Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
To commence its reviews of Bill 40 and Bill 41, committee sent letters inviting input from various stakeholders and non-governmental organizations.
The committee held a public hearing on Bill 40 and Bill 41 in Yellowknife on May 28, 2019.
In addition to these meetings, committee received four written submissions from three separate parties. Copies of the written submissions are attached in Appendix C.
Smoking Control and Reduction Act
Section 3 of Bill 40 prohibits smoking in a public place.
The Canadian Cancer Society flagged for committee that Bill 40 prohibits the use of smoking tobacco in public places only and does not prohibit the use of smokeless tobacco such as chewing tobacco and snuff. Action on Smoking and Health advised committee that smoking bans are a cornerstone for reducing the acceptability of smoking. Logically, the same argument could be made about the use of other forms of tobacco.
Committee agrees with the recommendation made by the Canadian Cancer Society that, in addition to banning the use of smoking tobacco in public places, Bill 40 should contain regulatory authority to ban any and all tobacco use in public areas.
For this reason, committee proposed the following motions, set out in Appendix A:
Motion 4, to allow the Minister, by regulation, to prohibit or restrict the use of any tobacco products in a public place; and
Motion 6 to provide the Minister with regulatory authority around the use of tobacco that mirrors similar provisions related to smoking, such as allowing the Minister to prescribe places where tobacco products may be restricted or prohibited.
The Northwest Territories and Nunavut Public Health Association indicated their support for the restrictions proposed in Bill 40 on the locations where people may smoke. The Canadian Cancer Society, however, encouraged committee to make the bill as restrictive as possible in terms of where tobacco products may be used.
Because children tend to model adult behaviours, the Canadian Cancer Society argued that the definition for "public place" under section 1 of Bill 40 should be amended so that tobacco use is prohibited in all public areas where children may converge, such as playgrounds, the grounds of athletic facilities like hockey rinks and baseball diamonds, and anywhere public events may be held. They also encouraged the Northwest Territories to follow the example set by the Yukon Territory, which has prohibited tobacco use on the grounds of post-secondary institutions. As an alternative to an outright statutory prohibition on the use of tobacco in public places, the Canadian Cancer Society suggested these locations be prescribed under regulations.
Although smoke may be invisible and odourless, it poses a real threat to public health. Smoke can linger in the air for up to five hours, putting those exposed to it at risk of lung cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and reduced lung function. Committee shares presenters' concerns that the meaning of "public place" under Bill 40 is not expansive enough to protect the public from the harmful effects of tobacco and vaping. We agree that Bill 40 should be as restrictive as reasonable about where tobacco and vaping products can be used. Likewise, committee agrees that the inclination of children to model adult behaviours warrants additional safeguards.
For these reasons, committee proposed Motion 1, set out in Appendix A, to restrict the use of tobacco and vaping products in all public areas where children may ordinarily be present.
The Canadian Cancer Society further indicated it would like to see an expansion to the current "no smoking" buffer zones around entrances, windows, and air intakes to public buildings once drafting of the regulations are under way.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services explore whether the "no smoking" areas around buildings to be prescribed in new regulations should be expanded.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now pass the reading of the following sections to my honourable colleague from the Mackenzie Delta. Mahsi.
Masi. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Canadian Cancer Society recommended that Bill 40 be amended to require the Minister to report on the implementation of the legislation every five years. Committee agrees there would be a benefit to the Minister periodically reporting on implementation of this legislation to ensure it is effective in controlling and reducing the use of tobacco and vaping products.
For this reason, committee proposed Motion 5, set out in Appendix A, to require the Minister to report on implementation of the Act three years after the section comes into force, and every five years thereafter.
A provision in Alberta's Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act requires the Minister to commence a review of the Act within five years after the section comes into force. The Canadian Cancer Society recommended Bill 40 be amended to require a legislative review at least every five years to ensure regular updates to the legislation and sustain the effectiveness of initiatives to reduce the harm caused by tobacco.
While the NWT's smoking and vaping rates are a cause of significant concern, committee believes that requiring periodic reviews of this legislation by the Minister or a committee of the Legislative Assembly would unnecessarily tie the hands of future Legislative Assemblies. Moreover, stakeholders advised committee that, with some changes, Bill 40 will put the NWT in a sound position to reduce and control the use of tobacco and vaping products.
Committee believes that periodic reporting on implementation of the Act would be significant to ensure the legislation is updated when necessary to safeguard residents, such as with the advent of new technology, pursuant to Motion 5, discussed above.
Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act
The smoking rates in the NWT are alarming, with our smoking rate among those 15 years and older being the second-highest in the country. A reported 33-34 percent of the NWT's population 15 years and older smoked daily or occasionally as of 2014, whereas only 13 percent of the Canadian population 15 years and older smoked in 2015. While there has been a slight increase in the NWT's smoking rate since 2003, the national rate has decreased significantly over the same period, down from 23 per cent to 16 per cent.
Preliminary evidence of vaping activity in the Northwest Territories indicates that our highest number of e-cigarette consumers are between the ages of 15-24, at 33 percent. Committee heard that curiosity is the leading reason for people using e-cigarettes at 50 per cent, with 22 percent using e-cigarettes because they are viewed as less harmful than cigarettes, 21 percent using them to help quit smoking, 21 percent because they can vape where they are not permitted to smoke, and 20 percent because they like the flavour.
While the information presented to the committee on the NWT's smoking and vaping rates was consistently alarming, the information presented on the comparative health effects of smoking compared with vaping was mixed, if not conflicting. JUUL Labs told committee that vaping devices should be viewed as smoking cessation, or "harm reduction," tools. The company argued that the restrictions on the advertising and promotion of vaping products and accessories under Bill 41 should be loosened to combat the harms of tobacco smoke by helping smokers make the switch to vaping.
JUUL Labs' view of vapour products as a harm reduction and smoking cessation aid was in stark contrast to the views presented by several other witnesses. First, committee heard that the evidence supporting the use of nicotine-containing vaping devices for smoking cessation is reportedly unknown.
While research may show that e-cigarettes are useful in quit attempts, other research shows that smokers are unsatisfied with the new devices and return to smoking cigarettes, or they maintain dual use between the two products, which is of little benefit in reducing health risks.
Second, committee heard that the long-term health effects of exposure to the chemicals used for vaping are unknown, specifically the effect of the particulate emissions and carcinogens (notably 1,3-butadiene in nicotine) and the toxicity produced from heating the substances. As such, with limited research, the comparative toxicity between tobacco products like cigarettes and nicotine-containing vaping products is unknown.
Third, committee heard that the use of e-cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and that dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes is associated with a compounded risk of heart attack.
Fourth, ASH told us there is emerging evidence that youth vaping may be leading to higher youth smoking rates in Canada. The Minister of Health and Social Services advised committee that a single pod used in a vaping device can expose the user to the same amount of highly addictive nicotine as an entire pack of cigarettes.
In light of the high smoking rates in the NWT, committee considered at length the possible merit of treating vaping products with nicotine as a potentially less harmful alternative to conventional cigarettes under Bill 41. On the balance, while committee found the evidence on the benefits of vaping as a harm reduction tool to be inconclusive, growing, and shifting rapidly, the evidence about the potential harms of vaping to public health is persuasive. We believe strict controls about both tobacco and vaping products, as found in Bill 41, are necessary to protect the residents of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, I will now turn it over to the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Thank you.
Masi. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The topic in Bill 41 that appeared to be of most interest to stakeholders was the minimum age for the purchase, sale, or supply of tobacco and vaping products. Sections 1 and 4 of Bill 41 establish the minimum age at 19 years with respect to tobacco and vapour products and accessories. This is up from the current Tobacco Control Act's minimum age of 18 years. The Minister of Health and Social Services informed committee that the intention in raising the minimum age from 18 to 19 is to reduce youth uptake and be consistent with the minimum age for the purchase, sale, and supply of other regulated substances in the NWT, namely cannabis and alcohol.
Research indicates that most smokers have already begun smoking by the age of 19. As such, several stakeholders argued that a legal age of 19 does not go far enough to reduce youth access to harmful products.
Raising the age to 21 for tobacco and vaping products, the Canadian Cancer Society submits, would achieve several things. First, it would delay the age when young people first try or begin using tobacco or vaping, which can reduce the risk that they become regular users and, if they do become regular users, increase their chances of quitting successfully. For example, a 2015 report in the U.S. concluded that increasing the minimum tobacco sales age to 21 would reduce smoking by 25 percent among 15-17-year-olds, and 15 percent among 18-19-year-olds. Further, in places where the minimum age for purchases and sales was raised to 21, teenagers are reportedly less likely to experiment with cannabis.
Second, raising the age to 21 would reduce access. The societal influences that lead youth and adolescents to start using nicotine-containing products are unknown. As youth obtain most of their tobacco and vaping products through retail and social sources, raising the minimum age to 21 would prevent high school students from buying products for their peers and would make it more difficult for underage smokers to gain access to these products.
Third, the Canadian Cancer Society says the NWT has an opportunity to heed experiences elsewhere, including momentum in the United States towards raising the minimum age from 18 to 21. In the town of Needham, Massachusetts, for example, the results of raising the minimum age to 21 were an immediate, significant drop in current and frequent use of cigarettes among youth. Following full enforcement of the 21-years law, the percentage decline in youth smoking in Needham was nearly triple that of its neighbours.
Fourth, a minimum age of 21 would reduce disease and death. According to a 2015 report, if the minimum age were increased to 21 in the United States, tobacco use would decrease by 12 percent by the time today's teenagers were adults, smoking-related deaths would decrease by 10 percent, and 50,000 fewer people would die of lung cancer in that country.
Fifth, the Canadian Cancer Society is not persuaded by the Minister's rationale that 19 corresponds with the minimum age for alcohol and cannabis. The Canadian Cancer Society argues that tobacco should be treated differently than alcohol and cannabis, and Bill 41 should contain broader safeguards and impose stronger intervention than the NWT's liquor and cannabis legislation for several reasons:
The objective is to pursue a tobacco-free society, but alcohol and cannabis are here to stay;
The magnitude of the population-wide health damage from tobacco is much greater than for cannabis;
Nicotine addiction is far more likely and much more severe, though cannabis can lead to dependence; and
Unlike for cannabis, there is support from both commercial and public health interests for a minimum age of 21, including from JUUL Labs, which confirmed their support for 21 in a follow-up submission to committee.
Alternatively, the Canadian Cancer Society recommended Bill 41 provide for regulatory authority to prescribe a minimum age higher than 19, a step taken by British Columbia.
While committee recognizes the strong arguments in favour of raising the minimum age for the purchase, sale, and supply of tobacco and vaping products and accessories in Bill 41 from 19 to 21, committee agrees it makes sense to harmonize the legal ages for the purchase, sale, and supply of tobacco and vaping products with that for cannabis and alcohol. Unless or until the people of the NWT wish to debate whether the minimum age should be raised with respect to all of these substances, committee supports the minimum age of 19 years set out in Bill 41. Committee believes a minimum age of 19 is appropriate in the context of Bill 40, as well. Bill 40 refers to minors for the purpose of prohibiting smoking in a motor vehicle when a person under the age of 19 is present.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance explore the merits of raising the minimum age for the purchase, sale and supply of liquor, tobacco, cannabis, vaping products and accessories from 19 to 21.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now hand this reading over to the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Section 10 of Bill 41 prohibits several forms of advertising of tobacco and vapour products, including a form of in-store sales promotion found near, on, or next to a checkout counter as a mechanism to influence a consumer's buying decision, commonly known as "point-of-sale" advertising.
JUUL Labs argued that Bill 41 should be amended to be less restrictive of the promotion and display of vapour products, both in the retail and non-retail context, so that smokers are aware of their products and more likely to switch to vaping. The company offered the following for committee's consideration:
Point-of-sale advertising gets adult smokers to switch to vaping, so a total prohibition on this form of advertising for vaping products would work contrary to the NWT's objective to reduce adult smoking;
Prohibiting point-of-sale advertising for vaping products could allow counterfeit products using youth-targeted flavours and prohibited nicotine content to proliferate rapidly; and
Bill 41 is more restrictive than most other Canadian jurisdictions with respect to advertising.
All other witnesses who testified supported the preventative approach toward advertising set out in Bill 41. Committee heard concern that the open promotion of vaping products, including lifestyle marketing and the use of claims such as that vaping offers a healthier alternative to smoking, would open the door to the renormalization of smoking and undermine hard-earned tobacco control efforts. ASH informed committee that five of six Canadians support restrictions on vaping promotion. The Canadian Cancer Society advised that almost all jurisdictions in Canada regulate promotional displays for vaping, and that Alberta and Saskatchewan are currently taking steps to do so, as well.
On the balance, committee was not persuaded by the arguments offered by JUUL Labs in favour of loosening restrictions on point-of-sale advertising for vaping products. The presentation by the Canadian Cancer Society convinced committee that advertising and marketing campaigns related to vaping can be ubiquitous, are often youth-oriented, and fail to speak to the health effects of these products. Committee supports the restrictions proposed in Bill 41 around advertising vaping products.
Committee learned that an alarming number of youth are vaping in Canada, with a reported 23 percent of students in Grades 7-12 having tried an e-cigarette. JUUL Labs acknowledged that exposure to ads is associated with greater odds of use of e-cigarettes in youth. Stakeholders cautioned committee that vaping promotion that is not specifically banned is essentially allowed and may be exploited. It is believed that clever marketing may be contributing to increased use of youth vaping.
Committee was persuaded by the presentations about the savvy marketing practices by vaping companies and agrees youth in the NWT must be safeguarded from similar advertising and marketing efforts. Committee supports the restrictions on the promotion and advertising of vaping products proposed in Bill 41.
The Canadian Cancer Society recommended Bill 41 be amended to prohibit tobacco and vaping products from being sold at a reduced price based on the quantity sold. This would prevent the sale of more than one package together at a reduced price (e.g. "duo-packs") compared with two packages being sold separately, or other similar discounts, which encourage higher consumption and undermine consumption taxes.
Committee agrees with the Canadian Cancer Society that Bill 41 should be amended to prohibit the sale of tobacco and vaping products at a reduced price based on the quantity sold, so as not to encourage higher consumption. For this reason, committee proposed Motion 4, set out in Appendix B.
NTNUPHA recommended that Bill 41 be amended to create restrictions on the carrying fluid used in vaping devices, due to uncertainty about the toxicity produced from heating the substances used for vaping.
Committee has been informed that vaping devices, vaping liquids and their containers are subject to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA), and that Health Canada intends to introduce regulations under that Act to address health or safety risks posed by these products. Until then, the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations is applied to address these risks. Committee is satisfied with these protections for the time being.
Committee learned that federal legislation now bans flavours in cigarettes, most cigars as well as blunt wraps, and that several provinces have legislation controlling flavoured tobacco products. To date, no province or territory has altogether restricted flavours in vaping products, though a few provinces have regulatory authority to restrict flavours in these products.
There is no question that flavoured products make consumption of otherwise unpalatable items more palatable and easier to consume, especially for youth. Once upon a time, one out of three teenage smokers smoked menthol cigarettes. For this reason, the Government of Canada banned the sale of menthol cigarettes in 2017. JUUL Labs argued that flavoured vaping products should be viewed as beneficial, however, because behavioural data shows that adult smokers are almost twice as likely to switch to vaping products if they are flavoured.
Committee agrees with the presenters who stated that tobacco use and vaping should not be a pleasant experience for new users. At the same time, however, we recognize that tobacco is viewed as natural by many residents in the NWT and as enhancing their quality of life, especially among elders. Committee felt a balance should be struck to discourage new users from developing a taste for these harmful products, while recognizing that certain exemptions, specifically for flavoured smokeless tobacco, may be appropriate.
For these reasons, committee proposed Motions 1, 3 and 6, set out in Appendix B, to prohibit the sale of flavoured tobacco products, except those exempted by regulation, and the sale of prescribed flavoured vaping products.
The Canadian Cancer Society recommended that Bill 41 be amended to require the Minister to report every five years on the implementation of the legislation. A couple tobacco control statutes elsewhere require periodic implementation reports by the Minster responsible or a Chief Medical Health Officer.
Committee agrees there would be a benefit to the Minister periodically reporting on implementation of this legislation to ensure it is effective in controlling tobacco and vaping products. To that end, committee proposed Motion 5, set out in Appendix B, to require the Minister to report on implementation of the Act three years after the section comes into force, and every five years thereafter.
I would now like to turn the reading of this report back to the Honourable Member for Nahendeh.
Masi. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A provision in Alberta's Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act requires the Minister to commence a review of the Act within five years after the section comes into force. The Canadian Cancer Society recommended that Bill 41 be amended to require a review of the legislation at least every five years to ensure regular updates and to sustain the effectiveness of initiatives for reducing the harm caused by tobacco.
While the proliferation of vaping products and the high rates of tobacco use and vaping in the NWT are a cause for significant concern, committee believes that requiring periodic reviews of this legislation would unnecessarily tie the hands of future legislators. If Bill 41 were amended as per Motion 5, discussed below, committee believes the NWT would be in a strong position to effectively monitor and control tobacco and vaping products.
The Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) can do more than develop legislation to reduce and control the use of tobacco and vaping in the territory.
Committee would like to see the GNWT do a better job of facilitating smokers' access to prescription products that will help them quit smoking.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services ensure the territory's drug plan reflects the importance of smoking cessation aids, including that the plan provides smokers with access to these tools on a timely, as-needed basis.
The GNWT should work harder to educate and raise awareness among the public to discourage tobacco use and vaping and ensure they have the information they need to make informed decisions. If the GNWT's previous awareness campaign "Don't Be a Butthead!" had the positive impact, and the Committee believed it did, the committee would like to see the GNWT renew its public education and awareness efforts, targeting communities with the highest smoking rates as well as youth who may be prone to experiment with vaping.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services renew its efforts towards public education and awareness to discourage smoking, vaping and other tobacco use among residents, especially youth and in communities where usage is highest, and to ensure they have the information they need to make informed decisions.
The clause-by-clause reviews of Bill 40 and Bill 41 were held on August 6, 2019. At these reviews, the Committee moved the motions attached in Appendix A relating to Bill 40 and the motions attached in Appendix B relating to Bill 41.
Committee thanks the Minister for his concurrence with the motions to amend Bill 40 and Bill 41 that were moved during the clause-by-clause reviews.
Following the clause-by-clause reviews, motions were carried to report Bill 40 and Bill 41, both as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Almost every party who made a submission or provided testimony on Bill 40 and Bill 41 encouraged Committee to err on the side of caution, health and wellness and strive for legislation with long-term protections for the residents of the NWT. As recently noted by Health Canada, the recent introduction of vaping products with the high nicotine content and the significant increase in youth experimentation and uptake of these products are threatening hard‐earned gains in the control of harmful products like tobacco.
For these reasons, committee has made the recommendations and proposed the motions outlined in this report. We believe these recommendations and motions, if implemented, will bring the NWT that much closer to creating an environment where tobacco and vaping products are less accessible to youth and adults, where smokers who are trying to quit are supported, and where fewer people are exposed to tobacco and smoking and vaping behaviour.
Rule 100(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories requires Cabinet, in response to a motion by committee, to table a comprehensive response that addresses the committee report and any related motions adopted by the House. As required by this rule, committee usually includes a recommendation in each report, which is moved as a motion in the House, requesting a response from the government within 120 days.
Given that the 18th Legislative Assembly will dissolve prior to the conclusion of the 120-day time period allowed by the rules, committee has opted to forego this recommendation. Committee nonetheless requests, to the extent it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly and for the public record, that government provide a response to this recommendation, even of a preliminary nature, that committee may publicly disclose.
Committee wishes to thank every individual and organization who participated in the review process for Bill 40 and Bill 41.
This concludes committee's report on Bill 40: Smoking Control and Reduction Act and Bill 41: Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act. Committee's reports are available on the Legislative Assembly website at www.assembly.gov.nt.ca. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Committee Report 23-18(3): Standing Committee on Social Development report on the review of Bill 40, Smoking Control and Reduction Act, and Bill 41, Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 100(4) and have Committee Report 23-18(3) moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Unanimous consent granted
Committee Report 23-18(3) is now moved to Committee of the Whole for further consideration later today. Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to provide this report on the review of Bill 48, Post-Secondary Education Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 48: Post-Secondary Education Act, sponsored by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment (ECE), received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on March 14, 2019 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development (committee) for review, the results of which are reported below.
Bill 48 proposes to create a structure for recognizing post-secondary institutions within the Northwest Territories (NWT). In summary, Bill 48:
prohibits the establishment or operation of a university without the consent of the Minister and an act of the Legislative Assembly;
prohibits the granting of a degree or the offering of any degree program without the authorization of the Minister;
allows a college to be recognized under the act if its establishment or operation has the consent of the Minister and is authorized by an act of the Legislative Assembly;
provides, with exceptions, that, before a consent or authorization can be given for any of the above, the Minister must have received a recommendation from a post-secondary education advisory committee or a quality assurance body;
provides for the recognition and regulation of private training institutions and vocational training programs, including the issuance of certificates of registration and providing for the appointment of a director of private vocational training;
requires reporting by public post-secondary institutions that receive regular and ongoing funding from the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and by other institutions, including those that receive grants or contributions;
requires public institutions to seek ministerial approval of tuition fees, regularly evaluate programs, prepare a mandate statement as well as strategic and corporate plans, and prepare and submit annual operating and capital budgets; and
contains provisions with respect to information sharing, enforcement, and offences and penalties.
The term "consent" in Bill 48 refers to agreement from the Minister in response to a request from an applicant that the entity may move to the next step of being established as a post-secondary institution, specifically a college or university. On receiving the Minister's consent, an entity may then seek "authorization" for its establishment as a college or university in the form of legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly setting out the details of the particular institution. In the case of other institutions, such as an out-of-territory university, authorization would be required from the Minister rather than the Legislative Assembly.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn it over to the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
To commence our review, committee sent letters inviting input on Bill 48 to an extensive list of stakeholders, including community governments, Indigenous organizations, and educational entities in the NWT.
Between May 13 and May 17, 2019, committee traveled to the communities of Fort Smith, Hay River, Fort Providence, Behchoko, Inuvik, and Tuktoyaktuk to hold public hearings on Bill 48, followed by a public hearing in Yellowknife on May 23, 2019.
In addition to these meetings, committee received three written submissions. Copies of these submissions are attached in Appendix B.
Subsection 1(1) of Bill 48 defines such terms as "post-secondary institution," "public post-secondary institution," "private college," "private training institution," and "public college," but not others like "university," "college" and "private university." It became apparent to committee during the public hearings on Bill 48 that the bill is unclear about what kind of entity might qualify for each type of post-secondary institution, particularly a university, college, or Indigenous institution.
While committee agrees the distinction between the various institution types possibly could be clearer in Bill 48, we have determined that it would be difficult to incorporate definitions for terms like "university" and "college" without being unintentionally limiting. There is more than one kind of institution type in some cases, a university-college that grants both diplomas and degrees being one example. We believe this necessitates some flexibility in the meaning of such terms. Further, we understand that, if definitions for these terms were incorporated, problems may arise with respect to other institutions that are not established under the Act and to which the Act is not intended to apply.
Further, Bill 48 allows the Minister to make regulations setting out the prescribed circumstances and prescribed criteria an entity must meet to be eligible for status (e.g. ss. 66(g) and (l) and ss. 67(a)). Colleges and universities would be established under specific legislation, following an in-depth application process. In the meantime, committee understands the department can assist entities in assessing their ability to meet the requirements of the quality assurance process, and we encourage the department to involve stakeholders in the development of regulations.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment consult stakeholders in the development of the eligibility requirements by which applications for status as a post-secondary institution will be measured.
In order to address a specific concern raised by College nordique francophone that Bill 48 does not anticipate partnership models like the one College nordique intends to pursue, the Minister collaborated with committee to develop Motion 7, set out in Appendix A. This motion seeks to expand the definition in section 27 for "program of instruction" to capture a course or series of courses that results in a certificate, diploma, "or degree" from a private training institution "or from another institution in partnership with the private training institution."
Under section 9 of the bill, the Minister may, on the application of a post-secondary institution and in accordance with regulations, recognize an institution as an "Indigenous institution," defined under subsection 1(1) as "a post-secondary institution recognized as an Indigenous institution under section 9." Bill 48 contains less detail in relation to Indigenous institutions than it does for other post-secondary institutions, and committee heard concern about the lack of clarity about the meaning of the term "Indigenous institution" and the processes and status associated with qualifying as an Indigenous institution.
A representative of the Gwich'in Tribal Council told committee they would like to see more structure and details on Indigenous institutions set out in Bill 48. Specifically, the Gwich'in Tribal Council recommended the inclusion of a set of aspirational principles resembling those in Ontario's Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017 to guide the eventual development of regulations respecting the recognition of Indigenous institutions under paragraph (a) of section 67. The executive director of Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning agreed that section 9 is skeletal and appears to be a placeholder. She went on to say that consultation with Indigenous leaders, students, governments and organizations will be necessary in the development of regulations establishing the process and criteria for qualifying as an Indigenous institution.
Committee has been informed that these regulations will be developed following extensive engagement with Indigenous governments and organizations. We encourage the department to be as inclusive as possible in this engagement process, in light of the recommendations we heard from stakeholders.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment target a comprehensive group of interested stakeholders in the development of regulations concerning the recognition of Indigenous institutions.
Section 3 of the bill requires the Minister to facilitate the development of a post-secondary education system in the NWT that, among other things, promotes excellence, is accessible and affordable, and respects academic freedom. To guide the Minister's work and the development of regulations pertaining to the recognition of Indigenous institutions, committee collaborated with the Minister to develop Motion 2, set out in Appendix A. This motion expands the principles guiding the work of the Minister under section 3 to include respect for the unique values, history, and cultures of the people of the NWT.
In addition, we proposed Motion 6, set out in Appendix A, to clarify that only those entities that have received recognition as some other form of post-secondary institution, such as a college, may seek recognition as an Indigenous institution.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the reading of the report to the Member for Deh Cho. Mahsi.
Masi. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Subsection 7(1) of Bill 48 authorizes the Minister to, in accordance with regulations, establish a "post-secondary education advisory committee." The duties of an advisory committee include reviewing matters referred to it by the Minister, including the review of and the making of recommendations on applications for recognition as a post-secondary institution, and advising the Minister at his or her request on any matter respecting the administration of post-secondary education in the NWT. Subsection 7(2) requires the Minister to appoint a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, and one to five other persons to serve on a committee. Section 8 also authorizes the Minister to, in accordance with regulations, designate a "quality assurance body" to review matters referred to it by the Minister.
Committee determined that Bill 48 was unclear about the role of the advisory committees in the quality assurance process, as was the distinction between the work of an advisory committee and that of a quality assurance body. To clarify the role of advisory committees in the quality assurance process, committee worked with the Minister to develop Motion 3, set out in Appendix A. As appropriate, the department will use "homegrown" advisory committees, including for applications for recognition as an Indigenous institution and, in other instances, may draw on the expertise of quality assurance bodies established elsewhere.
Committee heard a general concern expressed by some presenters about the degree of power and discretion that the Minister has under Bill 48 and a desire for assurances that the quality assurance processes will be proper and independent. Given that conflict can arise between post-secondary institutions and governments, such as in the context of debates about principles of academic freedom, committee agrees that the advisory committees should have a measure of independence so that they may review and advise the Minister on matters without fear of consequence. To that end, we are satisfied with the specification of membership details in regulations as anticipated in paragraph (e) of section 66.
Committee identified an issue, however, with the limit placed on the number of members of an advisory committee to no more than seven individuals under subsection 7(2). Committee believes that broader representation than that permitted under subsection 7(2) may be needed in some cases, such as where regional perspectives may be beneficial. As such, committee and the Minister collaborated on Motion 4, set out in Appendix A, to remove this cap on membership.
A common theme among the concerns heard by committee was the degree and vastness of the Minister's power and discretion under Bill 48. Presenters indicated the Minister should have clear guidance and parameters to ensure that the Minister exercises his or her discretion appropriately and that post-secondary institutions should run at arm's length from the GNWT.
More specifically, a few presenters expressed concern about the bill's stipulation in several instances that a decision of the Minister is final (e.g. ss. 11(7), ss. 12(4), s. 18, s. 22, ss. 25(7), s. 32), regardless of the fairness or justness of a decision. This was indicated as a concern in cases where an advisory committee or quality assurance body makes a positive recommendation to the Minister with respect to an application for establishment as, for example, a university under section 11, but the Minister rejects the application regardless.
Presenters offered some suggestions aimed at ensuring that there are fair processes around decision-making, such as requiring the Minister to give written reasons for his or her decisions, setting time limits for the Minister's decisions, and providing for appeals of the Minister's decisions to the courts.
Committee agrees that decision-making should be fair and transparent and that there should be clear recourse for entities seeking status as a post-secondary institution. For these reasons, committee recommends that regulations be developed to address various procedural matters for ensuring fair decision-making, such as notice requirements, the right to be heard and timeframes, and that they require that the Minister provide written reasons for his or her decisions.
The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment develop regulations containing a requirement that the Minister provide reasons, in writing, for his or her decisions under the act.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I now pass the reading of the following section to my honourable colleague from Tu-Nedhe Wiilideh. Mahsi.
Masi. Member for Tu-Nedhe Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner advised committee that the rights of individuals to privacy are set aside in several instances in Bill 48 without justification. Committee sought clarification and worked with the department to address several of the privacy-related matters flagged by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, as outlined below.
The educational institutions contemplated in Bill 48 will have to collect, use, and disclose significant amounts of personal information. Most, if not all, Canadian jurisdictions include public post-secondary institutions under their public sector access and privacy laws. Committee understands that public post-secondary institutions in the NWT will continue to be subject to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPPA) as designated public bodies under that act, whereas private educational institutions will not, consistent with the practice elsewhere.
Section 55 allows the Minister to request information from either a post-secondary institution or a department or public agency "for the purposes of fulfilling his or her role under the act." The provision goes on to say in subsection (2) that, "notwithstanding the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act," an entity that receives such a request must provide that information in the form and within the time specified. Similarly, subsection 56(1) of Bill 48 authorizes the Minister to collect personal information "directly or indirectly" under section 55 and that such collection and use is "notwithstanding the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act."
Committee was advised that the "notwithstanding" phrase in subsections 55(2) and 56(1) provides a wide scope for the collection and use of personal information under Bill 48. The unintended effect of this phrase was the removal of the right of the individual to seek an independent review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, making the Minister the sole arbiter of whether or not personal information collected, used, or disclosed under section 55 and 56 was necessary or appropriate. As such, committee and the Minister collaborated to develop Motions 15 and 16, set out in Appendix A, to remove the references to "notwithstanding the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act" from subsections 55(2) and 56(1).
Part 7, Private Training Institutions, and Part 8, Private Vocational Training, of Bill 48 both refer to "student contracts," agreements between a student and their vocational training program or private training institution. There was concern that the term "student contract" could be interpreted as referring to a private agreement between a student and his or her institution, and that these contracts may be subject to review by the Minister. Committee determined that the intent of the term "student contract" in Bill 48 is to refer to an institution's standard contract with its students rather an individual student's contract with his or her institution. As such, committee collaborated with the Minister to develop Motion 18, set out in Appendix A, to provide more clarity around the intended meaning of the term "student contract" in Bill 48.
Part 7, Private Training Institutions, and Part 8, Private Vocational Training, of Bill 48 contain provisions requiring an institution to "provide to the Minister as soon as possible a list of the names and addresses of the students registered at the institution." The Information and Privacy Commissioner flagged for committee that any limitations on the use of this personal information are not clear from the bill. Committee worked with the Minister to develop Motions 10, 11, 13, and 14, set out in Appendix A, to clarify that subsections 31(5), 33(2), 39(5), and 41(2) require a post-secondary institution to provide the Minister with student names and addresses only for the purposes of giving notice to those students.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn the reading over to the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The clause-by-clause review of Bill 48 was held on August 6, 2019. At this review, the committee moved the motions attached in Appendix A. Committee thanks the Minister for her concurrence with the motions to amend Bill 48 that were moved during the clause-by-clause review.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 48: Post-Secondary Education Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Committee wishes to thank every individual and organization who participated in the review process for Bill 48.
Rule 100(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories requires Cabinet, in response to a motion by committee, to table a comprehensive response that addresses the committee report and any related motions adopted by the House. As required by this rule, committee usually includes a recommendation in each report, which is moved as a motion in the House, requesting a response from government within 120 days.
Given that the 18th Legislative Assembly will dissolve prior to the conclusion of the 120-day time period allowed by the rules, committee has opted to forego this recommendation. Committee nonetheless requests, to the extent it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly and for the public record, that government provide a response to this recommendation, even of a preliminary nature, that committee may publicly disclose.
This concludes committee's report on Bill 48: Post-Secondary Education Act. Committee reports are available on the Legislative Assembly website at www.assembly.gov.nt.ca. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Committee Report 24-18(3): Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 48: Post-Secondary Education Act be received by the Assembly and that Committee Report 24-18(3) be moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. The motion is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following six documents entitled "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 720-18(3): Environmental Assessment following Hay River Highrise Fire"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 721-18(3): Recruitment of Physicians in Hay River"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 722-18(3): Fort Providence Seniors' Facility"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 737-18(3): Mental Health Services for Youth"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 744-18(3): Foster Family Recognition"; and "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 775-18(3): Mental Health and Addictions Plan." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following three documents entitled "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 718-18(3): Nutrition North and Cost of Living in Nunakput"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 730-18(3): Northwest Territories-Nunavut Bilateral Meeting on Transboundary Caribou"; and "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 738-18(3): Affirmative Action Policy." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Minister of Infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following four documents entitled "Petroleum Interests Held in the Northwest Territories by Strategic Oil And Gas Limited"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 705-18(3): Fort Simpson Ferry Service"; "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 710-18(3): Mackenzie Valley Highway Environmental Assessment Working Group"; and "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 732-18(3): Dredging in Hay River." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 773-18(3): Third Party Sexual Assault Reporting." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
