Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS public safety is a key priority of the 20th Legislative Assembly established through "safe and healthy communities"
AND WHEREAS climate change is exacerbating the frequency and intensity of flooding, wildfires and other natural disasters;
AND WHEREAS the 2023 wildfire evacuations of two-thirds of the population of the Northwest Territories, and subsequent evacuations due to severe climate events, have resulted in continuing trauma and negative mental health impacts;
AND WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, the Government of the Northwest Territories contracted Transitional Solutions Inc. to review its management of the 2023 wildfire crisis through the production of a Northwest Territories 2023 Wildfire Season After-Action Review Report;
AND WHEREAS the After-Action Review Report was conducted and overseen by certified experts in emergency management and bore a cost to taxpayers of the Northwest Territories in the approximate amount of $330,000;
AND WHEREAS the After-Action Review Report completed by Transitional Solutions Inc. was released on May 14, 2025, and made 35 recommendations, including the creation of a dedicated Emergency Management Agency;
AND WHEREAS this recommendation is consistent with previous recommendations to strengthen the Northwest Territories emergency management organization with dedicated resources and authorities, including the 2022 Spring Flooding After-Action Review and the Government of the Northwest Territories Search and Rescue System Review Final Report;
And WHEREAS, on October 2, 2025, the Government of the Northwest Territories provided its response to the After-Action Review Report rejecting the recommendation to create a dedicated Emergency Management Agency;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories did not conduct a thorough cost analysis for identifying a suite of options using existing human and financial resources to implement the recommendation;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Member for Yellowknife Centre, that the Government of the Northwest Territories accept the After-Action Review Report recommendation to "Create one dedicated territorial Emergency Management Agency for the NWT, providing coordination support to local authorities leading the emergency response(s)";
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories implement the recommendation to create one territorial Emergency Management Agency for the Northwest Territories within the recommended timeframe of 0 to 12 months;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories bring forward the necessary policy changes and resources to implement the recommendation by May 2026, as recommended by Transitional Solutions Inc.;
AND FURTHERMORE, that in accepting the recommendation, the Government of the Northwest Territories consider repositioning existing resources within the public service in addition to new investments, including establishing new mandates for existing, new, or amalgamated line departments;
AND FURTHERMORE, that a dedicated Emergency Management Agency so established will work to implement the remaining recommendations of the After-Action Review Report, including ensuring that the care of children, elders, and persons with disabilities are better supported by public safety policies and programs;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories respond to this motion in 120 days.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Range Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is not unknown to legislatures or to government systems in Canada that independent reviews will contain recommendations that governments disagree with. Often when they agree with recommendations, there will be so many caveats that it might as well be a disagreement. In this case, there are 35 recommendations. One recommendation was not agreed with, and that is the recommendation to create a dedicated emergency management agency.
Many times in our parliamentary procedures here in the House, we will disagree with the government's disagreement and encourage them to accept the recommendation. We have a standing committee of public accounts. Before that, we had standing -- we had various standing committees that would review independent reports or reports of the auditor general and say the exact same thing - we disagree with your disagreement, we encourage you to accept that. The purpose of this motion is to do the same thing here, but it arises to a special attenuation in the minds of the public because it was the one recommendation that was rejected, and this wildfire evacuation review was so important to our constituents.
The findings of the report were very clear, and for me the most concerning one is the lack of trust that Northerners place in their government after that event. Trust is very slow to rebuild from governments or from anyone in a position of authority. It's easy to lose and very hard to get back. We need to do everything we can as an Assembly to ensure that the government is working to restore trust with the public. And rejecting this crucial recommendation, one of the most urgently -- one of the ones that was urged to be recommended with the same class of immediate recommendations in the report just shows how crucial this was. And reading from the report -- which I won't do at length, Mr. Speaker -- but the independent experts that we retained for this work said establishing a dedicated wraparound emergency management model, such as an agency, rather than relying on the current as-needed linear EMO, emergency management organization, approach is essential for enhancing resilience and preparedness in the Northwest Territories. Agency models effectively oversee all phases of emergency management. This fosters a culture of preparedness and ensures a nimble and coordinated response to emergencies and disasters.
They further state the agency organization would be responsible for facilitating collaboration between federal, territorial, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, to ensure a unified approach to emergency management while ensuring the local authority maintain ownership and authority for the emergency, implement strategies to reduce the risk of disasters through proactive planning, develop and maintain comprehensive territorial emergency plans, and provide clear guidelines to communities for their local plans, conduct regular training and exercises to ensure all relevant parties are aware of these plans and how they complement one another, rather than replace or hand off to one another, provide emergency management in unincorporated and special areas, and support communities to recover from disaster by providing resources, guidance, and assistance as a wraparound service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the concerns from the Minister are that such an agency would be seasonal. They would only work for the warm summer months and then, you know, sit around for the rest of the year doing nothing. I think just the bullet points I read out show how that could be a year-round job, you know, ensuring training is ongoing, especially in the off-season so you can be prepared for the next season; ensuring that reports and plans are well documented, well vetted; ensuring that disaster recovery efforts -- these take years to facilitate. We have multiple members in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, who have communities who are still recovering. And notably the member for Deh Cho, who had another community over the summer evacuated, and it was not a smooth evacuation. We saw that very clearly, you know.
And I said this at the time when queried by the media, I'll stop complaining about, you know, the lack of -- seemingly, the lack of care towards public safety and emergency management when the public stops complaining. Because when these evacuations are going on yes, there's people -- there's always two sides to a story, but we are hearing loudly from the community that alerts are coming too late or not at all, that firefighting activities are not listening to local community concerns, and these are all the things that a broader mandate on public safety would allow us to accomplish that we're currently not achieving as a government. And the recommendation is very clear about an agency, and it cites the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, the New Brunswick Emergency Measures Plan, and the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency as best practices. I don't think government needs to, again, take every -- just do everything the recommendations say. They're to be interpreted, to be massaged, let's figure out a way to do this. In this case, I do think we have a lot of expertise in the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. I don't think it's structured as effectively or efficiently as it could be to manage public safety. But we do have experts. We do have a strong volunteer contingent across the Northwest Territories that many members, including the Minister, who were a part of during the 2023 wildfires. So it's not that we lack the expertise, and certainly any criticism of how we manage public safety is not a criticism of the volunteers who are doing it, but it is the systems they are doing it in, which we have 165 pages to show how they were insufficient and were tested to the limit and broke under pressure. And now we are trying to fix that so it never happens again and so the public knows they can trust that their government takes their lives and their property seriously. And the fact that that's a question at all should have made it a number one priority for this government. But I would argue it's a number one priority for all governments, whether you write it down or not.
So when we look to how we can make this work, we drafted -- this motion was drafted to allow government, or to encourage rather, not just allow but to encourage government to look towards its own resources and be flexible and creative about how to meet these recommendations. If an agency isn't appropriate, a new departmental mandate might be, or maybe you could do both. Maybe there's other means to do it. But the EMO, the ad hoc, as and when, incident-based EMO, is not fit for purpose in an era where climate change is causing these disasters each and every year. We hear this all the time - it's only going to get worse from here. We get that reaffirmed every year when it happens. And recently there was reporting from experts saying it's going to happen again and increasing severity and as especially our most vulnerable communities, rural and remote communities that are very small, are impacted by these events. If the emergencies are not managed well, people are unprepared, if communities aren't prepared, we will get to a place where there is a significant loss. And I don't want to be in that place. This is preventative management of emergencies to ensure that they don't happen. And there are plenty of governments in Canada and the world that have departments of public safety and emergency preparedness.
You know, there's a way -- we've amalgamated departments in the past as well. Infrastructure is an amalgamation of transportation and public works and services. Finance is finance and human resources, maybe a few other things I've forgotten about. You know, there's a number of amalgamations that we've done to save costs so let's do that now. Sharpen the mandate of MACA, call it the Department of Public Safety; move it into justice, and now we have all of our community safety programs and our public safety programs and our emergency management in one place.
Mr. Speaker, the motion in its preamble mentioned the search and rescue report which I've raised and raised on the House as well, and the government's response to that report that was federally funded was basically we don't have an EMO that does the stuff you want or you're recommending so we can strengthen search and rescue in the territory so we're not going to do it. Not oh, we should make changes so we have better search and rescue. Because that recommendation speaks to that. It's a vast territory, Mr. Speaker. You know this. We all know this. And when people go missing, it's a real concern to the community, and there are not a lot of resources. Again, they're ad hoc, volunteer-driven resources supported by RCMP and coast guard and other officials. But the people doing the work are volunteers, and there's only one volunteer search and rescue organization in the Northwest Territories that is organized, and that's here in Yellowknife. And that's not enough. You know, when people go missing in, again, rural and remote communities in the middle of the Arctic, that's when you need to have the support of a dedicated emergency management agency that can coordinate search and rescue activities, that can coordinate resources to ensure that volunteers are trained, that resources are marshaled effectively, and that communities are prepared when people go missing. That's just one example of the ongoing work that a dedicated public safety agency could do. And there are many, many more. They're enumerated in this report.
So it just shocked me that this recommendation was rejected in the first place, that the costing, the options, the approach to how could we make this recommendation work was not taken, seemingly. I mean, I'm prepared to accept that that fact might be untrue, and there could be something we haven't considered. But at this point, questions have been asked, and the answer have been we didn't -- we dismissed it, we didn't try to make it work. And Northerners expect their government to at least try before dismissing it when the stakes are so great. And that's why this motion is here today, you know, to encourage the government to reconsider this decision that they've made and to make the right decision, which is to invest in public safety like we would invest in a major infrastructure project, like we would invest in cost savings by amalgamating departments.
We make strategic investments all the time. We know things are going to get worse, not better. And even if we do have an off-season that defies predictions and there's no evacuations, there's no disasters, that doesn't mean we don't need this because we need to be prepared when it does happen. And not just one agency, not just one department, not one division, not one community. The entire government needs to be prepared.
We saw what happened when there weren't business continuity plans, when the government was caught flat-footed, when people left the territory on planes, what that did to the organizational structure of the government. We can't afford to see these things happen again. Many steps have been taken. Yes, we acknowledge that. The government has agreed to all the other recommendations. Not fully; there are some that are only partial or general agreement. And I take issue with some of those as well, but we'll address those at another time. They're not subject to this motion. But we need to see a government that walks the talk -- or sorry, that talks the talk and walks the walk on public safety. And until we have dedicated resources to make that happen, there will be a doubt in my mind and a doubt in the minds of the people we represent. And that needs to change, and it could be changed very easily by reconsidering this decision and doing the work. And at the very least, do the work and prove to us, the MLAs, your first audience, that this can't work in the Northwest Territories when it works so well everywhere else. If you can convince us, then we're going to explain that to our constituents. But as long as we're unconvinced, we need to do more. We need to do more as a government. And the rejection of this one recommendation broke through the acceptance of the others. And that's very true in the conversations I had with my constituents, in the conversations I hear in the community, and that's why it's here on the floor today.
So I urge this House to support this motion and to tell the government a strong message that this House cares about public safety, and we care about the great expense and the time and effort that went into the report that produced this recommendation, and we want to see it implemented, all recommendations fully so we have a territory that we know is safe and secure come what may in the future as we live in increasingly uncertain times.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And at the appropriate time, I will request a recorded vote.
Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the motion. Member from Hay River South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the motion brought forward and the continued focus on strengthening emergency management in the Northwest Territories. Although it might be strange to have a Minister who is trained and then has the background in emergency services for over the past 30 years, but the government of the Northwest Territories remains committed to improving our emergency preparedness and response system.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by clarifying the structure and responsibilities of emergency management organizations, or EMO, as it currently operates in the NWT.
The EMO is a fully staffed office that operates year-round within the Department of Municipal Community Affairs. It is responsible for coordinating territorial emergency planning, preparedness, response, and recovery. This includes leading the territorial emergency response plan, supporting local authorities in their emergency response planning, and coordinating multi-agency response through the Territorial Emergency Operations Centre.
Mr. Speaker, the current EMO structure is consistent on how emergency management organizations in other jurisdictions across Canada operate.
For example, the Yukon EMO is also located within the department of community services. Like the NWT, the Yukon EMO provides coordination training and supports communities. Communities lead emergency response first, and then the territorial supports scaled in as needed.
The Alberta Emergency Management Agency functions under the ministry of public safety. While Alberta uses the term agency, it is not a standalone body but part of a larger ministry. It performs coordination, planning, capacity building for municipalities who are responsible for leading emergency response with provincial support coordination as needed.
Emergency Management BC is located within the ministry of emergency management and climate readiness. It operates through regional offices and coordinates with local governments like NWT, BC, and emphasizes local response with provincial supports as needed.
PEI and Newfoundland also embedded their EMOs within the Department of Justice and public safety.
Mr. Speaker, these examples show how emergency management does not require a standalone agency to be effective. Coordination, scalability, intergovernmental collaboration are the key success factors.
Mr. Speaker, the GNWT's position is that the core responsibilities recommended in the after-action review are already being carried out in the current EMO structure. During emergencies, the EMO coordinates the territorial response, supports communities that have activated their emergency plan, facilitates communications along with local and territorial partners, and activates the territorial EOC when large-scale or complex events occur. Outside of high-risk season, the EMO delivers training and exercises, helps community development, and validates emergency plans. We maintain templates and guidance material and advance planning and risk assessment activities to strengthen preparedness. We recognize that the improvements were and are still needed, particularly on how we communicate, coordinate, and integrate with Indigenous governments and the local communities. And we are acting on those priorities.
The EMO operates under the Incident Command System, or ICS, which provides a clear, nationally-recognized structure for managing emergency response. This system allows operational decisions to be made by trained experts based on real-time conditions while keeping elected officials informed and engaged in appropriate ways. MACA offers executive training to help leadership understand their roles in this structure, supporting effective governance, and avoiding well-intentioned political actions that could disrupt the response and operations.
Mr. Speaker, the after-action review looked at the events from two years ago. It is looking backwards while we are looking forward and moving forward.
Following the 2023 wildfire season, MACA undertook the following actions to improve our EMO operations:
The NWT Emergency Plan was updated to clarify roles and responsibilities;
Communication protocols and aids for communities were put into place;
Surge capacity was increased and more training.
New regional emergency coordinator positions in all regions were staffed, and a trainer to support communities in updating their emergency plans was hired;
MACA also hired an additional communications officer to provide better support to communities during emergencies.
All GNWT departments have developed business continuity plans that have been used to ensure core programs and services are delivered in the times of emergencies.
We have seen real improvements in emergency response coordination and communication, and this was especially evident during the 2025 wildfire season. The coordination between community governments and Indigenous governments to stand up local EMOs and coordinate with a regional EMO reflects on the strength of our improved collaboration on the ground. While the circumstances were extremely challenging, there were also clear successes, and we will continue to learn from each event, strengthening our system, and improve with every response.
Mr. Speaker, rather than restructure, our focus is on strengthening what already exists:
debriefing recent emergencies,
enhancing local training and tabletop exercises,
improving interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination and response readiness.
These are tangible, immediate actions that can build resilience.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, we share the Members' goal of improving emergency management. We believe the current structure, when supported with clear authority, community engagement and interagency coordination, can meet the needs of the people of Northwest Territories. For this reason, the GNWT does not support creating a standalone EMO agency.
That said, Mr. Speaker, as this motion makes a recommendation to the government, the Cabinet will be abstaining from the vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Hay River South. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where do I begin my disagreement? There are so many spots. But I have to pick one; I'll start with the last one.
Shame on the government saying that they're going to vote -- you know, take this recommendation, abstain from it. At least be on the record that you're voting it down. It's a shame. Politicians are meant to make decisions, and often I see the -- when people abstain, such as the Cabinet, the citizens see it as a very sincere disappointment. At least stand somewhere on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, the decision made by -- or I should rather coin it as the recommendation made by TSI, I think was a very clear argument of saying this is why I'm doing -- or they're making this recommendation based on -- it just not sounds good, it's a reality. We need a coordinated approach. We need a territorial emergency management agency. And this is why.
If you listen to the Minister, it was clearly a justification why we're not doing something. And back to justification in on itself, to my questions earlier in the session, Mr. Speaker, I was actually quite shocked, not necessarily shocked and appalled, but quite shocked that they had not analyzed the cost of this position out or this directorate concept out. I often think that they get this idea that we're going to create a new finance department, MACA department, whatever. It's not necessary to create something -- a new mega list within the government to achieve the goals that the report is pointing out.
TSI is just not some willy-nilly group on the street that said hey, can you give us a snapshot over a coffee and a long weekend and tell us what happened here. They are the gold standard of their industry. They're called upon many governments and agencies to ask what to do. And they offer fantastic advice.
So the government will stand here and say well, we accepted 34 out of 35 decisions. Mr. Speaker, the one they ignored or shot down probably, in some ways, was probably the most important one.
I view it this way, Mr. Speaker: That decision is almost akin to say, for example, a conductor in an orchestra, they pull all the beautiful music together, EMOs, LMOs, yadda, yadda, communities, Indigenous governments, they are getting them all together, singing and coordinating them. That's why that position of an orchestra is so important, a conductor, and that's exactly why this position would be so important in this situation, Mr. Speaker. So to justify it and say well, we did 34 out of 35, let's call it a weekend, is not asking what are you doing right. I think in some ways it's abdicating the responsibility, what's so key to ensure that we're safe.
Mr. Speaker, let's just follow that note for a second. Well, duplication. Well, not busy enough. I think the answer, their justification in their response is, well, small population, limited fiscal and human resources. Well, I look forward to the government saying -- and I don't agree with this statement just to be clear -- well, we don't need a CEO of elections. I mean, they don't do anything for three, three and a half years, right? I think we're all in agreement there's an election typically once every four years. So, I mean, you know, a couple weeks, a couple months before the lead-up, a couple months after that, what a waste. Well, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker. There's oodles of policy, process, and planning, and organization, and coordination, and technology changes. They're busy all the time. I would never stand for that. But you would turn around and say well, just because others are doing it is a reason for us not to do it. Wake up. I mean, the trends are there. And the trends aren't just because they're fancy. The trends are there based on a necessity.
I mean, I've heard this government repeatedly, and I'm sure I could spend a lot of time, come up with hundreds of examples, where we constantly talk about the changes and impacts of climate change on the Northwest Territories. All the time we hear the phrase about how it impacts us here, our weather is changing, our forests are changing, they're dryer, there's more -- the floods are coming in different ways. Sometimes there's no floods of water coming down the gate of Alberta through BC to us to make sure we can get our freight up the Mackenzie. So the world is changing before us, and this type of position is exactly what it is intended to be, to help coordinate communities, help support assets, to be there for policy, to help test those community emergency plans, to organize them, make sure they're published publicly so people know in the communities and the territory at large that they not only exist, we know what they are, and we know that they're planned, and they will be executed if need be to the best of their ability. All of those things would come from this, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a trend, again, of fancy shoes. This is a trend of people have realized the bell of emergencies has been ringing, and it's time to jump on board before that clanger bell falls off. Mr. Speaker, it's ringing loud and clear.
So the government to provide, in my opinion, a contradiction about saying, well, this is what we're doing I think it's -- I think, yes, it's true that they're doing things, and I think that that's fair. And I think it's fair. And I think it's also true that we have talented individuals that will come together and work their best. And I believe that wholeheartedly. But what the keystone of all of this stuff is is this type of management agency within the government. And you know, when I hear well, fiscal is a problem, you know, I say, boy, we sure seem to have all these, you know, assistant deputy ministers, and Ministers and envoys popping up, all these dollar amounts. But this position, think about it. It helps us save millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars we put at risk every year. I mean, when have we had a cheap fire? I mean, every year this government goes into the 10s and 10s of millions of dollars to cover for the -- through the appropriations to pay for the fire season and other types of things. How many times have we talked about Enterprise and the impacts of that fire and how difficult it is for them to move ahead?
Recently, we heard about Fort Providence or we're well aware of the Whati, and it's every year, Mr. Speaker. And whether it's -- you know, professionals in the system have told me that the current system, even just, you know, it's not -- doesn't facilitate the need. And so it facilitates the need -- where they're pointing out is, yeah, they're there Monday to Friday, 8 to 5, but these systems need to run 24 hours a day and make sure they're available. There are no weekends off when it's summer emergencies, Mr. Speaker, emergency season.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very concerned about when the government feels that they -- you know, this is a bad idea, but they haven't cost it, they haven't even imagined it, what it could look like. They haven't even tried. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to finish by saying that good policy would ask ourselves the question of are we doing the best we can, and by rejecting this recommendation would be a demonstration of they're not. And that's key. And I think as my colleague from Range Lake had pointed out, you know, these questions will keep coming as long as they keep coming from the community to us, wondering why the government is doing what they do.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'll be supporting this motion. I'm pleased to second it. And I certainly hope that our collective will cause the government to revisit this issue because it is a critical one to be the foundation and the base of every year when we're confronted with these situations. Because by the time an emergency happens, it's already too late. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that both we and officials within municipal and community affairs take the time to better understand the detailed rationale behind this recommendation in the after-action review, and reflect on how we can accomplish the intent of the recommendation in the most cost effective way.
What I'm hearing so far from municipal and community affairs is good news, our internal system is working great, and all it took was some additional training and better efforts at communication. And, anyways, 2023 was a long time ago and we went ahead and fixed everything before we even received the after-action review.
So that response, first, does not seem very credible to the public who felt badly burned, pardon the pun, by the 2023 evacuations and wildfire response. And, secondly, if you look at the text of the report and the rationale for this recommendation, the government hasn't accomplished everything that was intended.
The review says that a proper structure must have its own defined governance to ensure operational independence while still maintaining accountability. The review documents cases of political interference, delays in decision-making, and it's not enough to say, well, don't worry, those days are behind us. The after-action review emphasizes that the current structure is too fragmented, and quote, is not agile enough for large scale, multiple concurrent, or long duration emergencies."
Now the government argues that we do not have the resources to staff an entirely new agency. And I agree, but we don't need to start from scratch. I want to point out also that this is not the only recommendation in the after-action review where there are problems with the government's response. In numerous cases, the government said it agreed or partly agreed but then went on to explain how it doesn't really need to do the recommended action, or it explains what's already happening, but that explanation doesn't actually match what's being recommended.
So, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I will be supporting this motion in the hopes that it will lead the government to reflect further on cost effective ways to achieve the functions of a standalone emergency management agency. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. To the motion. Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to speak to this motion today. Mr. Speaker, I was perplexed when I both -- I guess from a political perspective and from an operational perspective when the GNWT flatly just rejected this recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the exact answer is. I do know that given the amount of hours we put in as Regular Members and Cabinet on determining how to go about this review, how to move it from an inquiry to an after-action, we collaborated on it, Mr. Speaker, we all had representatives to give us information back as this process went on. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I'm perplexed to say, to just flat out say no. What I would have hoped, you know, as a government and certainly is to come back and say, listen, at least we're going to take this away. We understand what they're saying. We're going to look at staffing, we're going to look at costing, we're going to look at whether or not we can amalgamate some departments as my colleague from Range Lake had said. So, Mr. Speaker, and, again, the proponents that did this review, I mean, they're aware of what we have. And I'm certainly not taking away from the hardworking people that we have throughout this government. And I know a lot of them, and Members in here know a lot of them. And that's not the point. The point is there was a recommendation here that at least needs to be considered, and it needs to be considered, as I said, through costing, through staffing, or how we want to do that, Mr. Speaker.
So I'm not going to reiterate for all the reasons because obviously the Members who spoke previously had already done that. But certainly I would recommend this motion. And, again, I would recommend that the government look at this recommendation a little closer and, indeed, look at how we can make this work for everyone. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. To the motion. Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the experiences that I accumulated over the number of years fighting fire there way back when I can't remember, it's been so long here; we had rubber boots in those days. And to see the climate change and the very likelihood of having forest fires in our territory every summer is very likely to happen. So in short, I'll be supporting this motion on the spirit of management, efficiencies, and responses to protect our homes. We only got to look at the community of Enterprise, Mr. Speaker, the losses there and the effects and the costly effects for that matter, Mr. Speaker, of forest fires in our territory. Yes, I'm glad to see that we're making reference to other jurisdictions. We take those into account, what other jurisdictions are doing. But in the spirit of efficiencies on fire management, it's really the responsibility of the Members sitting around this chamber. We got to keep in mind that we learn from our experiences. And, Mr. Speaker, from those experiences, we have the responsibility to do what we think is best, not only for the communities in the south but the communities in the north.
I quote my brother-in-law during the evacuations of these communities in the southern territory. He had mentioned to the community in Fort Good Hope that we should be doing a feed the water ceremony, not a feed the fire ceremony, on the spirit and intent our family and friends and neighbours in the south need water. I never forgot that, Mr. Speaker. I think that was very commendable from Lawrence Manuel.
So I see a lot of value in the demand, the need, adjustments, reflections, on efficiencies to manage our territory. And on those bases and the recommendations, and the people that developed those recommendations. It's not somebody, as the previous Speaker mentioned, where didn't just hire somebody off the street that needed some consulting employment. So that by itself gives me faith that we hired and did the review and accreditation on hiring somebody, a firm, that would produce quality recommendations in the report. So in closing, I'll be supporting the motion, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi.
Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. To the motion. Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, we all come to the House, we all try to work together, look for solutions and, you know, we talk about consensus government and we're trying to make it work. And I was here when we voted on a motion not long after the fire season ended three years ago, and a couple years ago we put a motion in the House here to ask for a public inquiry, and it was defeated in this House. So I was a little taken aback for the fact that the people in our riding had some serious concerns about what happened. To this day, you know, we're really -- I guess the angels must be watching over us because this could have been really worse. There could have been a lot of fatalities.
So when I came here to vote and try to make consensus government work, the motion passed, but not long after that it was brought out that we're going to do our own internal investigation, totally dismissing the motion that we brought forward that was brought to our attention by our constituents. And so now here we are today talking about this motion, and for me, I'm trying to make this thing work, and to make sure that our people have a voice, and if we couldn't get a public inquiry and we now here we got an independent report and what's missing, though, is the human side of it. What I hear is that we got a report here, we got a motion here, but whenever I go back to my constituency, there are people saying, jeez, you know, I really would have wished they had a committee that kind of went around the communities and to listen to their issues and concerns.
I was there in Fort Resolution when Yellowknife was evacuated, Behchoko, they're all heading south, there was a fire in Hay River, Fort Smith, the community of Fort Resolution was on the verge of evacuation but good thing the leadership got together and said, no, where we going to go. There's still a lot of trauma that people have concerns with. And the human factor that is missing here. And I'm a little disappointed that we're totally just regarding the whole thing, and we're going to say this is the way it's going to be. So we got to figure a way where we could build trust again with the people in the communities. And I'm telling you this time the fatalities, we're really fortunate we didn't have any major fatalities. But going forward, the voices of people in the community need to be heard through a process, and right now, I don't -- right now, we're only doing an internal investigation, process here and recommendations were brought forward. Again, why do we make motions in the House if the other side of the House are going to totally dismiss it? Then why am I here?
When we pass that motion to ask for a public inquiry, that's when this government should have stood up and did that work. But that didn't happen. So, Mr. Speaker, it hits home that the trauma that's hitting our communities is still alive and well, and we got to restore that trust. And this motion that's been brought forward here today is a start. So, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Colleagues, I must remind you we shouldn't be talking about previous Assemblies and their motions. So, please, focus on what we are talking about here.
To the motion. Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I spoke to some of my main concerns in the government response to the after-action review on our first day of this sitting, which is whether we're doing enough as a government to adequately ensure the safety of elders and folks with disabilities. The Minister of MACA said that he's hopeful and pretty certain a lot of my concerns will be addressed.
I will support this motion as a vote for the GNWT to adequately resource behind-the-scenes work, the important policy work, the demos and tabletop exercises, the communities, and all levels of civil society that need support to ensure the safety of residents who have the least capacity to grab a go-bag and evacuate.
We were not fully prepared to appropriately support these folks with the evacuation of Fort Providence this past summer as evidenced by their stories and mutual aid requests. The Minister has said that the staff of MACA will deal with this work. But I know as a past policy analyst that dedicated resources for a high priority topical issue, any issue, are thin. Topics such as emergency response planning and business continuity planning require year-round emphasis and dedicated staff. We all have different lenses on this topic, and I appreciate that the Minister may have more insights than we have fully discussed today or during this sitting, and I would encourage residents to attend or tune in to a public briefing we will have on this matter on Monday night. I know we're not as awesome as the Blue Jays, Mr. Speaker, but I'm very pleased we will dig into this issue deeper and examine complexities together. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Great Slave. To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there's a desire among certain Members to respond swiftly to things like a report like this, and certainly there can be merit in doing that, but I also want to note that it's important to me to take the time to understand an issue fully, give appropriate weight to a decision as impactful as departmental restructuring or establishment of a new agency altogether. We have limited resources, and we need to take the time necessary to be responsible stewards of those resources. For these reasons, I have advocated for and I'm looking forward to a hearing with the department we can dig further into this, develop a better understanding of the department's rationale for rejecting this recommendation, and ensure that the response which is put in place is an appropriate and effective response to the findings of the after-action review.
I want to be clear that at this time, similar to a few of my colleagues who have spoken, I don't think the government's response to this recommendation is comprehensive enough or gives me confidence that the government have fully accepted the gravity of the report's findings in this area. That said, similar to a few of the colleagues that have spoken already, I'm not necessarily convinced that the best course of action at this time is necessarily to establish a standalone organization. I'm not going to pretend to know more about structuring an emergency management organization than our departmental experts, but that is exactly why we commissioned an outside entity to conduct an after-action review. So when the government rejects recommendations such as this, it certainly gives me pause, and so I can understand the sentiment behind this motion coming forward.
Mr. Speaker, the motion is not binding. If it were, I think I'd have to speak a bit differently on it, but I am going to lend my support insofar as it provides weight behind the point that I'd like to see the government fully acknowledge the various issues raised in the after-action review which led to the recommendation to establish a standalone agency.
I want to read a bit from the after-action review itself to highlight some of the concerns that were raised. The review noted that our current emergency response structures often lead to confusion, blurred lines of authority, and fragmented communication. The lack of a cohesive and coordinated system appeared to hamper the effectiveness of the emergency management during the 2023 wildfires. Structural weaknesses within the governance framework became apparent as wildfire events began compounding. The local EMO, regional EMO, and territorial EMO system, while designed to provide accountability and oversight, proved ineffective during a large scale disaster. Competing layers of authority created delays in decision-making and confusion about jurisdictional boundaries and roles throughout the 2023 wildfire season. There was confusion from communities and GNWT staff in understanding how the territorial EMO operates internally and its interoperability with local EMOs. This fragmentation highlighted the need for a more unified command structure and an emergency governance model that prioritizes speed, clarity, and collaboration during crises. A lack of cohesion and preparedness planning left smaller, remote communities particularly vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, these findings of the after-action review accurately capture the issues with our current structures, and I am not confident right now that if we end up in a situation as serious as 2023 again, the outcome will be significantly different.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the improvements MACA has already made, and the city of Yellowknife did their own after-action review, which they're implementing. So we have made some progress towards necessary change, and I applaud that. But when I think of all the different pieces that were in play during the evacuation, all the various departments, agencies, NGOs, and governments involved, I think we still have a long way to go in getting ourselves to a position of being fully prepared. That's a real problem, and we have to address it in a timely manner. To that point, I also note that the government has noted in response to a number of other recommendations in the report the timeline of five years to get legislative changes in place. I think we need to take another look at that and see if we can respond within the timeframe recommended in the report, which I think is reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I'm looking forward to discussing this further in the briefing and the hearing that we've organized. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that if the model that we land on, as the Minister is advocating for is to draw on resources from other organizations versus the suggested recommendation of the after-action review of having excess capacity waiting in the wings, then the coordination between organizations and understanding the triggers and who does what are the areas that we can improve on most from a practical response and a structural legislative policy standpoint. This needs to include details like what staff are essential, what role they shift to in an emergency, and an agreement that their responsibilities go on hold during an emergency. Some of this exists, but I think everyone needs to have a better shared understanding of how it all works and recognize that government capacity is limited.
So, Mr. Speaker, those are all the comments I had written down. I think that I've captured my thoughts well here. I really do want to emphasize I'm looking forward to the briefing that we have scheduled with the Minister. What's important to me is that we take the time to fully unpack this, to understand why the rejection of the recommendation, but most importantly understand that whatever solution is put in place, it responds to all the issues raised in the after-action review appropriately. So, regardless of whether we have a standalone agency, whether we have functions within the department act like a standalone agency, we just need to ensure that everybody understands fully exactly what happens when an emergency strikes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. To the motion. Member from Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are living in a totally different world with uncertainty today. Low water levels, forest fires, erosions, permafrost melting that's impacting our buildings, roads, and highways. You know, this bill will benefit all the communities throughout the NWT. They need to contact somebody during the day or during the night, they'll have a number and an answer for their inquiries.
The government is dismissing yet another motion that will give the residents of the NWT some much needed assurance. With so much emergencies going on throughout the NWT, the general public will be assured that there is someone looking out for them. So it's sad to see that this government is dismissing yet another motion for security of the residents of the Northwest Territories. For this reason, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from the Mackenzie Delta. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The mover, do you wish to conclude debate? Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I do, and I shall.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to the Members who spoke in support of the bill. You know, I do want to reflect as Members -- the bill, the motion. The motion; it's not a bill. Thank you for the correction. Not a full Point of Order but technically important.
So this all started -- Members have alluded to this, but one of the first substantive motions that we debated in this chamber of this Assembly was for a public inquiry, and the reason it is related to the motion is this report emerged from that. So we wouldn't have this report without that motion. And Members did speak to this directly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this was to replace a public process, I don't think it's done a good job. And we hear the concerns from Members, in particular Members from outside of regional centres. Mr. Speaker, I won't quote from the report again. Members have done that. It's very clear that the findings were significant.
And another concern I suppose I have over the course of this conversation in this chamber is publicly reported rationale for not accepting the recommendation was largely around fiscal capacity, the fact that it would be an offseason agency, that it's not really necessary because of those reasons. Today we're hearing a different story where it is we're doing it all already from the sounds of it. We have an EMO office. It does all the things that the recommendation made. But it does beg the question, as raised by the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, if TSI knew this coming in, the structure hasn't drastically changed in two years. So the structure is not novel. The structure has not undergone major reform. There's been improvements. Absolutely, the Minister spoke to those improvements. But it's the underlying structure that was recommended for change. And that's what we're talking about here. You know, we're not saying progress hasn't been made. But we're saying progress on this fundamental recommendation, the skeleton of our entire system of how we manage emergencies, that's unaffected. And until that changes, until we deal with what you could call root causes of a lack of emergency preparedness, we will continue to experience them.
Mr. Speaker, governments in Canada are all moving towards dedicated public safety ministries and agencies. The Minister's list of where agencies work similarly to ours apparently, even though some of the best practiced standards are similar models, you know, there are departments of public safety, there are departments of justice in public safety. And emergency -- EMO management is part of those operations. So, again, if a ministry -- a ministry can do this work as well, and it's something that Northerners need, you know. It's something Northerners need. Not just wildfire management but public safety generally, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I'm also concerned about, the report at large, is it speaks frequently to the need for a culture of safety throughout the government, not just in one office, but throughout the government, and numerous recommendations made, including recommendations around incident command management system training and usage are -- only speak to what's happening in the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs and not across the whole government. We'd like to have whole of government approaches, at least we like to talk about it. So if we're going to have a culture of safety and we need to do -- we need to have structural institutions of safety. That is what they're getting at when they're making these recommendations. It's not that we're not doing stuff; it's that we're not doing -- again, we're not changing the underlying culture of the GNWT as it relates to this important priority.
Mr. Speaker, okay, I think we've -- I sense that we should move on. We have other business to attend to. But, Mr. Speaker, I do also agree that I don't want to see a recommendation 120 days that says we already told you we weren't going to do it, we're not going to do it now. So this is very unusual. I've never done this before, but I'm going to urge the Members opposite who seek to abstain to vote against this because I'd rather have a vote against on the record if they're not going to respond to this in a meaningful way. Because that's the antithesis of what this motion is supposed to do. It's supposed to consider the clauses, evaluate them, and respond with an open mind, not a mind already made up. So if they're going to vote against, I encourage them to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
