Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. To the motion. Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I go into my four communities in my riding, we have not very much elders left in our communities and the ones that are there are shipped out to Hay River, Fort Smith, and even here in Yellowknife. And we've got to continue to support our elders in our communities, and I know for a fact that we have elders here as well in this facility here in Yellowknife, from Lutselk'e, Dettah, N'dilo, and they really enjoy that facility. And I'm going to support this motion from YK Centre and the seconder from the Sahtu for that reason. Nobody should have to go through what the elders endured during this fire evacuation a few years ago, and I know that we have learned a lot since then. But right now, Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I certainly know from my own experience during the 2023 evacuations attempting to contribute to evacuating and supporting vulnerable populations within Yellowknife. I know that non-profits were in an extremely difficult and at times impossible situation having no clear guidelines set out ahead of time both as to what roles and responsibilities were for the evacuation between themselves, the territorial government, the city, and no clear guidelines as to what they could or couldn't spend money on or be reimbursed for. And so it does seem unfair. I agree that they were only told afterwards what expenditures would be eligible for reimbursement and from where.
So I do support the premise of this motion. I don't personally have the details or evidence in front of me in terms of what exactly Avens sort of spent money on and if there's debate as to whether they should or shouldn't have spent money on certain things and so, like, I don't have the power to review that, but I do think that the GNWT does need to review this instead of just saying that, you know, an entire category of things is not eligible, I think the government has a responsibility to look at this and determine that if the expenditures that were made were reasonable and proportionate in order to do what they were obligated to do, which was protect seniors, protect their residents, take care of them during this evacuation, that funds should be reimbursed. But obviously I don't have the sort of spreadsheets and receipts and all that in front of me that I personally can make that decision, but I do think it deserves the GNWT looking at this again and if, in fact, those expenses were reasonable and proportionate to what needed to be done that Avens be reimbursed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the motion. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by simply saying that Avens has been and remains an important partner to the GNWT in terms of delivering advocacy and support and services to residents, to seniors, to their families. They've been fulfilling that role for a great many years. And the residents that live there, Mr. Speaker, depend upon that sort of services, depend upon the services of the staff that are there. And so, Mr. Speaker, I do -- I acknowledge that there's -- many residents who were brought here as well as staff were here earlier but, Mr. Speaker, at this point, I want to provide a bit of information with respect to some of why the decision is where it is right now and how it has come there, and I want to assure, certainly the residents of Avens and the families of Avens, it is not because of any lack of caring for the residents, for their families, and for the staff that work there or about -- or for even a moment considering that Avens isn't a key partner. All of those things are true, and all of the statements that were made in that respect are accurate, they're fair, and there's not going to be any contest with respect to that.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2023, it was already said almost 50 percent of this territory was evacuated. That was following on earlier evacuations that happened that year and evacuations that happened the year before that and on the heels of the COVID pandemic that created an emergency situation in this territory for two years.
Mr. Speaker, none of that was fair. None of it felt fair. There were many people over the course of those years who went through those emergencies who felt that they were not treated what they called fairly or that felt that they experienced costs or income losses or revenue losses that they wanted compensation from, and quite simply not everyone was made whole at any of those junctures, Mr. Speaker. And, unfortunately, we're at another one of these junctures where an organization that is very well respected, that is an important partner, is coming forward and saying we feel that there's an element of compensation that we've not have been afforded in the course of the emergency.
So how we come to be there, Mr. Speaker, there was -- again, as was noted earlier, health care facilities were evacuated from multiple communities, including Stanton, and the folks that staff those facilities and support staff were called on to assist in moving them in a manner that was not expected and to then continue to provide care when they were evacuated alongside many other public servants from the GNWT who were asked to continue to perform their duties from difficult circumstances. All levels of government, municipal governments, some trying to remain, certainly in the zones that were being evacuated, some key staff remained, which was very difficult for them. Others were evacuated, but that was equally difficult, to continue performing their roles, and a lot of folks in the private sector and the non-profit sector similarly -- airlines would be one example -- asked to perform their services even when bases were moved and facilities were not what they usually were. So there was a lot of that sense, and if we want to say that that was unfair for everyone. But in this context, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest fairness needs to be considered for what it means, which is acting impartially.
So what the GNWT received after from Avens specifically was, firstly, a claim for almost a million dollars, $989,000, and this did cover costs for overtime, accommodations, per diems, laundry, security, transportation, supplies, a lot of the costs that were incurred to support residents directly. Indeed, it's my understanding that this was all of the costs that were there to support the residents of Avens directly with one exception, Mr. Speaker, and that is a second invoice that was originally for $400,000, which I gather is the subject of the motion that's before us. And the reason this element was denied when the other one was fully covered, because this reflected a choice made on how to incentivize staff to attend their work duties. Specifically, it was an offer made and a decision made to offer a lieu time payment and to offer lieu time as an incentive to work your regular shift. And I want to right now say I am by no means passing judgment or suggesting that that was, you know, one way or a good way or a bad way or otherwise. That was a choice that was made that staff who work for Avens were being offered a lieu time payout in order to come and work what was a regular shift. And that, Mr. Speaker, we've gone back to Public Safety Canada. They've confirmed that if it's lieu time that occurs and arises during the emergency, if you have a lieu time that arises during the emergency, it can be part of your payment but when it's used as an incentive structure just as would be a bonus, let's say, that is not eligible. And so the GNWT has continued to apply that approach, Mr. Speaker. So similarly to decisions that would have been made, for example, if there was a public servant that they would certainly get paid their time for working and overtime for working but not be paid an incentive amount to show up to perform their duties.
So, you know, I understand, and, you know, I hear the comments that are being made. I, you know, appreciate the sense that this was all an unfair experience. And, again, Mr. Speaker, I think that sense of unfairness lingers for a great many people. But in terms of trying as a public government to do our best to be impartial in how we apply these rules, many of which, in this context, come from the federal government system, which is really the lion's share of what takes up emergency costs and emergency payouts, Mr. Speaker, that -- trying to be impartial as best as we can and apply some reasonableness by going and fighting to make sure that we get as much as we can for all of those making these claims, that we're certainly happy to continue to do. But there's, as I say, a great, a great many people, across the territory in all levels of government, in the private sector, in the NGO sector, who no doubt incurred some costs and/or had losses that are not being covered and, in terms of fairness, trying to continue to navigate that space as impartially as possible continues to be the approach.
Now, that said, Mr. Speaker, this is a motion; it is seeking to direct the government to take certain steps and, in that context, in keeping with the usual practice, Cabinet will abstain and accept the direction as it may come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am at this time in support of the motion and support the motion coming forward as written. I mean, it sounds -- I appreciate that explanation from the Finance Minister, and, you know, it unfortunately sounds like this is all hinging on a bit of a technicality in terms of how it was claimed, what was claimed, whether it was proceeding during the emergency. I think the thing that was clear to me is during the 2023 evacuation, a lot of things were up in the air. There wasn't very much clarity for a lot of people involved, I think GNWT staff, various NGOs, and a lot was happening quickly, and so decisions might have been made on the fly that could have been made differently if things weren't proceeding and people didn't have to make decisions quickly and just deal with the situation they were dealing with. But they were. So I think, you know, it just feels really unfortunate to me that an organization as integral to our community as Avens, that does this kind of work, has been left in the lurch for a bit of money, you know, that, of course, the federal government is in a much better position to cover. This is money that was directly related to an evacuation of a scale that the territory has never seen before, I hope never does again, and I certainly hope, as we've been talking about in the House this week, that we learn from the events that happened and put a much more robust system and a much clearer set of rules in place so that if emergencies like this ever do happen again that we're much better prepared for it. I certainly expect that from the Department of MACA and that Minister. But I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to further elaborate on things already said by Members. I think the point is well made. I'll vote in favour of the motion. Thank you.
To the motion. Member from Monfwi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we all know forest fire 2023 affected a lot of NWT residents mentally, emotionally, and financially. When Behchoko was evacuated in 2023, we had residents, both the seniors, families with small children, escaping to Yellowknife with fires both sides of the road. And our elders, depending on the space in the facilities, our elders were sent to various places. Some of them were sent to Sahtu, and a lot of them were sent to Yellowknife. And when that forest fire evacuation happened in Yellowknife, many of our elders got caught up in the system. Some of them were sent to Vancouver, to various places, and they had health issues with no interpreters. So this really had an impact on us. So it's just there are some people in my region that are still affected mentally and emotionally, and every time there's forest fire is mentioned, it triggers. It's stress on many of our residents, especially those with families and those -- for senior citizens. So this forest fire 2023, we're still paying for the effects of it. There are still some -- lot of people -- businesses, we heard businesses and to be fair and everything, there are some residents who are affected financially. There were a lot of people that paid for their own accommodations. They provided for themselves. And nobody is looking out for them because as a result of the government policy, they were not eligible so they couldn't get reimbursement. And yes, I do agree senior citizens are the most vulnerable in our society. We need to look after them. But I would like to include in this motion is that I would support it to include to be retroactive to all other residents who spent their own money not just only in my riding but in Yellowknife as well and in Hay River. There's a lot of people that are saying we're still affected, we're still paying our bills. So this motion is good. I like it. And I will support, but I would like to see more done for other NWT residents who were affected by the forest fire 2023. So that way we'll, like, if -- we talked about -- our colleague mentioned fairness, so then we're going to be fair to all the rest of the NWT who were affected. Yellowknife residents, Behchoko residents, Whati residents right now, and for Fort Providence, Hay River, Enterprise, you know, there's a lot of people that were affected by this. So I will support this motion but with some -- you know, I would like to see the mover and the seconder to be working with other Members to be retroactive. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Monfwi. To the motion. Member from Great Slave.
Mr. Speaker, like other folks before me, I really do appreciate the intention behind this motion. As you recall, my questions yesterday spoke to the needs of elders and folks with disabilities in evacuation, and I mean I think this is top of mind for a lot of us. I also appreciate the context that was provided by the finance Minister just now. The resources that we have are stretched, and our pockets are not endless. The surplus has dropped by $150 million. So I can see both sides of the equation, Mr. Speaker.
I'd also like to point out that I have something that one of my colleagues likes to refer to as motion sickness, Mr. Speaker, simply put. I do recognize that this is a sincere and good tool that Regular Members have to direct the government, but the direction is non-binding, Mr. Speaker, and I find that very frustrating indeed. I will support this motion based on principle, but I am sad to say that I can already see the writing on the wall. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the motion. Member from the Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do support -- I will be supporting the motion. I think that, you know, reimburse them, to think about the seniors. And we talk about safe communities for residents and it's one of our priorities, so thinking about that and thinking about how even in my riding when people got evacuated from from here to -- like the Member from Monfwi said, to Vancouver, people are still dealing with the effects of that. And financially too, some people are still dealing with that. So I'm thinking about that and how we care for seniors, how Avens does a lot of work for -- even my constituents, I have a couple of constituents that have -- that were there, had their end of life care there. And so with that, I will be supporting this motion and also looking at the changes that the Member from Monfwi wanted in for reimbursement for people that were affected back then and even up until this last evacuation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from the Deh Cho. To the motion. Member from Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too will be supporting this motion. Like my colleague here saying that these motions are non-binding and can already see the outcome of it, but supporting and reimbursing our greatest resources, our elders, I've always stated that, you know, these elders, we're losing elders at a rapid pace and they're our greatest resources to have within our community. So we have to support them in every way possible. And the non-binding issue is still at the forefront because you can already see the outcome of it, but the intent is there and the support is there, so therefore I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Mackenzie Delta. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Before we go to the vote, Member from Yellowknife Centre can conclude the debate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be long. I will just quickly say first off thank you to all my colleagues who spoke. Every one of them said something of value that I thought was very interesting. I will take on that note specifically the comments made by my good colleague from Monfwi and Deh Cho. I think what I look forward to is working with them to create a motion to say exactly what they want to say, and that way we get that conversation out specifically to target those folks who need that type of help. And I just said to my colleague from Deh Cho and Monfwi that I'd help them work that through so we'd get something done in a timely way.
Mr. Speaker, it is mentioned by two colleagues, my good colleague from Mackenzie Delta, including Great Slave, about it being a non-binding motion. That is true. But what needs to be also true at the same time is the fact that it's a strong voice from this side of the House. So, you know, whatever the final number ends up being is the words were spoken, and I'm hopeful that the department will listen and find a way through this process.
The Minister of Finance points out a comment, and I appreciate what she did in the context of putting stuff -- as I often say the phrase setting the table of the issue. But keep in mind that, you know, things cost what they cost in an emergency, so either you keep people there and you have to pay what you pay or you don't, and then you've got to deal with what you've got. And the clear, simple analogy is, as I said to my good colleague from Inuvik here, which was a plumber may be worth $100 during the day, but you call them at 3 in the morning, they're worth 200 bucks, or else they don't come. So you tell people as the place is under grave threat, well, we're going to pay you regular, I mean, there's a stress there. We have to be real and fair. People have to be appreciated and respected. And I don't think it was a balloon cost. I think it was respect for those who chose to commit themselves to make sure they didn't leave. Because the last thing you needed was people panicking and leaving. And that's part of one of the messages being said here.
Just tying it up very quickly, this motion is about respect for all NGOs, and I want to stress to my colleagues, if you brought -- and it sounded like most people spoke in favour in one form or another, and I want to thank you for that. I want you to know from my heart that if your community's NGO was facing these types of challenges, I mean, please knock on my door because it matters to me. This highlighted, as many of my colleagues have said, Avens does support many of our community people, and we have examples. So, again, it reaffirms it's such a diverse organization supporting Northerners to help sustain as much dignity in their last hours, days, or months of their life, that they have the best way out, the most dignified chapter, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for that. And as such, I'll tie it up with that. I've already asked for a recorded vote, so I'll at this time thank everyone for their time and consideration on this matter. Thank you.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake. The Member for Monfwi. The Member for Frame Lake. The Member for Great Slave. The Member for Mackenzie Delta. The Member for Yellowknife North. The Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. The Member for Deh Cho. The Member for Sahtu.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
The Member for Yellowknife South. The Member for Kam Lake. The Member for Hay River North. The Member for Hay River South. The Member for Nunakput.
All those in favour, 10. Opposed, 0. Abstentions, 5. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Colleagues, I will now return to the point of order raised by the Member of Yellowknife Centre in relation to whether it was a breach of the rules for committee not to report on its review of Bill 26 yesterday.
I will call upon the Member for Frame Lake, the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, to respond. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for granting me a bit of time to prepare a response, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform you and the House that the committee is ready to present a report as early as next week summarizing its review of Bill 26 to date and explaining the reasons the bill has not been reported back as of yet.
Mr. Speaker, the committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, October 20th.
Mr. Speaker, Rule 8.3(2) states that a committee may request an extension of its review, not that it must. The rules do not state that a committee must report a bill back as ready or not or seek an extension.
Mr. Speaker, Rule 8.3(3) covers what happens when a committee doesn't report a bill back and does provide recourse to the bill's sponsor to remedy the situation. The sponsor has the option to give notice of intent to proceed with a bill not reported moving into COW for consideration by the Assembly. Sorry, by COW, I mean Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker.
I have spoken with a Member for Yellowknife North, and she is aware that this option is available to her.
Mr. Speaker, there is precedent to refer to here. Committees do not always report back on bills. This has happened before in the 20th Assembly with Bill 3. Mr. Speaker, in the 19th Assembly, Bill 91, a Private Member's bill regarding the annual reporting on the carbon tax was not reported back by Standing Committee on Government Operations. Instead, most of its provisions were added to Bill 92, which was a separate government bill concerning the carbon tax.
Mr. Speaker, I'll quote from SCOGO's report on Bill 92. Given the Minister's concurrence with Motion No. 4, committee decided to not proceed with Bill 91. The government's legislation now includes detailed annual reporting requirements that committee supported. Committee is satisfied with this outcome. And committee left it at that. Mr. Speaker, those are all the points I have on the point of order itself. As noted, committee is continuing its work on the bill, is prepared to report back as early as next week. So thank you for consideration of these points, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. To the point of order. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll begin with saying that I hear the Member or, in this case, the chair of the committee. The problem with using the Bill 3 example is it was done in error, and it -- but more importantly is even the extended examples as you provided which I can see it as a real example, but the problem is in both cases, they were treated with unanimity, so everyone was in agreement, and sometimes that's the best way to look at something. But there wasn't unanimity in this particular case.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing is that whether reciting one example or two examples, the fact is we have hundreds and hundreds of examples where the practices and procedures have been codified, if not galvanized into our system. We're allowed to break to some extent -- I want to use a little liberty when I describe this this -- all our rules based on unanimous consent. And now, that's not meant to be the assumption of every situation, but I'm just saying that when we agree with unanimous consent, we can sidestep and there are particular examples theoretically --
-- Member from Frame Lake. Yes, Frame Lake, called a point of order. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a difficult one. I understand that the Member's speaking to his point of order; however, in accordance with Rule 3.2, paragraph 3(o), the Member's alluding to matters discussed during a confidential meeting of a committee. And so this puts us in a bit of a difficult situation where we're raising a point of order and speaking to the reasons for that point of order on things that are discussed during committee. Committee hasn't reported back on the bill yet. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank God it's Friday.
So, Member from Yellowknife Centre, do you wish to debate or withdraw your comments regarding to the point of order brought forth by Frame Lake? Do you want to debate?
I wouldn't mind debating for a second if it's possible, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to figure out exactly what I revealed in the context of responding to the Member who just spoke. So in other words, I felt I was responding to his saying internal committee report was coming. That's only an internal process. He had just stated that on the record, and I was, hence, responding. So I can withdraw the points just to move on, but I was responding to him. Thank you.
Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Yeah, no, no, I'll withdraw that last thing I insinuated. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I think we all understand that I must have said something of some minor content, and I'm willing to -- I'm really just trying to say I don't know exactly the wording, but I do understand the intent the Member had raised and I respect that calling our -- and I'm not going to parry that with another point of order, just so we can move on. Thank you.
Back to the original point of order.
Original? Oh, yeah, yeah; it's getting confusing. Okay, now we're on the same page.
I think I'm within my realm that if we talked about the importance of unanimity on doing things collectively, I will stay focused on Bill 3 and the previous examples. And I think that that's important foundation sometimes if you change things. But, again, what's critical, and absolutely codified, is our traditions and practices matter. And whether you provide one example, you know, we can't use the word precedent because it has to be a normal sense that it's structured around. I don't believe at any time that this is that case. An anomaly, yes, but not a precedent.
So, Mr. Speaker, the procedures, as I'm trying to outline here in our rules for committee review of a bill, strike an important balance between ensuring that our committees have adequate time to thoughtfully consider -- of consideration of legislation and ensuring that progress on legislation continues in a meaningful pace -- or at a meaningful pace, I should say. I believe that 120-day timeframe for reporting a bill is reasonable; and further, when necessary, our rules allow for committee to request an extension to continue their review beyond 120 days. When made, these requests are rarely denied by the House. If additional time is required to further consider legislation, the committee should be seeking an extension in accordance with our rules. If additional time is not required, the bill should be reported back to allow for timely consideration by this House in Committee of the Whole. If committee believes the bill should not proceed to review by the House, our Rules 8.3(9) allow for it to be reported as such. Further, this rule also permits the sponsor to move the motion in the House to have a bill proceed to Committee of the Whole.
I believe this process is both fair to the committee and the sponsor of the bill. The requirements of the public clause-by-clause review of a bill as outlined in Rules 8.3(4) are also very reasonable. I would go so far as to say it is necessary when enacting the legislation we consider as standing committee becomes the law that governs the people of the Northwest Territories. The public deserves the opportunity to be informed about the legislation before it is passed. Should the Speaker find that there is a point of order, I request that he directs the committee to complete their review in accordance to our rules, report back to the House within a reasonable timeframe. I also request that the Speaker considers asking our Standing Committee on Procedures and Privilege to review chapter 8.3 of our rules to determine if any changes are necessary to ensure that we continue to strike an appropriate balance between thorough consideration and legislation by our committees and timely passage of the same legislation.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'll say unnecessary delay, whether it's considered and in a manner of fullness of consent could hold a bill at hostage and at bay, and that's the last thing we want done, that a bill just disappears without public reporting, and, hence, I think our rules, practices, and procedures account for that by commanding a bill has time that it must be returned.
And my apologies, the last thing I need to point out is committee should be drawing their reviews of bills to a decision, not dispensing them with their studies of bill to avoid negative reporting or a division in the House. The business of the Assembly, especially decisions, must be public to ensure accountability and transparency. Regardless of the committee's intentions to report next week, it did not report within the obligations to our rule -- to or under our rules, and I urge you not to take predicted action as evidence that the committee discharge its responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, it should have reported back, and that's the bottom line. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the point of order. Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. Some of this has been outlined by the chair of the SCOGO committee. Rule 8.3(3) outlines a path for a bill if a committee chooses as a majority not to report it back. The bill is not deleted, it's not gone, and it does not mean that the committee has not done its work. The sponsor can still bring the bill into the --
-- the camera process of reporting there. Oh, sorry, I apologize. No, go ahead. Finish.
So the bill is not deleted, it's not gone, and it does not mean the committee has not done its work. The sponsor can still bring the bill into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker. We have seen this done in this Assembly. We've seen it done in previous Assemblies. Our rules do not state we must report a bill back. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there's a point of order here. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. To the point of order. Member from Frame Lake.
Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Yellowknife Centre suggested that the committee can hold the bill hostage. I would just note that...
Mr. Morse, you can continue because this is your opportunity to prevent -- his debate. He responded to the point of order. Now this is his sharing of -- Mr. Morse, or Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I made my point already, and it's on the record. I'll just leave it at that.
To the point of order.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Tabled Documents 385, 386, 387, and 388, with the Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh in the chair.
I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order. I'm going to go to the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.
