Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the public inquiry is being sold as the only way for the public's voices to be heard and as the only morally upright option that we have. But neither of those are accurate. I caution Members from making this an issue of good versus evil. I think the Member from Hay River South spoke pretty eloquently about his connection to the evacuations and the wildfire season. I have a similar one. It's been two years now where it's been constant disasters, constant evacuations. And when I went door to door, this is the one thing, this was on the top of everyone's list to talk about. It was on the top of my list. It was my number one priority when I came to this Assembly, was to ensure that what we saw happened last year doesn't happen again, that we are better prepared.

There's been a lot of talk about what a public inquiry is and what it isn't. A public inquiry is something established under our Public Inquiries Act. Every piece of legislation, every Public Inquiries Act across the country is different. Ours is decades and decades old. It's, I think, 12 clauses. It's very short. It doesn't have a lot of guidance. There's not a lot of options in there. There's not a lot of room to create what, I think, a lot of the Members think can be created.

We can create an establishment order that will define what the inquiry will look like. Based on this motion, that establishment order includes the Commissioner ensuring that perspectives of all Northwest Territories' residents are adequately captured in the public inquiry undertaken by the board in relation to the 2023 wildfires. That's a pretty big scope. That's 45,000 people who are now eligible to participate in this public inquiry. We have no ability to cap how many people want to participate or how long they testify for.

Through the establishment order, we can do certain things. We can set up certain parameters. We can define the number of board members. We can define the remuneration for board members, so how much they're going to get paid, the remuneration and travel expenses for witnesses, a deadline for the final report. And just so everyone knows, I think the number of final reports that have been on time with public inquiries is probably a small minority. These are processes that always -- almost always cost more and take longer than anyone expects.

We can define the board's ability to engage legal services. And there will be legal services. There will be many lawyers. Yes, with the public inquiry I expect a number of lawyers to be buying second and third homes.

We can define the board's ability to engage with experts, accountants, engineers, court reporters, people to help them set up the venues, people to arrange travel, to broadcast the proceedings, all of those types of things.

So what we can't do, like I said, is limit the number of witnesses, limit the time each witness has to provide evidence, provide a process for the board to follow. And that's one of the strengths of a public inquiry where they're not being controlled, they can control their own process.

Another thing we can't do under our legislation is set a budget. So I'm not sure what legislation other Members are looking at or where they're finding this ability for us to set a budget, but I don't see it in our legislation, especially when other pieces of public inquiries legislation have explicit language talking about setting a budget.

Regulations can be made with respect to any matter that the Commissioner considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the act. And so that allows some discretion in terms of the regulations you can make but those regulations have to tie to one of those 12 clauses, and there is nothing in there that I can see that would allow us to actually set the budget. And even if we do set a budget, even if there was that ability, Mr. Speaker, everything costs more than we expect it to cost. I don't think I've seen anything estimated that has come in on budget. And so what happens when the public inquiry runs out of money and they haven't made their way out of Yellowknife yet to look at Behchoko or the South Slave? Do we just say well, that's it? No, we keep pumping that money into it.

People want to be heard. That's what we heard a lot of today: People want to be heard. And I know people want to be heard. I want to be heard. I'm lucky I'm in this position; I get to be heard about this because I get to speak about this. It's therapeutic. People want to heal. They need to be able to speak to heal. A public inquiry is not a place to heal. It's like a courtroom. You're a witness. There's a potential that you'll be cross-examined or examined and then cross-examined.

There's not -- there's a very, very limited option for anonymity. You know, we hear a lot about government employees, they won't want to participate in an independent third-party review because they're concerned. They're not going to want to get up on the stand and be on TV making their comments. I don't know how that is any more accessible for people. You know, there's businesses who do lots of work with the government. I've heard some of them want to make comments anonymously. You can't do that in a public inquiry either. There's a limited set of circumstances where information or your identity can be kept confidential, but if we're talking about many people who want this because they're afraid their boss will get mad at them or they think that in the future they may not get a contract, at some point that's no longer a public inquiry if everyone is anonymous for the reasons like that. So I don't expect that that will be the case. I don't think that this idea that this is a way for people to have their voices heard anonymously is accurate. Nothing's admissible in a public inquiry that's not admissible in court. So hearsay, anonymous unsigned submissions, those things don't fly in a public inquiry. I don't think the public wants to be put on the stand like they're in a courtroom and testify. I don't think that's what healing is.

And as a Member of this last Assembly, I've seen a public inquiry. It was -- there was no healing involved in that. I don't know one person who felt like that went well, who felt like that was a good idea. I'm talking about the inquiry into a Member's actions. It was referenced earlier. One person, one location over a short period of time. That inquiry cost $800,000. Members of the Assembly were pretty shocked when that happened because we all realized that we put this into motion, and it became its own thing. We lost all control, all ability to control those costs. So what did we do? We actually changed the legislation to be able to avoid a public inquiry. I think that speaks volumes to our Public Inquiries Act here in the territory.

So what's the alternative, Mr. Speaker? Well, we propose an alternative. This is what I've envisioned back when I was on the campaign trail. An independent third-party review done by a contractor, whose reputation is on the line, who is going to hand us a report with their logo on it, and they're not going to want anything in there that's whitewashed. You know, there was comments that their work will not be transparent. There's ways to make it transparent, Mr. Speaker. I've offered to the Members to set up an independent commission. We could appoint a member. The Members could appoint a member. The Council of Leaders could appoint a member. And that would be a buffer between the contractor and the GNWT. They would have access to all of the draft reports of the contractor, all the material that the contractor has access to. If the contractor requests something and they don't get that, the board would know and there's legal remedies in the contract to address those. It's essentially the same as compelling information through a public inquiry.

And there was comments that they might not know what questions to ask. Well, that's why we want to start with extensive public engagement. Extensive, Mr. Speaker. There's the opportunity for people to write, write in, and have that information brought into the review. We're having in-person meetings, public meetings, Mr. Speaker. And those don't have, you know, departmental staff. I've been to those before in Hay River a couple years ago. We had one of those about the flood. And so I know what those operate like. And there's the option to provide input anonymously. We can put provisions in the contract that say information the contractor receives from individuals, GNWT employees, or who indicate they want to be anonymous, we can require that they do not share that information with the government. So here are options that are based in fact, based in reality, and not, you know, based in other pieces of legislation from other jurisdictions.

Our review will have an extensive engagement, like I said, with the public as well as with community governments, with Indigenous governments, the local, regional, and territorial EMOs, the emergency management organizations, with NGOs, with businesses, with chambers of commerce. The reports produced by the City of Yellowknife, let's say, or Avens or any of these other organizations or communities, those will be analyzed. We're going to look at the preparedness level of the NGOs, of the public, of the government. We're going to examine roles and responsibilities, the communications that went out to the public. From all of this, we're going to produce a comprehensive report. It's going to include a timeline of the wildfire season so we can see when things happened, when this fire started; why we were driving out of Hay River moments before, for many people while the fire was crossing that highway.

Mr. Speaker, I watched the video that we took the other night -- or the other night I watched a video I took on the way out of Hay River, and I'm looking at it and I thought why was I even driving that direction? It was sunny when I left. Halfway to Enterprise, the sky turned black and there was just red and yellow in front of me. So I'm well aware that there's issues that need to be addressed. That should not have happened. I want to make sure that doesn't happen again. That's one of the main reasons that I'm here.

We're going to look at the strengths of the response and what we could build on, and we're going to look at the weaknesses and the gaps. And out of this is going to come evidence-based recommendations, not just for the government but for everyone, because everyone has a role in this. We want to -- this is going to assist the NGOs. It's going to assist the public. It's going to assist everyone. And that's on top of what is already happening. I don't want people to think that this is something far in the future. There is a lot of work that has already happened. There's additional training that's going on. There's updated plans within departments. We're bringing firefighters on earlier. So there's a lot of work that is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we need to answer the big questions. There's no two ways about it. We need to answer the big questions. People need assurances that what went wrong is going to be fixed. People need to feel heard and people need to heal. And that's the goal with this review. That's what we want to achieve. So after these reviews, after they are made public -- probably the biggest reviews the Government of the Northwest Territories has ever undertaken. So after all of this information is out there, after everyone's had a chance to speak up, have their voices heard and see how we are making changes based on their voices, if after all of that people want a public inquiry, then we can look at that. That will give us time to amend the legislation so that we're not stuck with this archaic legislation that is not going to do what people imagine it's going to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, and because we don't know how long this inquiry's going to take, how much it's going to cost, and one thing I do know it's going to be a distraction. It's not going to be pleasant. We've experienced a public inquiry before; we know it's not pleasant. It's not an experience anyone wants to be involved with. We have an alternative. I'd be happy if the Members will participate in that alternative. I would love to have the Regular Members appoint someone to be on that oversight committee, to oversee that contract, to ensure that I'm not, as was alluded to earlier, covering anything up.

So, Mr. Speaker, if anything good has come of this it is that there has actually been debate in the public about the wildfires, about legislation, about politics, and civic engagement. So this is a moment when we can come together. This doesn't have to be divisive. It's an opportunity for the territory to come together, work on fixing what went wrong and moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Hay River North. To the motion.

Question has been called. Question being called, the Member from Range Lake has the opportunity to conclude.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, over the course of today, we've had a public debate on the nature of the emergency that brings this motion before the House today, the nature of what that motion is calling for, and we've also made that motion more collaborative, more inclusive of treaty partners, more mindful of costs, and to ensure the protection and anonymity of those participating. And all of this, this motion, all the research we've done that my honourable friends have spoken about over the last week and before that, I want to reassure my friends opposite that we do, in fact, work in reality on this side of the House. We do get sound legal advice from our experts, and the resources afforded to us in the execution of our duties as Members of this institution are second to none. We are very well equipped to look at legislation as lawmakers, to get independent advice that's not coloured by anything other than the advice, and we've done that. So I feel very confident that we -- when we say this legislation can do what we say it is not a flight of fancy. It is not an imaginary concept that we dreamed of one night. It is, in fact, based on the law. And the federal law that -- I think, more Canadians are familiar with, more Northerners, that has produced national inquiries is very similar to ours. We've heard experts. One of the -- the expert by the Honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs spoke -- literally wrote the book on public inquiries law, and he mentioned in that interview that he had looked at our legislation, and it was not nearly as problematic as perhaps the GNWT's position was on -- or the concerns that have been raised. And we've been trying earnestly to express that we've done our homework. You know, and it is frustrating at times that it's like speaking into our own echo chamber because folks aren't listening, and that's frustrating, right. We keep saying we've done our homework. We keep saying we're gonna compromise. You're concerned about costs? Okay, let's put -- let's compromise on costs. You're concerned about timing? Let's make sure there's timelines. We have worked to compromise and to address the concerns from our government partners -- or our colleagues opposite every time we've engaged them on this issue, and we have not seen -- well, we've not seen the same compromises on their end.

And the reason, again, this is important is we're all affected. All of us. Every single one of us. You know, I had to put my wife and children on the highway out of the territory and stay behind. And, you know, I was in emergency operations. I wasn't a frontline fighter or anything like that. So, you know, my contribution was in other ways. But we all have a story. And whether we stayed, or we left, or we were in a community that was unaffected, we are all affected, you know, not directly affected. So when we say this is not a witch hunt, we mean it because we're not looking to cast blame. We're not looking to cast blame because we all know what this was like. It was hard. It's probably the hardest thing we've had to -- this -- the GNWT has ever had to deal with. And that's what this is about. It's about getting the right answers so things like this doesn't happen again. And it is about healing. And the suggestion that an inquiry can't lead to healing, I think is fairly difficult to take when you consider we've had a national inquiry into a very sensitive subject. You know, and I'm not going to delve into that here, Mr. Speaker, but a very sensitive and personal subject for Northerners, and I think that did lead to a lot of healing. So I reject the suggestion that an inquiry will be divisive and find fault and split people. I think it can heal, and I think it's necessary to give that level of independence so we know that what is coming out of an inquiry is the right information.

And you know why inquiries go over budget, Mr. Speaker? Because they find out new questions they need to ask. They listen to the people who are coming before them. They listen to witness testimonies. And that's how things are going. But we've said if we get -- let the government do its report, get the after-action reports done, get the recommendations in place to fight the coming fires so we don't have to be evacuated again, if nature cooperates. Give those reports to the inquiry. Let them review it. Let them see what the government has done and that will necessarily scope this exercise. Again, we have brought this forward and it's fallen on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker.

And I agree with those who have said, you know, people in these roles made the best decision for the time based on the information they had. I agree 100 percent. We all -- you know, we all know that that's the reality here. It's not about saying, you know, attacking first responders, attacking firefighters, attacking emergency service workers. And the suggestion of that is not what we are about. These are our friends. These are our neighbours. These are people who saved our communities, and we respect them for the heros that they are.

And the events that happened at this Assembly last into the personal conduct of a Member that led to exorbitant costs, that was not a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. The Commissioner had -- the process that was used is through the Conflict Commissioner, and the code -- the Integrity Commissioner process we have here, it has its own rules. It has similar powers; in fact identical powers to how an inquiry works but it is not the same thing as this. And its budget was handled by the esoteric bodies that exist within this Assembly. And it didn't have to go there I don't think, but I'm not going to litigate that either. But we can keep being scared about costs and timelines and things like that, but what we haven't heard is what is the budget for this process? How -- what is the right amount of money to spend on this? Is it $20,000? $40,000? $100,000? $10 million? $5 million? Two? We haven't been told. No one's been told. Despite us asking well, what is reasonable, then? What is reasonable for this government to carry in its fiscal -- given the fiscal circumstances we have. We haven't gotten an answer. So what is the cost? Because of what we're proposing on this side of the House is going to be too expensive for this government to bear, but they can do it for a reasonable cost that's going to get the same level of results, I just don't see how that works out. It's not just lawyers. It's the engagement sessions. It's the ability to bring people forward.

So I think we've -- I'm not going to belabour this anymore, Mr. Speaker. It's just concerning to me as well that when -- again, when we have done our homework, when we have tried to work collaboratively and hear the concerns and then be reasonable. And no, we are not -- this is a nonbinding motion, Mr. Speaker. We are aware of that. An inquiry doesn't happen just because this passes. But this sends a clear message of what the expectations are. And that's why collaboration's so important here. And, again, we have tried. The seconder and myself have tried to make this a process that we can all get behind because healing is what we need to do at the end of the day.

It was unfortunate that some of the debate has been characterized by stubbornness or a desire to point fingers or find fault or certainly to divide communities, because that's not what we're trying to do here. We're trying to bring communities back together. We're trying to bring this government closer to the people and restore the trust that has been broken through a very traumatic event. And I think this is the right tool to do so, and I'm pleased to have brought it forward and to be supported. And at the appropriate time, I will request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the question.

Question has been called. Member from Range Lake has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

Those all abstaining, please stand. Members, the results are 10 in favour, 6 opposed, zero abstentions. Motion 9-20(1) as amended has been carried.

---Carried

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, I will ask to have a brief break. We've been in these chambers for over two and a half hours. We need to give our interpreters a break as well, so I'd like to thank them very much for us as we went through this debate in this motion. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Thank you, colleagues. Motions. Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whereas -- so this is Motion 16-20(1), Appointment of Deputy Chairpersons of the Committee of the Whole.

WHEREAS Section 47(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act requires that there shall be two elected deputy chairpersons of the Committee of the Whole;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that the Member for Deh Cho, Sheryl Yakeleya; and, the Member for Sahtu, Daniel McNeely, are hereby chosen to be the deputy chairpersons of the Committee of the Whole.

To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed? Abstentions?

---Carried

Motions. Member from the Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS Tabled Document 27-20(1) is a petition signed by 1,077 people, including 396 residents of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS Tabled Document 27-20(1) does not strictly conform with our rules to be submitted as a petition; and

THEREFORE I MOVE, second by the Member for Yellowknife North, that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a response to Tabled Document 27-20(1) and table it in this House within 120 days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from the Deh Cho. To the motion.

Recorded vote, please.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So just for the public's awareness and the new Members, when these motions come forward and they ask for a response under 120 days, the government generally abstains so we will be abstaining. Thank you.

The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour?