Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't actually have questions for the Minister, but I wanted to comment, or take this opportunity to comment, you know, following up on a similar theme, actually, as my colleague. So I just wanted to note that through amendments suggested by the committee we've opened up the possibility down the road for enforcement powers to be extended to other kinds of peace officers through regulations, but there has not yet been a clear public dialogue about what it would mean to expand which kinds of officers can enforce the trespass act, and there's -- you know, even the idea has been thrown around of expanding enforcement powers to, for example, private security guards.
So when the government establishes these regulations, I just want to urge the government to make sure that there is extensive public consultation in that process because I do think it needs to be carefully thought through and understood by all stakeholders and the general public. There was certainly a general feeling in the feedback we got that people want to be able to take some of the pressure off of busy RCMP officers who could be instead out dealing with more serious incidents. And so the idea is, well, just let bylaw officers or sheriffs or maybe private security guards deal with trespassers, except that the way the act is written is that enforcement includes arrest, and people, I think, expect that it must include arrest for the act to be taken seriously. You can't just keep giving people tickets over and over again if they're not paying them or if they're continuously ignoring the warnings and the tickets.
So I understand that we already may have private security guards, for example, handcuffing people or detaining people, and I assume this is under the authority of citizen's arrest, which is supposed to be used to protect people or property if someone is posing an active threat. I do have strong concerns about how that authority is currently being used and potentially misused by the unregulated profession of private security. And I spoke about that the other day. But even setting that aside, with the trespass act, we're contemplating something different. We're contemplating arresting people for the simple act of being somewhere they're not supposed to be, even if they're not engaging in mischief per se or in violence or harassment or any other crime that is actively threatening someone.
Remember that under the trespass act, the lawful owner or occupier of a property can order someone off their property for any reason. Even if they're not causing any specific trouble, you know, the lawful occupier or owner can just say, I want you to leave. And if someone doesn't leave, then they're trespassing. So I think we need to ask ourselves and ask people in the public, do we want bylaw officers or sheriffs or security guards even handcuffing or restraining people simply for being somewhere they're not supposed to be.
What would happen then also? What would be the protocols for handing that person over to the RCMP? And if at that point the RCMP needed to be involved anyway, how does that relieve the burden on the RCMP that was the whole point of expanding enforcement powers?
And another question that pops up in my head is if we leave this question open to municipalities to choose whether or not they want their peace officers enforcing this act, is it good enough for the GNWT to say that, well, that's up to municipalities. They can choose. That's not for us to decide. It's not for us to limit if that's the choice of municipalities. Can we safely assume that people's rights and freedoms will be protected because we're confident that municipalities, if they don't feel they have the right resources or training for their bylaw officers to safely restrain or arrest people, then they won't choose to take that on? Can we safely assume that?
What happens if a municipality feels the pressure of public expectation and decides to go ahead anyways with allowing its bylaw officers to arrest people, for example, even without the proper training? And then what happens if people's rights are violated?
So to be clear, I am in support of this act, but I just want to flag that we have kicked the can down the road on these important questions that are to be discussed and decided through regulations, and I want to make sure that that happens publicly and that people put careful thought into consideration there.
So that's all my comments at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
