This is page numbers 4621 - 4676 of the Hansard for the 18th Assembly, 3rd 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 communities.

Topics

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4671

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Minister.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4671

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Yes. As I mentioned earlier, it is not unusual to have limitations in proceedings. I know there has been a good deal of discussion back and forth with committee about this very section. I thought we were inching towards a compromise, but I will hear further from the Members. Thank you.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4671

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4671

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am interested in hearing more about this compromise, but the way this has been written, you know, this bill is coming forward a year later than it should have under the mandate commitment. I think there are people out there expecting that they are going to be able to access the services that may be provided under this act.

Having this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud is not helpful at all in terms of resolution of complaints that may come forward from our constituents. I have expressed this concern to the Minister. We are not even sure what the word "commencement" means in terms of the context of this bill; does it mean when the Ombud is appointed or when the legislation receives assent? I think there are some issues around that as well.

This is the bill that I really and probably will die on in terms of this bill. This is not good. We shouldn't have this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud in the bill. The Ombud should have the ability to, and has discretion to, accept complaints. This matter of reaching back into time, that is something that the Ombud should be left with a discretion to do; to do that if necessary and make up his or her mind about whether there is a valid complaint. Putting in artificial restriction in here is not, I think, going to satisfy our residents. I don't think it's good drafting, and quite frankly, I think it's against open government and it's against transparency and public engagement, which this Minister stands for. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4671

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Minister.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I say, there has been a good deal of discussion back and forth. It seemed to us that it was necessary to choose some date and I would be interested in hearing from the Regular Members as to what date they think is reasonable. I thought we had had some discussions that were leading to an agreement with respect to that. Thank you.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you, Minister. Right now, Mr. O'Reilly has the floor. Mr. O'Reilly.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't want to drag this out. I think there is a real difference of approach and opinion here about this matter.

This is not just coming from me as a Member. We heard this from members of the public. We heard it from the godmother to this bill, Ms. Bisaro. This is not good drafting. I don't think it is consistent with what I had hoped for coming out of this bill. It is not what the public has said to the standing committee, and I think that this should not be supported. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Minister.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

In discussions with members of committee, I thought we had come to some agreement with respect to this section. As I say, it is not unusual in law that there are limitations. In fact, although it is not quite the same kind of limitation, even section 22(1) talks about complaints, and section 22(1)(a), which is not a hard limitation in the same way, but I think that some limitation on the Ombud going back is reasonable. Thanks.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Is there anything further from Mr. O'Reilly?

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

I think there may be a motion coming forward on this. The last point I want to make is that this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud sends out all of the wrong signals to the public, and I think it will deter people from coming to this officer for trying to resolve their issues with our government. I just don't think it serves the public interest. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Committee Motion 86-15(3): Ombud Act - Deleting subclause 15(1) and substituting the following, Defeated
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4672

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Testart.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill 20 be amended by deleting subclause 17(3) and substituting the following:

(3) The Ombud may investigate any decision, recommendation, act, order, or omission within the Ombud's mandate that occurred no earlier than January 1, 2016. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. Has the motion been distributed? The motion has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. Testart.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope that this amendment can shed some light to the exchange that my honourable friends from Thebacha and Frame Lake just had.

The committee's initial motion was to remove any such temporal limitations on the Ombud's mandate. The Minister did not concur during the standing committee review. The committee has since worked with the Minister's office to try to find a compromise, understanding the government's concerns around wide backwards-looking powers of the Ombud.

A decision was reached that January 1, 2016, at the beginning of this government's mandate, was an appropriate limitation to the temporal jurisdiction of the Ombud. I am pleased to move this, as it represents collaboration between both sides to find common ground moving forward, and I encourage Members to support this amendment that will allow the Ombud a bit more flexibility to deal with historic cases or complaints that may come forward. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to call on our law clerk to help me understand the effect of this clause. If an individual came forward to the Ombud, and the beginning of their journey, their concern about administrative issues, administrative conduct, started before January 1, 2016, would the Ombud have jurisdiction to look at that complaint? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Law Clerk Of The House Mr. Rutland

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would depend on the specific decision, recommendation, act, order, or omission. An Ombud may determine that it is a continuing act or omission and therefore would look at that, or if it is something that may happen on a repeated basis. While the conduct may have actually first started before a specific date, if that decision is made on an ongoing basis, that recommendation may be made on an ongoing basis, or an order, or even the failure to do something, could be interpreted as an ongoing conduct, that would ultimately be at the discretion of the Ombud.

If, for example, the head of authority felt that the specific act or decision was specifically before January 1, 2016, that would be a basis for saying to the Ombud that that is not within their jurisdiction, and ultimately, the Ombud could go on their own volition to the court to clarify that.

Otherwise, there is a lot of discretion given to the Ombud in looking at that. It would really depend on the specific fact situation.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the assistance of the law clerk. I still think that this is going to create some uncertainty and may lead to something being marched off to court, where the better solution is to just remove any temporal restriction on the mandate of the Ombud.

I am concerned that this will still act as a deterrent to individuals who wish to bring forward complaints. I guess I want to go on the public record as saying that, whoever the Ombud is, if this passes, I would encourage them to take the broadest possible interpretation of their mandate, that anything that has started after or even is a continuation of anything after January 1, 2016, that they would interpret their mandate very broadly and be able to investigate any acts or omissions or conduct, even if it happens before January 1, 2016.

The other thing I want to go on the public record, Mr. Chair, about is that I would request that the Ombud, whoever that person is in the future, document any cases that they feel that they don't have jurisdiction because of this hard deadline that could get inserted into the bill, so that future MLAs can see whether this is having an impact on the jurisdiction of the Ombud, and I want that sort of information to be recorded in their annual report.

I can't compel that. It is my suggestion. I want to draw attention to this, because I think it is poor public policy, but I want it documented in some way for future MLAs so that they can fix this problem. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

To the motion. Minister Sebert.

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The date of January 1, 2016, seemed reasonable to us because it went back to certainly after we were elected and came to this House, and clearly, this is an issue that is important to the Assembly, which we have now brought forward. We thought that going back to that date is reasonable, because we thought that some date needed to be inserted. Again, we think that is a reasonable date.

I mentioned earlier section 22. Of course, the Ombud has certain discretion under that section, but we thought that this section, again, was reasonable and is a compromise, not totally what we wanted, not totally what all Members wanted, but a reasonable compromise. For that reason, Cabinet will be supporting this. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair R.J. Simpson

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.