Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Final supplementary, Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's true that you don't need to replace every book but we're talking about software licenses, professional development, and the costs that have been communicated with me and with other Members of this House are clear, there is a cost to this. It is not being able to be dealt with by coordinators in the schools, and when we download the costs on to parents, on to teachers, it means more improvement days, more professional development days, and less instructional time. So will the Minister work with school boards to provide additional funding -- maybe it's not the full amount, but additional funding to help cushion the impact of the extra costs of the curriculum change and ensure that we have as much -- and protect instructional time for our kids? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to be clear, there are no additional PD days being allotted. One of the agreements that was made -- or STIP days. One of the agreements that was made with education bodies was to allot time from their existing professional development days and dedicate it towards the implementation. So while I absolutely hear the Member, I do want to share that some education bodies have come forward and have said that, you know, this is how they are implementing the new curriculum, these are some of their success stories, these are how they're participating in that work. So this is not a sentiment that is shared among all education bodies. But I definitely want to ensure that I am hearing the details from each education body and that we are having conversations about this and are ensuring that at the end of the day, teachers are supported to teach our kids. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Oral questions. Member from Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too want to stay focused on the four priorities that we have going for us in this government.

Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change confirm how many fire towers are currently in use in the NWT and explain how they are operated? Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Deh Cho. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Member for the question.

Currently, we have 11 fire towers across the Northwest Territories. Nine of those are camera-based towers. One of the towers is -- two of the towers are located in the Nahendeh riding, one in Fort Liard, and one in Somba K'e. The Fort Liard tower is person operated as well as the one in Somba K'e. It is a unique situation. It also has cameras attached to it primarily for this season in that the person that holds that position was on leave for the 2024 season. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing the local employment opportunities for the hamlet of Enterprise, can the Minister confirm the number of people the Enterprise fire tower employs throughout the year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the tower in Enterprise was a manned tower which recently the incumbent in the position resigned within the last couple of seasons. Since that time, cameras have been placed on the tower in Enterprise, and the position has been transitioned into Hay River and turned into a monitoring role to assist with the monitoring of the many camera sites across the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thanks to the Minister for that answer. Can the Minister commit to creating local fire tower jobs for the upcoming wildfire season? That's we're talking about next year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the Member for the question. As we look at our current array of inventory towers across the Northwest Territories, many of this infrastructure was inherited from the federal government and much of the infrastructure currently doesn't meet the standards to be in service. So we've looked at many opportunities to use technology across the NWT as part of a larger plan and part of the plan is associated with the funding dollars that were provided from the federal government. So part of this plan involves putting towers in and around communities and areas of high value to get the most opportune return on those towers. And part of that work will be as the plan moves forward looking at the opportunity to create more monitoring positions because one person can only monitor so many sites at a time so as that program advances, there will be other potential opportunities on the horizon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Final supplementary, Member from the Deh Cho.

Oral questions. Written questions. Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for the Sahtu, that, pursuant to Rule 3.5, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration; namely, the humanitarian crisis in the Sahtu, specifically in the town of Norman Wells, where the town council has unanimously declared a local state of emergency on October 15th, 2024. The people of the Sahtu urgently require an indication of the kind of short-term and long-term strategies that the Government of the Northwest Territories will employ to ensure that necessary support is provided to residents and businesses and is of territorial significance as local authorities do not have the resources required to provide the required humanitarian relief to the residents of the Sahtu. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. Members, the Member from Range Lake is moving to set aside the business of the House to discuss a matter of public importance requiring immediate consideration pursuant to Rule 3.5. This is an extraordinary measure and will likely require debate on whether or not this is an urgent question. It is also the first time this provision has been used in the 20th Assembly. I will call a short break so Members can review section 3.5 before we proceed. Thank you.

--- SHORT RECESS

MR. SPEAKER: Members, the Member is seeking to set aside the ordinary business of the House. I will allow him five minutes to make a statement explaining the matter to be discussed and the reason for urgency. Member from Range Lake.

Mr. Speaker, our rules permit the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration subject to the following conditions:

1. The Member proposing the motion shall give written notice to the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker at least one hour before the sitting of the house;
2. No more than one matter shall be discussed on the same motion;
3. The motion must not raise a matter of privilege; and,
4. The motion must not raise any matter which can be debated upon a motion with notice.

Mr. Speaker, you can be assured that the conditions pursuant to our rules have been met by this motion, but there are other tests that could be applied as the House considers this debate. For that, we can turn to a precedent in the House of Commons, in particular, the speakership of John Fraser from 1986 to 1996, who had to decide on 149 specific cases of motions calling for emergency debate. Although the House of Commons' practice is different than ours, there are commonalties that the House should consider when debating an extraordinary request for emergency debate.

On October 17th, 1986, Speaker Fraser wrote: In considering an application of this kind, the Chair must take three factors into account. In this case, I would say the House must take three factors into account. The issue raised must constitute a genuine emergency. The Chair used that word in the sense that it is something which is of such urgency, it calls for immediately for something to be done about it. It is not enough -- and I would ask the honourable Members to understand this -- that it be a matter of great importance. It is in the view of the Chair that the issue is of great importance, but the issue must call for immediate and urgent consideration. The Chair must also take into consideration whether or not there will be other opportunities to debate the matter and other opportunities within a reasonable period of time. End quote.

Mr. Speaker, it is without a doubt that the people of the Sahtu are in such dire straits with respect to the state of emergency that's been declared that immediate and urgent consideration is required. The community has reached the limit of their capacity to resolve the matter and is turning to territorial and, indeed, national authorities for help.

Mr. Speaker, in the House's consideration for this motion for debate, I ask us to consider the longstanding tradition in this House of government members treating motions as advice to government and; furthermore, responding in 120 days as grossly insufficient to provide an immediate and urgent disposition to the humanitarian crisis in the Sahtu. Yes, a Member might move such a motion within the time afforded by this sitting but the response from government would fail to meet the moment at hand. The people of the Sahtu are calling out for justice and relief at a time of great distress, and I submit that there are no other opportunities afforded by this sitting to adequately consider their needs and meaningfully respond but for an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker, of the many examples in the House of Commons of emergency debate, most of -- or a select few have been about regional matters such as the cod fishery in Newfoundland or the takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco Corporation. These were all decisions handled by Speaker Fraser. These matters speak to urgent and immediate matters of public concern respecting regions of Canada that were then raised -- or deemed important enough to be raised to the national forefront in the House of Commons. The comparison to this motion at-hand with a region of the Northwest Territories hard hit by an issue of urgent and immediate concern should be viewed in the same light by this House. We cannot afford to wait a moment longer to leave this matter unresolved, and there is no other mechanism afforded to this House to adequately consider the emergency at-hand. I ask this House to give leave for this emergency debate and set aside the business of the day and to proceed without further delay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. Members, at this point, I will only hear debate on the question of whether or not the need for debate is urgent. That means why this debate must happen today and the regular business of the House be set aside. The House will then vote on the Member of Range Lake's motion. If the motion carries, I will then allow debate on the subject itself. If the motion fails, we shall continue on with the orders of the day. If the motion carries, the debate will continue until such time there is no one seeking to talk or we reached the hour of adjournment. If there is no one seeking to talk and we have not reached the hour adjournment, I will adjourn the debate and return to the orders of the day.

To the question of whether this debate is urgent. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will support the proposal for the emergency debate on the particular topic about the emergency in the Sahtu. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member who brought forward that the situation is urgent, time is of the essence, it is important, it is specific, the issue we are raising. This is why we need decision makers to talk about this. We need to talk about allocating resources and respond to public need on the basis of the public trust.

Mr. Speaker, in essence, there needs to be an urgency debate that facilitates the discussion that has to happen and including the inspirational work that we need to do that we need to remind people in the Sahtu they matter. That's why this discussion cannot wait.

Mr. Speaker, our audience may be here at this very moment, but everyone is listening far and wide. Even the Minister defined this as a crisis today -- and I haven't read Hansard, the specific wording. So if you're recognizing a situation in the Sahtu as crisis, I think it meets the goals and objectives of an urgent debate.

Mr. Speaker, speaking further to the motion of why we should have a debate, we cannot dull this urgent call by finding ways to turn this into a protracted process. As my colleague also mentioned earlier about Members do have options such as motions and Member's statements, but we must call into question the effectiveness of how they deliver the message and the effectiveness of the response. I am going to just elaborate a little further on what he had said.

When Members pass a motion, the government has up to 120 days to respond. Mr. Speaker, if they were kind and didn't use all of their time, they would respond tomorrow. But if they had to do a lot of work, which I respect would be required, the earliest that they may be able to respond to this urgent crisis would be February 5th. That's 110 days from now. Do the people in the Sahtu have 120 days?

Mr. Speaker, if the government took -- which isn't unnecessarily reasonable, depending on the case -- their full 120 days as prescribed, that means they wouldn't be back in the House responding officially to this problem not until February 25th of 2025.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Sahtu need this discussion today because it is a real crisis. I've spoken to people who are asking themselves they cannot stay there so we need to show them -- sorry, stay there under the circumstances if there's nothing happening other than us sitting and waiting, Mr. Speaker. Nothing tells the world more they matter than us talking about their issue. And on that note, Mr. Speaker, it's easy to say this doesn't affect my riding but, Mr. Speaker, it's affecting every riding in one way or another. Hence, it's a territorial issue.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go through the measures of test such as time and urgency and whatnot, but I'll end with this pointing out the fact that the House of Commons, as my colleague has said, has talked about a number of subjects from fisheries, forestry, agriculture, fur trade, and they have all been judged acceptable topics for urgent debate, Mr. Speaker. Even grain, which probably doesn't change overnight, this situation is a situation that would change overnight, Mr. Speaker. Fisheries and all of those other subjects probably had time to deal with but tell me, Mr. Speaker, is cost of living, affordability, no gas, no opportunity, people can't buy food, is there a better reason why we shouldn't be talking about this subject? And I'd say I can't think of a more paramount issue that should be drawing the collective attention on the Members of the Assembly. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I genuinely believe this is a crisis we need to speak about. Thank you.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife Centre. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour, would please put your hand up. Sorry? Something to clarify, Mr. Rodgers? Sorry, I need to clarify.

So what we're voting on is if this is a debate that we want to have the conversation. That's what this vote's calling for. Okay, so we all have a clear understanding? What's that? You want a recorded vote?

Member from Yellowknife Centre is asking for a recorded vote. To the motion.

The motion has been called. All those in favour of having this debate, please stand.

Those abstaining, please stand.

To the motion if we need to have emergency debate, 16 in favour, zero opposed, zero abstentions. To the subject of the debate. To the motion, we will start with Sahtu and then Inuvik Boot Lake.