Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the lawyers representing both parties would be from separate offices, the files are separate. Obviously, we need them physically separated. We need to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. The employer would still be the Legal Services Board or the GNWT, but we do feel it's important to have that separation, that physical separation. That's how it currently exists today. We are going even further to make sure that administration is separated from the local clinics as well, so there is a further barrier and no file sharing.

The one other issue I think that is important would be the fact that there is no information flow between the two offices. We do have some protocols; we discussed some protocols and some directives that can be given to lawyers. Obviously, they are governed by their code of conduct. I will go to Ms. Austin to talk about the kinds of protocols that we can potentially develop to further aid us here in avoiding conflicts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Austin.

Thank you, Ms. Austin. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Ms. Austin. One of our witnesses, Ms. Peterson, when she appeared before us, she gave us an example. I think in her view, even if you have separate offices in legal services, that is not any different from any law firms and many large law firms and even law firms in Yellowknife where they have offices in Yellowknife, Vancouver and Toronto. There are lots of branch offices here where they are headquartered elsewhere. Even if a lawyer has a file in Yellowknife, a lawyer employed by that same law firm based in Vancouver would not be able to take on the other side of the same file. That would constitute a conflict. The distinction here is that while the law firm where they have branch offices here, they would share the same admin offices and the same files, whereas the legal aid offices here do not. The crucial matter here is the definition of what a law firm is. Some witnesses who came before us in our public hearings felt that the legal aid office as a whole, whether or not the legal aid office is including their branch offices in Inuvik and two offices in Yellowknife, constitute a law firm, and that two lawyers within this law firm should be able to represent two sides on a file.

Some of the suggestions that she made was to do a very strong disclosure when the clients come and they get a lawyer assigned within legal aid here, that they are advised about the fact that a family law file, one spouse gets legal assistance from legal aid. Say if it's a man, his ex-wife, his current wife or his separated wife, if she gets assigned anther lawyer from the legal aid, that they are advised that they are being represented by legal aid, both, and that there would be some kind of consent or acknowledgement so they are aware that they are being represented by the same legal aid service. Can I ask the Minister what steps in that regard they are taking to make sure that people who come to the legal aid office and if both parties are represented by legal aid, that they will be made aware of that and address that possible conflict of interest? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, a number of points were made by the Member. Let me first start by saying we are working to try to get more members to the private bar who would be interested in doing this type of legal aid work as it relates to civil matters. We are working cooperatively with the Law Society on recruitment and retention initiatives. We have been doing some joint work at ventures in the South to try to recruit more members into the bar. I think that is the answer. Ideally, we would like to not have this issue. Other larger jurisdictions have the luxury, where there are more members doing this kind of work, to insist that a staff lawyer from the government only represent one party. We would like to be able to insist on that in future. So we would need to continue to work. But in the interim, if we were to stipulate that we can only represent one party in a case, it would result in material delays to getting to court and seeing representation. That is our first aim, to see that all parties have competent and timely legal help, legal advice, legal representation.

So we would agree that the issue of disclosure is important and we are intending to make sure that both parties understand the nature of the relationship, the employment relationship. In fact, including that they are supervised by the same director and the employer is the Legal Services Board. So we would agree that it makes sense to provide that information, provide full disclosure and also go a step further in ensuring that both parties acknowledge that they understand this relationship, this employment relationship.

We do have a concern about seeking client consent. Members obviously know that any party can decide that they don't feel comfortable with this and they can walk away and go and find somebody in the private bar if they so choose for themselves. Our concern is having them, we think it would be potentially right for abuse, having them able to say they won't give their consent and forcing the other party to go and look for a lawyer in the private bar. There is the potential for that abuse and it would cause significant delays. So we agree with the disclosure. We agree that there should be some acknowledgement provision built in. We have a concern with the consent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Are there any further general comments on Bill 3? Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you. A short comment, Mr. Chair. I certainly want to encourage this strong protocol, folks, in terms of implementing this legislation here and the situation we, in the Northwest Territories, have to deal with in terms of the shortage of lawyers and the court issue and making this legislation sensitive to people in the smaller communities to deal with and having a strong procedure in place that would ensure that they are getting the services they require to handle sensitive and difficult issues in the court proceedings.

I just want to urge the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I also note the Minister's comments in the interim. In an ideal world, we want to see that this doesn't have to be the case here. However, because of the situation we are in, our finances, that's the challenge we have in our communities. I guess that's what happens when you live in a shoe. You have to deal with what you have to deal with. I hope that some day we will take a look at this legislation again and deal with it in that way. A witness came before us and spoke about the issues of conflict of interest and how we deal with that. So I am going to support the bill on this. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I didn't hear a question there. I am going to move to the next general comment. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was an interesting process for me. I am always learning around here and this one gave me some insights into the legal community and the significance of conflict and how it's managed and assessed. I speak in favour of the amendment. But to this aspect that was brought to our attention, that is the providers of this service to the public of the NWT, we must also be mindful of this very significant principle of providing legal services. While we are cognizant of potential conflicts that will occur or have occurred or are occurring and will, that we can, with good administration and good practice and good protocol, avoid the true consequences of a conflict inadvertent or otherwise. In fact, if I recall, the witnesses that appeared before committee, while they pointed out the legal services administration, they also indicated that with good practise, they were supportive of the bill going through. So that is what gives me the confidence to endorse this amendment and the certainties that we were given by the Minister and his staff that, indeed, we can protect the general public and clients from the consequences from the bad side of conflict. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Braden. Next on the list I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a short follow-up question. We learned during our public hearings, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister that the NWT Law Society was consulted on this legislation and that the Minister received consent or approval from the Law Society. So could I ask the Minister what form of public consultation has taken place with the Law Society? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how the Law Society handled the consultation with their own membership. We brought it to their attention and presumably they took it to their membership. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Anything further, Ms. Lee?

Maybe our Law Clerk can help me with this. It was committee's understanding that the Law Society was formally contacted. I think it's important that they have a say in this. It was our understanding from somebody that this was communicated to them and they had no objection to this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Anything further, Ms. Lee? Thank you. Any further general comments on Bill 3?

Does committee agree we go clause by clause?

Thank you, committee. We are on Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act. Page 1, clause 1.