Brendan Bell

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, October 25th, 2006, I’ll move that Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, again just to be clear, I've toured the old facility with the Member in Sachs Harbour. Obviously it needs to be replaced. It's outdated; it wouldn't work today. We do have a residence there that's currently being occupied by a teacher. I think we could make arrangements. So in terms of capital, we need new capital. The feds have made that commitment. The O and M to see bodies on the ground is a shared responsibility between ourselves and the federal government. The federal government has committed; it's now up to us in the upcoming budget process. So I...

Mr. Speaker, I can’t make that commitment on behalf of the RCMP. Obviously we don’t provide them direct operational advice. We can’t indicate to them where they have to put their resources, but I will raise this with the RCMP. I will come to the community and I will give the commitment to the Member in this House that we will work to find a solution. I know this is a need in the community and I do appreciate the region’s support in this regard. So we will work with the region to try to address this problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for the question. This is an issue the Member has raised a number of times. We’ve had discussion in committee about the challenge. I think it’s particularly heightened in the Tlicho region where there are many unilingual speakers. We want to make sure they have access to the RCMP. So it is something we have raised with the RCMP. I am prepared and have indicated to the Member that we would go into the community and talk about policing issues, along with the Minister of MACA. We will be doing that shortly after session. I think we need to propose a...

Madam Chair, I am sorry if it’s confusing the way it’s laid out here. The $300 currently could be exempted from seizure. So you could be left with only $300 if you had a court order against you. That was the one amount. Now it varies, depending on whether you were looking after children. There was a certain amount, if that was the case, but $300 was the number you could be left with per month. Now we are saying the most that somebody can go after is up to 30 percent net of what you make each month. Thank you.

Madam Chair, yes, to the first question. The second question as to how long it will take, it’s really in the hands of the judges. So I will direct my officials to raise this with the judges. Hopefully they are amenable and hopefully they can move this through expeditiously. Thank you.

Madam Chair, the amount referred to is after deductions. So up to 30 percent after deductions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With me today, Reg Tolton, ADM, Department of Justice; Mark Aitken, director of legislation. Thank you.

I am pleased to be here today to review Bill 12, Garnishment Remedies Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill amends the Creditors Relief Act, the Territorial Court Act and the Public Service Garnishee Act so that a garnishment order would continue to be in effect for up to one year or until the debt is paid, whichever comes first. The legislation also amends the Exemptions Act to increase the amount of wages that are exempt from garnishment.

Garnishment orders are used to collect debts that have been ordered paid by the court. The order is served on the person who owes the debtor money, usually the...