Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present Bill 28, Interpretation Act.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development for their review of this bill and for the constructive feedback they provided. A motion was made in Committee, and I am pleased that the bill was improved as a result.
The current Interpretation Act finds its origins in the Revised Ordinances of the Northwest Territories of 1888, and although minor changes have been made to the act over time, it has not been significantly modernized from its original iteration. Bill 28 will repeal and replace the current act with a more accurate and accessible version. The new act will include most, but not all, of the components of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s model Uniform Interpretation Act, which was adopted at their 2015 annual meeting.
More specifically, the bill will make changes that:
Update existing standard provisions that regulate aspects of the operation of all enactments;
Update existing definitions of commonly used words and terms in legislation;
Revise existing provisions that identify which elements in a legislative document are to be considered as part of the statutes for purposes of interpretation;
Add a new provision that incorporates and clarifies the Carltona doctrine;
Remove outdated provisions;
Improve the structure of the act by reorganizing provisions; and
Improve the readability of the act.
These and other changes provided for in the bill will ensure that the Interpretation Act meets its purpose of promoting consistency and conciseness in the form and language of legislation in the Northwest Territories.
I would be happy to answer any questions that Members have regarding Bill 28.
Thank you, Minister. I will turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Development, which considered the bill for any opening comments. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair the Standing Committee on Social Development concluded its review of Bill 28, Interpretation Act, on August 22, 2017, with a public hearing held here at the Legislative Assembly building. The committee received no public submissions on the bill and carried one motion to amend the bill. Overall, the committee is pleased to support the Department of Justice's effort to update and enhance out-dated legislation.
Individual Members may have additional comments or questions as we proceed with consideration of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister, please introduce your witnesses to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left, Emily Ingarfield, manager of policy, and to my right, Mike Reddy, director of legislation. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, please turn to page 5 of the bill. I'm sorry, I should open the floor to general comments. Do we have any general comments? I see Mr. Testart has comments. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know this bill and many like it are very technical in nature and contain a lot of legal matters that are significant for how governments operate and how the legal community operates.
I think most average readers can understand what the Minister laid out for the changes, what this bill does, in his opening comments, except for one, which is the Carltona doctrine. I raised this in the review of the standing committee. I understand it now, but I'm hoping, for our listeners to these proceedings and for the future of our Hansard document, that the Minister can properly define that Carltona doctrine so everyone understands how the law is being changed to reflect that principle, which currently we only have in scare quotes. If the Minister can give just a description of that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if I might defer that question to Mr. Reddy, to my right. My recollection of exactly what this means has been lost in the mists of time. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Reddy.
Thank you. The Carltona doctrine, I'm not going to bore you with all the details, but it stems from a case 75 years ago. Basically, it stands for the proposition that, when a power is conferred on a Minister in legislation, that power or that act can be performed by delegates, by responsible delegates of the Minister.
How the act is, in fact, changing is, if you look at Section 19 of the bill, it actually explicitly states in those instances where a Minister can delegate the authority and who, in particular, it can be performed by. It can be performed by another Minister. It can be performed by the deputy minister or a person employed in the capacity of that department appropriate to the exercise and performance of that duty. Thank you.
Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Testart, anything further?
Crystal clear, Mr. Chair. Excellent job. Thank you. Nothing further.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. I see no further questions or comments. Committee, we can proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill starting on page 5. There are 52 clauses, so I propose that we proceed five clauses at a time. I'll call out clause one through five, et cetera. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
All right, committee. I note there's also one schedule at the end.
---Clauses 1 through 52 inclusive and Schedule 1 approved
Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole. Does committee agree that Bill 28, reprint, Interpretation Act is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Bill 28 is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 28?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Thank you again to the Minister. Thank you to your witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber.
Committee, next we have agreed to consider Bill 29, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017. I will once again turn to the Minister responsible for the bill to introduce it. Minister Sebert.
Mr. Chair, I am here to present Bill 29, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017.
The purpose of Bill 29 is to amend various statutes of the Northwest Territories for which minor changes are proposed or errors or inconsistencies have been identified.
Each amendment included in the bill had to meet the following criteria:
It must not be controversial;
It must not involve the spending of public funds;
It must not prejudicially affect rights; and
It must not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
Departments responsible for the various statutes being amended have reviewed and approved the changes. The amendments proposed in Bill 29 are minor, uncontroversial, or non-substantive, and many consist of technical corrections to a statute. The amendments are of such a nature that the preparation and legislative consideration of individual bills to correct each statute would be time-consuming for the government and the Legislative Assembly. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development for its review of Bill 29 and would be happy to answer any questions Members may have regarding Bill 29.
Thank you, Minister. I will turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Development, which considered the bill, for any opening comments. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Social Development concluded its review of Bill 29 on the Miscellaneous Statutes Law Amendment Act, 2017 on August 22nd, 2017, with a public hearing held here at the Legislative Assembly building. Housekeeping bills such as this ensure that territorial legislation is subject to regular review for consistency and liability. The committee is pleased to support the department's work. Individual Members may have additional comments or questions as we proceed with the consideration of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I see that the Minister has witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister, please introduce your witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Laura Jeffrey, legislative counsel, to my left. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. I will open the floor to general comments on Bill 29. General comments? Seeing none, we can proceed to a clause-by-clause review. There are 16 clauses. I propose that we consider the bill five clauses at a time. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clauses 1 through 5.
---Clauses 1 through 16 inclusive approved
Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole. Does committee agree that Bill 29, Miscellaneous Statutes Law Amendment Act, 2017 is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 29 is ready for third reading. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 29?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Minister. Thank you to the witness. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witness from the Chamber. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 77(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to advise the House that I have a conflict of interest in Bill 30, Health Statutes Law Amendment Act. This bill amends the Public Health Act to clarify that the Commissioner may make regulations respecting cremation and crematoria. Mr. Chair, my spouse is a funeral planner and, as such, has a private interest in this bill. I will now excuse myself from the Chamber during consideration of this matter. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Let the record show that Ms. Green has left the Chamber. I will turn to the Member responsible for the bill to introduce it, Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. First off, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development for its review of the bill. Bill 30, the Health Statutes Amendment Act (Cremation Services), is a private Member's bill which proposes amendments to the Public Health Act and to the Vital Statistics Act.
Together, the minor amendments in Bill 30 will allow greater certainty for cremations to be performed here in the NWT, reducing costs and wait times for bereaved families, and further diversify the domestic service economy. Specifically, amendments to the Public Health Act will create the ability to make regulations for cremation and crematoriums. Amendments to the Vital Statistics Act will define cremation and crematoriums and ensure that only a funeral planner can carry out cremations that are to take place in a crematorium.
Although the existing regulatory regime does not prohibit cremation, it is largely silent on how this service is to be provided. Burial, cremation, and funeral services are not governed by specific legislation in the Northwest Territories.
In introducing this bill, I would like to provide Members with a brief background on the cremation service situation and on how these amendments will improve services for the public and provide certainty for service providers. All Canadian jurisdictions except the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have legislation for cremation. There are about 200 deaths each year among NWT residents. There are two recognized funeral planners in the NWT (located in Inuvik and Yellowknife) and others, on a case-by-case basis, in small communities.
Of the approximately 100 funerals handled annually by the main service provider, cremation is the chosen option for about 40-45 per cent of families, even though cremation services are not available in the NWT. Cremation currently takes place in Edmonton, and transportation costs alone are approximately $1,500 from Yellowknife. Shipment to and from Edmonton adds several days' delay at a time when families may wish to proceed as promptly as possible with a funeral. These transportation costs and delays will be reduced or eliminated by the availability of local service suppliers.
The proposed bill would amend the Public Health Act and the Vital Statistics Act to state clearly that cremation is both permitted and governed by the current regime. This provides certainty for service providers and communities, and it will explicitly allow cremation as a permitted method of interment under the existing statutory scheme. For the service providers, clarifying cremation practice and regulatory authority and the use of consistent definitions in cremation legislation, provides greater certainty.
The private Member's bill does not seek to establish new powers with respect to cremation. It does not create any new regulatory structure to govern the performance of cremation. Above all, the private Member's bill does not require cremation. It does provide greater clarity for anyone designated to offer funeral services in the NWT, enabling service providers to include cremations within the existing system.
Prior to deciding to proceed with a private Member's bill, I consulted widely on how to make NWT-based cremation possible. In response to my inquiries, the Minister of Health and Social Services stated in an email in December 2016 that the department had done a jurisdictional scan of cremation legislation. The Minister indicated he would work with other departments to determine the legislative steps necessary to make cremation services available in the NWT.
In the winter 2017 Legislative Assembly session, I made a statement on cremation and asked whether Cabinet was prepared to bring forward a bill. In response, the Minister of Health and Social Services and Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs suggested that a private Member's bill may be the best way to move forward.
Since then, I have worked closely with the Office of the Law Clerk and consulted with a potential service provider in preparing the proposed legislation. It was decided that the best approach was to ensure certainty through minor amendments of the existing law.
The proposed approach maintains the current regulatory regime governing burial, funeral services, and the final disposition of human remains in the NWT. The bill explicitly provides that cremation is permitted by this system.
Regulations under the Public Health Act could be brought forward by Health and Social Services at some point in the future, as the department would have the authority to regulate cremation and crematoriums. For now, there is no proposal to create regulations. The establishment of crematoria may require municipal approvals including zoning and business licensing. These matters will continue to be regulated by local governments under the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs municipal governance legislation. This is consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada.
Creation of the ability to perform cremations has no financial implications for the Government of the NWT.
In summary, I believe this private Member's bill:
Responds to a real and immediate need to enable improved services for NWT families and consumers, at reduced expense and with an expansion to the local service economy and tax base;
Has been carefully constructed, in consultation with a potential service provider and the Minister of Health and Social Services;
Provides the legislative support necessary to permit these operations with greater legal certainty and clarity;
Creates the ability for further and more specific direction of these practices by establishing the ability to write regulations; and
Allows this legislative improvement to be made even though this action was not among the legislative priorities of the government.
I welcome the committee's review of this proposed legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I will turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Development, which considered the bill. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Social Development concluded its review of Bill 30: Health Statutes Law Amendment Act (Cremation Services) on August 22nd, 2017, with a public hearing held here at the Legislative Assembly's building. During its review of this private Member's bill, the committee received one public submission, a letter of support from Ms. Janice McKenna, owner and director of McKenna Funeral Services in Yellowknife. Committee is pleased to support this bill. Individual Members may have additional comments or questions as we proceed with the consideration of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Does Mr. O'Reilly have witnesses he would like to bring into the Chamber?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I do.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Mr. O'Reilly, please introduce your witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Ms. Laura Jeffrey, who is the legislative counsel for this bill, and she is sitting to my left. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Welcome back, Ms. Jeffrey. I will open the floor to general comments on the bill. Do we have any general comments? I see Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate how this bill was designed and the problem it is trying to solve. I think it is important that we offer low-cost funeral services for Northerners, but there are some technical questions I would like to ask the honourable Member who is sponsoring this bill.
In the current version of the Public Health Act, it would appear that there is authority to regulate funeral services and the disposal of human bodies. Now, this bill corrects that by being explicit and brings more clarity to the act of cremations, but what is missing from this bill seems to be that it creates exclusivity for funeral planners in performing cremations and offering crematoria. With this exclusivity should come some sort of duty, a duty to comply with the regulatory system, a duty to be qualified, a duty to be trained, a duty to obtain a permit, a duty to maintain records, and a duty to maintain sanitation.
If you look at what is comparable in other Canadian jurisdictions, you will find, in the Province of Alberta, the Funeral Services Act; in the Province of British Columbia, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act; in Manitoba, the Pre-Arranged Funeral Services Act and the Funeral Directors and Embalmers Act; in New Brunswick, the Pre-Arranged Funeral Services Act; in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act. As you can see, across the gamut, there are explicit ways to regulate the profession and to create that duty.
Now, I acknowledge there may be other means and secondary sources for imposing standards and for exercising control on the providers of funeral services and on funeral planners in the Northwest Territories. However, if the Member would like to speak to that and provide some clarity on what those secondary sources and existing regulatory measures are that can be brought towards this, I would be more comfortable supporting this bill with that clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Mr. O'Reilly, how do you respond?
