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(2) Section 50 is repealed and the following is substituted: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.
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.
