Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, No. 2.

The proposed amendment clarifies that the rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories govern proceedings before the court by repealing the reference to the rules of the Alberta Supreme Court. Since the Northwest Territories Rules of Court have been in use for many years, there is no need to refer to the rules of the Supreme Court of Alberta.

Additionally, this proposed amendment transfers to the Commissioner from the Supreme Court, the power to make regulations setting tariffs of fees and expenses in civil and criminal matters.

Finally, this proposed amendment establishes the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Currently, there is a senior justice who manages the court. The Judicature Act provides that the court is composed of four judges, deputy judges and supernumerary judges. The size of the court justifies the need for a Chief Justice. Those are my opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to report, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Legislation, on Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, No. 2.

The Standing Committee on Legislation has had the opportunity to complete its review of Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, No. 2, and the committee is ready to report its findings to the House.

Bill 12 proposes to amend the Judicature Act of the NWT in four ways:

1. creating the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

2. move the fixing of tariffs of fees and expenses into regulations;

3. removing references to the rules of the Alberta Supreme Court; and,

4. eliminating fees paid to jury panels and non-expert witnesses.

The amendments proposed in Bill 12 are generally administrative in nature. They would not change the legislation in a substantial way, they would change the manner in which pre-existing functions are administered.

The standing committee supports the creation of the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as the moving of the fixing of tariffs of fees and expenses into regulations. The creation of the office of the Supreme Court Chief Justice would formally recognize the responsibilities currently being provided by the senior judge of the Supreme Court and the fixing of tariffs of fees and expenses in regulation to allow for the revisions of fees in a timely manner.

The standing committee, however, did have many reservations regarding the elimination of fees for jury panels and non-expert witnesses. The Minister explained that this amendment was introduced as a cost-saving measure. It was estimated that $150,000 could be saved by the government by eliminating these fees. Members of the standing committee felt that although the fee paid to jury panels and non-expert witnesses may be a token amount, it could prove a hardship on the public and therefore was not in the public interest.

Therefore, on December 13, 1994, the committee voted down clause 5 of Bill 12 with the concurrence of the Minister and the bill was referred to committee of the whole for deliberation as reprinted. That's the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Witnesses.

On my left, Carol Whitehouse, legislative counsel, Department of Justice; on my right, Nancy Robert, coordinator of court services, Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, the intent here is that it should be the government that sets the rates for tariffs and payment of fees, and not the courts. The courts should and are primarily interested in the process of the courts and delivering justice, as such, and have no primary interest in ensuring that they deal with issues like this. It's a revenue issue for this government, so that is the reason we make the suggestion we take it away from the courts and put it in the hands of the Commissioner; the Commissioner being the

government. As it states in legislation, "Commissioner" basically means the Cabinet makes the decisions by the Minister and forwards it to the Commissioner for approval.

The expenses of witnesses and those people called and required by the courts would continue. We haven't made any suggestions here to change that.