Thank you, Mr. Minister. General comments on Bill 9 by Members. I recognize Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the amendments on Bill 9, I, too, would like to voice my concern with respect to the municipalities being able to collect outstanding fees that are owed to them through the taxation bill. It is laid out clearly here in the chair's opening remarks of the dispute mechanism that is noticeably absent. Already in the small communities, people are disputing their taxation bill because of overlaps of band and territorial government land issues or just

confusion of who owns what land. That confusion already exists. Now we are also giving municipalities the opportunity to tack on water bills, library fines, et cetera, on these bills when they are already in dispute. I would like to know what the Minister has planned to build this dispute mechanism for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the ability to transfer unpaid water or sewer bills, service bills, within a municipality applies to the municipal taxation authorities, which are basically the tax-based communities. This is a section that was in there historically. There has been a request to put it back in place. We don't formally have a dispute mechanism as part of this bill. However, there is a section that allows the communities, through the municipal legislation, to set up a bylaw that will allow for the creation of a dispute mechanism or an appeal board. So the communities have that ability to do so. We, as a government, are not in a position to force them to do so, but the ability is there.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I just have difficulty in playing a part in allowing somebody to lose their house and their land because they owe a library fine and they refuse to pay it for whatever reason, but they are maintaining their land taxes diligently, as many hard-working people do. If they have a dispute over water and sewer services and they aren't paying it, it appears that we are allowing a system where they can lose access to their house and land because we are allowing the municipalities to tack on these bills and outstanding fees on the taxation bills. As a government, we are allowing this without giving it the thoughtful process of how are we going to stay responsible for this process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it's our view that this is a process of governments being responsible and also giving the municipal taxation authorities some tools in their toolkit to be able to collect outstanding arrears in the area of water and sewer and other services.

I want to apologize to the members of the committee. During our discussion, there was concern raised about what could qualify and we had to go back and do some research to really spell out the specifics. We have been able to do so, and we've been able to define what falls under this category. It's only services that can be transferred over; arrears for services rendered by the community. We had talked about parking tickets and apparently this does not qualify. We have clarification on that. So this is something I wanted to clear up.

There is really no other mechanism for a municipal government to collect, failing this being in place; I guess a collection agency or just plainly cutting off the service. The communities wanted to be able to resort to a system that will allow them to put this as part of their property tax and get them a lot stronger way of collecting arrears.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad the Minister clarified some of the allowables, as it were. I don't know; my gut feeling tells me it's an uncomfortable amendment. I know it's already in there, but this particular amendment is uncomfortable to me. I don't think it's really thought out. Once again, we end up in a situation where something sounds like a good idea when we discuss it in generally, but when we put it into practicalities, it just doesn't work out. I think here is another system that is just not going to work out because it's the individual, the taxpayer, who is going to end up losing out in the end. Once again, in the small communities we have taxpayers that dispute it right from the get-go, and now to further burden them with water/sewer charges or whatever other charges on their tax bill...The Minister said it himself. They won't be getting water and sewer if they aren't paying it in the first place, so I don't know.

There are people already disputing their land taxes in the small communities I represent, and to further burden their cause by adding water and sewer charges, I just don't see what type of dispute mechanism the department is willing to put into this. Why are we just going to abdicate all of the responsibility? What kind of mechanism is going to be in place? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that it should be clear that the ability to transfer unpaid charges to property taxes only applies to municipal taxation authorities, which are tax-based communities. That's something that was in place historically from the 1970s. This is not new. This was by mistake left out when the drafting of the legislation was brought into place during the 14th Assembly. We are trying to rectify that. The communities have asked us to do so. There is the ability for municipal taxation authorities to create a body that will deal with disputes or appeals. That is under the legislation. That is through section 72(g), to be exact. We cannot force them to do that, but they have the ability to do that. If somebody feels like they aren't being treated fairly, then they should go directly to the municipal council of their community. I am sure the council would be in a position to deal with it. If council is ignoring the right for an appeal, I am sure the public will change that at the next voting day.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have to ask the right question. Can the taxpayer lose everything he owns because he owes an outstanding water and sewer bill, yet his taxes remain paid up? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. If there are certain significant arrears and the municipality is unable to collect them, there is the possibility that the properties could be seized.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot be in favour of something that doesn't have an adequate dispute resolution attached to it. With that, I will end my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in favour of the amendments that are coming forward today. I will be voting in favour of them, but I do have some questions for ultimate clarity for the public. There is a notice for 30 days, and I had concerns whether that restricted someone's right over the long term for suing the municipality. If someone slips and falls and didn't notice the ill effects right away, does the Minister see that this notice of 30 days restricts somebody's ability to sue for damages or the potential to sue for damages related to some type of slip and fall that they didn't provide notice of? Can I get some clarity from the Minister on that?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there is a 30-day requirement that notice would have to be given and a two-year statute of limitations after the 30 days to start action. Failing that, they would have to demonstrate to the court that there are reasonable grounds to explain why they couldn't provide the 30-day notice. The 30-day notice is there so that the municipality has opportunity, in the case of somebody who slipped and fell, to see what the conditions were, to be able to check out why and how it could actually happen. If it were any longer than that, it would be very difficult. It also gives the municipality notice that there is a potential problem, and they can rectify it. That's why the 30-day period is there. Other jurisdictions have different periods. I think Alberta has 21 days and B.C. has longer, so it differs. Most jurisdictions have a certain time period when you have to give notice by.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the answer by the Minister. So a person can still sue if that's the appropriate mechanism.

My next question is regarding the transferring of unpaid services to property taxes. It was I who asked if parking tickets would apply. The other day it was okay and today it isn't. The Minister had said it's only applicable to services. Could I get the definition of how the Minister sees what services are? Thank you.