Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Rule 1.2(i) states Private Members' bills are bills introduced by a Member who is not a Minister which does not involve the appropriation of public funds or the imposition of tax, which is the subject of the point of order.
I would point out, however, that when signing the Minister -- the Minister moving the point of order cited Westminster parliamentary traditions around Private Members' bills. It is very important to consider that Private Members' bills are different and distinct in each legislature in Canada and, indeed, in the Commonwealth as well, and our Rule 1.1(2) states: In all cases, not provided for in these rules or by other orders of the Assembly, the customs and procedures of this Assembly, the principles and process conventions of consensus government, the House of Commons of Canada, provincial and territorial legislatures, and parliaments and the Commonwealth shall be followed in that order.
So if we are to assess the parameters of a Private Members' bill, we need to look at our precedents first. And there are many precedents for Private Members' bills in this Assembly. So we don't need to look elsewhere because it wouldn't be a fair comparison because the House of Commons has very different rules that are spelled out in their standing orders, and we have different rules here, which I just quoted, Rule 1.1(i).
So let's look at that rule. So first, the test is, am I a Minister? No, I am not. I am a Member. The second is, does it appropriate public funds or impose a tax? It does not, Mr. Speaker. The bill does not speak to appropriating money the way an appropriations bill does. It does not seek to raise a tax the way we would in an appropriations bill as well or a financial policy instrument.
Mr. Speaker, any action by government will always come at a cost, whether it is the implementation of a Private Member's bill, a government bill, policy work, or programming work by departments. It is the responsibility of the government to make the necessary appropriations to meet their commitments and fund these activities. The coming into force date of this bill has been amended by the standing committee, as mentioned, with my concurrence, to give the government sufficient time to plan their appropriations for future fiscal years. It is 12 months from the day of assent which allows for an entire budget cycle to take place.
In the past, there have been numerous bills introduced by both government and Regular Members that have similarly created situations where subsequent spending was required. Our practice has never been such that a recommendation from our Commissioner for the appropriation of funds is required as long as the bill itself does not appropriate the funds.
I understand that in some jurisdictions, as I mentioned, a similar bill might require a Royal recommendation or Commissioner's recommendation, but that is not and has never been the case in our practices and precedents.
While the bill does not directly appropriate funds, it does strengthen the comprehensive workers' compensation coverage for firefighters and first responders, which is an employer-driven system. Employers will pay more going forward, and that is exactly how the system is intended to work for the benefit and protection of all employees in the territory. The notion that the Government of the Northwest Territories is required to fully and solely fund any outstanding liabilities of the Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission is outside the scope of this bill. It is a result, instead, of the policies of the Commission, the WSCC governance council and, by extension, the government. This is the reason why the coming-into-force date has been amended, to give our government and, indeed, the Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission, more than sufficient time to explore their policies and options, determine their liabilities, and appropriate any necessary funds through the regular budgeting cycle, Mr. Speaker.
And just to demonstrate this, in the life of this Assembly, Bill 8 received assent on November 1st, 2024. That bill, moved by the Member for Yellowknife Centre, require -- lifted the total funds available for SFA. The government subsequent -- although -- and that was not an appropriation, Mr. Speaker. It was changing a policy. It was changing the limit of those funds. The government subsequently came forward with a supplementary appropriation to fund that change by enhancing the total amount available to SFA funding.
When Bill 8 passed through second reading, committee review, and third reading, the government did not rise a point of order to that bill despite the fact that it followed a very similar path and created very similar obligations on -- you know, according to the logic behind this point of argument.
As for timing, the government -- the bill received first -- Bill 29 received first and second reading in May of 2025, approximately nine months ago. No concerns regarding order or procedural matters were raised when the bill was introduced and read into the House. In fact, when the bill was read a second time on May 29th, 2025, the responsible Minister spoke favourably about it, even stating that Cabinet was in support of the principle. And at that time, no Member of the executive council raised a point of order questioning procedural matters related to the appropriateness or properness of the bill as it relates to our standing orders.
Mr. Speaker, if they're prepared to support -- the government that is -- the government Members to support the principle of this bill and have even suggested in correspondence and conversations that they would bring forward an equivalent piece of legislation to make similar changes, that it stands to reason that the government is, indeed, prepared to appropriate this money. The amendments made by committee, as I said, extend the coming-into-force for 12 months. That's a year of time, Mr. Speaker, plenty of time to manage the appropriation and assess those obligations, as much as they did with Bill 8.
Mr. Speaker, one more thing. The policies of the WSCC -- I want to state this very clearly -- are a decision of the WSCC. They are making a decision on how to fund liabilities, on what those liabilities are. These are policy decisions that they can make and change and assess as circumstances change. It is not required by Bill 29. Bill 29 does not speak to liability costs. Bill 29 does not speak to employer fees. So it is not an appropriation bill, not in any sense of the word, Mr. Speaker. And, again, I disagree with the Minister. He had plenty -- he had an earliest time to raise concerns with the bill, and that was at second reading. The financial obligations, as he said, were initially assessed at $17 million, and when the WSCC came before standing committee they brought detailed facts and figures and projections. They were well aware of the financial implications of this bill at the time it was read a second time. That was the earliest time to do so.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I believe this point of order is not a question of procedure. Rather, it is a question of politics.
In this chamber, we resolve those questions through decisions. And I recall a conversation I've had with the previous clerk who says -- who's told me, in consensus government, when I was a young Member, procedure is a means to an end not an end in itself. It should not be used to resolve questions that should be resolved through the decisions of Members by way of voting. Accordingly, I ask that you dismiss the point of order and allow this Assembly to decide on the merits of Bill 29 for what they are by voting on it.
I look forward to your decision, and say mahsi cho for allowing me to speak to this question of order. Thank you.
