This is page numbers 107 - 142 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was community.

Topics

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

The honourable Member for North Slave, Mr. Zoe.

Henry Zoe

Henry Zoe North Slave

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive rule 94(4) to permit the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to be placed in committee of the whole today.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Thank you. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive rule 94(4), to place this document into committee of the whole. Are there any nays? There are no nays. The document is placed into committee of the whole; Committee Report 5-12(6). Thank you.

Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Lewis.

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a report on the review of Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Legislation has completed its review of Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act. The committee held public hearings in May 1994 in Fort Smith, Iqaluit and Yellowknife. The standing committee did not receive many presentations on this bill, however, the four presentations that were made were from contrasting perspectives.

Background

The Department of Social Services provided the following background material to the standing committee for consideration.

History And Development Of Guardianship And Trusteeship Legislation In The Northwest Territories

The need for a legal mechanism to protect "dependent adults" was identified in the early 1980s. In 1980, Alberta proclaimed their Dependent Adults Act. In 1993, it was decided that the Alberta act would be used as a model for legislation in the territories.

In October 1988, the draft bill, Dependent Adults Act, for the Northwest Territories was finalized and distributed to organizations throughout the territories requesting feedback and criticism. The results were the development of a complete redraft. The initial concerns raised about the draft legislation were due to progressive developments in guardianship legislation throughout Canada. New legislation had been proclaimed in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. The Fram Commission in Ontario had three years of public hearings to discuss and recommend the best type of legislation for adult dependents.

In April 1989, the Department of Social Services began the redraft of the Dependent Adults Bill (NWT) which was to incorporate the suggestions received during the 1988 consultative process. The bill was substantially changed in focus due to ongoing consultations and in particular, the Fram Commission Report (Ontario) which was released in the latter part of 1988.

Consultations brought forth numerous recommendations leading to changes in the final bill. Primary recommendations which lead to changes were:

- define the age for an adult as 18 years;

- allow a "friend" to act as a guardian rather than a family member;

- allow the "represented person" to choose the person they want as a guardian when the person is capable of making the choice;

- give legal validity to a person's prior wishes or decisions made when competent;

- state that guardian must reside in the NWT;

- develop a section ensuring language rights;

- in defining "spouse" give recognition to "common-law" unions;

- the public guardian to be the guardian of last resort only when no family person or friend is available or willing to act;

- reports for the court may be prepared by persons other than a doctor, for example, psychologist or a person appointed by the public guardian; - give the court wide discretionary powers so decision-making can be limited to some and not all areas of a person's life;

- provide a section of the act for the protection of abused elders and/or disabled persons;

- change the test for incapability from a finding of mental incompetency to a finding of inability to understand consequences of personal decision-making;

- abolish the phrase "dependent adult" and change the name of the act;

- have a provision for an alternate guardian;

- have a provision for temporary orders;

- encourage the represented person to be involved in decision-making with the guardian;

- provide safeguards if the guardian is not fulfilling his or her duties;

- provide for the review of a guardianship order which is flexible within a defined time frame rather than on a specific date;

- include provision for discharging a guardian who is unsatisfactory;

- ensure the person applying for guardianship has had personal, positive knowledge of and friendly contact with the person to be represented;

- provide for the appointment of a public guardian.

All of the recommendations listed previous have been incorporated in Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act.

Public Input

The standing committee received submissions from Anne Crawford, Lynn Hirshman, the Yellowknife Association of Community Living and the Avens Seniors Centre. The opinions expressed by the presenters ranged from complete support of the proposed legislation to eliminating the legislation in its entirety. To illustrate the polarity of views regarding this bill, the following quotes from presentations made before the committee are provided:

"It is the Yellowknife Association for Community Living's position that the current proposed legislation of Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, Bill 3, is not what the Government of the Northwest Territories should be considering at this time. Should this bill pass, people with mental handicaps will be at high risk of losing their self-determination, independence and dignity." Yellowknife Association for Community Living, May 1994.

"I think I would have to challenge the community living people in the sense that a mentally handicapped individual is not incompetent. You can have a disability, you can be mute and yet quite capable of making life decisions. I think that it is very important to keep in mind that in most cases, those people would not require the use of this act because their decision-making capabilities are not threatened. They may not be able to perform functions of daily living, but their mind is quite capable. The clients I see that fall under this act are those who are incompetent. They are mentally incompetent. They don't know where they are when they are on a street corner. They don't know if they have just come out of the bathroom or if they are in their house 50 years ago. They are the ones who need the protection that this act would allow. The clients who have a handicap are not incompetent and should never be reflected that because you have a handicap you fall under this act." Kathy Praamsma, Avens Senior Centre.

"I think that any legislation in this area, dealing with people with mental handicap or with or without mental capacity, runs a lot of serious risks and I can think of three. Legislation, firstly, sometimes can be inflexible so that the people who are affected by it do not have the opportunity and the flexibility to respond in appropriate ways to unique circumstances. Secondly, if something is permitted by legislation, then there is a perception that this is the only thing that can be done. For example, if we have to have legislation passed that says their hair may be cut by barbers, then eventually, it would be interpreted by many people as meaning that only barbers can cut hair. That is not what the legislation intended, but there is that natural tendency to interpret legislation that way." Allistar Gunsun, Manitoba Association for Community Living.

Interjurisdictional Review

The Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan points out:

"Guardianship legislation is not a substitute for effective social programs to provide services and financial assistance to persons who cannot care for themselves. Rather, it provides a legal status in cases in which formal recognition of the relationship of guardian and ward is required to ensure that adequate care and protection are provided."

Rarely is the legal issue that of determining whether a person is mentally disabled and how that term is to be defined. The legal inquiry is usually more specific. It is concerned with whether the disability is such to prevent the person from understanding the nature and consequences of the subject matter in issue.

The most important legal principle in this area is that there is no such concept as total legal incapacity arising from mental disability. Incapacity in one area does not necessarily imply incapacity in another. As was stated in the report of the Ontario enquiry on mental competency, "Incompetence is not to be understood in any global sense, but rather as reflecting incapacities with respect to specific decisions or areas of decisions".

Mental disability may often affect a person's capability to exercise certain legal rights but not others. Persons who have been declared by a court to be mentally incompetent or mentally incapable of managing their own affairs, may still have the legal capacity in many other areas, such as capacity to marry or to make a will.

The appointment of a personal guardian seeks to ensure that the ward will receive the required care and protection. It does so by placing a duty on the guardian to act in the best interests of the ward, and by investing the guardian with the powers that are necessary to discharge that duty. Clear and well-reasoned criteria for the appointment of a guardian must be provided and the powers and duties of a guardian must be clearly defined.

Most provinces in Canada do not allow for partial or limited guardianship. The legislation adopts an all-or-nothing approach, with mental competence and incompetence being viewed as mutually exclusive absolutes. It fails to recognize that individuals may need the assistance of a guardian in certain areas of their lives and not in others. For example, an individual may be incapable of giving valid consent to medical treatment, but still be capable of deciding where to live and with whom. Without the flexibility of limited guardianship, the law is imposing protective overkill and is unable to respond to the philosophy of the least restrictive alternative.

Three provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have revised their adult guardianship legislation to allow for limited guardianship. Alberta was the first province to adopt a radically different approach to guardianship with the introduction of its Dependent Adults Act. The most important feature of this act is its implementation of the concept of limited guardianship. The legislation as originally enacted, drew a distinction between plenary and partial guardians. An order for plenary for full guardianship could be made only if the court was satisfied that partial guardianship would be insufficient to meet the needs of the dependent adult.

The Dependent Adults Act of Alberta recognizes that to the extent that the dependent adult is capable of making his or her own decisions and of taking care of himself or herself, he or she should be given the opportunity to do so. This is reinforced by the requirement that guardians exercise their power of authority in the least restrictive manner possible. The NWT Guardianship and Trusteeship Act borrows heavily off the Alberta legislation in this area.

Another significant aspect of the Alberta Legislation is its criteria for determining whether a guardian ought to be appointed. It requires the court to be satisfied that the individual is repeatedly or continuously unable to care for himself or herself and to make reasonable judgements with respect to matters relating to his or her person. Attention is focused not on whether the person falls within a specified diagnostic category, but rather on the ability to take care of oneself and to make decisions affecting one's personal welfare.

Most jurisdictions in Canada require that the application for guardianship be accompanied by affidavits from at least two medical practitioners. These affidavits must contain more than a statement of opinion that the individual in question is mentally incapable of managing his or her affairs. They must provide details of the facts on which this opinion is based. This enables the court to determine whether the opinion is founded upon sufficient grounds. In practice, the medical affidavit is often divided into the following four sections:

a)an initial statement of the physician's qualifications;

b)details of the physician's contact and involvement with the individual and any treatment administered;

c)the physician's diagnosis of the individual's condition;

d)the physician's conclusion, prognosis and opinion, if any, as to the individual's capacity to manage his or her own affairs.

A study was undertaken in Alberta in the late 1980s that identified the skills and abilities that should be assessed in guardianship proceedings and the methods and techniques that should be employed in that assessment. The study's recommendations and assessment instruments are now used extensively in guardianship proceedings in Alberta. The study emphasized the importance of assessing mental competency with the tests that are appropriate to the person's own environment. For example, when someone has been living in a restrictive environment, such as an institution for the mentally retarded, many of the skills considered necessary to appear competent may not have been actively encouraged and, in fact, may have been discouraged.

Once an assessment has been completed, the court must then be satisfied that a guardianship order would be in the best interests and would result in substantial benefit to that person. The court tends to rely heavily on functional assessments in determining whether these criteria are satisfied. These assessments and the court's attention are focused on the specific areas in which the guardian may be granted power and authority. The court would grant the guardian only those powers that are necessary to make or assist in making reasonable judgements. Therefore, the court must look into each of the legislation's specified areas and determine which, if any, are areas in which the adult is unable to make reasonable judgements and would substantially benefit by interference.

In Alberta, the public guardian's office issued a policy directive which states that a test of substantial benefit must be applied to each area of guardianship requested, and that guardianship should be viewed as a last resort. See Appendix A.

Review Results

The committee, during it's review, explored all the concerns expressed by the public. It is the committee's opinion that the proposed legislation addresses most of the concerns in one manner or another. However, the committee, with the agreement of the Minister, wants to see an amendment to the legislation that would give preferential consideration to family members becoming the appointed guardian.

Although this legislation will require constant monitoring for effectiveness, the committee feels that it is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation of its kind in Canada at this time. Therefore, on September 9, 1994, the committee passed a motion that this bill was ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

Motion To Receive Committee Report 6-12(6) And Move To Committee Of The Whole, Carried

Madam Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 3. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act be received by the Assembly and moved into committee of the whole.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

An Hon. Member

Question.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Lewis.

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive rule 94(4) to permit the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation to be placed in committee of the whole today.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Thank you. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive rule 94(4) to place the report in committee of the whole today. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Committee Report 6-12(6) on Bill 3 is placed in committee of the whole today. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Gargan.

Samuel Gargan Deh Cho

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act. This is the second time this committee has had the opportunity to review this particular piece of proposed legislation. Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act, was reviewed by this committee in March 1994. The committee reported to this House that it would be unable to complete its review prior to the prorogation of the Fifth Session. The government reintroduced the bill on April 6, 1994, at the beginning of the Sixth Session of this Assembly.

The standing committee has since had an opportunity to review Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act. The committee began its review on May 16, 1994 and held public hearings in Iqaluit, Fort Smith and Yellowknife. The committee is prepared to report its findings at this time.

The standing committee fully supports the creation of two colleges in the Northwest Territories to prepare for Nunavut. This committee is concerned, however, that this bill places the authority to establish and name colleges in regulation. The decision to create or dissolve colleges is important to the public as well as Members of this Assembly. The committee is not convinced that the establishment and naming of colleges should be decided behind closed doors. The committee believes that these decisions should have a level of accountability to the Members of the Assembly attached to them.

Recommendation 1

Therefore, the committee recommends that the establishment and naming of colleges be established in legislation where Members of the Assembly may participate in the process, and further that the legislation expressly limit the creation of colleges to two, one in the west and one in Nunavut.

On The Matter Of This Bill Repealing The Science Institute Act

The committee feels that by becoming part of Arctic College, a larger institution, perhaps more resources will be available to the Science Institute. In addition, there may be a strengthening in terms of science training and linkages to community education. However, the committee feels that the potential loss of the Science Institute's entrepreneurial abilities when the arm's-length relationship is dissolved and the encumbering of the opportunity to enter into contracts, third-party arrangements and collaborative ventures, may have serious implications on science research and activity in the north. Further, the committee feels that it may be seen that the Science Institute, under the Education umbrella, is losing its objectivity and this could affect the credibility of northern science in general.

The committee is concerned that the college's priorities of training and education could overshadow the Science Institute. The range of functions that the Institute currently has in terms of research support, conducting research, conducting technological development programs and so forth, may be relegated to the back burner. Although this bill does not preclude those activities from taking place, there is no direct legislative mandate for those activities in this bill.

The committee is also concerned with the fact that accessibility to science advice will twice be removed from the Legislative Assembly. Under the previous Science Institute Act, the Legislative Assembly could access research through a motion in the House to have the Minister responsible for the Science Institute direct the Institute to provide the House with information on particular science matters. This bill gives the powers that currently reside in the Minister responsible for the Science Institute, to an appointed board. This bill would see an advisory committee appointed by a board that reports to a Minister who then is accountable to the Legislature.

The committee feels that, due to these areas of concern, the committee cannot support the integration of the Science Institute with the Department of Education.

On June 1, 1994, the committee passed a motion to recommend this bill to the committee of the whole for debate. Further, the committee passed a motion not to support Bill 7 in its present form.

Motion To Receive Committee Report 7-12(6) And Move To Committee Of The Whole, Carried

Madam Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 7. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act, be received by the Legislative Assembly and moved into committee of the whole.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

An Hon. Member

Question.

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents. The honourable Member for Inuvik, Mr. Koe.

Item 13: Tabling Of Documents
Item 13: Tabling Of Documents

Page 131

Fred Koe Inuvik

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to table Tabled Document 26-12(6), a news release titled "National Strategy to Deal with Urgent Health Priorities of First Nations and Inuit." It's a release from the Government of Canada, Health Minister, Diane Marleau, unveiling the "Building Healthy Communities: A New Health Care Strategy for First Nations and Inuit."

Item 13: Tabling Of Documents
Item 13: Tabling Of Documents

Page 131

The Speaker Jeannie Marie-Jewell

Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 14-12(6), "Open for Business" - Privatizing the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, Minister's Statement 11-12(6), Return to Session; Committee Report 4-12(6), Report on the Review of Bill 6 - Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Bill 2, Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act; Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act; Bill 6, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act; Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act; Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act; Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns and Villages Act; Bill 11, An Act to Amend the Hamlets Act; and, Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Commissioner's Land Act; also, Committee Report 5-12(6), Report on the Review of the Financial Statements of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Report of the Auditor General for Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993; and, Committee Report 6-12(6), A Report on the Review of Bill 3 - Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, with Mr. Ningark in the chair.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

October 5th, 1994

Page 131

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. The committee of the whole will come to order. Mr. Brian Lewis.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee would like to deal with bills 9, 10, 11 and 12, in that order.

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. Do we have concurrence of the committee to deal with bills 9, 10, 11 and 12, in that order? Agreed?

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

---Agreed

Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. We will take a 15-minute break and then resume the committee. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Bill 9: An Act To Amend The Charter Communities Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you. The committee will now come to order. We are dealing with Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act. Would the Minister of MACA like to make any opening remarks? Ms. Mike.

Minister's Introductory Remarks

Bill 9: An Act To Amend The Charter Communities Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 131

Rebecca Mike Baffin Central

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to address your committee today on four bills which contain proposed amendments to legislation for quarrying in NWT communities; amendments that will help to remove any uncertainty with the existing wording in our municipal legislation and in the Commissioner's Land Act.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I need to advise you that these legislative amendments are quite unusual in one sense, due to the retroactivity provisions contained in the bills. I will try to explain the particular circumstances that justify this legislative approach. However, apart from the retroactivity aspect, I trust that I will also be able to demonstrate that the additional clauses in the bills are not otherwise controversial and are designed simply to clarify the status quo concerning quarrying in communities.

It is also very important to note, Mr. Chairman, that these bills do not impact in any way on aboriginal or treaty rights, existing land claims agreements or any ongoing negotiations relating to aboriginal rights.

At this time, I would like to provide the committee with a brief overview as to why these legislative amendments are not being proposed. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that every NWT community has at least one local quarry that is used to provide sand, gravel or some other type of granular material. This granular material is essential in our northern climate for most construction projects, especially to provide insulation against the permafrost.

Historically, the local public quarries were managed by the communities on an informal basis. However, as the communities grew and the scale of development increased, there arose a need for an administrative system to address competing interests between the needs of the government, building contractors and local residents.

The GNWT created the Commissioner's Land Act and regulations in 1969, and, around about the same time, also developed municipal legislation for the operations of cities, towns, villages, hamlets and settlements.

In 1988, the GNWT also created legislation for charter communities. Based on this original legislative framework, the GNWT has entered into quarrying leases for quarry administration agreements with many of the large communities. These agreements were designed to formalize the important role of the communities in managing their public quarries at the local level. A number of these communities have been carrying on with these arrangements since 1970. Mr. Chairman, some of our legislation, such as the Commissioner's Land Act, is 25 years old and not as legally up to date as it should be with case law that exists elsewhere in Canada concerning the management of quarries in communities.

It was recently that the GNWT Department of Justice undertook a detailed review of our existing legislation. This was prompted by two ongoing lawsuits directed against the NWT municipality and the Commissioner. The court cases have challenged the validity of certain aspects of our quarry arrangements made between the GNWT and communities. The Department of Justice has recommended that our existing legislation be amended to remove any uncertainty about the past and present authority of GNWT and communities to enter into agreements and leases with respect to quarries and these lands to issue quarry permits and to levy and collect quarry fees and charges.

As a result, the bills confirmed that the communities and the GNWT have and have always had the authority to enter into leases and agreements respecting quarries and land in the communities, and to issue quarry permits.

In addition, the bill amending the Commissioner's Land Act confirms the authority of the GNWT to make regulations respecting quarrying on Commissioner's Land. That bill also expressly validates any quarry fees or charges that were levied by the municipal corporation or a land agent before the bill's introduction.

The fact that those fee-validating provisions, as well as the municipal bills, are to come into force on the date of introduction of first reading, is somewhat unusual. This date was chosen to preclude any further lawsuits against municipalities and the GNWT with respect to the past quarry operations that might otherwise be encouraged by any publicity generated by the introductions of these bills.

I want to stress that there is no attempt being made here to impose any retroactive penalties on quarry operators. Virtually all these quarry operators have been properly following the quarry rules set out in each municipality, with full knowledge of the local quarry administration system.

These bills will simply confirm that all of these local rules are within the legal capacity of the municipal corporation, are thus validated.

Mr. Chairman, nothing in these bills will detract from allowing committee of the whole and the Legislative Assembly to have a full and thorough examination of these amendments. These bills will not come into effect unless they receive the approval of the Assembly at third reading, in the normal process followed then by assent from the Commissioner. However, if and when this final approval does occur, then the effective commencement date of the municipal legislation and the fee-validating provisions of the bill amending the Commissioner's Land Act would be as of April 1994, the date of first reading for the reasons that I have just mentioned regarding possible new court challenges.

I want to assure you that these amendments are not an initiative to significantly alter the intent of any of the existing arrangements between the GNWT and the communities concerning local quarries. Most importantly, there is no attempt on our part to prejudice aboriginal or treaty rights in existing land claims agreements or any outstanding aboriginal claims negotiations. Aboriginal rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982, which is superior to any act of the Northwest Territories.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that despite the unusual retroactive provisions of these bills, they are simply a matter of making the existing legislation more explicit with regard to quarrying in communities. These bills clearly need to be addressed in this upcoming session, and I hope that your committee will look favourably on the intent and wording of these legislative amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I will now be prepared to answer any detailed questions that you or Members may have on the proposed bills. Thank you.

Bill 9: An Act To Amend The Charter Communities Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 132

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Madam Minister. As per procedure for review of bills, I will now recognize the chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation, Mr. Gargan.

Standing Committee on Legislation Comments

Bill 9: An Act To Amend The Charter Communities Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 132

Samuel Gargan Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, because the bills are all similar with regard to granular material, I will be just making one statement addressing all four bills.

I will speak loud at times in order to startle the Members to stay awake.

The Standing Committee on Legislation has completed its review of bills 9 to 12; An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act, An Act to Amend the Hamlets Act, An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, and an Act to Amend the Commissioner's Land Act. Each of bills 9, 10 and 11 amend the legislation in exactly the same way.

The standing committee held public hearings in Yellowknife on September 9, 1994. The only presentation heard towards each proposed amendment was received from the city of Yellowknife, although all municipalities, band councils and tribal councils were notified about the pending amendments back in April, 1996; I'm sorry, 1994.

The amendments to the legislations are being proposed to validate the quarry fees and charges that have been levied by municipalities to protect the current practice of municipalities with regard to the administration of quarries which the government has delegated to them.

Almost every community in the Northwest Territories has at least one local quarry that provides sand, gravel or other granular material. The legislation governing municipalities in the Northwest Territories is old and recent court cases have challenged the validity of certain aspects of the quarry arrangements between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the communities.

The Department of Justice recommended that the existing legislation be amended to remove any uncertainty about the authority of the government to enter into agreements and leases with communities with respect to quarries. The proposed amendments intend to confirm that the government has and always has had the authority to enter into leases and agreements respecting quarries with communities.

Municipalities derive all of their powers from the statutory base. Without the expressed authorization to operate a quarry, it might be possible that someone would argue that the municipality did not have the legal authority to operate the quarry.

Further, the amendments come into force on the day of the first reading to preclude any further law suits with respect to past quarry operations. The Minister assures this committee that the arrangement does not modify any land claims. The committee is concerned, however, that this is the second time in a two-year period that the committee has reviewed amendments to the various municipal legislation. The committee is not convinced that the piecemeal review of the legislation is a profound way of ensuring that the legislation we have in place is the best it can be.

Given the age of the legislation and the implementation of various land claims, the committee suggests that the government review the legislation as a whole with a view to bringing it up to date. On September 9, 1994, the committee passed a motion that bills 9 to 12 were ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

Bill 9: An Act To Amend The Charter Communities Act
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 133

The Chair John Ningark

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. I am informed that the Minister for MACA has mentioned, in her opening remarks, all of the four bills, so we will now proceed to the next one. Would the Minister like to bring the witnesses before we open the general comments.