Debates of March 9, 2005 (day 52)

I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. Before the break, Mr. Zoe had moved that the following be added after section 10 of Bill 17: Commencement, clause 11. This Act come into force on the day the Civil Marriage Act (Canada) comes into force.” Mr. Zoe.

Madam Chair, I would like to withdraw that motion and I would like to move another one.

I move that the following be added after section 10 of Bill 17:

Commencement

11. This Act comes into force on the earlier of:

a) the day the First Session of the 38th Parliament of Canada is prorogued; and

b) the day the Civil Marriage Act (Canada) comes into force.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Zoe.

Just for clarity for the Members, it gives us an opportunity to…The way it reads now, it will come into force as soon as we give it assent in this House. So what this amendment does is to delay it to a day certain. Day certain meaning either the first session of the 38th Parliament when they prorogue, or when the Civil Marriage Act comes into force. So whatever happens with the Civil Marriage Act, if it dies or gets passed, our legislation will continue to come into force at either of those two times. This is what the motion is saying. It will give more comfort to most of us on this side of the House who feel strongly about the type of things we talked about today. This is a compromise with the government. I hope this amendment will be carried. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll be voting in favour of this motion and I just wanted to say, as well, if my honourable colleagues are feeling a little bit on edge like I am, there’s probably a reason for it, Madam Chair. For myself I’m taking exception to what’s going on here tonight. I believe that I interjected a point of order earlier and I still do maintain that, Madam Chair. However, what has happened is that our legislative process here was hijacked. We made significant changes to the content of this bill and there are enough changes to do that, Madam Chair. There are five amendments to a bill with 10. I believe that the public has a fundamental right to have input into what we, as legislators, are doing. Every one of us, as Members, talk about this on a daily basis. The fundamental right of our public to have a say and to have input. Now I am stating for the record what we have done tonight, by introducing so many amendments, has circumvented the process of our institution we so proudly represent, Madam Chair. I demand that we allow our committee system to provide due process and due diligence by re-examining this bill once more. I feel very strongly about it. We have a public process. We went out there and we didn’t show them the bill that we’re passing here tonight and there’s something fundamentally wrong if we’re going to do that as legislators. That’s why I feel so strongly about it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion for three reasons. One is that, as I stated, this bill has nothing to do with the Civil Marriage Act in Ottawa. This is creating equal status between unmarried couples and other unmarried couples. It has nothing to do with marriage.

To the motion.

Excuse me, I get to speak, I believe. Anyway, they are not related. So in my view, they are not related. I am not saying that other people have no right to their views.

The second thing is I think to say that if the parliamentary session prorogues, I’m not sure if we had and precedence in setting our rules that way. We don’t know when that is, and when is the last time we really tied our legislation with what was happening there anyway. So I think we can do our own work. I don’t think this is related and for that reason I’m not going to support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My time was to be used up to seek further clarification to 11 clause (a) or 11 subsection (a), which is I’m just trying to understand that, because if the present Parliament prorogues today, although they may not be able to answer this question due to process, but I’m a little concerned because if the present Parliament prorogues tomorrow, were dissolved tomorrow and would that not do the same as what we are going now to allow if it is to come into force. So I’m sorry, I have to say I can’t ask questions to the movers. Madam Chair, who can we ask these questions to or can I request a recess to get clarification of what this actually means?

Mr. Hawkins, could you please just repeat your last question? I’m sorry, I was having a sidebar. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respect my colleagues who are putting forward this and I want to emphasize at least enough so they know that I’d like to understand what this means. So I’m trying to figure out exactly what 11(a) really means. Parliament dissolves tomorrow, be it whatever reason, does that mean that this comes into force or does that mean that this issue is completely off the table? How do we get answers to these types of questions, because I can’t ask the mover? So do we ask the Law Clerk to clarify that, or do we ask the Minister back into the chair? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I’ll ask Mr. Boyd, who is the Law Clerk here for us today, if he would please speak to that question. Thank you. Mr. Boyd.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the Member’s questions concerning clause (a) of the amendment, the effect if the bill was passed today in the House and if Parliament was to prorogue, if Parliament was to end, essentially the bill would come into force.

Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. If I could further seek clarification on this motion; then, in other words, if Parliament, for some reason, manages to stay alive maybe another four years, therefore, that would limit the ability as the way this motion is written for this bill to come into force. Is that what that means? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Boyd.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the Member’s question, if clause (b) and the Civil Marriage Act did not come into force the legislation, Bill 17, would not come into force until the 38th Parliament ended. So to respond specifically to the Member’s question, it could be contingent on the length of the current Parliament before the bill would actually come into force.

Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. I believe that the Law Clerk perfectly clarified the questions that essentially as I understand it -- and I would request that the Law Clerk correct me if I’m wrong -- but as I understand it, 11(a) is basically a delay tactic or, I should say, a delay switch on this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Boyd.

Yes, just as a point of clarification, the act would come into force on the earlier of the two days and I spoke of the 38th Parliament, it would be the First Session of the 38th Parliament, but it would be the earlier of either of the end of the Parliament or the passing of the Civil Marriage Act.

Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Anything further, Mr. Hawkins?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess in general I fail to see the need for this, because if this is just a delay and Parliament could change any time now and clause (a) is not linked to anything substantive that I see that would be earth shattering. Maybe for those in the 37th Parliament maybe, but not to me. So as far as linking to the Civil Marriage Act, I’m concerned because I don’t think it actually directly links to it. Indirectly I think it is associated and I do think the Members here do have some points that have been validly raised, but I don’t think it directly corresponds with it. So I’ll be voting against the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. I have more Members to speak to this. So let’s give them a chance. To the motion. I have Mr. Braden.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion either. I can appreciate that sometimes there is a benefit to giving ourselves some room and some time from when a motion or a bill is passed in the Assembly and when it actually takes effect. In fact, I think there are some that have been out there for years that have been passed by this Assembly, but have yet to take force. In this case, I don’t really know where the benefit would be for anybody to further delay the coming into force of the provisions of this bill, which, from my understanding, would come into force on assent. Yes, this bill will come into force on assent in our Assembly and I am very much in favour of that. So I will be voting against the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. I have Mr. Yakeleya.

For the record, Madam Chair, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I can’t see why other Members can’t support this type of motion that we’re putting forward. It doesn’t take away from the intent of the bill. If this motion gets passed, I’m sure the bill will get passed and coming into force is on either of these two dates that are there. So no matter what happens, the bill is going to come, but it will be on the later date. This motion, if passed, also gives comfort to Members on this side of the House that haven’t had an opportunity to explain to their constituents as to why this bill is being passed. So an explanation can be given to them. By not doing this, Madam Chair, the current bill will come into force as soon as the Commissioner gives it assent. It doesn’t give the opportunity to Members on this side of the House to go back to their communities and explain why they didn’t vote against this bill. So I think it’s fair. In my view, by supporting this motion, by putting this motion forward it will give more comfort to some of us on this side of the House so that we can have an opportunity to talk to our constituents. On top of that, Madam Chair, maybe the whole issue of the Civil Marriage Act is going to be dealt with before they prorogue the Parliament. So one or the other, no matter what happens, we’re just buying a little bit of time and I can’t see why the government would go against this type of thing. It’s not an urgency and, like I said earlier, I don’t understand why this was put as a top priority for government, but, nevertheless, I encourage all the Members to support this motion. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Bill 17 as a whole, as amended.

Agreed.

Does the committee agree that Bill 17 is ready for third reading, as amended?

Agreed.

Okay, Bill 17 is now ready for third reading, as amended. Thank you, Mr. Dent, Mr. Aitken, Ms. Austin and Mr. Boyd.

The next item on our agenda is Bill 20, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2004-2005. Is committee agreed that we will now proceed with the Supplementary Appropriation Act? Mr. Zoe.

I move we report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. The motion is in order, it is not debatable. All those in favour of the motion to report progress? All those opposed? The motion is defeated. We will proceed then and ask Minister Floyd Roland if he would please provide his opening comments on Bill 20. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to introduce Bill 21, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2004-2005. This bill requests authority for additional appropriations of $16.813 million for operations and expenditures.

Major items included in this request for operations expenditures are:

1.

A total of $11.1 million for the Department of Health and Social Services, including:

$4 million for the additional costs incurred for the provision of hospital services for NWT residents in hospitals outside of the NWT;

$2 million for the Dogrib Community Services Board's accumulated deficit and increased operating costs;

$1.9 million for additional costs being incurred in supplementary health programs; and,

$1.6 million for increases to compensation resulting from the re-evaluation of nursing and allied health care professional jobs.

2.

$2.2 million for increased costs resulting from the rise in fuel prices in the NWT since 2002.

Subsequent to the supplementary appropriation document being provided to Members, an urgent issue has arose with the Mackenzie Valley winter road maintenance.

At the appropriate time, I will be making a motion to increase the Department of Transportation's supplementary request by $311,000.

I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary appropriation document.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this time then I’ll ask the committee if they would agree to ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into Chamber.

Agreed.

Agreed, thank you. Mr. Roland, would you like to bring witnesses in?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Then I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort Mr. Roland’s witnesses to the witness table.

Mr. Roland, for the record could you please introduce your witness?

Thank you, Madam Chair. With me tonight is Mr. Lew Voytilla, the secretary to the Financial Management Board.