Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, we spent approximately $18.3 million in 2012-13 for suppression in the NWT.
Thank you. So to put this in context, we’ve had a couple special warrants. I think we’re up to about $13 million added to the budget. What are we anticipating the budget will be for this year?
Mr. Chairman, $21.407 million is what it all adds up to with the projected surplus that they are just finalizing now, possibly $1.1 million. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I realize these special warrants are partly catch-up and partly projection, so you can end up with a surplus despite the bigger budget, so $18 million and $21 million and these are well above the set amounts for the annual budget. I am just wondering: Is there a trend in what’s happening with our fire seasons? Are we aware of any trends with our neighbouring jurisdictions, Alaska, Yukon, or our northern provinces? Thank you.
The fire seasons are starting earlier. They are lasting longer. They are more intense. There are more draught occurrences. There is more critical fire issues tied to values at risk. The amount of lightning seems to be on the increase. As we deal with things like, unfortunately, the pine beetle coming north and if we are going to end up with forests of standing dead trees, then that will be just another further complication that will significantly affect fire behaviour.
Yes, there is a trend. If you turn on the TV and watch California or Alberta where they have fires in March, or what is currently going on in Australia, there is, absolutely, trends for the amount of fires tied to increased temperatures, draught and all the issues we have just talked about. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, thanks for the Minister’s response. It sounds like he is on top of the situation. It sounds pretty challenging and expensive.
The availability of avgas sounds like a big one. Do we have a sense of how much of our… These exceptional budgets – and I assume this happened last year too; I think I remember the Minister mentioning it – how much of these exceptional costs are due to the whole avgas issue versus more severe fire seasons? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t have that level of detail, but I can tell you that this year there were significant efforts made to make sure we had enough avgas and infrastructure to deliver avgas in a regulated way that would meet the stringent standards for aircraft in the regional centres. The challenge is to try to figure out where the fires may occur, because once you move any significant amounts of avgas into a community or a region, chances are, if you don’t use it, you’re not going to be able to send it back, so it’s a sunk cost. We are very cognizant and we try to plan correctly. Inuvik was a real case in point for us where we didn’t have enough two years ago and it was a real challenge. We will be able to get a breakdown for the Member about what that would translate into in dollar figures. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I can see we’re providing for that. To the extent we can beforehand would be a lot cheaper than doing it last minute when we understand we have to get some into some places. It’s going to be more expensive to get it there, likely. So I think it is a good investment there.
That’s really all the questions I had. I know this is a very challenging area. I think the Minister has taken my points, such as they are. I’m sure they are not new to him. There is a big challenge here and it is probably not going to get better in the foreseeable future. I’m assuming that the Minister will be ensuring that we have discussions to try and assess out whatever possibilities there are to try and manage these issues. That’s all the questions I had. Thank you.
I have just two quick comments. The issue with avgas is you have to make sure you have it there ahead of time, because if you don’t have it and you need it, chances are it’s going to take a week, 10 days, sometimes two to three weeks if it has to come in by truck, so you’re really up against it.
Yes, absolutely, we will be continuing to come forward to committee with big reviews, all the matters pertaining to firefighting behaviour along with the very many other ENR issues that we routinely come to committee with. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to address a question to the Minister. Just recently there was a report of a fire that is smoldering underneath the ground level between Fort Providence and Fort Simpson. I was wondering if there’s going to be any impacts on further costs. I know the fire season is over, but we’re kind experiencing perhaps different forest fires from year to year, so I just wanted to pose the question.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have our eye on that fire. At this point, as the Member has indicated, the fire season is over and the resources are, for the most part, not around. We know that the one resource that we can pretty well count on for the next six months is going to be Mother Nature, between the rain and the snow and the cold, to knock that fire down. Whether it will go down deep enough to actually put it out, we’ll see in the spring, but that is the state of the status at this point. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, it kind of begs the question in terms of how the department might be approaching the next forest fire season. I know he has stated what is assessed in approaching these kinds of fires are the values at risk. Would there be a fairly consistent policy from the previous years in prioritizing how it is that we mobilize resources on these forest fires coming this year? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we have a very clear policy as it pertains to the values at risk, starting with safety, people, communities and infrastructure and then we move back from there. As we saw this summer in the Deh Cho, for example, there were a number of fires in their communities and we pulled all our resources available, plus we brought in whatever we had to, to protect those values at risk. That policy and criteria is very clearly laid out. Thank you.
No further questions.
Forest management, special warrant, $13.894 million.
Agreed.
Total department, special warrant, $13.894 million.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of TD 135-17(4), Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014?
Agreed.
Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 135-17(4), Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014, be now concluded and that a Tabled Document 135-17(4) be reported and recommended for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order.
Question.
The motion is carried.
---Carried
As agreed, we’ll go to Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act. We’ll go to the Minister responsible, Mr. Abernethy, to introduce the bill.
I am pleased to be here today to speak about Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of this bill.
The purpose of the Protection Against Family Violence Act is to provide emergency and long-term protection for victims of family violence. The act also allows emergency access to assist a person who may be the subject of family violence.
In 2011 an evaluation examined the first five years of the act’s operation, to determine how the legislation was meeting its goals. The recommendations from the evaluation prompted departmental staff to identify several issues that could benefit from legislative amendments. In the 2012 Nuttal v. Kikoak decision, Justice Schuler, senior judge of the Supreme Court, ruled that she was unable to vary an emergency protection order error unless a separate court-ordered hearing was held to make the correction.
This legislation corrects an ambiguity within the current act, and provides the Supreme Court with authority to vary an emergency protection order during the review process, rather than having to convene a separate hearing. It also provides the department the authority to review emergency protection order transcripts for training and evaluation purposes, and increases the maximum fine under the act to underscore the seriousness of making a false statement or breaching a protection order.
I would be pleased to answer questions that the committee members may have regarding Bill 17.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. I will go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act, on September 17th. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
The bill removes an ambiguity in the act respecting the duration of emergency protection orders. It also gives the Supreme Court authority to correct minor defects in emergency protection orders and it allows the Minister to review emergency protection order transcripts for research, evaluation and training purposes. The bill also increases the maximum fine for offences under the act.
Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 17. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as you proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Would the Minister like to bring witnesses in?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Would the Minister please introduce the witnesses?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left is Shirley Kemeys-Jones, assistant deputy minister of the Solicitor General branch of the Department of Justice; and, Thomas Druyan on my right, legislative counsel.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. I will open up the floor for general comments on Bill 17, An Act to Amend the Protection Against Family Violence Act. There are no general comments. Clause-by-clause review?
Agreed.
Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 5 inclusive approved
Bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 17 is ready for third reading?
---Bill 17 as a whole approved for third reading
Thank you to the Minister and his witnesses. Please escort the witnesses out, Sergeant-at-Arms. Thank you.
Next we have Bill 18, Apology Act. I will call the Minister responsible, Mr. Abernethy.
I am pleased to be here today to speak about Bill 18, Apology Act. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for their review of this bill.
This legislation would make an apology or expression of sympathy made by or on behalf of a person inadmissible as evidence of fault or liability in any judicial or quasi-judicial civil proceeding. Nine Canadian jurisdictions have enacted similar legislation.
In the absence of this legislation, people are unsure of the legal consequences of taking the natural human step of making an apology. They fear that an apology can be considered as an admission of guilt, thereby voiding an insurance policy or encouraging a lawsuit.
However, apologies have been called the “key to healing.” An apology has the power to heal wounds and restore a victim’s dignity. A 1999 report by the Law Commission of Canada found that people who have suffered loss, injury or damage were driven by the desire to heal, as opposed to making compensatory claims.
I would be pleased to answer questions that committee members may have regarding Bill 18.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. I will go now to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Social Programs, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 18, Apology Act, on September 18, 2013. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
The bill provides an apology made by or on behalf of a person in relation to any civil matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person or confirmation of a cause of action related to the matter and does not affect insurance coverage available to the person making the apology.
The bill also provides that an apology is not admissible in any judicial or quasi-judicial and civil proceeding and may not be considered or referred to in relation to fault or liability in any such proceeding.
Following committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 18, Apology Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 18. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Would the Minister like to bring witnesses into the House?
Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
