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.