Schedule B, Amendments to Other Statutes. Agreed?
Agreed.
If you could now please return to the front of the bill, Bill 1, Tlicho Statutes Amendment Act. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved
Does the committee agree to the bill as a whole? Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Does committee agree that Bill 1, Tlicho Statutes Amendment Act, is ready for third reading?
---Bill 1 as a whole approved for third reading
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Thank you, witnesses.
Committee, the next bill we are going to be looking at is Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act. I would like to ask Mr. Ramsay if he has opening comments on the bill.
I do, Madam Chair.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act.
The first amendment is in relation to fire restrictions in territorial parks.
Additional authority is needed, as a matter of safety for parks users and to prevent damage to the park. The proposed changes now provide ITI with the ability to issue restrictions and bans with respect to fires in all territorial parks, and for regulation-making power to prohibit or regulate the setting, use and extinguishing of fires.
This proposed amendment relates to safety precautions and procedures for regulating fire use that exist in all other Canadian jurisdictions. It is time to update our legislation to match the same level of protection and security in other Canadian parks.
The second amendment is in regard to parking issues. Controlling vehicles, including where they park, is also critical for the safe, enjoyable and efficient operations of our parks and campgrounds. ITI needs this enforcement tool to deal with the minority who choose to ignore the rules to the detriment, inconvenience and possible threat to safety of other park users.
These amendments will set a framework within the act that will give the department the authority to deal with specific concerns that were identified following the 2012 parks season. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Next I would like to go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, Mr. Hawkins.
Madam Chair, thank you very much. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure met on March 5, 2013, to review Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 2 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 2. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chairman Hawkins. I’d like to ask Minister Ramsay if he’d like to bring witnesses into the Chamber at this time.
Yes, please, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.
Minister Ramsay, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right is Ms. Kelly Kaylo, assistant deputy minister at ITI and to my left is Ms. Lucy Austin with the legislation and drafting division at the Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I’m going to have to probably get someone to come here and take the chair. Sorry. Then we’ll go to general comments.
Committee, are there any general comments on the bill? Mr. Yakeleya.
Madam Chair, I wasn’t too involved with committee on this bill and my first question to the Minister would be on the Aboriginal rights, I guess, in these areas. I know there’s some discussion in some of the parks that we are establishing in the Sahtu and I know the fire restriction has to do with safety and precaution. People, when we go out on to the land, we like to make our fire and have some tea or whatever and sometimes these areas that we are protecting are used for public enjoyment. So I’m not too sure what provisions there are or how it’s being looked at in regard to having some of the older people who just want to go into a park and make a fire. Sometimes we explain to them that sometimes that’s not the case and they kind of get upset with us or ask why, we’ve done this all our lives. So those are the type of things I just want to ask the Minister to have some discussions in that area.
I know we’re having some discussions at the federal level of parks and our right to pursue the enjoyment of our land. That’s something that I wanted to raise so it’s clear on the record as to how this amendment to the territorial parks would affect the Aboriginal people and their right to enjoy the land as set out in several agreements. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We had substantial consultation that took place with Aboriginal groups across the Northwest Territories and nothing in these regulations would be interpreted, or should be interpreted, so as to affect Aboriginal rights in any way. So that is in the regulations, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate the Minister being straightforward and clear with me. So thank you very much. I have no more questions.
Thanks, Mr. Yakeleya. We are on general comments. Members, any general comments on Bill 2? Daryl. Sorry, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Hawkins says, the Chair is always right.
Madam Chair, just on the opening comments, I’m actually quite proud to say that I like what I’m seeing here in terms of some of these amendments, especially with the fire restrictions, but my questions or my overall comments here of concern is, would this act compete with current legislation that we have for motor vehicle legislation with respect to if there is infringements of the vehicle in a park. Which act would supersede in the event of a breach? But other than that, I do support what I’m seeing here, but I’m a little confused as to which act would definitely have a precedence here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If the vehicle was located in a territorial park it would be the parks legislation that would take precedence. Thank you.
I guess in its broader sense, the current act, what were some of the impediments that the department was facing to come forward with these type of amendments?
It was difficult for enforcement of parking infractions where the owner of the vehicle had to be issued the ticket. The changes would mean that park officers could ticket the vehicle itself. When the charge would get to court, it would be much more likely that a charge could stick. I think that is the biggest reason for the change. It’s not directed at the owner of the vehicle, it’s the vehicle itself so as we can enforce parking in the parks much more effectively.
So I would assume that the assumption is that the vehicle or motor vehicle or, let’s say, all-terrain vehicle, it would need to be a registered vehicle in order to ticket a vehicle. What happens if the vehicle is non-registered? What happens if there’s a motorcycle, quad, ATV that is a non-registered piece of equipment in the park? What would occur in that regard?
The vehicle would be removed from the park if it was not registered, it had no plates. Typically a parks officer would contact the RCMP. The vehicle or ATV in this case may have been stolen, and we would look at getting the RCMP and the authorities involved and removing the vehicle from the location.
I would assume in that scenario that the parks act would not indicate…or the violation would not be under the parks act. This would actually be under the Motor Vehicles Act. Would that be my assumption?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Austin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, Madam Chair, I’m going to have to have the question clarified again.
No problem. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. This is in relationship to a vehicle that is non-registered. What I mean by vehicle, it could be motor vehicle, ATV, or other that is non-registered that is ticketed as an infringement. Again, I’m reading the new act here that it’s the vehicle that is ticketed. But because this vehicle is not registered, would the Motor Vehicles Act supersede the parks act or amendment in this case?
There is authority in the Territorial Parks Regulations to remove a vehicle or one of those types of vehicles if it’s been left in a park for more than a certain time period. …(inaudible)…
Ms. Austin, could you repeat your last sentence, because the mike was cut off?
It’s in the Territorial Parks Regulations, that power to remove abandoned vehicles or ATVs.
I would assume in that scenario a vehicle is removed that is non-registered. Therefore, there would be no ticket issued because proof of ownership or registration would not be able to be ascertained. Is that my understanding?
I believe that’s the case.
Thank you, Ms. Austin. Mr. Ramsay, do you perhaps want to confirm that back to the Member at a later time?
Yes, if the Member could repeat the question, we’ll get him an answer.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The scenario is a vehicle that is non-registered – what I mean by vehicle is it could either be a regular car or truck or this would also include any ATV, snowmobile, those types of vehicles that may not be registered – so a non-registered vehicle in a park that infringes the park act. It appears that this vehicle would be removed. But because proof of ownership cannot be ascertained because of a non-registered vehicle, that it would just be removed, that no ticket be issued to an owner because there was no registration of that vehicle. That was the question.
If you couldn’t find the owner, it would be impossible to ticket somebody. If the vehicle was unregistered and we couldn’t ascertain who owned it, it would be impossible to issue a ticket. The vehicle would be removed from the park and put in impound. If somebody came to collect it and claimed to be the owner of that vehicle, then a ticket could be issued to that person.
Would the department not be able to identify ownership through the vehicle identification number of the said vehicle?
They may be able to with the help of other authorities. Parks officers wouldn’t have the capacity to run a serial number through a computer system to find out who owns it. They would have to involve other agencies.
My last question on that subject has to do with liability. Where does the liability of the GNWT lie once this vehicle is impounded? Is the GNWT liable for any damage done to the vehicle during the course of its impound, transit and storage?
