Summary#
Bill 24 would create the Resource Enforcement Act and amend ten existing Acts, as well as the Provincial Parks Regulations. Its apparent goal is to let appointed resource enforcement officers enforce laws covering animal health, species, the environment, forestry, Crown lands, off-road vehicles, parks, water, wildlife, and wilderness reserves. The bill is not yet law in the supplied record.
- The Minister may appoint people as resource enforcement officers; the bill does not require appointments.
- An officer may enforce the Acts listed in Schedule A and use the powers, perform the duties, and receive the protections and immunities of the relevant roles listed in Schedule B. Those roles include inspectors, conservation officers, forestry officials, a designated peace officer, wildlife officers, and parks and wilderness officers.
- Officers must take an oath or affirmation before acting. The division director must establish a code of conduct.
- The Minister may make agreements with the federal government or another province or territory for a purpose related to the Act.
- When the House is not sitting, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may change the schedules by order. Such an order cannot continue beyond the end of the House’s next sitting.
- The bill also changes the Lands Act so the Minister may appoint a person or class of persons as inspectors for specified Lands Act provisions. It gives precedence to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act where there is a conflict.
What it means for you#
- People and businesses affected by the listed laws: If appointed, a resource enforcement officer may exercise the relevant existing role’s powers. The bill does not itself set out those powers in detail or require an officer to be appointed for every law or case.
- Government: The Minister may appoint officers, and the division director must establish their code of conduct. The bill creates a role within an existing department, not a new independent agency.
- Labrador Inuit: The bill says the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act takes precedence if its terms conflict with this Act or its regulations.
- General public: The bill does not create a new tax, fee, benefit, or general public service. It does not set out new penalties; the officers’ powers are tied to the existing laws and roles listed in the schedules.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill authorizes appointments but gives no estimate for staffing, training, administration, or enforcement costs.
- It does not include an appropriation, new fee, or funding formula.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set appointment criteria, required qualifications or training, how officers’ authority would be assigned, or how the public could complain about an officer.
- The code of conduct’s content, oversight arrangements, and reporting requirements are not specified.
- The bill does not explain how many officers may be appointed, when they would start, or how the department would fund the work.
- The parent Acts are not supplied, so the existing powers and protections being extended—and the full effect of the amendments against current law—could not be verified.
- The bill does not explain how changes made to the schedules by order would be handled after the next sitting ends.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that one appointed officer may be able to enforce several related laws, rather than relying only on separate types of officials.
- Giving officers the same duties, obligations, protections, and powers as existing officials could make their role consistent with the law they are enforcing.
- Agreements with other governments may allow cooperation on matters related to the Act.
Case against#
- The bill allows officers to exercise powers drawn from many different laws, but does not set out appointment standards, training, or how an officer’s authority would be limited in practice.
- The bill requires a code of conduct but does not specify its rules or create a complaint or reporting process.
- The schedule-change power lets the government alter which laws and roles are covered while the House is not sitting, although the order cannot continue beyond the end of the next sitting.
- Without cost estimates or details on staffing, it is unclear what resources the new role would require.