This bill rewrites how the Northwest Territories defines legal time: it removes references to Mountain Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time from the Interpretation Act and substitutes a single concept — “standard time” — to apply year‑round. The legislative change also repeals the existing Daylight Saving Time Regulations and gives the Commissioner in Executive Council authority to set the technical details by regulation.
The change matters because it freezes the clock (no more spring/fall changes) and shifts the operational details — the UTC offset and the official name for the territory’s time — from statute to the Executive Council. That delegation simplifies the statute but pushes implementation complexity into regulations and administrative action, with practical consequences for scheduling, IT systems, cross‑jurisdiction coordination, and any law or contract that references the older time terms.
At a Glance
What It Does
Substitutes a single, year‑round concept of “standard time” into the Interpretation Act, requires the Commissioner in Executive Council to make regulations establishing that standard time, and repeals the existing Daylight Saving Time Regulations.
Who It Affects
All territorial statutes and regulations that refer to time; territorial government operations; businesses and institutions that schedule across provincial, territorial, national or international time zones (transportation, broadcasting, finance, IT).
Why It Matters
The bill ends daylight saving clock changes and relocates the technical determination of time (UTC offset and name) to regulation—trading legislative clarity for regulatory flexibility and creating a discrete implementation task with cross‑border and systems impacts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act removes the two‑part legal framing of time (Mountain Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time) and replaces it with a single term — “standard time” — that will apply throughout the year. That substitution is a clean legal move: where statutes once said “Mountain Standard Time” or referred to the daylight saving clock change, they will now point to the new, uniform concept of standard time.
Rather than fixing the offset in the statute, the bill requires that standard time be determined by regulation as a number of hours behind Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The text also sets a default label — Mountain Time — but expressly allows the Commissioner in Executive Council to change the name by regulation.
Those two features (regulatory UTC offset and changeable name) mean the exact numeric offset and the public label are administrative choices, not legislative ones.The bill abolishes the existing Daylight Saving Time Regulations. Practically, that removes the statutory mechanism that once mandated spring/fall clock adjustments; once regulations under the new regime are in place and the law is proclaimed, territorial entities will stop observing a biannual time change.
The Act comes into force on a date set by the Commissioner, but before proclamation the Minister must provide an opportunity for public engagement on eliminating the time change and on setting the standard time.Because the statute delegates details to regulation and permits a name change, the Executive will have to draft implementing rules, coordinate with federal and neighbouring provincial systems (airlines, broadcasting schedules, interprovincial transportation, and time‑sensitive contracts), and manage a public outreach process. The law itself is short; the administrative and operational work to transition calendars, timestamps, and statutory references will be the heavier lift.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 20 of the Interpretation Act is repealed and replaced: any legal reference to time will mean “standard time.”, The bill instructs that standard time must be reckoned as a number of hours behind UTC as set in regulations (the statute does not fix the numeric offset).
Unless changed by regulation, the default name for standard time is “Mountain Time,” but the Commissioner in Executive Council may rename it by regulation.
The Daylight Saving Time Regulations (RRNWT 1990,c.I‑5) are expressly repealed, removing the existing regulatory basis for clock changes.
Before the Act is proclaimed in force the Minister must ensure an opportunity for public engagement with residents about eliminating the time change and about setting standard time.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replaces statutory time references with a single 'standard time' concept
This provision removes explicit mentions of Mountain Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time from the Interpretation Act and declares that any statutory reference to time will mean ‘standard time.’ It then ties the technical definition of that standard time to regulations (UTC minus a number of hours) and establishes a default name — Mountain Time — unless the Executive Council sets a different name. The practical effect is to simplify statutory language while outsourcing the precise technical parameters to the regulatory process.
Directs the Executive to make regulations setting standard time
Section 37 now requires the Commissioner in Executive Council to make regulations that define standard time. That turns the UTC offset and any naming conventions into regulatory instruments. For administrators and counsel, the key implication is that the operational definition of time—what clocks will read and how statutes will be interpreted—depends on future regulations rather than the Act itself.
Repeals the Daylight Saving Time Regulations
This clause abolishes the specific regulation that previously implemented daylight saving adjustments in the territory. Once repealed and replaced in practice by the new regulatory scheme, the legal obligation to change clocks twice a year will no longer exist. Sectors that relied on the old regulation for scheduling or statutory triggers will need to update their references and operational rules.
Proclamation timing and required public engagement
The Act comes into force on a Commissioner’s order rather than on royal assent, giving the Executive control over the timing of implementation. Before proclamation, the Minister must ensure residents have an opportunity to engage on eliminating the time change and on setting the standard time. The statute prescribes a public input step but leaves the design, scope, and standard for that engagement to the Minister and administrative practice.
Scope: amendment to the Interpretation Act
A short formal clause stating that the Interpretation Act is amended by this Act. It signals that the changes affect how every territorial enactment interprets references to time, so the ripple effects are across the body of territorial law even though only a few sections are substantively altered.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of the Northwest Territories seeking to avoid clock changes — they gain a single, year‑round local time and the certainty of no biannual adjustments.
- Local public services and institutions (schools, hospitals, territorial offices) — simplify scheduling and reduce administrative overhead tied to twice‑yearly clock shifts.
- Employers and organizations operating primarily inside the territory — fewer internal scheduling disruptions and lower internal training/communication costs around the time change.
Who Bears the Cost
- Businesses and organizations that coordinate across jurisdictions (airlines, interprovincial transport, national broadcasters) — they must update schedules, systems, and possibly face recurring offset differences with partners that still observe DST.
- IT and records administrators — need to audit and update timestamps, scheduling software, databases, and any legal records that reference old time terms; legacy systems may require patches or manual handling.
- Territorial government (Executive Council and relevant ministries) — must draft and consult on regulations, run the mandated public engagement, and manage the administrative transition without specific funding or timelines in the Act.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between simplifying everyday life with a fixed, year‑round time (and thereby removing the health and logistical costs of clock changes) and the cost and legal friction of diverging administratively from neighbouring jurisdictions and from established federal or national time practices; the bill resolves this by delegating the hard choices to regulators, trading legislative finality for administrative flexibility and leaving unanswered questions about transition and cross‑jurisdiction coordination.
The Act deliberately keeps the statute short and delegates the operational specifics to regulation. That raises two immediate implementation questions: what numeric UTC offset will be chosen, and whether the Executive will keep the default label ‘Mountain Time’ or adopt another name.
Those are policymaking choices that can have outsized practical effects—on cross‑border commerce, timetables, and interoperability with federally regulated systems—yet the statute provides no criteria for deciding them.
Another practical tension concerns transitional handling of existing legal instruments: contracts, court deadlines, licenses, pensions, and automated logs that refer to Mountain Standard Time or to statutory triggers tied to daylight saving changes. The Act replaces the reference but does not supply transitional rules (for example, how to interpret timestamps recorded under the old regime, or whether contracts that specified MST/MDT will be deemed to follow the new standard time).
Finally, the public engagement requirement is procedural but open‑ended: the statute requires an opportunity for residents to comment but does not define the scope, duration, or minimum standards for that engagement, leaving room for dispute about whether consultation was adequate.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.