Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Your committee would like to report on its consideration of Bill 72, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
Bill 72 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on March 2nd, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development for review. The standing committee held a public hearing on May 19th, 2023, and completed its clausebyclause review of the bill with the Minister of Justice on May 29th, 2023.
Mr. Speaker, the committee reports that Bill 72, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Your Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures is pleased to provide its report on the review of the Rules of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures (committee) is pleased to report on its review of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
The current Rules of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly (the Rules) were adopted December 7, 2021. At that time the rules were revised and reorganized into chapters to allow for revisions without having to repeal and replace the rules. If carried by this Assembly, the recommendations of this report will be the first rules changes under this new structure.
In 2022 Speaker Frederick Blake twice wrote to committee regarding the Rules; these letters are available in Appendix A.
In January 2022, the Speaker asked committee to consider various matters including: Regular Member participation on Standing and Special Committees; Membership on the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight; dissenting opinions in committee Reports; care of infants in the Chamber; the Rule of Anticipation; loss of quorum; petitions; and committee reporting on the review of bills.
In September of 2022, Speaker Frederick Blake wrote the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures (the committee) regarding changes to the release of reports from statutory officers, like the Ombud and Languages Commissioner. In addition, committee considered changes identified by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the committee, and Office of the Clerk staff.
The Legislative Assembly Officers Standardization Act received Assent on October 27, 2020. Under this Act, all statutory officers' annual reports are due to the Speaker on July 1st each year. However, under the current rules, these reports are not released publicly until the Speaker tables them in the Assembly. This means these reports aren’t normally released until October, more than three months after they are received.
At a meeting of the Board of Management in June 2022, an MLA requested to have statutory officers' reports tabled in the May/June sitting. The MLA believed that the earlier tabling and release of the reports would facilitate quicker review by Committees. The Speaker asked committee to determine the best approach to make statutory officers' annual reports available to the public and standing committees earlier. I will now pass this on to the Member for Frame Lake. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Member for Range Lake Frame Lake.
I'd be worried there, Mr. Speaker.
Committee recognises the importance of statutory officers' annual reports to public and standing committees. Committee also recognizes that timely release of information is a key component of transparency and accountability.
Committee considered the four options identified by the Speaker. Given the importance of these reports and the request made to the Board of Management, committee does not believe the status quo is a viable option. Requiring statutory officers to produce their reports for tabling in the May/June session represents an additional burden, as their reporting year ends March 31, 2023. Committee felt it was unnecessary to amend legislation when the matter could be addressed through amendments to the Rules. Therefore, committee recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the following be added after Rule 4.5:
4.6 A statutory officers' annual report received by the Speaker shall be communicated to Members and made publicly available within seven calendar days when the House is not sitting. The Speaker will table the report in the House at the earliest opportunity.
Standing committees are established each Assembly and conduct important work on behalf of the Assembly. Other than this committee, which includes membership from the Executive Council, standing committees only include Regular Members. The Board of Management, while not a standing committee, also conducts important work on behalf of the Assembly and has membership from both the Regular Members and Executive Council. To ensure an equitable distribution of work among Regular Members, committee recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the following be added after Rule 9.2(5):
9.2(5.1) Each Regular Member shall sit on a minimum of two committees, in addition to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight. This includes standing committees and the Board of Management.
Members are appointed to standing and special committees by way of motion, on notice. Changes to membership on these committees must be made by way of a motion, on notice. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight is an exception to this practice. Rule 9.2(2) provides that the Assembly shall appoint the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight all Members except those Members appointed to the Executive Council and the Speaker.
Recognizing that whether by the Rules or by motion, membership on AOC is established by the House, it would be inappropriate for AOC to have the ability to remove a Member. This authority rests solely with the House. However, Members of AOC have highlighted there needs to be some way of controlling or disciplining AOC Members who are disruptive, particularly when the House is not sitting. Committee is recommending the Rules be amended to provided AOC with the authority to suspend a Member for up to three meetings in certain situations. This would mirror an authority the Board of Management currently has with its Members.
If AOC exercises this authority, by a majority vote of its Members, they must report any suspension to the House, at the first available opportunity during Reports of Standing and Special Committees. This would bring public attention to the Member's conduct which would be a public sanction.
Ultimately if suspension does not address the issue, a motion could be brought forward to remove a Member from AOC. Once removed, a Member could only be reappointed to AOC by a motion of the House.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the following be added after Rule 9.3(9):
(9.1) If a Member of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight acts in a manner that warrants discipline, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) Violating any provision of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act and its regulations that deal with conduct and responsibilities of committee members;
(b)
Disclosing confidential committee information without committee approval;
(c) Attending a meeting under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or other mindaltering substance; and
(d) Being repeatedly absent from meetings without a valid excuse.
The committee may, by majority vote, suspend the Member from the committee for a period of up to three meetings in duration.
(9.2) If a Member has been suspended from the committee for a period of time, the chair of the committee will report the suspension to the House under Reports of Standing and Special Committees.
(9.3) The committee may, at any time, recommend to the House that a Member be removed from or reappointed to the committee.
I will now turn the report over to the Member for Nahendeh. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During both the 18th and 19th Assemblies, some committee Reports have included dissenting opinions. The Rules don’t address dissenting opinions and how they can or should be incorporated into committee Reports. Committee recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the following be added after Rule 9.4(1):
(1.1) One or more Members of the committee may indicate that they dissent from a particular recommendation or comment.
(1.2) A Member or Members who wish to express the reasons for their dissent may do so in an appendix to the report.
(1.3) The Chair of a committee will establish a reasonable deadline for any dissenting opinions to be shared with committee members before the report is presented to the House.
The Rules provide that bills reported from a committee shall be received by the Assembly and ordered into Committee of the Whole. This applies even when a committee reports that a bill should not proceed. As a result, where a committee recommends that a bill should not proceed, there is no procedural significance to the Assembly.
If a standing committee reports to the House that a bill "should not proceed", this committee believes the bill's sponsor should be required to move a motion to consider the bill in Committee of the Whole. Committee believes this strikes a balance between the views of a standing committee and the bill sponsor’s desire to advance their legislation. Committee recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends the following be added after Rule 8.3(8):
(9) A Bill reported by a Standing or Special committee as "should not proceed" shall require a motion be adopted by the House to consider the bill in Committee of the Whole.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Rule 9.4 (4) be amended by adding the word "not" after the words "Committee of the Whole shall…"
Petitions are a way the public can communicate directly with elected officials. Rule 4.4(8) requires that signatures on a petition be handwritten, or electronic signatures obtained from the Legislative Assembly epetitions site. However, the epetition option was removed from the Assembly website as the previous provider ceased operations.
Our territory is vast, and our communities are widespread. Organizing petitions across multiple communities can prove difficult; however, this difficulty can be reduced with the use of electronic petitions.
As written, our Rules prevent the use of epetitions from websites other than the Assembly’s own platform, which is no longer available. To ensure that electronic petitions remain a meaningful way for residents to communicate with this Assembly, committee recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Rule 4.4 (8) be amended by: deleting the words "the Legislative Assembly epetitions site" and replacing them with the words "an electronic petition site approved by the Speaker.".
If quorum is lost during a sitting, the Rules require the Speaker to adjourn the Assembly until the next sitting. The Rules do not address whether all remaining business stands over to the next day. Committee recommends the following recommendation:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Rule 2.3(4) be amended by adding "All remaining business shall stand over until the next Sitting day" to the end of the existing rule.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, I wish to pass this to the Member for Hay River South. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Nahendeh. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Rule 5.6(2) be amended by adding the following after Rule 5.6(2)(c): "(d) shall not refer to any matter on the Orders for that day."
As a part of making Assemblies more familyfriendly, some legislatures across Canada allow a parent to bring an infant into the Chamber. Committee believes the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly should continue to make efforts to make this institution more familyfriendly and recommends:
The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Rule 1.9(4) be amended by adding the words "A stranger does not include an infant being cared for by a Member" at the end of the Rule.
This concludes the Committees report on its review of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, second by the Member for Frame Lake, that Committee Report 5219(2), Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures Report on the Review of the Rules of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, be received and referred to Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. The motion is in order. To the motion?
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. The report will be moved into Committee of the Whole later today. Thank you.
Carried.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, evacuees see what Alberta evacuees received and are expecting no less. Alberta evacuees received $1,250 per adult and $550 per dependent child, and the payment was not incomebased.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance what was the rationale for settling on a payment of $750 per person, and why was it based on income disruption and not an actual cost incurred as this may exclude many evacuees? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Minister responsible for Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's a few issues in there. I think I've caught them all.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we're not Alberta. They were dealing with less than one percent of their population that was forced to be evacuated. We were looking at almost 10 percent of the population in the Northwest Territories being evacuated. And, Mr. Speaker, I know folks are looking at Alberta. I suspect folks in British Columbia were looking at Alberta, as were folks in Saskatchewan looking at Alberta, and even Nova Scotia might, frankly, be looking at us because they were offering, at last count, only $500 per resident although under a certainly different system than what we were under.
Mr. Speaker, we don't have the fiscal capacity. We are running a deficit every year. We run less of a deficit when we have an operating surplus, but we do run a deficit, nonetheless. What we tried to do is to take our fiscal capacity and fill some gaps.
So, Mr. Speaker, looking at actual costs, our first priority was to minimize those costs. So that's where you have the EMO stepping in and providing transportation, food, shelter, you know, immediate toiletries, etcetera. I realize folks don't necessarily want to stay at the emergency evacuation shelters but they were there, they were available in order to minimize costs and to fill those gaps for folks who needed it most.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, this is where we had the United Way offered $150,000 to help encourage donations, and they were over $500,000 earlier this week when last I checked. They too are helping to fill some of the gaps and to minimize the costs that residents are facing.
But what we then looked to is so knowing that some of the costs are being filled by these different sources, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at folks who had income disruptions. A lot of individuals still continue to receive their income. We did also ensure that public servants were receiving GNWT's public servants were receiving their income. But for those who face an income interruption, that's the group we wanted to try and target. We selected the $750, again, Mr. Speaker, because we're trying to be fair. Income assistance already was providing a thousand dollars for someone with a dependent or $500 to an adult. Putting it at $750 tries to be fair within all of those parameters that I have described. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain to the evacuees what are the criteria for accessing the program, and is there some flexibility as not all persons evacuated but may nevertheless have experienced income loss? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so just briefly, firstly, this is all available online if anyone wants to have a look at it if they're in a capacity to do that. But in short, anyone over the age of 17 who's been subject to an evacuation order of seven days or more and who has had some sort of income disruption or income loss as a result of that, they can apply. You don't have to have been evacuated. We certainly want to encourage people when they're under an evacuation order to please evacuate. It's not there for anything less than necessity. But also didn't want to exclude the fact that some folks would have been emergency responders, may not have been able to evacuate initially. They might have been at the hospital, etcetera, or gone back early to help restart. So we didn't want to exclude anyone. It does apply to everyone. You don't have to have been actually evacuated although I don't want to take away, again, the importance of doing so when you're under one of those orders. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm if any payments have been disbursed today? How have they been disbursed. Is it by direct deposit, EMT, Canada Post? What is the timing between application and disbursement of payments, as there are many evacuees needing the funds now and asking when they should expect payment, and I just need to know what to tell them. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, a big part of what we tried to do with this program was to make it easy to apply and then easy to get the money out. So, again, that is another one of the reasons when you look at one of the forms online, it's online fillable, and it's looking for proof of income, income disruption, but we're not asking people to start going and tracking down documents that they might not have had, particularly if the evacuation had lasted longer. So there's provisions in there to speak to their income disruption but not asking for a lot of difficult paperwork. And once they can fill that form out, they can send it in by email. We've given this information to GNWT staff so they could help individuals, and funds can be disbursed through either direct deposit or by cheque. So it really is up to an individual what circumstance they may find easier for them. I can say, I think there was an ask about what kind of inquiries we're getting. We certainly are starting to see some applications come in and are immediately working right now to prioritize getting those approved and the money out the door. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we do get money out to the evacuees as soon as possible because there are many that are without right now and, you know, they're short on money and they need our support.
But, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm if this program is to be used for future evacuations and will the amount distinguish between those evacuees from isolated and non-isolated communities? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This program is now a policy of the GNWT, Mr. Speaker. Really, the conversation here began because we're cognizant that this is a community these are communities that have been under an evacuation now two years in a row. But in any event, that it's going to be available going forward.
As far as a difference between isolated versus non-isolated, again, Mr. Speaker, the emergency management process involves ensuring the availability of transport to any resident who is under an evacuation order. So just as there was busses available to support people who needed it coming out of Hay River, we would be working with communities if they're under an evacuation order to ensure that every resident is able to evacuate safely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, despite the high court the highest court in the land finding the actions of the GNWT unlawful on the raid of Timber Bay, the Minister has still refused to apologize and take steps to repair the relationships with Lutselk'e Dene First Nation.
Mr. Speaker, when will an internal review of the GNWT officers' conduct at Timber Bay be completed, and will the results be made public? This is the Minister of ENR. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Tu NedheWiilideh. Minister responsible for Environment and Climate Change.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to thank the Member for the questions. But I have to thank him for his diligence in working with me to actually have the opportunity to speak with Chief Marlowe in a facetoface meeting. So, again, I thank him for his work as a constituent MLA for Tu NedheWiilideh.
In regards to his question, after concerns were brought forth in the media in relationship to the officers' conduct, ECC committed to undertake an external review of the officers' conduct during the investigation. Once the investigation is completed, work is currently underway to be ready to start the officers' conduct review once the investigation is completed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, I guess, if I could make this a twopart question, I guess, maybe. When would the review be complete and the other one is, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister commit to meet me, with Chief Marlowe and the Lutselk'e Dene First Nation council and the elders, in the community of Lutselk'e to discuss a better collaborative relationship before the end of the term of this Legislative Assembly? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the report's done, we will make sure we'll get the report done when we get it done.
I have written to the leadership on several occasions regarding Timber Bay and offered to meet to discuss reconciliation efforts once the investigation is completed. ECC remains committed to our partnership with leadership. As previously stated, I will be happy to look at the community's event that would help foster reconciliation when the investigation is completed. This is related to an ongoing legal action. I'm unable to comment further on the search or the investigation to subjective illegal hunting and wastage in the mobile zone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister here today apologize for the unlawful actions of his officers during the Timber Bay raid? We've been waiting for an apology from the Minister as a result of this court being thrown out. Would he apologize to my constituents, the chief and council, and the people in my riding? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the search at Timber Bay was very difficult for some of the people at the camp who were not harvesting wildlife or were harvesting wildlife in a respectful and lawful way. This was not the intent of the officers. At the time, our officers understood that they were carrying out a lawful search based on a warrant issued by the justice of the peace. As the investigation of this case is ongoing, I am unable to speak more on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it a little bit confusing. The judge has already made his decision. This case has already been thrown out. And because it's unlawful. So, again, Mr. Speaker, my constituents demand justice for the raid. I will ask again, will the Minister apologize here today for the unlawful action for his officers during the Timber Bay raid? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said previously I've acknowledged that the search at Timber Bay was very difficult for some of the people at the camp who were not harvesting wildlife or harvesting wildlife in a respectful and lawful way. This was not the intent of the officers. As the investigation of this case is ongoing, I will not be able to speak further on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As committee has been dealing with its UNDRIP legislation, I think it's fair to say there are some fairly high expectations about what the government is willing to change and there are some fairly tall asks being made of the government, and I think it is in everyone's interest that the GNWT be transparent about what it is and isn't willing to do. The GNWT, in that legislation, commits that Indigenous rights are not frozen in time; they are capable of evolution and growth. We have heard that if that is true, then cede and surrender language in agreements is not appropriate and that it should be removed.
My question is, is this the position of the GNWT, that if an Indigenous government wants that language removed from their agreement that we are willing to do that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Honourable Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The GNWT is being very transparent about how we feel about that issue. We publicly stated it's or interests parties. Mr. Speaker, I think that not all agreements have the cease and surrender. The ones that do, there are issues with it. I know that I get concerns on both sides. Sometimes Indigenous governments say, you know, you're taking too long, we want to have it general, and make it broader and we can look at it later.
But I've learned from reading agreements, and I've learned the problems that happen when you don't have clarity in agreements. So I've been a real stickler, Mr. Speaker, that to try to make the agreements as plain language as possible so that there aren't the misunderstandings that I've seen happen in previous agreements. So, yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that clause it's a federal government clause my understanding, the cease and surrender is not appropriate in this time and day. But I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that agreements need to be as clear as possible in as plain language as possible so that all parties, not just the lawyers, understand the meaning of these agreements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to hear that. You know, I think we all know there's a lack of trust and there's still a narrative of the government going up and down the valley, and you know, putting those cede and surrender clauses in, and I think it would be a symbolic win to get them out and to show that we are willing to move on.
We've also heard that for truly free and prior informed consent to exist, perhaps the current regulatory system, although, you know, a great madeinthe North solution, is not one truly built on consent. There is a number of things in agreements where GNWT or federal Ministers still have the last say. I'm wondering if the GNWT has a position on reopening existing agreements on some of those larger questions around consent? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, like I said earlier, all agreements are a little bit different in terminology. Some of the agreements actually have it that they can be opened at any time. I do think that if agreements I think that an agreement that's signed at any time should actually be looked into it. It should not be something that is one time, if you made a mistake you're stuck with it forever. However, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I'm also very conscious of the amount of agreements that we want to get across the table and so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I've been really focusing on getting the unsigned agreements done but still being flexible and working as much as possible with the existing agreements and the Indigenous governments applicable. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in this House, the Premier referred to a number of agreements that I believe they were in draft stage and going out for consultation. I'm just wondering when and if, at all, those will be available for the public to see or myself to see? You know, it's been about 20 years, I think, since you can see whether the GNWT's negotiating position has changed on these matters. There's not a lot of documents out there that shows where we are currently where we have been negotiating for decades. So I'd be very interested to see where we're at and what's changed in the last couple decades. Are any of those going to be public any time soon? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think in this term of this government we've done a lot in regards to land claims, selfgovernment agreements. In fact, we had two years of COVID that people don't would rather not remember, including myself, and that often I've said you can't talk about that. But the amount of work that this government has done in the two years after COVID with these agreements has been phenomenal, Mr. Speaker. As I said yesterday, we have three agreements in draft. They're not called draft because they're not done or proposed. They're called draft, Mr. Speaker, because part of the process of actually doing agreements is that we have to consult with all the other Indigenous governments to make sure that they don't have concerns, that we're not impeding on their rights. So they're called draft, Mr. Speaker, because once we get that consultation process done, which usually takes between four months to eight months, then we have a final agreement. But in that time, if an Indigenous government says, whoa, you're stepping on my rights, I'm not okay with this, then we may have to change that agreement and that's why they're called draft, Mr. Speaker. So I am hopeful that at least one of them the Norman Wells SelfGovernment Agreement I am hopeful that we'll be able to sign it off final agreement in this government. At that time, it would be public.
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, if it's not done, all three in this government, I would say in very early in the next government that that agreement will be the first one to cross the line. And once they're done, I believe they're public. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
