Mr. Chairman, we completely agree with the Member’s comments. We don’t expect to have somebody stopping every five kilometres to clean their taillights when it’s raining and they’re on a gravel road and there’s a lot of mud being tossed up. We did take into consideration, though, the reality of how this may be causing some stress or concern with drivers and have discussed this issue and how to frame this piece of the act with the RCMP and with a lot of the bylaw for feedback. And they, I think, all have responded by saying that discretion is something that needs to be utilized when issuing tickets. We

are also going to be monitoring the level of tickets issued in these areas and circumstances that they’re issued in. We’ll have opportunity to monitor it for the long term.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Anything further? Moving on to Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From a slightly different point of view, actually, I support that change. It was actually something I brought to the Minister’s attention probably about four years ago with a concern raised from the constituency where people can follow along the vehicle, obviously, in front of them and they can’t see with the snow covering their taillights. Then they have to see that it’s the motion of the vehicle that’s slowed them down. It makes it very difficult. I would see it as a consistent policy.

On the other hand, I would also see that Mr. Krutko has a point, which is you just drive for six or more hours on the Dempster and it’s all dusty or whatnot. I suspect it’s been my experience that most of our RCMP officials use enough discretion and latitude to look at the situation as it applies. I have no worry about it being applied fairly and consistently. So I support the amendment as suggested going forward.

The one area I’d like to have some clarification on, and it speaks to the second page of the Minister’s opening remarks, and it refers to the example of right-hand drive vehicles. I’m just trying to understand exactly what this means and what this will mean going forward for people who have right-hand drive vehicles on the road, as well as those who would like to register new right-hand drive vehicles going forward. If the Minister could provide some clarification as to what that’s supposed to mean.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just trying to remember if it was this Member or another Member that raised this issue and brought it to our attention. It’s certainly an area regarding a discussion that happened historically and it was an issue that has been raised in this House by a couple of people. The provision is not intended to punish motorists who are caught in a storm or travelling on one of our roads that has had rain or other types of conditions that would generate some mud or ice. But it’s intended to deal with people that are travelling our roads and not taking the time to ensure that their vehicles are safe.

Regarding the authority to establish and deal with special emergency vehicles, that’s something we needed to have clarified. Right now we have general provisions in our act to deal with these type

of vehicles that really don’t have it clearly defined. They don’t fit in the common type of vehicle that is found on our highway and we need to be able to set rules that will govern and ensure that these vehicles are safe for use on our roads. That includes all low-speed type of vehicles, electric vehicles, and right-hand vehicles.

So is it the Minister’s opinion in the context of the department’s position, that is, that they will not be restricting right-hand drive vehicles or is this more of an enabling type of change to formally allow them to be on the road whereas they have sort of slipped through the cracks before without formal recognition?

I can understand there needs to be different provisions in respect to this, and I appreciate that. I have a fair amount of experience from driving right-hand drive vehicles and I know very well of the issues that you need to be aware of. I’m just trying to see is this more of an enabling process that’s being developed here and...Well, let’s start with that. Thank you.

The Member is correct. It is enabling legislation that would allow us to put the proper authority in this area so that we can deal with some of these issues and ensuring the safety of our travellers and that these vehicles are also safe.

Where exactly would we see the change and when we expect the type of detail to be drawn forward? Will it be in regulations that will be brought to Members for approval? Will it just be one of those things we just say thank you, looks good and then we don’t see it again until someone shows up at the DMV to register their right-hand drive? Also, if there are any changes such as suggesting that you have to add additional mirrors, et cetera, will it be designed around the existing vehicles on the road? Are they enforced under the grandfather clause, but vehicles going forward...Those types of details, Mr. Chairman. When can we expect that information? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we are looking at dealing through regulation change. Up to now we’ve been dealing through policy and I’m not sure when we’ll have it all in place. As soon as we’re ready, we’ll be glad to share that with the Member. I don’t have an exact date, but fairly soon.

I look forward to seeing that detail from the Minister sent to my office. Last question on this specific area which is if somebody came in today to register a vehicle that was a right-hand drive, would they be turned away or would we allow them to register their vehicle? Is there some scenario that they don’t get caught and told to come back, you know, in six months? Would they be able to register their vehicle today as other right-hand drive vehicles had been registered and are operating on the road today?

Mr. Chair, we do have existing policy that allows us to register the vehicles the Member is indicating. This bill will provide the authority to make regulations respecting special vehicles.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Moving on. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can see the value of many of the changes that are suggested under this bill. I, too, would like to share the concern about enforcement, particularly in my riding. I’ve got many, many miles, many, many kilometres of gravel roads and during inclement weather, the conditions can deteriorate real quickly. I’m concerned about enforcing a new level of minor infractions that may be more of a detriment to the travelling public, to the drivers, as opposed to those that are concerned about taillights being covered. I wish there was a better way to address them than to start creating fines and criminal records for our drivers.

But, again, I’d just like to reiterate that oftentimes when we create laws...

---Interjection

Excuse me. For the record, that was an alarm clock, there, Mr. Chair.

---Laughter

So I would just like to have the Minister explain to me one more time about the intent of this particular reference for obstructed taillights and headlights. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to enhance the safety on our highways. I would expect the Member’s constituents would be happy to know that there are laws that require people to clean their headlights and their taillights and to have indicators so that people are clearly visible, especially on the gravel roads where there’s a lot of dust. This is not intended to target people that are travelling in storms or muddy conditions. It’s actually intended to protect the people on our highway systems from motorists that are acting, probably, in a careless manner. The RCMP and the people we have contacted all agree that it’s difficult and will probably not be want to issue tickets or fines to anybody that are travelling in conditions that make it difficult to have their taillights clean. But if there are conditions where the road is dry and there is a need to have vehicles visible through the dust and other challenges including fog, then there’s no reason that a person shouldn’t have his taillights cleaned. There is current legislation that requires us to have our windshields and our licence

plates. We’re building on that and requesting the regulations be changed to include taillights.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I think I’ve raised this in committee but I’d like to raise it here again. I know there’s concern out in the public, especially amongst taxi drivers. I think people are aware, over the years we’ve had cases where taxi drivers have been in situations where they’ve been strapped in their car with their seatbelts fastened and attacked by passengers, and seatbelts have been such an encumbrance that there is the opportunity for serious injury or the occasion for serious injury to the taxi drivers. In recognition of that, I know quite a number of jurisdictions -- I think about eight in Canada -- have passed legislation in acts such as this that allow the taxi drivers to forego the use of seatbelts when they have passengers, for that very reason of safety. I’m just, for the record, wondering if the Minister has considered this in this amendment to this act and where we’re going from that. I think it’s a valid point that deserves some recognition and action. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chair, these current changes to the Motor Vehicles Act don’t include the taxi seatbelts. It is something that we intend to examine. We have to, of course, look at a balance between the safety of the driver and also of others on the highway. There is, as the Member indicated, five jurisdictions that have exempted taxi drivers and there are two, Quebec and BC, that have special exemptions so that they don’t have to wear seatbelts in specific situations. We are planning to look at this. We have indicated to the Members in committee, taxi seatbelts is an issue that we will be examining. We will be looking at the merits of an exemption and also we’d like to do consultation with the stakeholders involved. That’s something in our plans to do. Thanks.

I appreciate those comments from the Minister. I’m wondering, Mr. Chair, when the next amendments to the act are being considered for action.

We expect that we’ll be able to deal with some of the issues and recommendations as we conclude the consultation and we, more than likely, will be able to deal with it through regulation changes. A time frame on this, we would expect around a year.

Again, I see this as an unfortunate situation for those that are facing this on Friday and Saturday nights. Yellowknife has a recognized problem in this area, as do other communities in the Northwest Territories, and I’m

sure for taxi drivers that are facing this on a weekly basis, it’s an uncomfortable situation. So I hope the Minister feels that sense of urgency from a small but important part of our service industry and will keep that in mind in planning the schedule for that change. Thank you.

Once again, it’s an issue where we have to look at the balance of the safety of the driver and passengers in the instance of a vehicle collision, but at the same time we have to recognize, as the Member has stated, abuse of passengers and other safety issues. That’s something we need to look at. It’s currently not in this change that we’re proposing. Thank you.