Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s response. The Minister mentioned earlier about a progress report, but will the Minister ensure that a complete review of the ATIPP Act is completed in time for all amendments to come forward within the life of the 17th Assembly?

If that is the wish of committee, we are happy to work with them.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Colleagues, before we continue on with Members’ oral questions, I’d like to welcome Mr. Geoff Wiest, chair of the Independent Commission on Members’ Compensation and Benefits; and Mr. David Krutko, a former Member and member of the commission. Welcome to the House.

The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to follow up with some questions to one of my Member’s statements earlier today on the coroner’s report. I have been reviewing some of the coroner’s reports since 2002, looking at some of the recommendations. I want to ask the Minister of Justice when the coroner’s reports come out of his department, who is responsible for addressing those recommendations out of the reports? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member obviously has taken a look at a number of the coroner’s reports. When looking at the reports, he will recognize that many of the recommendations are to different organizations, sometimes different departments within the Government of the Northwest Territories. When it is to a specific department, that department is responsible for responding to those recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my next question in terms of the responses to these recommendations: Is there a regulated guideline or regulation or some type of guideline to develop a timely response or a timely action to address these recommendations so that incidences that result in death don’t happen again? Is there something regulated in place right now? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no, there is nothing regulated indicating a timeline for turnaround on recommendations. The recommendations themselves are not legally binding, but the coroner does expect responses within three months after releasing her report. If she doesn’t receive the responses to the recommendations within three months, she usually follows up with the individual to whom the recommendation is made.

Just as a note, it’s important that we do get responses to these recommendations because the coroner does use these responses to inform future decisions. So it’s important that we do get responses. As a government, we are committed to responding to recommendations when they are made to us in individual departments or as the government as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last week, since we came back in session, there have been discussions about medical detox and treatment and psychiatrists within the NWT. In the 2002 coroner’s report, the same recommendations came out that we need a detox facility and we need more resident psychiatrists.

I know the Minister can’t speak for all the government, but would the Minister look at seeing what recommendations are made for his department and commit to looking at doing an audit over the last 10 years in which recommendations his department would be able to address and get those addressed? The longer we don’t address these recommendations, it just means people are continuing to slip through the hole and that is not acceptable. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If committee wants that information, I am happy to provide that information. Granted, over a 10-year period of time, it might take quite a bit of resources and time to pull that data together. A specific ask might be a little bit easier to accommodate, but regardless, if that’s what committee wants, I am happy to provide that information. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe 10 years is a little bit too long, but maybe I can ask the Minister to ensure his department, since the coroner’s office falls under his department, takes responsibility to ensure that other departments act on the recommendations in the reports, not for the last 10 years, but just try one year and try the last report, which was the 2011 report. Can I ask the Minister to at least attempt to do that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously happy to follow the request from committee, if that is what committee wants. We are happy to look at the last coroner’s report and provide a bit of an analysis from the Department of Justice perspective on actions taken. At the same time, the Member may want to have some discussions with some of the other Ministers where recommendations were made specifically to them as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to follow up on my Member’s statement from today and I have some questions today for the Minister of Justice. I discussed proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act in my Member’s statement, and a discussion paper which the Minister had put out during the month of September. One of the items in the discussion paper that I did not mention is titled Consistency with the Condominium Act and there are several provisions in there which the department is suggesting to bring the Residential Tenancies Act

in line with the Condominium Act. I agree with the proposal that is suggested, but I think there is one missing. I think the Residential Tenancies Act should also look at providing easy access or a mechanism for a condo corporation to collect on arrears. Condo members have condo fees. When they don’t pay them, they are in arrears.

I would like to know from the Minister whether or not anything exists now for a condo corporation if they have members who are heavily in arrears, is there a mechanism for them to collect and if there is not, would he consider adding it. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not aware of every specific clause within the Condominium Act, but I’m happy to have the department take a look at it and provide some additional information to the Member. As far as committing to something I haven’t read, that’s not something I’m prepared to do at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the Minister. Good on you for not agreeing to something you haven’t read. I am right there with you on that one.

One of the things I highlighted in my statement was rent controls and limits on rental increases. Rent controls are highly debatable. There will be probably as many people on the no side as there are on the yes side on rent controls. I highlighted that there is no option for tenants if there is what they consider to be an unfair increase in their rent.

I would like to know whether or not the Justice department, in looking at this Residential Tenancies Act and their paper, did they look at this issue of unjustified rent. And if so, why is it not part of their discussion paper? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we did go out with a discussion paper that had eight key themes. We did get a significant number of responses to that discussion paper. We are currently pulling together a “what we heard” document which we are hoping to have out later this fall, which we will be happy and absolutely we will be taking it to committee to discuss before we move forward with an LP. We do hope to move forward with a legislative proposal either shortly before Christmas or shortly after Christmas, where we have an opportunity to work with committee on how we move forward with this particular legislation. Obviously, as the Member said, there is a lot of debate on both sides of the rent control issue and we’re happy to have those conversations as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Minister for answering my last question. It is very nice to hear things are moving forward and to get a time frame for it.

My Member’s statement suggested three possible solutions to helping tenants if they have what they consider to be a heavy rent increase or put some sort of limits on landlords. I would like to ask the Minister if, having heard them now, although the discussion paper is closed and the review is underway, will the Minister consider the three solutions that I mentioned in my statement. Will he consider them as they look at amendments to the act? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the question and answer period doesn’t provide a lot of opportunities for the Member to provide the details. I have a vague idea of what the Member is alluding to and I’m happy to work with committee to have these conversations and move forward to have a Residential Tenancies Act that works for all residents in the Northwest Territories, both landlords and tenants. I would be happy to have the conversation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, and commends it to the House.

Introduction

Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, is a private member’s bill introduced by Norman Yakeleya, the MLA for Sahtu.

Although Mr. Yakeleya is a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, he declared a conflict of interest with respect to all committee discussions related to Bill 24, and did not attend the meetings or portions of the meetings where such discussion took place. Mr. Yakeleya, in his role as the sponsor of the bill, did attend all public hearings related to Bill 24.

The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review on June 6, 2013.

Passage of the bill would allow Sahtu communities to ask the Minister of Finance to hold a regional vote on limiting sales to individuals at a liquor store in the region. Currently, the only liquor store in the Sahtu region is in Norman Wells.

The bill provides the Minister with the option to order a vote if resolutions are received within a six-month period from councils representing at least three of the five Sahtu communities, provided they represent more than half the region’s population. The communities would have to agree on the proposal to be voted on.

Although the Norman Wells liquor store supplies all five Sahtu communities, the Liquor Act currently allows only Norman Wells residents to have a say on restrictions on sales to individuals.

On December 5, 2011, the people of Norman Wells voted by a narrow margin to lift liquor restrictions in their community. The restrictions had been in place since the 1970s. At that time the following daily limits were set on sales at the liquor stores in Norman Wells and Fort Simpson:

• 1140 ml of spirits and 12 beer; or

• 1140 ml of spirits and 2 litres of wine; or

• 2 litres of wine and 12 beer; or

• 24 beer and 1 litre of wine.

The liquor rationing system in Norman Wells was removed on February 1, 2012. However, Deline, Fort Good Hope and Tulita have restrictions on the amount of alcohol a person can bring into the community, similar to the maximum sales that were allowed at the liquor store in Norman Wells. The other Sahtu community, Colville Lake, has no restrictions.

Sales at the Norman Wells liquor outlet have increased since the lifting of restrictions. However, the change in restrictions appears to be only one of several factors that could account for rising sales.

In light of significant public interest, and the fact that Bill 24 represents the first request for a region to have a role in a liquor plebiscite, the standing committee decided to hold public hearings in Norman Wells, Deline, Tulita and Fort Good Hope.

The hearings took place between September 9

and

26, 2013. The turnout was strong in every community, resulting in total attendance of approximately 160 people. The committee received submissions from a range of individuals and organizations, both orally and in writing. Every community participated in the hearings, as a delegation from Colville Lake was present at the Norman Wells event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now pass it to my colleague Mr. Moses.