Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that's correct. We had to do some research and get some clarity on what could actually apply. Apparently anything that is considered to be offences would not be applicable in this case. The transfer of unpaid charges only applies to the services that are provided by the City. Maybe I could get our legal counsel to give further clarity on the actual definition.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Heder.

Thank you, Ms. Heder. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my opinion on that is a parking ticket may not seem like a service to the person who is getting it, but it is a service to the community, as well as a speeding ticket. That's a safety issue. I guess it's a matter of definition. I am in favour of that. Would you define a library charge a service in this regard, because this was mentioned earlier today? I was asking specifically to parking and speeding tickets because there are people who have quite a lot of parking and speeding tickets out there and it makes it difficult for the city to collect on them. There are other things like ambulance fees that the City had difficulty collecting when I was a councillor. This only applies to those people who have property. Specifically, do you see ambulance or library fees falling into that category? That wasn't an idea of mine, but let's get clarity on that while we are here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the services that qualify under this change are unpaid charges that provide a service. Anything that is considered to be an offence or anything that would go through a court system or quasi-judicial system would not qualify. That may be a simpler way of defining it. It's a service provided by the municipal taxation authority, and if the service is provided by the City for an ambulance service, then that would qualify. A parking ticket would not qualify because there is a separate process for that.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my comments fairly brief. I appreciated the fact that we had the opportunity to go through the public hearing on these three amendments on Tuesday. I certainly can feel for the municipalities in their need to get these amendments approved and get on with life. I will be supporting the amendments as they stand. The one quick issue that I wanted to bring up, and I don't know if it's the way things are normally done, but we had the public hearing on Tuesday and somehow something funny happened right after that meeting obviously, because I think the department went back and consulted with the NWTAC after the public meeting and raised some alarm bells with the Yellowknife city councillors. We got a number of phone calls and e-mails yesterday for whatever reason. I think it was much to do about nothing. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can tell me who

consulted with the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. If we have legislation before us dealing with the Housing Corporation and we go through a public hearing, does the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation go over and consult with the LHOs? The same can be said for any one of the departments. Is this a common occurrence? If it is, I would like to know because certainly if the Northwest Territories Association of Communities had some questions or concerns, they could have been at the public hearing the other day. I came away yesterday thinking that the City of Yellowknife thought that the Yellowknife MLAs were adamantly opposed to these amendments, and they're not. I didn't hear that at the meeting the other day. We asked some simple questions. That's our job. I would like to ask the Minister for a response. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it's our position, and certainly through my encouragement, to share our information with the municipalities. We are working with them, and we have a partnership arrangement. We have a number of working groups established, so we take every opportunity to share our information, share our discussions with them. In this case, we did debrief the NWT Association of Communities. We had our staff meet with them and inform them of what went on. Yellowknife is a member of that association. We can't control what they do with that information. It's up to them. We make it a standard practice to provide information or any kind of request they come forward with, especially when it's public information.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Minister's response to that, but again none of us that were in that meeting in GED knew that was going to take place. Perhaps in the future the Minister could let us know that that type of consultation is going to take place after the fact. I know it took place before the fact, but I didn't know it was going to take place after the fact. I know it's very important for the City of Yellowknife, very important for the tax-based municipalities to get on with things, and these amendments will allow them to do this. I don't see any difficulty in approving these. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I will point out that it was a public presentation, and we would certainly encourage the NWTAC to provide people to attend those meetings in person. We will voice the concerns that are being related to us for sure. However, having said that, it's still our position, and I think it should be expected as standard practice on our part, that we will be presenting our information to the NWTAC. We have committed to doing that with them and have been doing that for the past several years. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I have some general comments and a question with respect to these amendments. My general comments are related to what Mr. Ramsay just stated. Listening to Mr. Ramsay's statement and the Minister's response, I think the Minister may be misunderstanding or missing the point that the Members on this side are trying to make with regard to what transpired in the standing committee process. Mr. Chair, let me just put it on record that I have no problem supporting these amendments. They are quite minor in nature. I have to tell you that I've been here...this is my sixth year. We spent almost the entire last Assembly addressing the needs of the NWTAC. We went through a huge revision of municipal legislation. All along the way, I believe that the House showed strong support for the aspirations of the committee.

Another thing about amendments that have to do with municipal power, I have a huge deference for the powers of municipal governments. I believe that the devolution of power to municipalities is a good thing. I could only speak largely for our City of Yellowknife. Their elected body, their independent body, is accountable to our citizens in a way that we are. They should have the freedom to make those choices. I have to tell you that it came as a great deal of surprise when we Yellowknife Members received these e-mails yesterday with red flags all over them. I had no idea that these amendments were even controversial. As I was trying to remember what these were, for those who don't understand how we review bills in this House, we do get what is called a legislative proposal at the beginning of the process where the government comes and tells us a general idea about what these bills are suggesting. I do remember seeing the legislative proposal for this amendment way back, probably months ago. I remember being told that some of the amendments were something that were housekeeping in nature and that it was one that was missed. Substantively and procedurally, I would have been inclined to support them anyway. Given that I am not a member of GED, it would have been a natural course for me to have a second look at that once GED brings it to this forum, which is where it is at now.

I can understand the Minister saying that, as the Minister of MACA, and the department has a close relationship with the NWTAC, and so they should. But I think what he is missing is the fact that something got lost in translation. However they interpret it, it got into a real misrepresentation of what transpired at the meeting. I think we should all be alarmed by that. I think there is some misunderstanding, maybe in the departments about what it is that the MLAs do here. I say that in terms of many other things as well. Maybe they should be reminded. We ask questions. It is our job to deliberate. We should be comfortable. We should feel like we are comfortable in asking questions about what some of these amendments are. It shouldn't be misinterpreted and misled to believe that, somehow, because we are asking questions, that we are opposing them. I have a very serious concern about that because half-baked or half-interpreted information can lead to problems that probably should not be warranted. I just want to put that on record and to state that I have an open-door policy with the NWTAC and the city council. I am always open to give my opinion about things that we talk about here. I am generally inclined to support whatever the municipal level and the local government wants to do.

That is my general comment. The Minister could choose to respond to that or not. I hope that the staff and everybody else will take our questions in good faith and that it is only simply a matter of us trying to do our job.

I have a question on the service question, because this amendment is speaking about being very specific as to whom the people could serve their notice. The requirement for service and who we serve that notice to is a huge area in law because, if somebody is being sued, it is only fair that you have to be notified that you are being sued. The situation gave rise to this amendment. I got that information, and I could see why the municipalities want to make it very specific that anybody who wants to sue the City for slippery roads, or whatever situation, that might result in a huge liability, that it be served correctly and served to a specific person and not somebody like an ambulance driver or somebody who is related to the City. I can see how the way it exists is so broad that the municipalities want to narrow the scope of people that may be subject to service. I am just wondering if we might not be going too much into detail. Like SAO for laypeople, they may not know what SAO is. I guess if you are going to sue the City, you will have to find out who you should serve it to. What if somebody just wants to serve to the mayor? What if they want to serve to councillors? I know this is an area that is well established in law. I want to know if anybody has done legal research to see if we are not, by this amendment, narrowing the scope of the individuals who can be served with respect to suits against municipalities. I don't know if the Law Clerk wants to answer that, or the legal advisor. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we certainly take the comments about the briefing of NWTAC and the possibility of translation. Some of the comments may be misinterpreted through translation. That is not our intent. Our intent is to share the information and to share it in the best way we can. We will encourage NWTAC to attend the public presentations in person if it is possible for them. We will also encourage them to use Hansard. However, there is still that avenue that we have made the commitment for, which is to share information that's public with them and to talk about it. But we will take every opportunity to encourage them to get it first hand if they can.

Regarding being able to direct the notice to one individual, it was the intent of this amendment to make sure it is clear who can receive a notice of a court action. That person was the senior administrative officer. We would expect that a council would know as much to redirect an application or a notice to the appropriate SAO of the community. I am not sure if you want to add anything to that. Maybe we will have our legal counsel expand on that.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Heder.

Thank you, Ms. Heder. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think that changes quite a bit, really. That changes it in a way that makes it even more problematic for me in that I don't think general citizens would, if they were walking down the city sidewalk and they get injured and they think about, okay, maybe I have some claim here, I don't know if that person will think about going to an SAO to provide an intent that some time down the road I think I may be suing you if I can't work because of my injury or I broke my ankle. I want to know what the law says. Is there any other jurisdiction that has something this specific about notice of event? That takes a lot of preparation for somebody in advance as to what he or she may want to do or not do. I would suggest that in that sort of case, a person might be more prone to going to talk to a city councillor or the mayor, going, you know, I got hurt walking down the street and I want you to know about that. I don't know if that person will be thinking...How would anybody know they have to go to those means; that they have to go to the SAO if they want to do that? Am I misunderstanding this? What is the law on this for other jurisdictions and why are we having this provision? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.