Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. Has the motion been distributed? The motion has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope that this amendment can shed some light to the exchange that my honourable friends from Thebacha and Frame Lake just had.
The committee's initial motion was to remove any such temporal limitations on the Ombud's mandate. The Minister did not concur during the standing committee review. The committee has since worked with the Minister's office to try to find a compromise, understanding the government's concerns around wide backwards-looking powers of the Ombud.
A decision was reached that January 1, 2016, at the beginning of this government's mandate, was an appropriate limitation to the temporal jurisdiction of the Ombud. I am pleased to move this, as it represents collaboration between both sides to find common ground moving forward, and I encourage Members to support this amendment that will allow the Ombud a bit more flexibility to deal with historic cases or complaints that may come forward. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to call on our law clerk to help me understand the effect of this clause. If an individual came forward to the Ombud, and the beginning of their journey, their concern about administrative issues, administrative conduct, started before January 1, 2016, would the Ombud have jurisdiction to look at that complaint? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would depend on the specific decision, recommendation, act, order, or omission. An Ombud may determine that it is a continuing act or omission and therefore would look at that, or if it is something that may happen on a repeated basis. While the conduct may have actually first started before a specific date, if that decision is made on an ongoing basis, that recommendation may be made on an ongoing basis, or an order, or even the failure to do something, could be interpreted as an ongoing conduct, that would ultimately be at the discretion of the Ombud.
If, for example, the head of authority felt that the specific act or decision was specifically before January 1, 2016, that would be a basis for saying to the Ombud that that is not within their jurisdiction, and ultimately, the Ombud could go on their own volition to the court to clarify that.
Otherwise, there is a lot of discretion given to the Ombud in looking at that. It would really depend on the specific fact situation.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the assistance of the law clerk. I still think that this is going to create some uncertainty and may lead to something being marched off to court, where the better solution is to just remove any temporal restriction on the mandate of the Ombud.
I am concerned that this will still act as a deterrent to individuals who wish to bring forward complaints. I guess I want to go on the public record as saying that, whoever the Ombud is, if this passes, I would encourage them to take the broadest possible interpretation of their mandate, that anything that has started after or even is a continuation of anything after January 1, 2016, that they would interpret their mandate very broadly and be able to investigate any acts or omissions or conduct, even if it happens before January 1, 2016.
The other thing I want to go on the public record, Mr. Chair, about is that I would request that the Ombud, whoever that person is in the future, document any cases that they feel that they don't have jurisdiction because of this hard deadline that could get inserted into the bill, so that future MLAs can see whether this is having an impact on the jurisdiction of the Ombud, and I want that sort of information to be recorded in their annual report.
I can't compel that. It is my suggestion. I want to draw attention to this, because I think it is poor public policy, but I want it documented in some way for future MLAs so that they can fix this problem. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
To the motion. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The date of January 1, 2016, seemed reasonable to us because it went back to certainly after we were elected and came to this House, and clearly, this is an issue that is important to the Assembly, which we have now brought forward. We thought that going back to that date is reasonable, because we thought that some date needed to be inserted. Again, we think that is a reasonable date.
I mentioned earlier section 22. Of course, the Ombud has certain discretion under that section, but we thought that this section, again, was reasonable and is a compromise, not totally what we wanted, not totally what all Members wanted, but a reasonable compromise. For that reason, Cabinet will be supporting this. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the previous speakers on this particular motion. Similar to my colleague from Frame Lake, I share similar concerns.
It, to me, seems to be a little bit unbecoming of a government that is developing an Ombud's statutory office to begin with, because we recognize that there is a need, and yet, we are going to put ourselves in a position where we will limit and/or not even consider those needs until starting now. We are presenting a compromise that is going to go back a couple of years, but that is hardly going to make up for those whom may or will require the services of this office.
Let's be clear: the Ombud will have the discretion to decide on those cases or on those submissions that they feel fall within their abilities and their realm and their capacity to hear.
It is not to say that, if we put no limit on it, even if there was a whole lineup at the door of a bunch of people who had a bunch of cases that needed to be heard by the Ombud, that the Ombud would, in fact, listen to all of them. There would be some discretion on that. To develop an Ombud's office and then just start today with issues that might come forward as of right now, it is not acceptable.
I appreciate that we are trying to make a compromise here and there will be some in favour, but unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I won't find myself in favour of the motion. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my concern is: what is reasonable? You know, 10 percent, 5 percent, that is reasonable. Again, we are talking about people. They should have the right. I don't believe picking a number out of the air, January 1, 2016, is acceptable. We are talking about the residents of the Northwest Territories. Once this bill has passed, there shouldn't be a deadline to it. I will not be supporting this recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the motion. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, may I ask the law clerk a question?
Yes, you may.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just for clarity and for the record, the clause we are talking about, what has occurred in other jurisdictions when they have moved forward with Ombud or Ombud-related legislation, just for the record?
Thank you. The Law Clerk may not have that information, but I will pass it on to the clerk. Mr. Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is mixed in different jurisdictions. For example, in the province of British Columbia, there is a permissive clause that says that the Ombud may review any conduct prior to the commencement of this act. For example, in the Yukon, there is a similar clause to what is in the bill as drafted, which prohibits review of any conduct before the act. Then there are some that are just silent on the issue.
Thank you. Minister Abernethy.
With respect to the ones that are silent, what does that mean as far as individuals who wish to possibly pursue an administrative question prior to commencement or go-live date of the legislation? What does it mean for those silent jurisdictions? Do we know?
Thank you. Mr. Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would really be a matter of interpretation in each jurisdiction. You would have to look at what the Interpretation Act in each jurisdiction says in terms of whether there is any general prohibitions or restrictions on when legislation comes into force.
Generally, when you are looking at placing a temporal jurisdiction and, for example, restriction saying you can't go back before a certain date, it is because it would be unfair to subject someone to a law that was not necessarily in effect at the time. For example, if you look at criminal law, it is the law that applied at the time because there are consequences to the action.
In something like this where there is not a punitive aspect to it, it could just be interpreted that if this was silent on temporal jurisdiction, there would be no restriction. Or someone may interpret it as, if it is silent, it is from the commencement date. It depends on how you interpret the Ombud's powers because the Ombud's powers only come into effect on the commencement of the act.
Everything they are doing is post the commencement of the act, so it is within their jurisdiction. The question would be whether someone would take issue with the fact of whether or not they could go beforehand.
Thank you. Minister Abernethy.
Just a final question. I am just trying to get some clarity on this for myself and for the record. Is the clerk aware of any precedent from jurisdictions where it was silent on how it was ultimately interpreted?
Thank you. Mr. Clerk.
No, I am not.
Thank you. Anything further from Minister Abernethy. There is nothing further from Minister Abernethy. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
---Clauses 17 through 36 inclusive approved
Clause 37. Mr. Testart.
Merci, Monsieur le president. [English translation not provided]
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Agreed.
---Clauses 38 through 46 inclusive approved
To the schedule.
Agreed.
Committee, I will now turn to the bill number and title. Bill 20, Ombud Act. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 20 is now ready for third reading as amended and reprinted?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 20 is now ready for third reading as amended and reprinted. Does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Bill 20?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Thank you to the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the chairman rise and report progress. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. There is a motion to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
I will rise and report progress.
