To the Minister: I have to express my surprise and my huge concern that the Minister is not aware that this stretch of road needs upgrad

ing. It’s not an access road; this is a GNWT

highway, a territorial highway. Albeit, it’s in the city of Yellowknife, but at the moment it’s a territorial highway, and if the Minister doesn’t know that it needs upgrading, it’s no surprise that we haven’t had any success.

To the Minister: he’s going to have this meeting. At this meeting is the Minister willing to commit to provide funds to get the repair work done that’s needed on this road? Thank you.

If that’s a new project,

then it will have to come to the House for approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So that’s

not going to happen for about five years, then, if we go through the capital p

rocess. It’s well beyond

that. This is not a new project. It’s something that’s been on the books for quite a long time.

So, if the GNWT is not willing to do the work, will GNWT accept the bill from the city when they do the work and hand over the bill? Thank you.

Like I indicated, we will meet with the City of Yellowknife. If a solution is for the City of Yellowknife to improve the road, if it needs improvement and it’s agreed on this side of the House and that side of the House that we can do a supplementary appropriation to pay for the road that’s been rebuilt to standard by the city, then that’s the direction we’ll go. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On February 9th I asked the Premier a question on

whether he forwarded on the motion to other Premiers. That motion was the one that was passed in this House regarding the missing and murdered indigenous women. Of course, the Premier says he acts on all motions passed in this House and said he would check on it. He offered to forward me all the copies of the letters. I said I don’t need all of the copies, I just need a note to say that they’ve done this. I also accepted that maybe if it had not been done at that time, to ensure it was done.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve waited a month, technically a month and a day to find out if this motion was ever sent. I am wondering what the Premier has done with that request from February 9th that goes back

to the earlier motion that was passed in this Assembly to send the motion to other Premiers in Legislatures to encourage them to pass a motion of a similar type. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The letters have not gone as of yet and the planning for the Round Table on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women, the advice we received was that to introduce the concept of a motion at this stage would confuse and complicate the planning for the round table. So now that the Round Table on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women has occurred, we will be proceeding forthwith to send out the letters to all of the provincial and territorial Legislatures. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be very clear, the letter will be sent out to all Legislatures and all Premiers. Will you be sending out our motion suggesting they do something similar? I just want to be clear on the record. Thank you.

That was my understanding. We will follow the direction that was outlined in the motion that was passed by this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand, and some days I like to think I

’m reasonable in the area of things

happening.

Can the Premier explain why it’s taken this long to address this matter that was directed by the House? Was there a technical issue? I didn’t quite understand the confusion part he was referring to when he gave his first answer about different directions. If we could get a clear answer about why it took this long, thank you.

In the planning for the Round Table on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women, it was felt that an interjection of this motion to all the provinces and territories would be a complicating factor, because if we sent it out to all the provinces and territories, some of them may think it would be sufficient to just pass a motion in their Legislative Assembly rather than participate in the Round Table on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish the Premier had let us know that earlier. My question and concern is who would have authority over the House authority to provide the direction? Would it be staff who said this? Has the Premier decided, or would it be multiple… I’m trying to appreciate and understand and get to the bottom of who would have the authority to override this House’s discretion and decision to pass a motion and encourage you to forward it on to the other Legislatures. It just seems odd without letting us know. Thank you.

As I indicated, we will be sending out the motion to all the provincial and territorial Legislatures. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. For each horizontally fractured well in the Northwest Territories to date:

a) What was the source of the water used and

how much was consumed?

b) What was the quantity of greenhouse gases

emissions due to flaring, and how many days did flaring occur?

c) What was the amount and composition of each

additive used during fracking, and how is the flow of unrecovered produced water tracked underground?

d) How much produced water has been recovered

to date, what chemicals are in the recovered water, how is it being transported and disposed of, and what NWT communities does it travel through?

e) What monitoring of methane gas leakage from

the well pipe stems was carried out and what has been the amount of methane leakage that occurred during and following the fracking operations?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Programs is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 42: An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act and commends it to the House.

Introduction

Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, makes substantial improvements to the Residential

Tenancies

Act.

The

Standing

Committee on Social Programs commends the Minister for presenting the bill. It is the result of extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public.

Bill 42 will amend the act in a number of ways, including: allowing decisions of the rental officer to be enforced as an order of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories; allowing for early termination of a tenancy where family violence has occurred; establishing that termination procedures for public housing apply to monthly tenancies; requiring landlords to provide rent receipts on request;

providing

a

remedy

for

improper

termination resulting from a notice of rent increase; and clarifying that a condominium corporation may make applications to the rental officer.

Bill 42 was referred to the committee on November 6, 2014. The public hearing was held on February 2, 2015, and the clause-by-clause review was held on March 9, 2015. During the clause-by-clause review, the committee passed two motions to amend the bill, with the Minister’s agreement. These amendments are discussed below.

The committee heard from 10 stakeholders, including the Northwest Territories rental officer and the deputy rental officer; the Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner; Northern Properties Real Estate Investment Trust; the Salvation Army; the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission; and a handful of private citizens

and

community

advocates.

While

stakeholders indicated broad support for the bill, they also raised concerns. The remainder of this report addresses these concerns and recommends several courses of action. Enforceability of the Rental Officer’s Decisions

Public consultation on proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act took place in 2013. One prominent theme was the act’s failure to adequately support the enforcement of orders of the rental officer. While the act allows for orders to be filed with the Territorial C

ourts, these courts lack

the broader enforcement powers of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Separate legal steps are often required if a landlord or tenant fails to obey an order filed with the Territorial Court. This results in additional work and delays.

The committee is pleased that Bill 42 will strengthen enforceability by allowing any decision of a rental officer, including an eviction order, to be filed with the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.

However, the committee urges the department to address the potential for increased costs by, first, creating a separate fee schedule for enforcement of rental officer orders and, second, ensuring that Supreme Court fees remain in line with existing Territorial Court fees.

Transitional Housing

The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to certain types of accommodations, such as transitional housing, hotels and assisted-living units. In such arrangements, landlords and tenants do not have rights, obligations or protections under the act.

The committee found that stakeholders were divided in their views on transitional housing, including how to define it and whether to exempt it from the act.

The Salvation Army’s written

submission recommended an exemption for transitional housing. This would give transitional housing providers clear discretion to ban individuals who pose a safety risk. On the other hand, the rental officer and one community advocate argued

that transitional housing tenants should be protected just like market housing tenants. The community advocate further noted that facilities such as Bailey House and YWCA shelters charge substantial rent and use formal rental agreements, yet tenants must comply with very restrictive rules.

The committee subsequently asked the department to clarify its position on transitional housing. The department’s view was that transitional housing should be exempt from the act. It noted that subsection 6(2) effectively exempts transitional housing because it excludes shelters that house people

temporarily

and

housing

used

for

therapeutic or rehabilitative purposes. In other jurisdictions, the department continued, exemptions for transitional housing are common.

The department explained that transitional housing tenants who wish to seek redress can bring complaints to any of the following: the provider of the transitional housing; the Human Rights Commission; Members of the Legislative Assembly; the Minister responsible for funding the provider; or the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.

The department also advised against including a definition for transitional housing, providing three reasons: first, it would require further consultation with stakeholders; second, it may have unintended consequences such as reducing the level of support individuals now enjoy; and third, the act, in its current form, already effectively exempts transitional housing.

The committee ultimately determined that any amendments pertaining to transitional housing were outside the principle, or scope, of the bill. According to parliamentary convention, the committee is bound by the decision of the House in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading and is unable to amend the bill in a manner that is inconsistent or beyond the principle or scope of the bill.

However, the committee agreed to put forward three

recommended

actions

pertaining

to

transitional housing. First, the committee is urging the department to provide a definition for transitional housing in the next round of statutory amendments.

Second, the committee is urging the department to establish a definition for transitional housing under the regulations. As an interim measure, this would assist the rental officers in the course of their duties and eliminate ambiguity for transitional housing providers and the people they house.

Third, the committee is urging the department to provide protection for transitional housing tenants outside of the Residential Tenancies Act. The committee believes it is not fair that transitional housing tenants pay market rates, or close to market rates, and yet are not protected against

unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom and arbitrary evictions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to pass the report on to my colleague Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Moses.

Provisions for Victims of Domestic Violence

During the 2013 public consultation, stakeholders asked for a special provision that would allow victims of domestic violence to apply for early termination

of

a

tenancy

agreement.

The

department complied. Bill 42 relies on the definition of domestic violence provided in the Protection Against Family Violence Act and includes new provisions allowing a victim of family violence to apply for early termination. The application must be accompanied by a valid court document.

The

Information

and

Privacy

Commissioner

cautioned

that

there

may

be

significant

consequences if a landlord or rental officer fails to keep confidential the information pertaining to such an application. The committee looked into the matter and determined that, in the absence of an explicit offence provision, the act would merely establish a mandatory duty to keep information confidential but would not make a breach of confidentiality a punishable offence. For this reason, the committee requested an explicit offense provision. The Minister agreed, and a motion in support of the amendment was passed at the clause-by-clause review.

Other stakeholders raised questions about these provisions. A community advocate recommended an amendment to ensure that the violent spouse can be removed from a tenancy agreement and that the victim of violence is entitled to remain in the unit. The committee confirmed that provisions in the Protection Against Family Violence Act ensure that an applicant of a protection order or an emergency protection order cannot be evicted by a landlord simply because they are not a party to the tenancy agreement.

The

community

advocate

also

recommended that police reports or convictions qualify as evidence for a domestic violence application, and the committee is making a recommendation to this effect.

The

Northwest

Territories

Human

Rights

Commission

recommended

incorporating

a

provision to ensure that a victim of domestic violence is not held financially responsible for damage caused by a violent spouse. The department noted that a statutory remedy is already available through a separate application to the rental officer.

The deputy rental officer recommended a change to the act pertaining to the assignment of a new tenancy agreement where domestic violence has occurred. She noted that current provisions for assigning a new tenancy require the consent of the landlord, the current tenant and the new tenant. This, she indicated, is clearly impossible where the current tenant and new tenant have been ordered by the court not to have contact. However, the committee noted that Bill 42 explicitly allows a landlord to enter into a new tenancy arrangement with a victim of family violence.

The deputy rental officer also recommended a consequential amendment to the Protection Against Family Violence Act to clarify the distinction between sole and joint tenancies. The committee looked into this matter and found no need for such an amendment. The Protection Against Family Violence Act allows a court to grant a victim exclusive occupation of a family residence even if the victim is not a party to the rental agreement. It also prohibits a landlord from evicting the victim solely because the victim is not a party to the tenancy agreement. It further gives the victim the option of taking over the tenancy agreement. Any landlord who wishes to proceed with an eviction must do so under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act and have grounds for eviction under the act.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn this over to Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.

Security of Tenure

In market housing, a landlord who wishes to end a tenancy must generally obtain the agreement of the tenant. This means the tenant has security-of-tenure. However, since 2010, a new provision in the act allows a public housing landlord to end a fixed-term tenancy by giv

ing 30 days’ notice, with a

reason for termination. This provision contrasts with the security-of-tenure enjoyed by market housing tenants.

The committee noted that the matter of differential treatment

for

subsidized

housing

received

considerable

attention

prior

to

the

2010

amendments. The rental officer and numerous organizations viewed it as discriminatory. On the other hand, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, NWTHC, viewed it as essential for effective delivery of social housing.

During the review of Bill 42, the rental officer recommended repealing the provisions which effectively deny public housing tenants security-of-tenure. The department disagreed, stating that these provisions allow flexibility to deal with

changing circumstances of those occupying public housing and also ensure that public housing is reserved for low-income tenants.

At the request of the committee, the department clarified its rationale for excluding public housing tenants from security-of-tenure provisions and provided a discussion paper written by the NWTHC. The discussion paper made three main points. First, because fixed-term agreements for public housing tenants do not include security-of-tenure, the NWTHC can give high-risk tenants a second chance where such tenants would be unable to secure a market rental. The NWTHC requires a mechanism for ending the tenancy if the problem behaviour continues. If the provision were to be removed, the NWTHC would have to discontinue its practice of giving high-risk tenants a second chance. The NWTHC maintains that this would not be in the public interest.

Second, the NWTHC believes that a reversal of the current provisions would have a cascade effect. For example, it would be difficult to rent out a unit when the primary tenant is away at school and wishes to return to the unit. As well, fixed-term agreements allow for short-term tenancies in an alternate unit if a fire or flood has

damaged the tenant’s primary

unit.

Third, if a tenant’s fixed-term agreement is terminated, there are numerous options for tenants who feel they have been unfairly treated: they can raise the issue at a public meeting of the local housing office, LHO; they can raise the issue with the NWTHC’s district office; they can launch an appeal; or they can request assistance from Members of the Legislative Assembly.

The department further asserted that security-of-tenure provisions for subsidized housing in the Northwest Territories are generous compared to those in many other jurisdictions, citing British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Nunavut as examples.

In the matter of security-of-tenure provisions, the committee members’ views were not uniform. Some believe that, in the case of market rentals, security-of-tenure provisions are too onerous for landlords.

I will now pass it on to my colleague Ms. Bisaro.