Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Moses.
During the 2013 public consultation, stakeholders asked for a special provision that would allow victims of domestic violence to apply for early termination of a tenancy agreement. The department complied. Bill 42 relies on the definition of domestic violence provided in the Protection Against Family Violence Act and includes new provisions allowing a victim of family violence to apply for early termination. The application must be accompanied by a valid court document.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner cautioned that there may be significant consequences if a landlord or rental officer fails to keep confidential the information pertaining to such an application. The committee looked into the matter and determined that, in the absence of an explicit offence provision, the act would merely establish a mandatory duty to keep information confidential but would not make a breach of confidentiality a punishable offence. For this reason, the committee requested an explicit offense provision. The Minister agreed, and a motion in support of the amendment was passed at the clause-by-clause review.
Other stakeholders raised questions about these provisions. A community advocate recommended an amendment to ensure that the violent spouse can be removed from a tenancy agreement and that the victim of violence is entitled to remain in the unit. The committee confirmed that provisions in the Protection Against Family Violence Act ensure that an applicant of a protection order or an emergency protection order cannot be evicted by a landlord simply because they are not a party to the tenancy agreement. The community advocate also recommended that police reports or convictions qualify as evidence for a domestic violence application, and the committee is making a recommendation to this effect.
The Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission recommended incorporating a provision to ensure that a victim of domestic violence is not held financially responsible for damage caused by a violent spouse. The department noted that a statutory remedy is already available through a separate application to the rental officer.
The deputy rental officer recommended a change to the act pertaining to the assignment of a new tenancy agreement where domestic violence has occurred. She noted that current provisions for assigning a new tenancy require the consent of the landlord, the current tenant and the new tenant. This, she indicated, is clearly impossible where the current tenant and new tenant have been ordered by the court not to have contact. However, the committee noted that Bill 42 explicitly allows a landlord to enter into a new tenancy arrangement with a victim of family violence.
The deputy rental officer also recommended a consequential amendment to the Protection Against Family Violence Act to clarify the distinction between sole and joint tenancies. The committee looked into this matter and found no need for such an amendment. The Protection Against Family Violence Act allows a court to grant a victim exclusive occupation of a family residence even if the victim is not a party to the rental agreement. It also prohibits a landlord from evicting the victim solely because the victim is not a party to the tenancy agreement. It further gives the victim the option of taking over the tenancy agreement. Any landlord who wishes to proceed with an eviction must do so under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act and have grounds for eviction under the act.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn this over to Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.
In market housing, a landlord who wishes to end a tenancy must generally obtain the agreement of the tenant. This means the tenant has security-of-tenure. However, since 2010, a new provision in the act allows a public housing landlord to end a fixed-term tenancy by giving 30 days’ notice, with a reason for termination. This provision contrasts with the security-of-tenure enjoyed by market housing tenants.
The committee noted that the matter of differential treatment for subsidized housing received considerable attention prior to the 2010 amendments. The rental officer and numerous organizations viewed it as discriminatory. On the other hand, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, NWTHC, viewed it as essential for effective delivery of social housing.
During the review of Bill 42, the rental officer recommended repealing the provisions which effectively deny public housing tenants security-of-tenure. The department disagreed, stating that these provisions allow flexibility to deal with changing circumstances of those occupying public housing and also ensure that public housing is reserved for low-income tenants.
At the request of the committee, the department clarified its rationale for excluding public housing tenants from security-of-tenure provisions and provided a discussion paper written by the NWTHC. The discussion paper made three main points. First, because fixed-term agreements for public housing tenants do not include security-of-tenure, the NWTHC can give high-risk tenants a second chance where such tenants would be unable to secure a market rental. The NWTHC requires a mechanism for ending the tenancy if the problem behaviour continues. If the provision were to be removed, the NWTHC would have to discontinue its practice of giving high-risk tenants a second chance. The NWTHC maintains that this would not be in the public interest.
Second, the NWTHC believes that a reversal of the current provisions would have a cascade effect. For example, it would be difficult to rent out a unit when the primary tenant is away at school and wishes to return to the unit. As well, fixed-term agreements allow for short-term tenancies in an alternate unit if a fire or flood has damaged the tenant’s primary unit.
Third, if a tenant’s fixed-term agreement is terminated, there are numerous options for tenants who feel they have been unfairly treated: they can raise the issue at a public meeting of the local housing office, LHO; they can raise the issue with the NWTHC’s district office; they can launch an appeal; or they can request assistance from Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The department further asserted that security-of-tenure provisions for subsidized housing in the Northwest Territories are generous compared to those in many other jurisdictions, citing British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Nunavut as examples.
In the matter of security-of-tenure provisions, the committee members’ views were not uniform. Some believe that, in the case of market rentals, security-of-tenure provisions are too onerous for landlords.
I will now pass it on to my colleague Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya.
A number of other matters were raised by stakeholders. First, a community advocate asked the committee to ensure that amendments align with human rights legislation. Specifically, he sought to ensure that Aurora College students have the right to receive a copy of their tenancy agreement. Some students have been denied this request in the past, which prevented them from voting. He further recommended ensuring that landlords do not have the right to enter student premises without notice or a police warrant. The committee noted that the act exempts student accommodations which do not have a self-contained bathroom and kitchen facilities.
Second, a Hay River constituent provided a written submission and gave an oral presentation at the public hearing. He outlined his concerns regarding the rental officer and recommended that Bill 42 be tabled until his case has been heard by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The committee did not consider this request reasonable. The gentleman further opposed the bill because he believes it will give the rental officer power to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court of Northwest Territories and give the rental officer the same powers as the Supreme Court of Northwest Territories. The committee noted that this is not the case. An order may be registered, and as such is fully enforceable as an order of the court. However, the order may still be challenged by application to the Supreme Court. The committee regretted that many of this individual’s concerns were outside the scope of its review.
Finally, at the Minister’s request, the committee passed a motion to address a technical concern that had been identified during the drafting process. The change will ensure that no one can file an order or decision of the rental officer, with the exception of an eviction order, with the Supreme Court until the 14-day appeal period has expired. This will allow all parties to exercise their right to appeal.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends the following courses of action:
That the Department of Justice develop a communication campaign to ensure that stakeholders are aware of new statutory requirements;
That the Department of Justice establish a definition for transitional housing in the regulations;
That the Department of Justice provide a definition for transitional housing in the next round of statutory amendments and clarify its position on an exemption for this type of housing;
That the Department of Justice provide better protection for transitional housing tenants against unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom and arbitrary evictions;
That the Department of Justice ensure that fees are reasonable and align with fee amounts in other jurisdictions;
That the Department of Justice increase its support for the rental office to ensure that applications are handled in a timely manner;
That the Department of Justice allow police reports or convictions to qualify as evidence for an application for early termination due to domestic violence;
That the Department of Justice address the potential for increased costs of filing with the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories by creating a separate fee schedule specific to enforcement of rental officer orders and by ensuring that Supreme Court fees are in line with existing Territorial Court fees; and
That the Department of Justice work with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to ensure that any students who reside at Aurora College are provided with a copy of their tenancy agreement on request and therefore not unduly prevented from voting.
That the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to pass the reading of the report for the conclusion to the chair of our committee, Mr. Moses. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs thanks all stakeholders who provided comments on Bill 42 or attended the public hearing.
The committee advises that it supports Bill 42 as amended and reprinted and presents it for consideration to Committee of the Whole.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Moses.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) to have Committee Report 13-17(5), Report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs on the Review of Bill 42: An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
---Unanimous consent granted
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, dated May 27, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, this document reflects the comprehensive review of the rules undertaken by the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures to modernize our rules and to better reflect our current practices and procedures. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table, for the public’s interest, a copy of a private member’s bill I would eventually like to read into this House. It is An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act and it’s pretty self-explanatory. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table a three-page document, entitled “Micro-brewery Taxation Models.” My office has compiled a complete regime of micro-brewery taxation models in Canada and I’ll be speaking to this on Wednesday, March 11, 2015. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, March 12, 2015, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that this Legislative Assembly repeal the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories originally adopted on April 1, 1993, and adopt the newest version of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, identified as Tabled Document 221-17(5);
And further, that the new Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, upon adoption of this motion, come into effect May 27, 2015. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, March 12, 2015, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on Thursday, March 12, 2015, it shall be adjourned until Wednesday, May 27, 2015;
And further, that any time prior to May 27, 2015, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, March 12, 2015, I will move that Bill 50, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2015-2016, be read for the first time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Deh Cho Bridge Act to make use of terminology that is more consistent with the Motor Vehicles Act, remove provisions concerning annual reporting with respect to collection of tolls for each fiscal year, clarify when drivers and owners of motor vehicles are liable for non-payment of tows, clarify powers and duties of a transport officer, add provisions that allow the admissibility of evidence of camera systems and weigh systems, change the regulation-making authority and remove a consultation requirement for proposed regulations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act has had second reading.
---Carried
Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 12, Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act; Bill 36, Health and Social Services Professions Act; Committee Report 10-17(5), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2013-2014 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories; Committee Report 11-17(5), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of Bill 12: Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act; Committee Report 12-17(5), Standing Committee on Social Programs Report on the Review of Bill 36: Health and Social Services Professions Act; and Committee Report 13-17(5), Report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs on the Review of Bill 42: An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.
By the authority given to me as Speaker by Motion 10-17(5), I here authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider business before the House.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mrs. Chair. We wish to deal with Bill 12; Committee Report 11-17(5), which deals with Bill 12; Bill 36; Committee Report 12-17(5), which deals with Bill 36; and, time and energy permitting, Committee Report 10-17(5). Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’ll take a brief break and commence after that.
---SHORT RECESS
I’ll call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we’ll start with consideration of Committee Report 11-17(5), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on Review of Bill 12, Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act. First I’ll go to the chair responsible for the Standing Committee on Government Operations, Mr. Nadli, for a few comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Government Operations has been considering Bill 12, Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act. Members will recall that a substantive report on the committee’s review of Bill 12 was presented to the Legislative Assembly on March 5, 2015. By motion, the House received the report and it was moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Bill 12 sets out the legislative framework for Northern Employee Benefits Services, NEBS, Pension Plan to continue as a multi-employer, multi-jurisdictional public sector pension plan for employees of approved public sector employers in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Because NEBS Pension Plan operates in both Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the circumstances of its review are rather unique. At the same time we are conducting our review, our counterpart in Nunavut, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut’s Standing Committee on Legislation, is conducting a concurrent review of Bill 1. Bills 1 and 12 are basically identical statutes and both are required for NEBS to require business in two separate jurisdictions.
Over the course of the winter, the standing committee worked closely with the Minister of Finance, Minister Miltenberger, and with the Standing Committee on Legislation with the Nunavut Legislative Assembly on amendments to improve Bill 12. These amendments were promoted by public input received on Bill 12 when the Standing Committee on Government Operations conducted a public review on September 25, 2014.
The standing committee would, once again, like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who participated in the review of Bill 12. This collaboration exemplifies participatory democracy in action and has, in the view of the standing committee, produced an act that fairly balances the needs of all stakeholders.
A clause-by-clause review of Bill 12 was held on February 19, 2015. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 12 as amended and reprinted to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chair, this concludes the committee’s comments on CR 11-17(5) and Bill 12. Individual Members may have individual questions or comments as we proceed. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
