Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member of Hay River North, that Bill 45, Civil Forfeiture Act, be read for the second time.
The proposed Civil Forfeiture Act will provide the GNWT with a way to disrupt the flow of money from criminal activity that is distinct from criminal prosecutions. The proposed bill will authorize the GNWT to pursue civil forfeiture of property obtained by or used in unlawful activity. This ensures that people engaged in unlawful activity do not profit from crime and reduces the likelihood they will engage in further criminal behaviour.
The proposed bill lays out the procedural and evidentiary rules that will apply to civil forfeitures. The proposed bill also sets out rules for managing seized property and for how forfeited funds can be used. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister of Justice. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried. Bill 45 has been read a second time and is referred to the standing committee of the Assembly for further consideration.
---Carried
Second reading of bills. Minister of Finance.
-
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 47, Appropriations Act, Operations Expenditures 2026-2027, be read for the second time.
This bill authorizes the Government of the Northwest Territories to make appropriations for operations expenditures for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It also sets out limits on amounts that may be borrowed by the Commissioner on behalf of the government, including information in respect of all existing borrowing and all projected borrowing for the fiscal year. It authorizes the making of disbursements to pay the principal of amounts borrowed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried. Bill 47 has been read a second time and is referred to a standing committee -- no. Just read for a second time.
---Carried
I now call the Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the Committee? Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee wishes to consider Bill 34-20(1), the Trespass to Property Act, as well as Committee Report 37-20(1), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on Bill 34, Trespass to Property Act. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Does the Committee agree?
Agreed.
We will take a short break. Thank you, Committee.
---SHORT RECESS.
Okay. Committee, we will now call the meeting back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Bill 34, Trespass to Property Act. I will ask the Minister of Justice to introduce the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm here today to discuss Bill 34, Trespass to Property Act.
The purpose of the proposed Act is to create a legislative framework that governs trespass to private property, to schools, and to certain types of private interests on public lands such as leases.
The legislation will create a trespass offence, as well as set out certain exemptions and defenses to trespass, forms of giving notice, arrest provisions, and sentences for violations. The Act will outline the rights of property owners and lawful occupiers and the consequences for those found in violation.
The proposed Bill includes significant safeguards for Indigenous rights, including explicit recognition of Indigenous and Treaty rights; ensuring Indigenous and Treaty rights take precedence in the event of conflict; and requiring that the Act be carried out in accordance with any applicable agreements.
The proposed Act is part of the GNWT's commitment to address public safety concerns by deterring potentially criminal behaviour and damage that trespassers may cause. Public engagement has indicated significant support for the legislation.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Development for the work undertaken to advance motions to improve the bill.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members may have regarding Bill 34. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister, would you like to bring witnesses into the chamber?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the chamber.
Minister, please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Today with me I have, on my left, Megan Birch, Director of Policy and Planning Division, Department of Justice, and on my right, Clayton Lowther, Legislative Counsel Legislative Division, Department of Justice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Development, the committee that reviewed the bill for any opening comments on Bill 34.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Bill 34, Trespass to Property Act, received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on October 31st, 2025, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development for review.
In January 2026, committee held public hearings on the bill in Yellowknife and Hay River and met with the Hay River Healthy Community Committee. Committee also received four written submissions. I would like to thank all the stakeholders and members of the public who participated in committee's review and provided us with valuable feedback on Bill 34.
On February 25th, 2026, committee held its clause-by-clause review of the bill where nine amendments were made to Bill 34 with the Minister's concurrence.
I thank the committee for their efforts in reviewing this legislation.
Individual members may have additional comments or questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 34. Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the -- our committee chair for her work steering the ship on this important piece of legislation. As noted, the bill was amended substantially with nine pretty crucial amendments. One of those was to allow -- or expand the enforcement power to peace officers that could be defined in regulations. Now that that change has been made, I'd like to ask the Minister what the process will be to develop those regulations, as a number of stakeholders wrote in to the committee requesting that those responsible for enforcing the act could be broadened from the RCMP. So now that the bill is amended, that can be possible, but it's still not in there until the regulations are drafted.
So can the Minister just walk the public through how that process works and what the intentions of the department are. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this area, as it being a change that happened during the review of committee, is certainly an area that I think will require a little bit more work. And, you know, a look across the territory, there's a significant, I think, difference in sort of what the city -- things might look like in the city and how it may look in a smaller community. So certainly I think there's some work to do on this, and I think we need to also ensure that we're consulting appropriately with the potential affected residents that, you know, need to have input as we move forward in drafting the regulations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I'll go back to Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the Minister for that. So it's important to note that this is an enabling power. It's not a prescriptive power. So creating the ability for other peace officers to enforce the act doesn't mean they must, but obviously if a community asked for that, that would be what the regulations would be drafted for.
So where we're at now, I guess, what I'm trying to get at, is if the City of Yellowknife feels prepared -- and the committee received written correspondence to that end -- is prepared to use their municipal enforcement officers or wants to use them under the act, how long will it take to get them into regulation so that's made possible? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will pass to the director for a little more detail. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director Birch.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So in regards to your question, I think for the bylaw officers, the intent is not for this legislation to apply to municipal lands. So that's one thing we have to take into consideration. And then beyond that, I think, in general, if we are looking at other enforcement bodies, we're going to have to engage with them to determine their capabilities under this legislation. We know that the RCMP are capable of enforcing this. We'll have to do some further work and analysis to determine what other enforcement bodies will also be capable of that before we prescribe them in the regulations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member for Range Lake.
Thank you. So the key concern here is that the way the bill was drafted initially, it only applied to the RCMP, which the RCMP welcomed as an additional tool in the toolkit. But when the committee put questions to the RCMP around, will this increase your workload, do you anticipate seeing more issues, they said, no, because we already get a ton of complaints related to trespass, and this just allows us to deal with those when we want to proceed them. But the flip side to that is, so what good -- there's not going to be a huge rush of operational need and we're going to be short RCMP members, but the flip to that is people want to see more results down the streets, they want to see more results in their businesses, and they want to see this act actually used effectively. So if we're not seeing more volume, that's why more peace officers would be helpful to this end. And that's also something that was shared by the RCMP.
So I guess where I'm at is that that's why we made this change. There are communities that are signaling that they're interested in this. Is there a kind of near-term possibility for this?
Like, I know we have to look at it. I'm not saying that we won't. But what is the anticipated -- now that the minister's concurred with the amendment, has had time to -- the department's looked at it, had time to wrap their heads around it, what is the anticipated time required to develop such a regulation to expand into other peace officers? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would suggest we're probably looking at a four- to six-month window to have the opportunity to go through, address that, and be able to come back and see what that can look like. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member for Range Lake.
Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. So I'm sure there's going to be many people out there who -- or municipalities and communities who are looking for that enabling power or at least a chat about it. So now they know in four- to six-months, the department will be ready for a phone call. So thank you very much to the Minister for clarifying that.
Would you like to comment, Minister of Justice?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the input from the Member. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now go to the Member for Yellowknife North.
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.
Thank you. Minister of Justice, would you like to respond?
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the comments. I think I'll start with your first comment. And I think it's critical that we consult and that we get feedback from the public and the organizations or communities that are interested in being involved here. I think there's two key points here. Our territory is vast, and we're very diverse. The City of Yellowknife as opposed to a community like the size of Tsiigehtchic, there's significant differences in there, and I think that part of that consultation and feedback needs to look at those differences. I think we need to ensure that we're talking with municipalities, with Indigenous governments, and getting all of the feedback that we need as we develop these regulations to ensure that we're approaching it in a very pragmatic way.
So, you know, I think that, you know, as we start out, we have some fairly solid parameters around the RCMP and their abilities and duties within the act, and I think that that is a good starting point, but certainly there are -- there is some work to do on the regulation side. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now go to Frame Lake. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of -- a few questions for the Minister. I guess what I'm going to do here is save us some time and just ask, first of all, are there any recommendations in committee's report that the Minister does not fully concur with? Thank you.
