Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Inter-activity Transfers Exceeding $250,000, April 1 to December 31, 2014.” Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Mr. Bromley.

WHEREAS the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and all of its standing and special committees are conducted in accordance with the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS the current Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories were originally adopted on April 1, 1993, and amended numerous times over the years;

AND WHEREAS a comprehensive review of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories was undertaken in order to modernize the rules, to acknowledge changes related to technology, to reflect current practices as adopted by the Assembly and to continue to provide a transparent and efficient method of transacting public business;

AND WHEREAS the amended Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories were considered by the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures, and the recommendations for amendments were then referred to the Caucus of the 17^th Legislative Assembly for further consideration and approval;

AND WHEREAS a copy of the revised and approved Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, was tabled in this House on March 10, 2015, and identified as Tabled Document 221-17(5);

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that this Legislative Assembly repeal the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories originally adopted on April 1, 1993, and adopt the newest version of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, identified as Tabled Document 221-17(5);

AND FURTHER, that the new Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, upon adoption of this motion, come into effect May 27, 2015.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to this, I am pleased to summarize the intent of the comprehensive rewrite of the Assembly's rules as well as to highlight the most substantive changes that are being incorporated.

A working group consisting of senior staff from the Office of the Clerk was formed to study and make recommendations on revisions to the current rules of the Legislative Assembly. The working group considered the rules and procedures of other Legislatures with a particular focus on the approaches taken in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and New South Wales, Australia, as well as the Canadian House of Commons. We also addressed issues and suggestions provided by the legislative coordinator, who is a senior procedural advisor to the Government House Leader.

A review was conducted with two objectives in mind. The first was to modernize the rules of the Legislative Assembly, acknowledging changes over the last several Assemblies related to technology, to update the rules to reflect current practices as adopted by the Assembly, and to replace outdated or irrelevant rules. The second objective was to streamline procedures while balancing the interests of all Members and to provide a transparent and more efficient method of transacting public business.

The results of the review were divided into three separate areas:

1. Housekeeping matters: The review identified amendments which may be considered housekeeping in nature. These include correcting grammatical, spelling and number errors. In some cases, sections for rules were removed within the document for ease of access. No substantive changes are included in these matters.
2. Clarification matters: The suggested amendments identified in this section contained changes in wording in order to clarify the intent of a rule or a process that the Assembly has already adopted. Changes in this area generally reflect current practice and procedures.
3. Substantive matters: The suggested amendments identified in this section are generally new additions to the current rules including some substantive rewording of current rules to reflect discussions with respect to procedures and practices of the Assembly and consideration of the practices in other jurisdictions.

I will now highlight the most substantive changes being incorporated:

• Rule 1(3) allows the Speaker discretion to alter the rules and practices to accommodate Members with disabilities.
• Rule 3(1) provides clarity and formalizes the Assembly's three sittings each calendar and the respective start dates.
• Rule 12(9) provides for the use of electronic devices in the Chamber and references detailed guidelines set out in Appendix 1.
• Rule 15(1) provides greater clarity on who may be admitted to the Chamber during House proceedings in addition to Members themselves.
• Rule 24(n) provides a more comprehensive list of prohibited props or exhibits.
• Rule 24(o) specifies that Members cannot speak of confidential matters in the House.
• Rules 25(1-6) clarify the process for dealing with and defining points of order.
• Rule 28(4) provides for earlier presentation of committee reports on Tuesdays rather than Thursdays, to enable greater media coverage and public transparency.
• Rule 35(2) provides for advanced distribution of the Commissioner's opening address to Members on the day of presentation.
• Rule 37(3) provides for advance distribution of the Finance Minister's budget address to Members on the day of presentation.
• Rules 42(1-5) tighten up the procedures for posing and responding to oral questions, confirms that questions taken as notice must be responded to in the House on a subsequent day and form part of the record of proceedings.
• Rule 43 formalizes the tabling of responses to ministerial commitments, to provide additional information to a Member, made during oral question period.
• Rules 47(1-10) clarify the composition of a petition, including electronic petitions, and allows the Clerk to determine whether a petition is in the correct format prior to presentation in the House.
• Rule 48 clarifies that the Speaker has the ultimate authority in determining if a tabled document conforms to the rules and practices of the House and whether a document meets the criteria of sufficient public import or interest.
• Rule 50(k) removes the inefficient two-day notice period for the first reading of appropriation bills. These bills are often introduced at the end of a sitting in response to a House order calling for the production of a bill that mirrors estimates already considered and adopted by the House.
• Rules 59(1-4) provide clarity on the allowed scope of amendments to motions and the process for dealing with amendments and sub-amendments.
• Rules 89(1-3) incorporate the committee's terms of reference in an appendix to allow for greater efficiency when updating or amending the terms of reference.
• Rule 91(2) provides greater certainty to Members who are called upon to act as alternates in a committee meeting, clarifies their ability to participate and vote with equal rights as enjoyed by full-time committee members during a particular meeting.
• Rule 100(5) provides clarity to the Executive Council regarding both the timing and the parameters of government responses to committee reports.

I believe this summary captures the key changes that are being affected through the repeal and replacement of our current rules.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to rise with some objection to the motion that comes forward because I have some concerns on how the development of the rules and the procedures of the Legislative Assembly have emerged.

By and large, 99.9 percent, I support the initiative that has come forward, but I do have an issue with how the section called Point of Order has been evolved and finally found its, I guess I'll say, end wording.

It's my view that under Section 25, and I won't go through the full detail, but it says when a Member is to raise a point of order they shall cite. My view is they should cite the error that they feel that the rule has been broken and how it falls under.

As a Legislature, you're not expected to know everything in the House, but you should understand the general rules before us. Generally speaking, under a point of order, we usually find about 15 rules that we typically follow. Now, there are a lot of hidden practices and rules and nuances that every Assembly and every Chamber follows, and if we really boil it down, points of order generally fall into two or three different types of categories. In my experience over the last almost 12 years, it does.

As we migrate the word “shall” instead of using “should.” what it does is make Members, in my opinion, and humbly I say this, Members are lazy. They should know the rules of the House, and I think it's fair that we should know the rules of how to do our job. Because if a person doesn't know the rule when they stand up and say I think someone broke a rule, and they're standing up, there is a point of order, the person charged, the person accused should know what rule they breached. It's only a simple question of natural justice, and I don't think that's fair.

I think we are not doing our job by not learning the rules. I would expect no less from a hockey player to understand what the blue line and the red line mean. I would expect a baseball player to know the rules. I expect a person driving down the road in a vehicle to understand the rules of that. Why would we think of ourselves less as legislators not to know the rules of the House? I don't expect someone to know it all the first day, but I certainly expect that they learn them, because they're actually quite straightforward. That doesn't mean we won't break them from time to time, and it doesn't mean we won't be called upon for correction, but to ask someone to stand up and say I think this person broke a rule and put it down to the Assembly machinery, be it the staff, be it you, Mr. Speaker, to figure out what rule they've broken, I think is being lazy and people should be doing their job.

I could speak endlessly on this, but the reality is I'm in the minority on this particular situation and I recognize that. Frankly, I still think strongly, though, that when someone calls a point of order they should say what the grievance is, and therefore the person accused of breaking the rule will fully understand and know what position they need to defend. Because rather than sitting there and assuming, well, I'm going to defend it because I don't know, I don't understand what the issue is, but they're calling me wrong, it makes little sense. I define it purely as natural justice must be served, no different than when someone is driving down the road and a police officer pulls them over. It's the same type of process. I'm pulling you over because I think something might be wrong and we'll figure it out until we do get something wrong.

In the House if someone is called on a point of order, they should know exactly what the charge is and why, and that is the principle of how we should be operating.

In short, I believe the Assembly by choosing this approach on this one rule shows itself to be lazy for the job we could and should be doing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Member raising this question. It certainly has been a point of valid discussion, and discuss it we did. The Member is right. He can and, in fact, has spoken to this at length and I appreciate him bringing that forward, and all Members have had much opportunity to comment on it. Basically, a Member's ability to name rules will develop over time and certainly will likely be weak at the beginning and very strong at the end of their experience in the House. Of course, there's individual variation, the ability to quickly name a rule or do the research for it.

Finally, rules are rules. Whether they are named or not, they are there and they're not to be broken without some consequences. So again, I appreciate the Member bringing this forward again for discussion. We have discussed it quite a bit and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion.

Question has been called. Motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on Thursday, March 12, 2015, it shall be adjourned until Wednesday, May 27, 2015;

AND FURTHER, that any time prior to May 27, 2015, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion.

Question has been called. Motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 18, first reading of bills. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 50, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2015-2016, be read for the first time.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. Bill 50, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2015-2016, has had first reading.

---Carried

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 51, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 5, 2014-2015, be read for the first time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Motion is in order. To the motion.