The last question I have is, obviously, it was a collective push, certainly by the Yellowknife firefighters and the Association of Firefighters of Canada and certainly they worked, well, obviously with WSCC in order to get this on the government’s agenda in order to make the amendments. My question would be when we were initially approached by this initiative. I’m just trying to get a sense of how well things worked and rolled out in the sense from the original contact we can do this and the amendment we have before us today. I’m just trying to get a sense of how responsive the WSCC had been to the particular issues presented by the firefighters. Thank you.
The first discussion was in March, and as a result, we’ve been in contact, and also vice versa, with the Manitoba board, so the discussion took place from there. We wanted to expedite the process, so we involved firefighters to get their perspective as well. If I’ve missed out on the key topics or detail, I can get Mr. Grundy to elaborate more.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Grundy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We initiated this based on, as the Minister said, the Manitoba board which contacted us and they were supportive of other boards taking the firefighters’ cases on. We had initial discussions with them. We then looked at the firefighters’ cases. We held a meeting here in Yellowknife with the International Firefighters’ Association and the local firefighters’ association and were able to agree 100 percent on what needed to be added and we are consistent with the rest of the country and they were very pleased with the cancers that are involved. As the science gets better, if there are other cancers that are identified, certainly then they would be added as well.
Thank you, Mr. Grundy. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s unusual to hear a criticism of timing in this regard, but that was pretty fast. It doesn’t usually work that fast. Maybe more for me, as opposed to the public, but that said, it would probably help the public as well. Why so fast? It’s unusual to have an amendment brought forward so quickly. Was it because it’s a trend across Canada or is it because it was something you had been eyeing before or something else that came into play? I mean, to be honest, it’s quite remarkable to have something proposed in March, unless it’s the gravest emergency that we have to make some quick and swift changes to, so maybe someone can highlight that. Because, like I said, it’s extremely unusual for us to move this quickly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. When we first heard it in March, and obviously there was a request from firefighters that this is an urgent matter that we need to deal with immediately, we listened to the firefighters. Due to the urgency of the situation, we fast-tracked it and here we are today, making those changes, adding five categories of diseases. Mr. Chair, mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the last area was concerned about timing and, again, like I say, I’m not criticizing how fast it is, it’s just exceptionally unusual how swiftly it moved. Was there any particular liability issues on why it had to move so quickly? Was there a legal movement swell elsewhere across Canada or some type of mechanisms of a similar nature? Again, I just find it extremely pleasing but unusual that it moved so quickly. To hear the firefighters route an important issue is not to downplay the importance of the issue or certainly the organization. I hear all the time how things are critical and important, but it’s like a millstone wrapped around its neck; it just drags and moves and time goes by. So, I’m just trying to understand now any type of legal pressure or liability pressure, groundswell of some type of organization that change in the paradigm for this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’ll go to Mr. Grundy.
Thank you Mr. Chair. There was no pressure put on our board to do this. There was encouragement from the Manitoba board, who actually was the first board to deal with this because the International Firefighters’ Association is out of that area. So, they certainly encouraged all the boards of the country to take up that and add those cancers on.
As for liabilities to the organization, we were also, at the same time, looking at our latent occupational disease liabilities which we had to add on to our bottom line from a financial accounting perspective. So, it made total sense that it would all fall in line once we got that, and it did move very quickly and they were very happy with the way it’s unfolding.
I am pretty confident this will be my last question, which is the underlying cost of this situation. I’ve been around for some time and I’ve yet to hear an employer say how they enjoy paying WSCC premiums and they always say they pay too much. Whether that’s true or not is not necessarily for me to say; the actuary folks make those types of decisions. They have a science behind it. Again, I’m not in the right position to say agree or whatnot. I just find it confusing and let them deal with that.
That said, I’m curious on the change and that projected cost. What is the big change right now, because obviously you can’t be adding more coverage without adding a financial component to it. So, the main question really is built around how much is changing in a sense of the rates? How does this financially change the industry? Do we foresee – and I’m hopeful, but first knock on wood – that we don’t get a call upon this, but what type of liability does WSCC foresee in this particular problem going forward? I think you kind of understand where I’m going so I’ll leave it to you, and that’s really my last area, is how much this is going to cost those who pay and certainly what does the system expect to be considered normal.
There’s a cost. What happened, the change in the accounting procedures, we were advised by the Auditor General that we had to look after, we had to actually book our latent occupational diseases now. That is, like, from 50 to 60 years ago to the miners that may have come in contact with asbestos and things like that. This was the last year we had to get that done. Fortunately, we are in a healthy position financially, and by adding all the latent occupational diseases on, plus the firefighters, that was a total cost to the system of $25.8 million. Now, we’re confident that that’s on the books now and will remain there. The firefighters were actually about a $3 million addition to the $25 million. So, our actuaries are confident that we are not going to have to add any more money to it. This did not affect the rates at all and it won’t affect the rates unless we become in a compromised position for funding, which I don’t anticipate is going to happen. From an employer point of view, it didn’t affect the rates and now we have everybody covered.
Thank you, Mr. Grundy. General comments. Is committee prepared to go clause by clause?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee, I would turn your attention to the bill. The bill is only three clauses. We’ll defer the bill title until the end. So, clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved
The bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, is ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank Minister Lafferty, Mr. Grundy and Ms. Murphy. Thank you for joining us this evening. If I can get the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses out of the House, please.
Committee, continuing on with our duties for this evening, we’re going to turn our attention to Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act. With that, we’ll turn it over to the Minister responsible. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to introduce the proposed amendments in this bill, which will help facilitate the daily administration and operation of the bridge near Fort Providence, the Deh Cho Bridge, and improve upon the enforcement of the Deh Cho Bridge Act and the regulations.
After two years of operating the bridge, the department has identified areas to improve and expand upon inspection and investigation authorities held by our highway transport officers. These proposed amendments will give our HTOs the authority to adequately enforce the act, regulations and bridge tolling system. This bill will also clarify circumstances under which drivers and owners of motor vehicles are liable for non-payment of bridge toll fees. It will allow the admissibility of evidence for official documents for the toll evasion prosecution, such as photographs captured by cameras mounted on the bridge gantry. This will assist our HTOs to purse toll evasion prosecutions and will reduce court time and costs.
Rather than tabling a special report regarding the collection of bridge tolls, annual reporting requirements are proposed to be included in the department’s main estimates. This will eliminate the duplication of effort and make the department’s reporting requirements more efficient.
This amendment also reflects that a concession agreement for the Deh Cho Bridge is no longer in place. To improve consistency among the department’s acts and regulations, the department is proposing to remove the 90-day consultation process for any significant changes to the Deh Cho Bridge regulations. As a concession agreement is no longer in place, the regulation and bridge tolls will be administered like any other regulation or fees administered by the department.
Finally, many changes will be made to the Deh Cho Bridge Act to promote consistency with the Motor Vehicles Act. Together the amendments advance our continuing goal towards a more efficient and effective government. I look forward to discussing the bill with you in detail today. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. At this time, committee, we’ll turn our attention to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Economic Development for comments on the bill. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure held its public review on Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act, on September 16, 2015. Bill 49 amends the Deh Cho Bridge Act to streamline rules and requirements currently present in the act, clarifying enforcement powers and reducing red tape.
The committee is satisfied that the legal and fiscal responsibilities of the GNWT are satisfied by including toll reporting under the main estimates, in compliance with the Financial Administration Act.
Members were pleased that tolling revenue will continue to be clearly identified within the public accounts. Similarly, Members recognize that toll adjustments, according to the Consumer Price Index, CPI, will be undertaken in keeping with the GNWT-wide direction of the Financial Management Board.
Nevertheless, Members expect that the GNWT will continue to engage residents respecting any and all changes to the management of the Deh Cho Bridge.
Finally, while the committee agrees with the department that tolling enforcement is a matter of fairness, Members also wish to express their concern respecting individuals crossing the bridge for non-business purposes, but who may be tolled due to their classification of licence plate and/or vehicle’s weight. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 49 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 49. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’ll now turn our attention to the Minister if he has witnesses to bring in the House. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do.
Thank you, Minister. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses into the House. Minister Beaulieu, if you’ll be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the Chamber.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my immediate right is Russell Neudorf, deputy minister of Transportation. To my far right, Steve Loutitt, director of road licensing and safety, Department of Transportation. To my left, Cherie Jarock, legislation division, Department of Justice.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Ms. Jarock, Mr. Neudorf, Mr. Loutitt, welcome to the House this evening folks. Okay, committee, we’re on Bill 49. We’re going to open up to general comments. General comments. Is committee prepared to go clause-by-clause?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee, there are only five clauses to this bill, so we’re going to do one at a time. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 5 inclusive approved
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act, is ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Okay, committee. Bill 49 is now ready for third reading. Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank Minister Beaulieu this evening here and I’d like to thank Mr. Loutitt, Mr. Neudorf and Ms. Jarock for joining us this evening. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.
Committee, we’re going to continue on with our committee business here, Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 2. With that, I’ll turn it over to the Minister responsible. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Transportation has identified a number of required amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act that will increase highway safety and enable the department to implement new initiatives. Bill 60 addresses five general areas of amendment.
Validation stickers are now being completely phased out due to the introduction of online services in 2014. Validation stickers are no longer needed as clients can print their certificates of registration from the Internet. All references to validation stickers will be removed from the Motor Vehicles Act.
Abandoned and worthless vehicles across the Northwest Territories are an eyesore and have the potential to become public hazards. Proposed provisions in Bill 60 will allow the department to develop regulations to address this problem, including the processes and mechanisms to declare and dispose of abandoned vehicles.
In addition, the bill proposes to amend speeding offences such that penalties will be valued according to the driver’s actual number of kilometres over the speed limit.
Distracted driving continues to be a problem across Canada, including here in the NWT. Stiffer penalties are needed to deter this dangerous driving behaviour. The department is proposing to introduce administrative licence suspensions for second, third and fourth distracted driving offences in a two-year period. The duration of these suspensions would be 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days respectively. These licence suspensions would be administered in addition to the $322 fine.
The department is proposing a new offence for distracted driving in high foot traffic areas such as school zones and construction zones. The department would make the penalty for driving distracted in those zones higher than the current penalty for distracted driving. The term used in relation to distracted driving will also be defined.
Other amendments in the proposed bill provide for the clarification of processes in relation to drivers’ medicals, such as driver medical reporting requirements. These proposed provisions clarify the registrar’s authority and the responsibility of clerks in respect to medical fitness. Ensuring individuals are medically fit to drive is essential to public safety.
Finally, the proposed bill will improve readability and clarity of the Motor Vehicles Act; therefore, these amendments advance continue to improve road safety for all NWT residents and visitors to our territory. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. At this time I will turn it over to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Economic Development for committee’s comments on the bill. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure held its public review on Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 2, on September 16, 2015.
Bill 60 amends the Motor Vehicles Act to eliminate references to validation stickers which are no longer used and enable the registrar to apply terms and conditions when reinstating a licence and to suspend or cancel a licence if medical examination requirements are not met, strengthen distracted driving legislation, establish unique offences for each kilometre by which a driver exceeds the maximum speed limit, create a new offence respecting parking in interference with the fighting of a fire, address the valuation and disposal of worthless vehicles, and address grammatical translation and reference errors.
One of the amendments proposed in Bill 60 would see speeding fines increase incrementally for each kilometre over the speed limit. During the public hearing, the committee expressed its concern that the proposed provision provided for drivers to be charged with multiple offenses. For example, 15 offenses for driving 15 kilometres above the speed limit; however, Members are confident of the department’s assurance that the matter will be clarified in the regulations and look forward to such amendments.
The committee also welcomed amendments to respecting abandoned vehicles, a matter of continuing interest to residents and local businesses as well as the Members.
Finally, the committee wishes to briefly comment on the proposed amendments respecting distracted driving. Despite advances in legislation, enforcement and public awareness, both in the Northwest Territories and across Canada, distracted driving continues to claim lives and to be a cause of injury and damage to property. The committee commends the department’s alternatives to this important road safety issue.
Members emphasized the need for consistent enforcement of the new rules also anticipate new educational initiatives. Following a clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 60 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s comments on Bill 60. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I am going to turn it back to the Minister responsible if he has any witnesses to bring into the House. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do.
Thank you, Minister. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please escort the witnesses into the House.
Minister Beaulieu, if you could please introduce your witnesses to the Chamber.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my immediate right, Deputy Minister Russell Neudorf, Department of Transportation; to my far right, director of road licensing and safety, Mr. Steve Loutitt; and to my left, Ken Chutskoff, legislative counsel, Department of Justice.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Mr. Chutskoff, Mr. Neudorf and Mr. Loutitt, welcome back to the House.
Committee, again we are on Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act. I will open up to general comments. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to discuss some of the distracted driving enforcement and kinds of distracted driving. I know we are talking about increasing the penalties for driving distracted, if the Minister could even maybe just talk a little bit more about that. I think we are talking about even suspending licences for periods of time, how that would work as far as if you got pulled over with distracted driving and you are getting suspended for your licence, how you would basically get that vehicle back home. Some of the practical parts of the enforcement of distracted driving.
