EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Could the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the officials and Mr. Tapardjuk out.
The next bill we’re going to review is Bill 32. I would now like to ask the Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Peterson, for his opening remarks.
Bill 32 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010 – Consideration in Committee
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation… oops, I’ve got the wrong comments. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can you give me a minute?
I have done this many times and I always have hiccups.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members.
Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, will allow the forgiveness of $130,909 to the outstanding loan balance from Avataq Enterprises Limited to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation. Due to the sinking of the Avataq in 2000, the company ceased operations and the loan became uncollectible.
In September 2008, Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2008-2009, was assented to.
This bill approved the write-off of $50,537.71, which represents a portion of the loan and accrued interest.
A write-off does not extinguish the government’s right to collect a debt or obligation owed to the government. As such, the loan has continued to accrue interest.
Bill 32 proposes to extinguish the debt through an act of forgiveness in accordance with section 25(1) of the Financial Administration Act.
Bill 32 will forgive the $50,537.71 previously written off as well as the remaining loan balance and accrued interest.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have witnesses but they’re not here right now. They’re on their way.
Chairman: Can the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort Minister Peterson to the witness table.
Are there any general comments on the opening remarks?
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some very brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010.
The standing committee recognizes that the purpose of the bill is to forgive a debt owed to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
In light of the circumstances surrounding this matter, the committee agrees that this is an appropriate course of action.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, members raised the issue of insuring loans that are issued by the corporation, especially those that are of significant value for the acquisition of equipment and other capital assets.
The standing committee appreciated the minister’s commitment to working with the minister responsible for the corporation to review this issue.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 32 to all members.
Are there any general comments? I have no members on the list for general comments.
We will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill starting on page 11. Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010. Clause 1.
Go to Schedule on page 2. Clause 1. Do you agree?
Chairman: We will go to Schedule on page 2. Schedule. Do you agree?
Just a quick question on the Schedule. Well, accidents do happen. There was a very unfortunate event with Avataq Enterprises.
However, that still creates a burden on families if the loans are not insured. I want to ask the minister if he will make sure that future loans from our corporations will be insured so that the families are not burdened to repay those loans. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Mr. Arvaluk for the question and comment.
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation makes the loans and they’re well aware of the nature of loans and the types of security, whether they’re for corporations or sole proprietors.
It would be up to them to determine what type of security that they wish to take and the types and level of insurance that has to be provided to cover a loan.
I have assured the member in meetings earlier this week that we would communicate his concern to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
Can there be a clause somewhere in the contract for a loan not to burden families in the event an incident like that happens with future loans, for example, for protection of families who might be victimized by the incident?
Again, Mr. Chairman, it would be up to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation the type of security they take for a loan and it would probably be up to the individual or individuals running the business to determine life insurance requirements.
I certainly hope that when they do get advice from economic development officers or other Nunavut Business Credit Corporation officials that that type of insurance is discussed fully with them so that they ensure that in the worst case scenario, their relatives are not burdened with trying to repay a loan, especially large loans.
Mr. Arvaluk: The last question, Mr. Chairman, is: would you instruct your corporations to develop some kind of policy so that those smaller loans’ policy be set so that in the event of incidents like that, the families are not burdened to repay in the event that there is a death in the family or an accident, like Avataq Enterprises, and that the families are not victimized?
I thank Mr. Arvaluk for again reiterating his concern for the families who face these unfortunate circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation is in his chair and perhaps if I could ask him to respond to Mr. Arvaluk as it will help clear out his request.
We will go back to the Schedule on page 2.
Mr. Okalik: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was not planning to speak, but while the Minister for the Business Credit Corporation is here, perhaps it is timely to ask that perhaps the corporation should be directed to ensure that where there is a loan, the corporation insists on insurance for the capital assets that are being used for the purposes of those loans in the future.
So if the minister responsible could commit to reviewing this, I’ll be content for the time being.
I thank Mr. Okalik for that question, including Mr. Arvaluk there.
This loan was disbursed to Avataq Enterprises on August 10 of 1995.
With the offer of a loan, there is supposed to be an annual review conducted on a loan which would ensure that there is insurance updated for the entity.
But since 1996, there was no review done or there is no evidence that there was ever an annual review done and that is why this unfortunate situation happened, which put a lot of burden on the family.
The NBCC has a policy in the procedures manual that requires annual reviews of files and loans, and that’s exactly what the annual review is supposed to catch, to make sure that insurance had been acquired by the proponents to prevent hardship on the families.
We will go back to page 2. Schedule.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 32 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 32 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman: Does Minister Peterson have any closing comments?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank yourself and the committee for asking those good questions.
Again, as indicated by my colleague, Minister Taptuna, we have a little ways to go to ensure that the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation is functioning the way it should and the annual review of insurance policies is certainly something that we will stress.
Again I thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.
Bill 15 – Legal Treatment of Apologies Act – Consideration in Committee
I don’t know if you want to bring any witnesses in now for Bill 15.
Minister Peterson, would you like to introduce your witnesses?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To my right is Susan Hardy from our Legislative Division and to my left is Richard Paton from our Policy Division.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. I would now like to ask you to do your opening comments.
I am pleased to present Bill 15, the Legal Treatment of Apologies Act. I would also like to thank the Committee for your letter last year. We considered your suggestions prior to making final adjustments to this bill.
Adjustments have been made in the definition of “action” and “offense” in section 1 and 3.
The intent is to affirm and clarify the scope of application of this bill and to ensure that important forms of administrative proceedings, such as professional discipline, are not inadvertently excluded or left unclear.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate apologies and the more respectful resolution of disputes. The proposed Legal Treatment of Apologies Act will change the existing legal balance by removing several risks that impede efforts to resolve a dispute through respectful dialogue and cooperation.
However, legal protection will remain available for those who choose to sue for damages or use other forms of legal protection.
The first section of Bill 15 deals with definitions, including the definition of “apology.”
This may seem lengthy, but the description is needed to ensure uniform impact of apology legislation throughout Canada.
The definition is broad intentionally, to cover all kinds of interpersonal relations, words, and gestures that might signify an apology.
This is needed to strengthen the usefulness of apologies in the resolution of many disputes.
Bill 15 also sets out the scope and substance of the protection accorded to apologies. The bill applies to all persons, natural and corporate.
The application of the bill includes any civil law matter. It is not restricted to particular categories, such as negligence.
The proposed bill shifts the legal balance by providing that an apology is not an admission of fault or liability.
The bill also provides that apologies will have no impact on the limitation period within which a law suit or action must be commenced.
Finally, it is important to clarify that criminal law rules or procedures, being federal, cannot be impacted by this law.
Territorial or municipal offences are also excluded.
The bill would not alter the current legal status or uses of any evidence, plea, or conviction arising from any such offence.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 15, Legal Treatment of Apologies Act.
Mr. Chairman, many jurisdictions across the country have introduced legislation over the last four years that is intended to make it easier for people and organizations to apologize for unfortunate events that affect people’s lives.
In far too many cases, present and past, individuals or individuals representing organizations may wish to offer an apology. However, they do not do so because without the protection of legislation, such as the bill before us, the apology could be used as evidence in a civil proceeding, such as a lawsuit.
Mr. Chairman, an apology can constitute an important step in the healing process. In many cases, an apology can help to resolve a dispute before it gets anywhere near a lawsuit. However, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it clear that even under the proposed legislation, the issuing of an apology does not mean that individuals cannot still sue for damages or begin legal proceedings.
It is also important to note that the proposed legislation does not apply in cases where individuals are prosecuted under criminal law or under territorial or municipal laws.
Mr. Chairman, prior to the introduction of the bill, the committee engaged in a very productive exercise of views with the minister on this initiative.
This dialogue resulted in a much stronger piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee is in support of the proposed legislation before us today.
Mr. Chairman, during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, members recognized that this issue is one of particular concern to health care practitioners.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge the submission from the Canadian Medical Protective Association and their support for the proposed legislation.
I will be tabling a copy of the association’s submission at the appropriate time.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 15 to all members. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill starting with page 1. Bill 15, Legal Treatment of Apologies Act.
Chairman: Pursuant to Rule 62(2), is the committee agreed that Bill 15 can be immediately placed on the orders of the day?
Chairman: Now we will proceed to Bill 16.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson for Justice if he has any opening remarks.
Bill 16 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
Bill 16 clarifies the authority of the Nunavut Court of Justice and the Nunavut Court of Appeal to prevent the commencement or continuation of vexatious proceedings, which is groundless litigation that occurs when someone files large volumes of documents, claims, and accusations without reason.
The proposed changes to the Judicature Act codify and clarify the inherent jurisdiction of the Nunavut Court of Justice to respond to problematic behaviour in legal proceedings that may constitute an abuse of the court’s process.
This amendment provides a clearer framework for the court to intervene if they believe a person is persistently starting legal proceedings without basis.
Consistent with other jurisdictions, our Nunavut Court of Justice would have the power to issue an order and prevent a person from continuing or commencing proceedings when they are not formed on a reasonable basis.
After a vexatious litigation order has been made, the person who has an order against them can begin legal proceedings, but the court will only allow the case to proceed on a reasonable basis.
If the court finds no reasonable basis and refuses to hear the proceeding, the person cannot appeal that decision.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation have any comments?
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
The standing committee recognizes that this bill has been introduced in order to enable the Nunavut Court of Justice to deal more effectively with the costly problem of vexatious litigants.
Vexatious litigants are people who abuse legal proceedings. This takes time away from legitimate claims and it causes unnecessary costs for those people defending against groundless claims.
The standing committee is of the view that this initiative is an appropriate and reasonable measure.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 16 to all members. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Okalik. Are there any general comments?
I have no members on the list.
We will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 16 as a whole?
Chairman: Pursuant to Rule 62(2), is the committee agreed that Bill16 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman: Now we are going to proceed to Bill 17.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson, responsible for Justice, if he has any opening remarks.
Bill 17 – Justice Statutes Amendment Act – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present the Justice Statutes Amendment Act. Administration of Nunavut’s laws occasionally raises issues of statutory interpretation.
To clarify the statutory intent and avoid ambiguity, the Department of Justice has prepared this omnibus bill, which amends four justice-related Acts.
The Children’s Law Act gives the Nunavut Court of Justice the power to order a parent to pay child support and determine the amount and duration of support through sections 59 to 62.
These orders often contain a provision assigning administrative officials the task of periodically monitoring the amount of support and increasing it.
The Act does not expressly authorize this practice, though it is arguably within the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The first proposed clause of this bill authorizes the maintenance enforcement administrator and their officials to periodically monitor the amount of court ordered support and to increase or, where appropriate, decrease support in accordance with the statutory guidelines.
Clause 5 is designed to avoid any possible challenge to what has occurred in the past, pursuant to court order.
Clause 2 amends the Corrections Act to expressly authorize the transfer of territorial inmates to a correctional facility outside Nunavut.
Although the Act arguably confers the requisite authority, the amendment is being made for greater certainty.
I was pleased to respond recently to the standing committee’s questions as it relates to this clause and I look forward to taking the time here today to provide additional information that may be required.
The Interpretation Act governs the interpretation of all other statutes.
It is important that this Act reflect the realities of Nunavut as well as modern administrative practices.
Many Acts give the commissioner wide powers and duties ordinarily performed by ministers or public officials.
Proposed subclause 3(3) adds a new provision giving express authority to act on behalf of the commissioner. Similarly, many Acts also give a minister wide powers and duties which are ordinarily performed by public officials that are not expressly authorized.
I was pleased to be able to work openly with the Standing Committee on Legislation to improve this section of the bill.
Proposed subclause 3(3) now provides express authority to act on behalf of a minister where those persons are either appointed or where those persons are authorized in writing to do so by the minister.
The longest portion of this bill, proposed subclause 3(4), replaces the rules respecting the calculation of time.
Since the current rules set out in section 24 of the Act are not easy to read, the amendment is designed to make the rules more clear and understandable.
Finally, the bill corrects the Statutory Instruments Act.
Section 17 of that Act gives the registrar of regulations the power to modify existing regulations when preparing either a consolidation or a revision.
The revision of regulation involves careful scrutiny of every regulation for internal consistency, consistency with standard drafting practices, and technical errors.
Since a consolidation simply reflects the current state of the regulation, the broad power in 17 should be limited to revisions.
Proposed clause 4 does this.
In addition, proposed clause 4 gets rid of the arcane process requiring revised regulations to be prepared in a roll and submitted to the Speaker.
I was pleased to be able to work collaboratively with the standing committee on the development of this bill.
The standing committee’s input into this bill, including comments and questions, has helped make this bill better.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 17, Justice Statutes Amendment Act.
The Department of Justice has introduced this bill in order to propose amendments to four Acts.
The Children’s Law Act is being amended to explicitly authorize the maintenance enforcement administrator to periodically recalculate the amount of child support.
While the Act provides for guidelines on this matter and while the practice is currently undertaken, this amendment serves to explicitly authorize it.
The standing committee is in agreement with this proposed amendment.
The Corrections Act is being amended to authorize the transfer of inmates on remand to correctional facilities outside of Nunavut. The Act already provides for the transfer of inmates to correctional facilities outside of Nunavut. However, this amendment serves to explicitly authorize the practice of transferring inmates on remand to correctional facilities outside of Nunavut.
The standing committee is in agreement with this amendment.
During its consideration of Bill 17, the standing committee worked with the minister to amend some of the proposed provisions concerning the Interpretation Act.
One of these amendments provided additional clarity and certainty regarding ministerial authority to authorize the exercise of powers on the minister’s behalf.
The standing committee was of the view that it would be prudent to amend this provision. This amendment ensures that the minister doing the delegation is clearly responsible for the actions of his or her delegates.
The other amendment deleted a proposed provision in the bill concerning the actions of public office-holders who have not been properly appointed to their office.
The standing committee was of the view that the government should make greater efforts to ensure that office-holders are properly appointed prior to their exercising statutory powers.
I wish to take this opportunity to note the standing committee’s appreciation for the cooperative manner in which the minister worked with the standing committee on this bill to achieve these amendments.
I would like to thank the staff for doing the work diligently and expeditiously.
Finally, the Statutory Instruments Act is being amended to delete an obsolete section and to update terminology.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 17, as amended and reprinted, to all members.
Are there any general comments? Mr. Arvaluk.
In regard to the opening comments of our chairperson, I support him fully, but I have one question.
In the minister’s opening comments on paragraph 2, if we look at sections 59 to 62, the Nunavut Court of Justice has the power to order a parent to pay child support and determine the amount and duration of support.
I have been touching up on the issue for quite a number of years now, where the parents of a child, the fathers especially, leave Nunavut, abandoning their child and not providing support.
Is it true that according to these sections under Children’s Law Act, sections 59 to 62, if you move to Vancouver, for example, you still have to pay child support? Would that be the case?
Mr. Chairman, that amendment will help standardize the financial obligation to the child in Nunavut.
We will now proceed to go clause-by-clause on Bill 17. Bill 17. Reprint.
Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. Clause 1. Agreed?
Chairman: Now go to Schedule A. We will go to the schedule on page 6.
Schedule A. Agreed?
Chairman: We will go to the schedule on page 7.
Schedule B. Agreed?
Chairman: Go to clause 3.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 17 reprint as a whole?
Chairman: Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are members agreed that Bill 17 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 26 – Securities Transfer Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: We will proceed to Bill 26.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson if he has any opening remarks on Bill 26.
Before I commence, I would like to call another witness.
Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Peterson.
I would like to thank my Director of Policy, Richard Paton, for being here today and I would like to call a new witness, Louis Arki.
Chairman: Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witness in, please.
Minister Peterson, for the record, could you introduce the witness again, please.
I would like to introduce Louis Arki. He’s the superintendent of securities for Nunavut.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Go ahead with your opening remarks.
I am pleased to present the Securities Transfer Act.
Currently, there is no Securities Transfer Act in Nunavut.
Current legislation fails to deal adequately with modern securities market practices, particularly the holding and trading of securities electronically through multiple tiers of intermediaries.
This bill creates certainty within a complex set of rules relating to the transfer of securities. The bill also provides for consequential amendments to the Business Corporations Act, Personal Properties Security Act, and Seizures Act.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed bill has six parts and numerous subparts. The highlights of each of the six parts of Bill 26 are as follows: