Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Committee, the motions are on your desk. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 34 as amended.

---Clause 34 as amended approved

Clauses 35 to 43.

---Clauses 35 through 43 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole as amended.

Does committee agree that Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Co-operatives Associations Act, is now ready for third reading as amended and reprinted?

Bill 64 is now deemed ready for third reading as amended and printed. Does committee agree this is the conclusion of Bill 64?

Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are losing employees to retirement at the Department of Justice and I also wanted to wish Mr. MacDougall well on his retirement. He has had a long and dedicated service to the government and to the people of the Northwest Territories. I know he put a lot of work into Bill 64, so I wanted to thank him and wish him well.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. MacDougall, for your years of service, and good luck in the future.

Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.

Thank you, committee. We are going to carry on with House business. We’re going to go to Bill 69. With that, we’ll go to the Member responsible to introduce the bill. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act sets the rules for how we do business as MLAs, Cabinet and committees. At the end of each Assembly, we normally draft a bill to make various changes that are required and came to light during the previous four years.

The most important provision in this bill is a trigger clause that automatically changes the date of the General Election in the Northwest Territories from the first Monday in October to the third Monday in November in years where the campaign period for a federal election will overlap with that in the Northwest Territories.

The act makes several other housecleaning amendments to the bill. Some of these are consistent with recent changes to the NWT Act. Other minor amendments clarify existing practices.

I would be happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Do you have witnesses you would like to bring into the House?

(inaudible)

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Does committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses in.

Mr. Bouchard, if you’d be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right I have Tim Mercer, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. To my left I have the director of legislation division, Ms. Kelly McLaughlin.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Mercer, welcome back to the House.

Committee, Bill 69, we’re going to open up to general comments. Is committee prepared to go to detail?

Thank you, committee. If it’s committee’s wish, I’d like to do that in groups of five. Is committee okay with that?

Thank you, committee. We’ll defer bill and the title until we’re complete. Clauses 1 to 5.

---Clauses 1 through 19 inclusive approved

The bill as a whole.

Does committee agree that Bill 69, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2, is ready for third reading?

Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Bouchard, Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Mercer for joining us.

Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.

Continuing on with Committee of the Whole business, we’re going to turn our attention now to Bill 45. With that, we’ll turn it over to the Minister who is responsible for the bill. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to introduce Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Bill 45 proposes to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act to add five additional forms of cancer that have been identified as occupational diseases for firefighters.

A firefighter is defined in Section 14.1(1) of the act as workers who fight fires full time, part time, or volunteer members of fire departments and do not exclusively fight forest fires are recognized in the act as occupational special risk, occupational diseases, resulting from complex chemical combinations involved in fighting urban fires.

Those diseases are defined in Section 14.1 as listed diseases. The exposure minimums or minimum period of employment for various occupational diseases are then set out in Firefighters’ Presumption Regulations in the schedule.

On the passage and coming into force of this bill, we intend to enact amendments to the firefighters presumption regulations to add minimum periods of employment for the proposed additional forms of cancer listed in this bill.

Following up on the comments by some members of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, I am pleased to report that members of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission are in contact with a representative of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to determine if that department recognizes any special risk to forest firefighters.

I can assure this committee that if this is the case, we will seek a legislation solution to recognize such occupational risk.

I am pleased to report that the proposed legislation is supported by the International Association of Firefighters in Canada and locally by the Yellowknife Firefighters’ Association.

I am pleased to answer any questions the Members may have regarding Bill 45.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. At this time we’ll turn our attention over to the chairman of the standing committee which reviewed the bill for comments. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure held its public review of Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, on September 17, 2015. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.

Bill 45 amends the definition of listed diseases specific to firefighters to identify five additional forms of cancer. The committee initiated one amendment of the bill which was adopted during the public hearing with the Minister’s concurrence. This amendment changes the coming into force clause of the bill to March 17, 2015, to coordinate with Nunavut’s equivalent bill which was enacted in March 2015.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 45 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole as amended and reprinted.

This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 45. Individual Members may have additional questions and comments as we proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’ll turn our attention now to Minister Lafferty to see if he has witnesses he would like to bring in.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Does committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses in.

Minister Lafferty, if you’d be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the House.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. To my left we have Mr. Dave Grundy. He’s the president and CEO of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, and Ms. Emerald Murphy, legal counsel, to my right.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Grundy, welcome back to the House.

Committee, again, we’re on Bill 45. We’re going to open it up to general comments. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I want to thank the workers’ compensation and safety organization plus the Minister and our Justice staff for the quick work on putting this bill together. I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to use the occasion to ask a similar question I posed to the Minister and certainly the department on the list of diseases that I used in committee. During Committee of the Whole I had asked and I thought it would be important to put it on the official record as well as how comprehensive or updated is this new changing to our listing of diseases for the workers’ compensation to cover for full-time firefighters? I do have another couple of quick questions, but we’ll start with that particular one. The reason I ask now as I asked then was to ensure that we’re fully up to date with the most current sort of knowledge or understanding of the challenges that the organization, the WSCC, may face, as well as the challenges and impacts that firefighters may be facing in the perceived reasonable future.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. We want it to be comparable to other provincial and territorial jurisdictions across Canada. We are covering the majority of diseases throughout Canada. We want to be compatible to other jurisdictions and part of the reason why, obviously, we brought forward our discussion with ENR, as I stated in my statement, is due to a fact that committee members want for us to explore further with that department to recognize forest firefighters and why they’re excluded or they should be included. So, those are discussions that we’ve been having and if we need to make changes, we will be making those changes. Mahsi.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Were there any requested issues, such as disease, ailments, asked for by the firefighters that did not make the final cut of the lists of amendments proposed by the department? Thank you.

Those diseases that were identified, five categories, have been highlighted by the firefighters and they have been included into legislation and we haven’t excluded any of the diseases otherwise highlighted. Mahsi.

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. 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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Grundy. General comments. Is committee prepared to go clause by clause?

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.

Does committee agree that Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, is ready for third reading?

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?

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?

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.

Does committee agree that Bill 49, An Act to Amend the Deh Cho Bridge Act, is ready for third reading?

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?

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.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Within a two-year period, your second offence would be a 24-hour suspension. A third offense in that same period would be a seven-day suspension and a fourth offence would be a 30-day suspension. The individual, because they are not impaired, would be allowed to drive their vehicle home.

Thank you. So, if you got pulled over with your second offence in two years, you are basically given a 24-hour suspension and the officer would tell you that you have to go home. I guess some of the questions I would have if that was me and I was in Yellowknife, obviously going home is a little shorter distance than someone driving back to Hay River. Would I have a day or two to get back home before I serve my 24-hour suspension or not? How does some of that practicality side of it work?

The suspension doesn’t come into effect until 24 hours after the violation.

I am just wondering: if it is like a demerit system, after you have done it for so long a period then it doesn’t… If I get one every five years then the second one doesn’t affect me after two years. Just like the demerits, it would come off the system, or can the Minister clarify that?

There are three demerits for each violation. Three demerit points and after two years, within the two-year period, if there are no additional demerits then it would come off the books.

The Minister indicated in his opening remarks about school zones and construction zones. If it was my second offence and I was doing texting or distracted driving for the second time, would that be more than a 24-hour suspension or would it be bumped up to the three-day suspension because I was in a school zone, for example?

The demerits would be the same; the suspension would be the same; the fine would be doubled from $322 to $644.

I’m not disagreeable to this process. I think we need to take distracted driving out of the hands of the drivers in the Northwest Territories. My question to the department is how do we expect this to roll out and do we have a campaign or an advertising campaign to go with this so that people understand and know that there is more severity to the program than we currently have? I know we rolled it out when we doubled the fines. There was a bit of an advertising campaign and it got a little bit of play. Are we expecting that with this type of increase in the suspension area?

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. We’ll go to Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Continuing on with general comments on Bill 60, I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage the department to investigate certainly the right approach and certainly I would say contact someone who understands good communication when we consider an updated campaign on distracted driving.

One of the issues I notice with people is that they still tend to hold their phone in their hand, and really what I think is a bit of an issue here is people are misinterpreting, in some cases, probably a very small percentage in all honesty, but misinterpreting what distracted driving really is.

Where people have learnt that using your cell phone is certainly holding it to your ear and talking on it normally while you’re driving and you still see people doing that, but occasionally what you do, if not more often, I see people drive around and they’re holding their cell phone in front of them while they’re talking. I can only assume they have it on speaker phone as they’re driving along and having it in front of them is best to describe it as maybe holding it in front of them in a manner that it’s just above the steering wheel.

I think, really, what my suggestion would be to the department is to take these types of things into consideration and explaining and maybe through some type of advertisement on saying, well, this is what distracting is, the cell phone in your hand, type of thing, and helping folks understand that this doesn’t change the argument that, well, I’m not holding it to your head now, it doesn’t apply. There are a fair bit of things they need to consider that folks need to be updated and I think it could be a case of misinterpretation, the fact that they don’t appreciate the complexity of it, or they don’t appreciate how simple, really, that message is, which is once you have the cell phone in your hand you now fall under the umbrella of distracted driving.

I just wanted to provide some thoughts on that.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The department is proposing to define use, so use would be holding, operating or touching a restricted electronic device.

Well, I’m glad to hear that. It doesn’t surprise me from our earlier discussions, of course, that we had heard that those types of things are issues. I think I remember reading or hearing about the case in the Yukon where you’re arguing definition of what distracted driving is and what constitutes on the phone and definition on there, and that’s kind of what I’m really getting at, is that it’s great that we have a definition on the books but sometimes folks in practical sense don’t view it that way. So really what I’m suggesting is I encourage them through a public awareness campaign of some sort to show folks what’s right and not right. I’ll wait for the Minister’s comment and then I’ll change subjects.

Those are good points. I thank the Member. We will take that into consideration when we’re rolling out the new act.

Thank you for that, Minister. The other area that I have concern, although I have to admit it didn’t necessarily garner committee support, but it still doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to me even less, which is the fact that I’m not convinced that the way we are proposing to change the distracted driving offences is the right direction when it comes to how we suspend.

I think, in my opinion, we should increase the value of the demerits, and once you’ve reached the limit of your demerits because these offences have now become very steep, that alone by de facto suspends your licence rather than leaving it down to judgment calls and about suspending people within a certain amount of time and telling them to give, well, you can drive home, but we’re going to pursue with paperwork.

I think we should let the process decide on its own. If someone is caught, I think the demerit process is you lose three demerits if you’re fined under the distracted driving, and I believe, if memory serves, you get a total of 15. If that’s not 100 percent correct, it doesn’t really matter, because the point I’m making is I suggest we bump it up quite a bit, because a couple fines and all of a sudden you now have to appear before a judge and explain your behaviour and why you cannot comply with the rules of the road. The way it’s intended now is that, I think, after your second one all of sudden you’ve got some explaining to do, as they say. I look forward to how that types out in translation or in the Hansard tomorrow.

The point is that I hate the thought of the subjectivity into it. I really like the cut and dry. I know the department heard my grievance in committee that day we had had the hearing, and I know that the likelihood of that being all of a sudden, miraculously, hey, wait a minute, we should change. That isn’t going to happen. I’m probably expecting a unicorn sooner to run through the Assembly any moment now and that ain’t gonna happen. I just wish it was different, and in my opinion I think it’s become more of an administrative issue, that it’s more of a headache as opposed to the way I’ve suggested that it just be attached to increase.

The other thing is, in my opinion, if distracted driving really matters that much, and it does, as we’ve seen all the research and we hear more and more about people who can’t comply, and we hear about the dangers and the type of behaviours and nightmares that it leads to, then maybe we should have the demerit points that reflects that social change.