committee is agreed, we will proceed with Bill 63, An Act to Amend the Victims of Crime Act, and I will ask Minister Ramsay if he could please provide his opening comments on Bill 63. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about Bill 63, An Act to Amend the Victims of Crime Act. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of the bill.
In 2013 the federal government gave assent to Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act. As a result of those amendments, offenders are now allowed to use fine option programs to work off surcharges. In response, Bill 63 would amend the territorial Victims of Crime Act to allow offenders to resolve their surcharges by means of the NWT Fine Option Program.
These changes are especially important given that Bill C-37 doubled the existing federal surcharge and removed judicial discretion in applying the surcharge for each federal conviction an offender receives. The cumulative total owed could end up being quite significant in some cases, and many offenders have very little money. Without the ability to utilize the Fine Option Program, cumulative surcharges could be a burden.
Bill 63 will also allow the territorial victim surcharge amount or the calculation method for each offence to be set out in the Victims of Crime Regulations, allowing amounts to be updated as necessary in the future, after appropriate consultation prior to implementing any increase or decrease. This bill will also amend the Fine Option Act to permit an offender to use the Fine Option Program to discharge all or any part of the victim of crime surcharge.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members may have regarding the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. We will now call on the chair of Standing Committee of Social Programs that reviewed the bill to offer the committee’s remarks. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 63, An Act to Amend the Victims of Crime 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 63 amends the Victims of Crime Act with respect to surcharges imposed and paid into the Victims Assistance Fund. The bill allows the surcharge amounts to be set by regulation and allows an offender to complete a work option program under the Fine Option Act as an alternative to incarceration for failure to pay a surcharge. The bill makes consequential amendments to the Fine Option Act.
Upon the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 63, An Act to Amend the Victims of Crime Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 63. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
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.
