Member of Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that rule 7.2(7) be added. Under the term "oral questions", the clerk shall inform the Assembly of the follow-ups to oral questions received, deliver copies to the Members who ask the questions and have the returns printed in Hansard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Member of Great Slave. Motion's in order.

Question's been called. All knows in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member of Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that rule 2.2(1) be deleted and be replaced with the following: 2.2(1) unless otherwise ordered, the sitting hours of the Assembly shall be as follows: A, Mondays and Wednesdays from 1:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; B, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 1:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; C, Fridays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Member of Great Slave. The motion is in order.

Question's been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member of Great Slave.

Thank you, Member of Great Slave. The motion is in order.

All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member of Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends the following rule be added to chapter 9: 9.1(15) when Committee of the Whole is considering a Minister's statement, questions relating to the content of the statement shall only be directed to the Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister Semmler.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this committee recommendation. I've reflected on my experience both as a Regular Member and as the past chair of Committee of the Whole in the 19th Assembly. I've also considered where discussions like this usually take place in the Legislative Assembly and where there are several areas where this happens.

Mr. Chair, question period: Members have the opportunity to ask any question they like during question period. Members may use this time during question period to question Ministers about the statements they have made as this happens in an appropriate setting for those discussions. Recently, there has been a change to question period reducing -- well, we just talked about it -- reducing the number of questions. Adjusting this will allow for a broader range of topics and questions to be added during question period. With this change, Members will have more opportunities to ask questions, including those related to Minister statements.

Minister statements: It's important to note that Minister statements are often related to information that's already public or information that Members have already received. This may include data that is readily accessible online and, in many cases, Members can find this information themselves without needing to discuss it during Committee of the Whole time.

Standing committee technical briefings: Standing committee are allowed to request technical briefings at any time. These briefings offer a more in-depth opportunity to ask detailed questions about a topic and debt detailed responses from technical experts. Standing committees may also request ministerial briefings in which they can discuss the political implications of discussion or a decision or a program, service, or policy issue. These briefings can be public, ensuring Members have the chance to engage thoroughly and gain deeper insight into the issue and ensuring NWT residents have the opportunity to tune in on a particular issue of interest to them.

Efficiency of Committee of the Whole time: Committee of the Whole time is limited and a valuable time resource. It is essential that we use this time efficiently. If we make this rule change, we might end up spending excessive time discussing government programs, services, policies, issues that could be better suited for other forums and settings. Logistical challenges for department officials if Ministers are required technical support from department officials under these new rules may face logistical challenges. Requests for officials to appear may be made at the last minute. Department officials are busy and already have prior commitments. Asking them to rearrange their schedules at such short notice is unfair to staff and can disrupt their work.

Requests for guidelines and unanimous consent: If this rule change is approved, I propose that we work with rules and procedures -- or sorry, the new ADM of that committee. That's the last 19th Assembly's committee name -- to put clear guidelines in place. These guidelines would set a parameter of how these discussions can occur during Committee of the Whole ensuring that we respect the time of Members, Ministers, and staff. I would also request that an unanimous consent be considered by this committee as a requirement that we are to refer a Minister's statement into Committee of the Whole. This would ensure that all Members are on board and that the process is handled fairly. I also believe that, you know, if we were to do this, you know, this is -- this could be an opportunity, but it would be something that we would be prepared to be able to, you know, further have technical information on if we were going to bring it into Committee of the Whole. So those are just my questions and my -- to put those forward. I will be not in favour of this change. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Semmler. To the motion. Minister McKay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be voting "no" against these two recommendations, so I thought it was important that I say a few words as I am a Member of this committee, and I felt it was only fair for me to explain myself.

As a Member and a new Member to the Legislative Assembly, we go sometimes into these meetings, and there's a lot of information, a lot of dialogue going on with all this stuff, and sometimes you don't realize the outcome of these recommendations until you've talked to experienced Members, past Members, and realizing the outcome of a recommendation like this. I believe that Members' times, employees' times are very important, and some of this work, when questioning a Minister's statement, having staff sitting around waiting for the resources to back up a Minister for witnesses and the information that goes with it, having them in the sidelines waiting for that questioning or when the Minister's statement's brought to committee, I don't think is well use of the time. So I do respect the process, and I do understand this, but as I -- again, as a new Member, as a new elected MLA, and understanding what the outcome would be now, I have a difference of opinion on the recommendation. So that's my explanation, and I just thought it would be fair to explain that to the Members as a new Member for voting against these two recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McKay. To the Member of Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate that we are, you know, have differences of opinion on these -- on anything and right now on this particular proposal to change the rules, the Standing Committee on procedures and privilege -- sorry, other way around. I know, many privileges, one procedure. But carefully considered this referral, and the impetus behind it is there's a rule currently, it is 5.3(3), and it -- under Ministers' statements, and it's any Member may, without notice, move a Minister's statement into Committee of the Whole for discussion immediately following the conclusion of Ministers' statements on the day the statement was delivered in the Assembly. So what that means in plain language is if a Minister makes a statement of, well, whatever they happen to do, but let's say it's a statement of policy that Members may immediately move that statement into Committee of the Whole, which is what we're doing right now, to discuss it at length. Now, the problem with this is there's no requirement for the Minister or witnesses to engage with this, and in practice, what has happened is the statement will come down to Committee of the Whole, Members want to have, you know, a robust discussion around its contents, and it would be one side of the House talking to itself essentially. And the desire of -- the intention of this rule is to allow scrutiny around statements of public policy that are coming forward. It's an ancient rule. You know, it -- and there's -- as the Minister pointed out, my honourable colleagues across the way, as they pointed out, like, there are other ways we get at that now, through standing committee, hearings and things like that. That being said, the idea that, like, this will be a kind of defacto thing, that as soon as a Member says, hey, I want the Minister's statement moved into Committee of the Whole, then it automatically comes here, that witnesses have to be called, that it grinds government to a halt, and wastes all this staff time, like, I think those are overblown because, quite frankly, if Members started to abuse this rule, there's a vote. This thing's not automatic. So, you know, if Cabinet feels or any Members of the House feels that this rule's being abused and it's a waste of -- or an unnecessary use of House time and resources, then vote against it. That's the safeguard. So we're not changing the rules in such a way that they can be abused because there's always a check on them. And, you know, quite frankly, in Committee of the Whole, we can -- I mean, I could move a motion right now and call a witness to come and sit here from the public service if it carries, right, but we'd still have to vote on it, and Cabinet could rightfully say, well, there's no -- you didn't give us any time or head's up so we're not going to -- we don't think that's a good idea, and we're going to vote it down.

So the problem we're trying to fix is this is kind of a vestigial -- this is the appendix. It's a vestigial part of the rules that doesn't have any practical application. So the committee's effort was to give it practical application in a way that would allow for robust debate around areas of public policy. And in this consensus government, the whole point is we talk a lot, and we talk a lot about the issues that are important to our constituents. We have more time as Members in this institution than any other parliamentarian in Canada. Maybe Nunavut is close to ours. But let's say for southern Canada, certainly we have more time than those assemblies and in parliaments. So that's the point here is we're here to talk about the issues, we're here to debate the issues. We're not here to just do government business. You know, there's two sides of this House, and at the end of the day, it's the people we serve, and our constituents want to see us have these debates. They want to see us raise issues on their behalf. They don't want us to just go through, call votes line by line on estimates documents. That's something we're going to do anyway. So I don't see what -- I don't understand the concern because, again, there's a safeguard built in here which is the up or down vote, and if this is ever used as a procedural tactic to filibuster or delay progress in this Assembly, there is a safeguard already built into it. So the effort here is to take, again, a vestigial rule that doesn't have much purpose and give it some new life and allow for more robust and engaging debate about public policy issues. And just because we hear it at standing committee, most of that work's in-camera. We can have public hearings, and people may tune in, but they also -- when we're sitting, the public's attention is on us. The media's attention is on us as well. And sometimes there is a statement of public policy that people want to talk about. And I think that we should leave that option available to the Members to decide how to use it rather than keeping it on the books as it is.

And I might add, even if we don't make this rule change today, there's nothing stopping Members from doing this, you know. And if we need to work -- if Members have this -- the desire for witnesses to be brought in, we can make those motions as well. I just think this would be a better way to do it where it follows fidelity with our process for reviewing estimates and bills rather than having it right now where we have Ministers who make these statements and say basically, you guys can talk about it, I'm just going to sit back, maybe I'll chime in. That's not the intention here. So I really think that we're raising alarms over nothing because, again, if it's -- if there's not a desire to use the rule, then it can be voted down. But the way it stands right now, we should get rid of it or make it useful, and the committee's goal -- the committee decided to try to make it more useful, and I do support that direction. I know that my honourable friend across the way from Hay River South was on that committee as well, and he's heard these submissions as well, so I appreciate what he is saying today, but I do fundamentally disagree. I think we should always err on the side of more debate in this chamber, not less, and we should not be giving way to the voices of our constituents for the business of -- or for the machinery of government. The people should come first, not the process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Member of Range Lake. To the motion. Recognizing the Member of Yellowknife Centre.