Masi. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Committee did not receive a great deal of substantive input on this aspect of the Bill. In Committee's discussion with representatives from the Town of Inuvik, Mayor McDonald noted that it is a good idea in principle but, again, more of a Yellowknife issue given that smaller municipalities are less likely to have the resources to allow them to finance private improvements.
In her letter to the committee, Fort Smith Mayor Ms. Lynn Napier-Buckley said that the "proposed change allowing the local improvement mechanism to be used for energy efficiency upgrades is…unnecessary and detrimental," pointing out that Municipal and Community Affairs had already advised that municipalities can apply the local improvement charge to individuals and further noting that municipalities are not set up as banks or lending institutions.
In considering the input received, committee gave a great deal of consideration to the fact that the proposed amendments to the CTV Act do not compel or obligate a tax-based municipality to exercise either of the new authorities. Instead, Bill 18 provides for the new authorities, in law, for any municipality that wishes to exercise either, or both. Just as the Government of the Northwest Territories has argued for greater autonomy from the federal government, committee members believe it is important that municipal governments be given appropriate latitude to respond to local circumstances and needs. For this reason, the committee is generally supportive of Bill 18.
Committee took note of the suggestions from the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce and the Explorer Hotel that the proposed rate for the tourist accommodation tax be reduced in the bill from 4 percent to 3 percent. Clause 2 of Bill 18 proposes to create a provision in the CTV Act [Section 70.1(4)] which sets the maximum rate of the tourist accommodation tax at 4 percent of the daily accommodation rate.
Committee feels that this appropriately allows municipalities the discretion to set a rate lower than 4 percent if that is the wish of the municipality. Committee finds that this is in line with the hotel tax rate in other Canadian jurisdictions, noting that travellers to the NWT do not pay a provincial sales tax in addition to the accommodation tax. Committee encourages the City of Yellowknife to give consideration to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce and Yellowknife hoteliers in setting a final accommodation tax rate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to now pass the floor to my colleague, Mr. McNeely, the Member for Sahtu. Mahsi.
Masi. Member for Sahtu.
The most significant issue that committee heard feedback on was the manner in which exclusions are addressed in Bill 18. Concerns about the exclusions were twofold: that the breadth of exclusions would have a negative impact on potential revenues and that it would be left to the hotel front desk staff to determine who qualifies for exclusions under the act. The following summarizes the feedback received on the subject of exclusions.
Town of Inuvik: The Mayor noted that hotels have issues with how they'll manage the tax, especially exclusions. One of the town councillors disagrees with the governments being exempted.
Days Inn and Suites Yellowknife: "Exclusions will have the effect of diluting the amount collected to the point where it is doubtful that the total amount collected on an annual basis less expenses will be an amount that would be effective in fulfilling the purpose for which the levy will be enacted in the first place."
City of Yellowknife: "The city would prefer that the Bill 18 did not contain such an exhaustive list of exclusions. Each exemption affects the overall amount to be collected. The city's second concern related to the administrative burden that the current draft of the legislation places on accommodation providers. As written, the legislation requires front desk staff to make a determination about a person's reason for travel and whether an exemption applies."
The Explorer Hotel: "The accommodation levy must be charged on all guest types (leisure, business, government, and personal). It would be difficult for a front desk worker or reservations agent to challenge a government official as to the purpose of their trip."
Committee agreed that the bill, as drafted, has the potential to place an unfair burden on hotel operators to determine if and when the exclusions set out in Bill 18 apply to a customer paying for tourist accommodation. Committee is also of the view that the potential revenue yield for a municipality should be significant enough that it makes administration of the tax financially viable.
Committee considered two options to amend Bill 18 to address these concerns: the elimination of exclusions entirely; or the creation of an exemption only for NWT residents.
I will now pass it on to my colleague, the Member of Hay River North.
Masi. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While committee appreciates that support for this proposed amendment to the CTV Act is not universally supported, committee did not hear any substantive input that caused it to consider any amendments to this part of Bill 18. Committee recognizes that there do not appear to be any tax-based municipalities, other than Yellowknife, who are interested in exercising this authority at this time. Committee is comfortable that Bill 18, as written, does not compel participation where a municipality does not desire it.
As fuel costs continue to rise and people look for other ways to do their part to reduce their carbon footprint, innovative approaches to achieving greater energy efficiency will be increasingly in demand. The committee applauds the City of Yellowknife for demonstrating leadership in this area and hopes that other tax-based municipalities can learn from the City of Yellowknife's experience with financing private energy upgrades using local improvement charges.
The clause-by-clause review of the bill was held on October 25, 2018. At this review, the committee moved the following motion:
To amend clause 2 of Bill 18 by deleting the proposed subclause 70.1(5), which contained the list of exclusions, and replace it with a single exclusion for residents of the Northwest Territories.
Committee feels that this exemption, which would require only that a person paying for accommodations show any proof of residence or government-issued identification card, would simplify administration and ensure that the tax was truly targeting the tourist market as intended.
The Minister did not concur and the motion was defeated.
I would now like to pass the reading on to the Member for Kam Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During the course of this review, the Honourable Alfred Moses, Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, twice advised the committee that he would not consider amendments that committee was proposing to the bill because the department had not consulted with their partner organizations on the committee's proposals.
While acknowledging that it is the Minister's prerogative to concur with committee's amendments or not, committee reminds the Minister that standing committees have the authority to carry out their own consultation on a given bill and to propose amendments to that bill. Committee encourages the Minister to ensure that MACA's partner organizations understand that, when the department is consulting on the development of the bill, that consultation is only one of at least two consultations that will take place, with the second being the consultation done by the standing committee. Committee welcomes input when it is consulting on bills and is always happy to hear from the GNWT's partner organizations on legislation that is before committee.
The committee thanks the public for their participation in the review process and everyone involved in the review of this bill for their assistance and input.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 18: An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. This concludes the standing committee's review.
Masi. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that Committee Report 9-18(3) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is on the floor. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 100(4) and move Committee Report 9-18(3) into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive the rule to allow the bill to move to Committee of the Whole.
---Unanimous consent granted
Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns, and Villages Act, is now referred to Committee of the Whole for further consideration. The report of the review of Bill 18 is now referred to Committee of the Whole. Masi. Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we go again.
Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 20: Ombudsperson Act and commends it to the House.
Bill 20, sponsored by the Minister responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency, provides for the appointment of an Ombudsperson as an officer of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. The bill establishes the mandate of the Ombudsperson to investigate complaints about the administrative fairness of Government of the Northwest Territories' practices, in order to promote fair, reasonable and equitable government administration.
Some of the key matters addressed by the Bill include:
Requiring that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, appoint an Ombudsperson;
Conferring powers and duties on the Ombudsperson for the purpose of fulfilling their mandate;
Setting out which GNWT departments, boards and agencies, collectively referred to in the bill as "authorities," will be subject to the Ombudsperson's jurisdiction;
Setting out how members of the public may make complaints to the Ombudsperson; and
Setting out how investigations are to be conducted by the Ombudsperson.
Bill 20 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on June 1, 2018, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations ("the committee") for review. The committee is pleased to report on its review of Bill 20: Ombudsperson Act.
For many years, the word "Ombudsman" has been commonly used in English-speaking countries to describe the role of the person who oversees the administrative fairness of government practices. However, because the term is not gender neutral, its use has become increasing less acceptable. In an effort to arrive at the most appropriate and workable title for the Northwest Territories' Ombudsperson, committee considered titles used in other Canadian jurisdictions.
Six of 10 provinces and territories still use the term "Ombudsman." Each of the remaining four jurisdictions use a different title. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the person is called the "Citizen's Representative," and in Quebec, the "Public Protector." Only one Canadian jurisdiction, British Columbia, uses the term "Ombudsperson," as proposed in Bill 20.
Committee supports the use of a gender neutral title, but Members find the term "Ombudsperson" awkward and difficult to pronounce. For that reason, committee decided to follow the lead of New Brunswick which, in 2017, changed their legislation so that the title of their Ombudsman is now, simply, the "Ombud."
Committee proposed this change during the clause by clause review of Bill 20, covered in more detail later in this report. The Minister responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency concurred with the committee's motion to amend the title of the bill. While Bill 20 has not yet received assent, we anticipate this change will be adopted. For this reason, we have opted to use the term Ombud for the remainder of this report, except where another term is used in a direct quote.
Together with Nunavut and Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories is one of only three Canadian jurisdictions without an Office of the Ombud to which members of the public may direct complaints about the fairness of their treatment by government.
The idea of creating an Ombud office in the Northwest Territories has been raised from time to time in the Legislative Assembly dating, at least, as far back as the 12th Assembly. In March 2013, a motion was passed in the Legislative Assembly, referring the proposal to establish an Ombud office in the Northwest Territories to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for research, analysis and review. That direction from the House culminated in a Report on Establishing an Office of the Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories, which was tabled in the Assembly just over a year later, in June 2014.
Building on the foundation set by this report, some Members of the 18th Legislative Assembly advocated to include Ombud legislation in the Government of the Northwest Territories mandate. As a result, the mandate contains commitment 5.3.11 to "develop legislation within two years to establish an independent parliamentary office of the Ombudsman."
The introduction of Bill 20 in the House, albeit a little behind schedule, fulfills the GNWT's commitment to bring forward this legislation. Committee thanks the Minister responsible for Public Engagement and his Cabinet colleagues for fulfilling this important promise.
To commence its consultation on Bill 20, the committee wrote to invite input from a broad array of over eighty stakeholders, potential interest groups and organizations in the Northwest Territories such as municipal governments, Chambers of Commerce, non-governmental organizations and professional societies. Committee also wrote to Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories to seek their input and, in particular, to canvass their interest in accessing the services of the Ombud on a cost-sharing basis, in a manner similar to that provided for in the Yukon Ombudsman Act. This proposal is discussed in greater detail later in this report and with respect to Motion 7.
The committee held seven public hearings on Bill 20 in Inuvik, Norman Wells, Fort Resolution, Hay River, Behchoko, Ndilo, and Yellowknife. As well, committee received eight written submissions, from the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce, the Tlicho Government, the K'atlodeeche First Nation, former Member of the Legislative Assembly Ms. Wendy Bisaro, Mr. Colin Baile, the NWT Seniors' Society, the NWT branch of the Canadian Bar Association, and the City of Yellowknife. All submissions received by the committee are appended to this report.
The committee would like to thank the communities who welcomed us on our travels and everyone who provided input on Bill 20.
Mr. Speaker, I will now ask that the honourable Member for Hay River North continue the reading of this report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The committee heard a great deal of support for the establishment of an Ombud in the Northwest Territories. Many people commented that this is something they have long waited for.
Mr. Colin Baile said, "It was in the early 1990s I first addressed, before a committee of this house, the need for then Ombudsman legislation. As this committee is aware, we are one or only two jurisdictions without such legislation. Ombudsperson legislation, at its core, is not intended to reprimand government, but rather to assist individuals with resolving disputes they may have with government and how they have been treated during that interaction. By using a restorative approach, individuals can have their faith restored in the public sector and government can be assisted in providing and promoting fair, accountable, and transparent services."
The Northwest Territories Branch of the Canadian Bar Association said, "The establishment of an Ombudsperson for the Northwest Territories is a welcome development. The Office will provide residents of the Northwest Territories with an important means of having concerns with government fairly investigated and addressed."
Ms. Wendy Bisaro, a former MLA and advocate for the establishment of an Ombudsperson in the Northwest Territories, told the committee, "It has long been a belief of mine that the NWT needs an Ombudsman. That legislation has finally come forward suggests that the benefits of an Ombudsman for our Territory have been recognized, thankfully."
Ms. Georgina Franki of Behchoko said, "It has been a long time coming. As a Northerner and Indigenous woman, we need help with someone to speak on behalf of some who can't speak."
Mr. Todd McCauley of Norman Wells said this: "is a major step forward and needed in the NWT."
This does not mean to suggest that committee did not hear dissenting voices. However, they were in a very small minority.
Ms. Jane Groenewegen, also a former MLA, expressed the view that the NWT is highly governed and there is easy access to Members of the Legislative Assembly, Ministers, plus a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, a Languages Commissioner, a Human Rights Commissioner, a Rental Officer, and an Employment Standards Officer. She said that the Legislative Assembly's library is full of statutory officers' reports with recommendations that have not been acted on.
Committee encountered a lot of curiosity about how the Ombud's Office works and heard a lot of questions. The following is an example of some of the questions raised during the public consultation meetings on Bill 20:
How long will it take for the Ombud to Act on complaints?
Where will the Ombud be based?
Will there just be one person, or will the Ombud have staff?
How will we ensure good "bang for the buck" in establishing an Ombud?
Will the Ombud visit each community quarterly?
Who establishes the Ombud's priorities?
Will the Ombud deal with issues like nepotism?
Who pays the Ombud's salary and does the performance reviews?
Can the Ombud make recommendations to change legislation?
How does this proposed legislation compare with Ombud legislation in other provinces and territories?
What is the role of the Ombud with respect to Indigenous governments?
The level of interest and the very insightful questions from residents across the Northwest Territories suggest that a well-developed and targeted public awareness campaign must accompany the opening of the Ombud's office in the Northwest Territories, so that people are aware of the Ombud's role and purpose and the assistance they can expect to receive when they contact the Ombud.
Accordingly, the committee makes the following recommendation:
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Minister responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency work closely with the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the newly appointed Ombud, to ensure the timely development and launch of a robust public awareness campaign to support the opening of the Office of the Ombud and increase residents' understanding of services the office provides, and how to access them.
In his presentation at the Yellowknife public hearing, Mr. David Wasylciw talked about giving more consideration to the distinction between MLAs and the Ombud.
As well, in response to the committee's public hearing in Hay River on Bill 20, the Hay River Hub published an October 9, 2018 editorial titled, "GNWT doesn't need an Ombudsperson." The writer argues that, "one of the main reasons there's an Ombudsperson in other jurisdictions is the size and complexity of their governments and the remoteness of their politicians from the people." The article suggests that, because of our small population, NWT residents have greater access to territorial politicians and can "take their complaint right to the top of the territorial government."
It is true that the NWT residents do benefit from having political representatives who are accessible and approachable. It is also true that both MLAs and the Ombud can assist people who are having difficulty dealing with the territorial government. However, the tools at their disposal to provide this assistance are very different.
As Regular MLAs, we can rely on our access to and relationship with our Cabinet colleagues to raise issues of concern. We must also, however, rely on the political will of our colleagues to provide assistance with constituency complaints. MLAs have found that it may take months, even years, to get some resolution for their constituents. MLAs also frequently encounter "confidentiality" as a reason why a Minister cannot discuss a constituent's concern in sufficient detail for an MLA to broker a resolution.
The key distinction between an Ombud and an MLA, and one of the main reasons that other jurisdictions, including Yukon, have them, is that Ombuds have broad powers of investigation that MLAs do not. Upon receiving a complaint that the Ombud believes has merit, the Ombud may conduct an investigation. The tools at the Ombud's disposal to do such an investigation are quite powerful.
Clause 26 of Bill 20 gives the Ombud the power to make inquiries, receive confidential information and to hold hearings. The Ombud has the authority to enter any premises occupied by a government authority, talk in private with anyone there; require a person to provide information and produce documents, whether or not that person is still a member or employee of the authority; and to take possession of documents or things and produce copies of them. The Ombud also has the power to summon people and require them to give evidence under oath, if the Ombud believes they have information relevant to an investigation. These powers allow the Ombud to investigate and attempt to resolve matters even where there is no political will to do so.
As well, because the Ombud has the power to undertake investigations on his or her own initiative, the Ombud is uniquely positioned to look into systemic problems where administrative fairness may need improvement. This type of analysis and investigation goes well beyond the mandate, and authority, of an MLA.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn the reading to the Member for Deh Cho.
Masi. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
In order to carry out such powers free from political influence, it is important that the Office of the Ombud be independent from the executive branch of government.
The NWT Seniors' Society noted that, "the Act supports a term of five years for the Ombudsperson that exceeds the mandate of any Legislative Assembly. This helps to ensure the work of the Office is not unduly influenced by the Legislative Assembly once appointed." They further stressed that the provisions relating to suspension or removal of the Ombud should show that a substantive majority was in favour and not a simple majority. "This is to assure that the Ombudsperson is independent and cannot be removed at the whim of a few due to a decision that may be unpopular."
The NWT Branch of the Canadian Bar Association also noted that, "the Ombudsperson should have independence through security of tenure."
Mr. Colin Baile objected to clause 17, which specifies that the Ombud's jurisdiction does not extend to the Legislative Assembly and its standing committees. He argues that, "To exclude the entire legislative branch of government, including Members, management, and staff, is disrespectful of the act's intention and sends the message that the Legislative Assembly and its staff are above such investigation."
The committee respectfully disagrees with this view. In Canadian jurisdictions, the Ombud functions as a statutory officer of the legislative branch of government, so that the office may have independence from the executive branch. While not all jurisdictions have a provision similar to clause 17, which is also found in Manitoba's Ombudsman Act, this does not mean that the Legislative Assembly, its committees, and staff in other jurisdictions are within the scope of their respective Ombuds. One must look to the definitions, schedules and provisions in each province or territory's Ombud legislation to determine which departments, agencies, and organizations of the public sector are subject to the Ombud's oversight. Committee is aware of no Canadian province or territory that permits Ombud oversight of the legislative branch of government.
Committee heard from a number of people that, in order for the Northwest Territories' first Ombud to be effective, it is important that the right person be hired for the job.
Mr. Colin Baile noted that, "The Ombudsperson is most often the only or last means of resolving disputes with government agencies. The trust placed in the Ombudsperson by the public, and the statutory authority given that individual by the Legislative Assembly carries great responsibility and expectation."
Former MLA Ms. Jane Groenewegen said that the new Ombud should have a good understanding of the government and its processes and urged committee, "Don't set the standard too low."
Mr. Eric Braathen expressed the view that the appointee should be a long-time Northerner with extensive knowledge of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Clause 9 of Bill 20 provides that the Ombud is entitled to pay and benefits. Ms. Bisaro questioned what is meant by "benefits" and asked whether it included access to a pension plan. Mr. David Wasylciw expressed the opinion that the Ombud's salary should be tied to the GNWT's pay structure and made public in the Act.
The Office of the Clerk advised the committee that none of the legislation establishing statutory officers makes any reference to employee benefits. This is intentional, so as not to create an employee-employer relationship with these independent offices. Committee further heard that not specifying the nature of the salary or benefits allows greater flexibility for the Speaker in tailoring a contract that best meets the needs of the incumbent. Committee is comfortable with this approach and, therefore, does not propose any amendments to Clause 9 of Bill 20.
Clause 10 provides that, with the approval of the Speaker, the Ombudsman or Ombud may engage in outside employment. Both Mr. Baile and the Northwest Territories Chapter of the Canadian Bar Association questioned why the act would allow the Ombud to do so when this is not allowed in other jurisdictions, and suggested that, if outside employment is to be permitted, it should be done with the endorsement of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
Allowing one individual to potentially hold one or more offices with Ombud-like powers provides the Legislative Assembly's Board of Management and/or the Office of the Speaker, with the greatest flexibility in how its statutory appointments are filled, and recognizes that in a remote jurisdiction, such as ours, it might not be advisable to exclude potentially qualified candidates by being overly restrictive.
Committee received input from the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, advising that the Conflict Commissioner has jurisdiction over current and former Members of the Legislative Assembly only and that none of the other legislation for statutory officers requires the approval or endorsement of the Conflict Commissioner. Committee is satisfied that the matter of potential conflicts of interest can be adequately handled by the Speaker, acting on the advice of the clerk and law clerk. As a result, committee is not seeking any amendments to this provision in Bill 20.
Mr. Speaker, I now pass the floor onto my colleague from the Sahtu, Mr. McNeely. Mahsi.
Masi. Member for Sahtu.
The committee heard a number of calls for municipalities to be included under the Ombud's jurisdiction.
The City of Yellowknife submitted that the Ombud's jurisdiction should be expanded to include municipalities, noting that "Our Council strongly supports accountability and transparency in local government and having municipalities bound by the Ombudsperson Act provides an impartial and independent review process to ensure the fairness of municipal processes, decisions and actions."
The Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce noted, "We are excited to see Bill 20: the Ombudsperson Act moving forward. However, the act is missing a key component. It fails to provide the Ombudsperson with jurisdiction over municipalities, something that exists in most other Canadian provinces/territories, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon."
The NWT Branch of the Canadian Bar Association stated, "The purposes of the Ombudsperson Act would be more fully served if the Office's jurisdiction extended to the acts or omissions of professional organizations and municipalities created under territorial legislation."
Committee considered two different approaches to this objective. The first option would be to include municipalities as "authorities" under the schedule to the Act.
This would give the Ombud the same jurisdiction over municipalities as over GNWT departments, boards, and agencies.
Mr. Colin Baile expressed support for this approach, noting that "municipalities should be added as an authority in the schedule," and acting that if this was not possible on the coming into force date of the Act, then it should be "on a set schedule of one year hence."
Committee considered the potential workload for the Ombud under this approach. Committee also considered that there have long been calls for municipalities to be brought under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (ATIPP) Act and the concerns municipalities have raised about their capacity to manage this change.
Committee ultimately determined that fully including municipalities under the Ombud's jurisdiction at this time had too much potential to overwhelm the resources of the new Ombud's office and could place onerous obligations on municipalities that already have limited capacity and will be dealing with upcoming changes to ATIPP legislation.
Committee opted for an approach that would allow municipalities to contract the services of the Ombud on a cost recovery basis. This is reflected in Motion 7 below. Committee notes, for the record, that the full inclusion of municipalities under the Ombud's oversight is a logical next step and something that should be more fully considered once municipalities are included under ATIPP legislation.
When the 17th Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Government Operations produced its June 2014 report on Establishing an Office of the Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories, the report indicated that Yukon's Ombudsman has the authority, on a cost recovery basis, to investigate and report back to the Yukon First Nation Government on any matter referred by that government. Committee wrote to Indigenous Governments in the Northwest Territories to canvass their interest in having access to the NWT Ombud under similar conditions.
Committee received correspondence from Mr. Peter Redvers, director of Lands, Resources, and Negotiations with the K'atlodeeche First Nation, indicating their support for this proposal.
Committee also received a letter from Grand Chief George Mackenzie, Tlicho Government. Grand Chief Mackenzie noted, as committee was aware, that the Tlicho Community Services Agency is listed in the schedule to Bill 20 and, hence, already under the jurisdiction of the Ombud. However, the Grand Chief pointed out, "the TCSA can have additional roles assigned or delegated to it by Tlicho government. As such, it would be of advantage to know about any issues concerning how clients are being treated in their dealings with the TCSA." Therefore, the Grand Chief noted, "Tlicho Government asks that consideration be given to formal notice to Tlicho Government of any investigations of TCSA by the Ombudsperson and the sharing of the Ombudsperson's report coming out of an investigation of the TCSA."
Clause 42 of Bill 20 provides that the Legislative Assembly may make general rules to guide the Ombud in the exercise of the duties of the Office. It further provides that the Ombud must establish certain policies and procedures and may establish others. Committee feels that the request by Tlicho government is best addressed thorough the establishment of rules and procedures guiding the Ombud's Office. Accordingly, committee makes the following recommendation.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Minister of Responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency work closely with the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the newly appointed Ombud, to ensure that appropriate procedures are established to advise Tlicho Government of any investigations by the Ombud of the Tlicho Community Services Agency and for the provision of the Ombud's report to Tlicho Government.
Motion 7, which amends Bill 20 to allow municipalities to refer matters to the Ombud for consideration on a cost-recovery basis, also allows for Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories to do the same. The motion further provides that, in such instances, the provisions in Bill 20 requiring the Ombud to report to the GNWT and setting out how the GNWT must respond, do not apply. Instead, the Ombud's report will go directly and only to the government or municipality that first referred the matter.
I pass on to continue the report to the Member for Hay River North.
Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some Northwest Territories statutes contain provisions requiring a mandatory review of the legislation at set intervals of time, usually every five or ten years.
Ms. Wendy Bisaro suggested that Bill 20 "is missing a clause requiring a review of the Act every 10 years."
The merit of including such a provision in legislation is that it sends a public message about the importance of keeping the legislation up to date and suitable for current circumstances. Unfortunately, such provisions can tie an Assembly to an expensive and time-consuming review, when one may not be necessary and there are other, more pressing, legislative priorities. Given that the Legislative Assembly has the prerogative, at any time, to review and amend its legislation, such a provision is not strictly necessary. For these reasons, committee did not adopt this suggestion.
In addition to the general themes identified above, the committee was fortunate to receive detailed input on a number of specific clauses contained in Bill 20. Committee addressed many of these issues raised by stakeholders in motions to amend Bill 20.
The clause-by-clause review of Bill 20 was held on was held on October 25, 2018. The committee thanks the honourable Louis Sebert, Minister responsible for Public Engagement and Transparency, and members of his staff for their appearance before the committee.
At this meeting, the committee moved 19 separate motions to amend Bill 20. These motions, and the purpose of each, are identified below.
Minister Sebert concurred will all but three of the committee's motions. The motions for which there was no concurrence are also identified below.
Motion 1: To amend the English version of Bill 20 to change the word "Ombudsperson" to "Ombud" wherever it appears in the bill.
This makes "Ombud" the official title of the position.
Motion 2: To amend clause 6(3) of Bill 20 specify that any suspension of the Ombud occurring when the Legislative Assembly is not in session will only remain in effect until the conclusion of the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
As pointed out by the NWT Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, "the Commissioner, on recommendation of the Board of Management, should not be able to suspend the Ombudsperson without accountability to the Legislative Assembly." This amendment allows the Assembly to deal with the suspension at the next sitting, and is consistent with Ombud legislation in other jurisdictions such as Manitoba and Ontario.
Motion 3: To amend subclause 7(3) to change "Speaker" to "Board of Management."
Clause 7(3) provides for the appointment of an Acting Ombud, due to the resignation or absence of the incumbent Ombud. Committee received input from Ms. Bisaro suggesting that any appointments should be done only by the Legislative Assembly, and by the NWT Seniors' Society suggesting that any decision be made by way of a "supermajority" of votes, meaning a majority that is larger than fifty percent plus one.
The Legislative Assembly votes on appointments, such as the Ombud, Acting Ombud or Special Ombud, according to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, which require a simple majority. Consequently, it would be outside the scope of Bill 20 for the committee to seek an amendment requiring a supermajority vote. Committee feels, however, that appointment by the Board of Management, rather than the Speaker alone, would require consideration of a number of viewpoints, rather than just one. That is the rationale for this amendment to the bill.
Committee notes that input on this provision was received from the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, which has an interest in this legislation because it is responsible for the management of the Legislative Assembly's statutory officers. The Office of the Clerk indicated a preference for subclause 7(3), as originally drafted, for consistency with other statutory officer legislation and to allow the Speaker alone to appoint an acting Ombud when it is a matter of urgency. Given that acting and special appointments for the Languages Commissioner and Equal Pay Commissioner are made on the recommendation of the Board of Management, while others like the Information and Privacy Commissioner are made by the Speaker, and to be responsive to public concerns about the independence of the Ombud, committee decided to proceed with Motion 3.
Motion 4: To amend subclause 8(1) to change "Speaker" to "Board of Management."
Subclause 8(1) provides for the appointment of a Special Ombud. The rationale for this motion is the same as for Motion 3.
Motion 5: To amend subclause 15(1), which sets out the mandate of the Ombud.
Committee found this important clause densely worded and difficult to understand. Almost all Ombud legislation across Canada has a similar clause, and committee had seen examples in which the Ombud's mandate was more clearly communicated. Committee proposed a motion to improve the readability of the clause. Committee also wanted the mandate clause to contain a specific reference to policy. Committee holds the view that it is fully within the Ombud's mandate to consider and make recommendations on the application of GNWT policy. The reference was meant to add clarity by making this explicit.
Minister Sebert did not concur and the motion was defeated.
Motion 6: To amend Bill 20 by deleting subclause 16(2).
Subclause 16(2) provides for the Executive Council (Cabinet) to refer matters relating to the administration of an authority to the Ombud for investigation and report. Committee propose to delete this provision. In doing so, committee's intention is not to be mean-spirited. Cabinet has considerable resources at its disposal for investigating administrative concerns within government, including the Internal Audit Bureau in the Department of Finance. Given that the resources of the Ombud will not be unlimited, committee feels that those resources are, as a first priority, best used assisting people of the Northwest Territories with their concerns. Committee also notes that under Clause 16(1), the Legislative Assembly may refer a matter to the Ombud, which means that any Member, including Ministers, may move a motion asking the Assembly to refer a matter to the Ombud.
Motion 7: To amend Bill 20 by adding two new provisions after subclause 16(2).
This motion introduces a provision that allows municipalities or Indigenous governments to refer matters to the Ombud on a cost-recovery basis and to receive the Ombud's report directly.
Motion 8: To amend subclause 17(2).
Paragraph 17(1)(d) provides that the Ombud may not investigate a matter where the complainant has an existing right of appeal, until after that appeal has been exercised. Subclause 17(2) provides for an exception to this rule where the Ombud determines that it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to pursue the avenue of appeal. The amendment proposed by committee gives the Ombud broader discretion in making this determination with respect to past actions by the complainant.
Motion 9: To amend subclause 17(3) which provides that the Ombud cannot investigate conduct occurring before the coming into force date of the Act.
Committee feels strongly that this temporal restriction on the Ombud's jurisdiction is overly restrictive and inconsistent with public expectation. Committee is concerned that, if the Ombud cannot investigate any conduct occurring prior to the start of the office, then they are unlikely to address many complaints during their first year of operation. This would likely frustrate both potential complainants and the Ombud, and set the wrong tone for this new service.
Committee discussed with the Minister the possibility of making the Ombud's jurisdiction retroactive to a specific date, but the Minister was not in a position to make such a determination without Cabinet approval.
Committee thus moved a motion to delete this subclause entirely. The Minister did not concur and the motion was defeated.
I would like to hand the reading over to the Member for Kam Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues.
Motion 10: To amend subclause 22(1) to allow the Ombud to discontinue acting on a matter where the complainant has abandoned the complaint.
Motion 11: To amend Bill 20 by deleting clause 23 and substituting new language.
Clause 23 provides that the Ombud cannot investigate any matter that falls under the jurisdiction of another statutory officer with Ombud-like powers. The amendment was proposed for clarity, to identify precisely which statutory officers are referred to.
Motion 12: To amend clause 24 by adding a new provision after subclause 24(5).
Subclause 24(5) provides that, if the Ombud finds evidence of any breach of duty or misconduct on the part of any officer or employee of an authority, the Ombud must refer the matter to the administrative head of the authority. As drafted, the bill did not specify to whom the Ombud must refer the matter if the administrative head of the authority is the subject of the misconduct or breach of duty. The amendment proposed by committee authorizes the Ombud to refer the matter further up the chain of command.
Motion 13: To amend clause 32 to specify that the Ombud must notify the complainant and the authority of the Ombud's decision and reasons for it in writing.
Motion 14: To amend subclause 33(1) to require the Ombud to report the findings of an investigation to the Minister as well as the head of the authority.
Motion 15: To amend subclause 37(1).
Subclause 37(1) provides that, where an authority fails to take appropriate action in response to a recommendation of the Ombud, the Ombud may submit a report to the Premier and subsequently to the Legislative Assembly. The amendment proposed by committee would have changed the provision to require that, where the Ombud reports to the Premier, a report must also be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, which is the body that the Ombud ultimately reports to.
The Minister did not concur with this amendment and the motion was defeated.
Motion 16: To amend subclause 39(3).
This subclause specifies that the Ombud cannot be compelled to give evidence in proceedings of a judicial nature. The committee's motion proposed, for clarity, that this prohibition on compellability be extended to include proceedings of an administrative or quasi-judicial nature, as well.
Motion 17: To amend the schedule to Bill 20 by deleting item 5.
This motion corrects a drafting oversight which included another statutory office, the Human Rights Commission, under the Ombud's jurisdiction. The Human Rights Commission is deleted from the schedule.
To amend the English version of the title of Bill 20 from "Ombudsperson Act" to "Ombud Act."
The Review of Bill 20 is the culmination of work by the Standing Committee on Government Operations spanning two Assemblies. The standing committee wishes to again thank the Government of the Northwest Territories for fulfilling their mandate commitment to bring this legislation forward. The committee also thanks everyone involved in the review of this bill for their assistance and input.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 20: Ombud Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the standing committee's review.
Masi. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that Committee Report 10-18(3) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 100(4) and move Committee Report 10-18(3) into Committee of the Whole for further consideration later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 100(4) and move Committee Report 10-18(3) into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
---Unanimous consent granted
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize Ms. Arlene Hache, who is a good friend of mine and a mentor for many years, a lot of respect; and Ms. Katherine Underwood, who is here from Ryerson University. Welcome to the Leg.
Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to recognize Arlene Hache, a resident of the riding of Yellowknife North, and I would also like to recognize Ms. Wendy Bisaro, former MLA, thank her for her work and her previous efforts on the Ombuds legislation. Welcome and thank you to everybody for being here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge two of my constituents from Fort Liard, Mr. Armand Bertrand and Mr. Frank Lomen.
Mr. Bertrand will be 85 years young on November 2nd, and Mr. Lomen will be 90 years young on January 1, 2019. I would like to extend my best wishes to Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Lomen as they celebrate their birthdays. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Acknowledgements. Colleagues, at this point in time I call for a short break. Masi.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know it seems like an eternity ago, but it was just earlier today that I had a Member's statement about increasing high-speed Internet accessibility in the Northwest Territories. I have some questions to that for the Minister of Infrastructure.
Recently there was a federal, provincial, and territorial gathering of Ministers for Innovation and Economic Development, and out of this came an agreement to make broadband a priority and to develop a long-term strategy to improve access to high-speed Internet services for all Canadians.
Now, I understand the Minister was in Calgary last week, but this conference took place in Vancouver. Was the Minister there, and are we a party to this announcement? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this was an FPT in Vancouver. That is where I was last week with Minister Bains and all of my colleagues from across the country, and yes, we discussed the exact topic that the Member brought up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is good to hear. I spoke earlier, we need to start investing in this infrastructure for a variety of reasons; economic, social, and so on. I would like to know: will the Minister fully commit to engaging in this strategy so that the North's voice is heard, and so that when this national strategy comes out, the territory is well-represented, and we can begin moving ahead with connecting all of our residents?
