Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on Private Member Bill 29, First Responders' Workers' Compensation Act. The point of order relates to Rule 1.2(i) of the Rules of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly and the parliamentary convention across Westminster-style Parliaments which prohibits Private Members' bills from requiring expenditure of public funds. I am rising at the first opportunity in the House now that the standing committee studying the bill has reported the bill, as reprinted, back to the House as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
To be clear, we support the principle of the bill. I rise at this point of order because Bill 29 would require the GNWT to pay a one-time liability payment estimated to be $4.3 million that is separate and distinct from any existing appropriation. This one-time payment is in addition to an increase of an estimated $409,000 to the annual rates that the GNWT pays to the WSCC.
Rule 1.2 of our rules defines what a Private Member's bill may not involve. This definition limits Private Members' bills to bills that do not involve the appropriation of public funds or the imposition of any tax. While Bill 29 does not expressly set out the appropriation of a specific amount of funds, over the course of the standing committee's review of the bill, it became clear that the effect of the change put forward in Bill 29 would result in the requirement to allocate new public funds which would need to occur by appropriation. These anticipated amounts go beyond incidental implementation costs that would fall under an existing appropriation.
Bill 29 proposes to change presumptive coverage of listed diseases for firefighters. Bill 29 also proposes changes to the minimum employment period for such coverage. While workers' compensation programs are typically considered as self-funded because the costs of the programs are covered by insurance premiums or assessment fees that are collected from the employers based on set collections in the Northwest Territories, presumptive coverages that are provided for in Act are a bit different. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission governance council approves the model for setting rates payable for workers' compensation coverage in the Northwest Territories.
The rate setting model approved by the governance council for presumptive coverage for firefighters places all insurance liability for presumptive coverage for Northwest Territories workers with the GNWT. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission has estimated the proposed changes to presumptive coverage put forward in Bill 29, as introduced, would have resulted in a one-time insurance liability payment of $17 million. The amount of the liability payment for the bill, as modified in standing committee, will be lower but as mentioned is estimated to be nearly $4.3 million.
Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill would come into force one year after the date the bill receives assent. This static coming-into-force date does not allow the executive council to have any ability to control incurring the costs associated with the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would involve an appropriation of public funds necessary to implement the amendments according to the WSCC rate setting rules according to a timeline over which the government has no control. The one-time liability payment would be a new and distinct expenditure that is not contemplated in an existing appropriation. This makes such changes improper to be advanced in a Private Members' bill which cannot involve the appropriation of public funds.
Mr. Speaker, I should clearly state that this point of order is not raised about the merits of the changes of presumptive coverage presented in Bill 29. It is simply raised because we have a rule that limits what the Private Members' bill can do. If the effect of Bill 29 is that it results in new and distinct amount that will have to be appropriated, it does not appear to be within the authority of the Private Member to bring it forward. The authority for recommending spending of public money lies with the executive council. This is the source of the limitation on Private Members' bill as reflected in the rules.
As such, I believe this bill is out of order. I look forward to the Speaker's ruling which would provide clarification on the matter that will be of assistance to all Members going forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Thebacha. To the mover of the bill. Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Rule 1.2(i) states Private Members' bills are bills introduced by a Member who is not a Minister which does not involve the appropriation of public funds or the imposition of tax, which is the subject of the point of order.
I would point out, however, that when signing the Minister -- the Minister moving the point of order cited Westminster parliamentary traditions around Private Members' bills. It is very important to consider that Private Members' bills are different and distinct in each legislature in Canada and, indeed, in the Commonwealth as well, and our Rule 1.1(2) states: In all cases, not provided for in these rules or by other orders of the Assembly, the customs and procedures of this Assembly, the principles and process conventions of consensus government, the House of Commons of Canada, provincial and territorial legislatures, and parliaments and the Commonwealth shall be followed in that order.
So if we are to assess the parameters of a Private Members' bill, we need to look at our precedents first. And there are many precedents for Private Members' bills in this Assembly. So we don't need to look elsewhere because it wouldn't be a fair comparison because the House of Commons has very different rules that are spelled out in their standing orders, and we have different rules here, which I just quoted, Rule 1.1(i).
So let's look at that rule. So first, the test is, am I a Minister? No, I am not. I am a Member. The second is, does it appropriate public funds or impose a tax? It does not, Mr. Speaker. The bill does not speak to appropriating money the way an appropriations bill does. It does not seek to raise a tax the way we would in an appropriations bill as well or a financial policy instrument.
Mr. Speaker, any action by government will always come at a cost, whether it is the implementation of a Private Member's bill, a government bill, policy work, or programming work by departments. It is the responsibility of the government to make the necessary appropriations to meet their commitments and fund these activities. The coming into force date of this bill has been amended by the standing committee, as mentioned, with my concurrence, to give the government sufficient time to plan their appropriations for future fiscal years. It is 12 months from the day of assent which allows for an entire budget cycle to take place.
In the past, there have been numerous bills introduced by both government and Regular Members that have similarly created situations where subsequent spending was required. Our practice has never been such that a recommendation from our Commissioner for the appropriation of funds is required as long as the bill itself does not appropriate the funds.
I understand that in some jurisdictions, as I mentioned, a similar bill might require a Royal recommendation or Commissioner's recommendation, but that is not and has never been the case in our practices and precedents.
While the bill does not directly appropriate funds, it does strengthen the comprehensive workers' compensation coverage for firefighters and first responders, which is an employer-driven system. Employers will pay more going forward, and that is exactly how the system is intended to work for the benefit and protection of all employees in the territory. The notion that the Government of the Northwest Territories is required to fully and solely fund any outstanding liabilities of the Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission is outside the scope of this bill. It is a result, instead, of the policies of the Commission, the WSCC governance council and, by extension, the government. This is the reason why the coming-into-force date has been amended, to give our government and, indeed, the Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission, more than sufficient time to explore their policies and options, determine their liabilities, and appropriate any necessary funds through the regular budgeting cycle, Mr. Speaker.
And just to demonstrate this, in the life of this Assembly, Bill 8 received assent on November 1st, 2024. That bill, moved by the Member for Yellowknife Centre, require -- lifted the total funds available for SFA. The government subsequent -- although -- and that was not an appropriation, Mr. Speaker. It was changing a policy. It was changing the limit of those funds. The government subsequently came forward with a supplementary appropriation to fund that change by enhancing the total amount available to SFA funding.
When Bill 8 passed through second reading, committee review, and third reading, the government did not rise a point of order to that bill despite the fact that it followed a very similar path and created very similar obligations on -- you know, according to the logic behind this point of argument.
As for timing, the government -- the bill received first -- Bill 29 received first and second reading in May of 2025, approximately nine months ago. No concerns regarding order or procedural matters were raised when the bill was introduced and read into the House. In fact, when the bill was read a second time on May 29th, 2025, the responsible Minister spoke favourably about it, even stating that Cabinet was in support of the principle. And at that time, no Member of the executive council raised a point of order questioning procedural matters related to the appropriateness or properness of the bill as it relates to our standing orders.
Mr. Speaker, if they're prepared to support -- the government that is -- the government Members to support the principle of this bill and have even suggested in correspondence and conversations that they would bring forward an equivalent piece of legislation to make similar changes, that it stands to reason that the government is, indeed, prepared to appropriate this money. The amendments made by committee, as I said, extend the coming-into-force for 12 months. That's a year of time, Mr. Speaker, plenty of time to manage the appropriation and assess those obligations, as much as they did with Bill 8.
Mr. Speaker, one more thing. The policies of the WSCC -- I want to state this very clearly -- are a decision of the WSCC. They are making a decision on how to fund liabilities, on what those liabilities are. These are policy decisions that they can make and change and assess as circumstances change. It is not required by Bill 29. Bill 29 does not speak to liability costs. Bill 29 does not speak to employer fees. So it is not an appropriation bill, not in any sense of the word, Mr. Speaker. And, again, I disagree with the Minister. He had plenty -- he had an earliest time to raise concerns with the bill, and that was at second reading. The financial obligations, as he said, were initially assessed at $17 million, and when the WSCC came before standing committee they brought detailed facts and figures and projections. They were well aware of the financial implications of this bill at the time it was read a second time. That was the earliest time to do so.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I believe this point of order is not a question of procedure. Rather, it is a question of politics.
In this chamber, we resolve those questions through decisions. And I recall a conversation I've had with the previous clerk who says -- who's told me, in consensus government, when I was a young Member, procedure is a means to an end not an end in itself. It should not be used to resolve questions that should be resolved through the decisions of Members by way of voting. Accordingly, I ask that you dismiss the point of order and allow this Assembly to decide on the merits of Bill 29 for what they are by voting on it.
I look forward to your decision, and say mahsi cho for allowing me to speak to this question of order. Thank you.
Colleagues, I thank both the government leader and the sponsor of the bill for their debate on this matter. I will take this matter under advisement, allowing myself time to thoroughly review the transcripts here today, as well as undertake some additional research, as it is something very unique. And I will return my ruling at a later date. Thank you. We will now continue orders of the day.
Reports on the standing committee -- actually, colleagues, being in recognition of the time, we will have a brief break.
---SHORT RECESS
