Please be seated. I'd like to thank Jonas Lafferty for the opening prayer.
Colleagues, before we start, I am going to do my ruling today. It's been a very challenging thing to look at this ruling and I had to do a lot of work across Canada to come up with this decision.
Colleagues, I am prepared to deliver my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Thebacha on February 27th. I want to start by stating that this is a lengthy ruling. Following my ruling, I will be sending the question of Private Member's bills to the committee on procedures and privileges for further study.
First off, I will address public statements some Members made after I reserved my decision. When a matter is reserved and before me for a decision, it is inappropriate for Members to debate the issue publicly. It can be seen as an attempt to influence my decision.
I further need to remind all Members that allowing debate on a topic is the prerogative of the Speaker. If a Member is rising on a point of order, they should be prepared to speak to it in full and be prepared for a situation where no debate is allowed.
Again, raising a point of order is leaving a decision with the Speaker. It is not a time to seek public support for political gain as the procedures of this House should not be weaponized in this manner.
Members, I must express that I expect a higher standard from all of you. It is my sincere hope that we continue to work collaboratively within our consensus system to make decisions that truly enhance the lives of the residents of the Northwest Territories.
I want to first recognize the work of the Member from Range Lake. I know that this is an important topic for the Member. I also wish to recognize that the government House leader and any Member can and should seek procedural clarity on the variety of matters that are reviewed by this House and its committees; however, I must also convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position today.
I have listened carefully to both sides, each acknowledging that this bill holds great importance and that much of its content is commendable. Yet, rather than uniting in cooperation, we have arrived at this point of division. I hope you take these words to heart and reflect on how we move forward in the final 18 months of our time as Members of the 20th Legislative Assembly. There is so much work left to do, and we need to do it working together.
Moving on, I have reviewed the debate that occurred on February 27th. I have also done extensive research on the purpose of Bill 29, as well as the parliamentary processes and expectations of Private Members' bills both in the Northwest Territories and in other jurisdictions throughout Canada and the Commonwealth. In my review, it has become evident this is an area of parliamentary procedure that is extremely nuanced and does not provide for simple rulings.
The staff of the Office of the Clerk were able to gather data from jurisdictions across the country and the Commonwealth alongside a review of the history of our own Private Members' bills to provide me with detailed information for consideration of this matter. I want to make it clear that this is a very challenging ruling. I reflect again on the additional challenges to my office in ruling on this when Members issue public statements before I have ruled.
A different Speaker may have come to a different conclusion than myself and have been justified to do so. In my ruling, I tried to capture both the conventions of our Assembly alongside my own interpretation of our rules. I wish to first highlight that a point of order differs from a point of privilege, Rule 1.7(3), noting that a Member may always raise a point of privilege at the earliest opportunity. Ideally, a point of order is raised at the earliest possible opportunity however, this is not required. A point of order can be raised as additional information comes to light or during debate.
A Private Member's bill does not obtain the level of review and scrutiny that a government bill has during drafting, and government cannot rise on a point of order during a committee's review of a Private Member's bill. Although second reading is an appropriate time to rise on a point of order for a bill, it is not the only time available to do so.
Rule 1.2(i) defines a Private Member's bill as a bill introduced by a Member who is not a Minister "which do not involve the appropriation of public funds or the imposition of any tax."
Rule 8.5(1) further provides that the Assembly may not adopt or pass any bill for the appropriation of public revenue except for a purpose recommended to the Assembly by the Commissioner in the session in which the bill is proposed.
The Member for Thebacha's point of order is related specifically to the definition of "Private Member's Bills" in Rule 1.2(i). The question before me is not whether Bill 29 contains an expressed appropriation clause. It does not. The question is whether Bill 29 nevertheless involves the appropriation of public funds in a manner that renders it inadmissible as a Private Member's bill, according to the definition in our rules.
In assessing that question, I have considered our rules, the Northwest Territories Act, and persuasive authorities from other Canadian jurisdictions, including the House of Commons.
Bill 29 amends the Workers' Compensation Act to expand presumptive coverage for certain classes of workers. It:
Extends presumptive PTSD coverage to a class of workers not previously defined in the Act;
- For firefighters, it aims to broaden cancer coverage;
- Reduce latency periods; and
- Expand presumptive coverage for heart disease and heart injury.
The evidence before the Assembly establishes that the coming into force of Bill 29 would result in:
- An immediate insurance liability estimated at approximately $4.3 million; and
- Ongoing increased annual costs through higher assessment rates applied to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
However, Bill 29 does not:
- Contain an appropriation clause;
- Authorize the withdrawal of funds from the consolidated revenue fund;
- Fix a specific sum payable from public revenue; or,
- Direct that money be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Members have argued that the test is not whether a bill has financial implications. Many Private Member's bills have financial implications. It has been argued that the test is whether the bill itself provides the authority to withdraw money from the consolidated revenue fund. By this limited scope, one might view the bill as in order because there is no direct line item that appropriates funds. Nevertheless, there is full agreement that the implementation of Bill 29 will have financial consequences.
The Workers' Protection Fund is financed primarily through employer assessments and operates separate from the consolidated revenue fund. There are interpretations from the Speaker's rulings in other jurisdictions that a bill affecting an appropriation of public funds does so immediately upon enactment. Accordingly, because the legislation in question does not direct a transfer of money from the consolidated revenue fund into the Workers' Protection Fund and would require additional action from the government to authorize that transfer, one could conclude that Bill 29 does not constitute an appropriation of public funds. However, I reiterate that the definition of a Private Member's bill in Rule 1.2(i) is not limited to whether Bill 29 is an appropriation bill but whether it involves the appropriation of public funds.
Further, if it is argued that Bill 29 does not provide the authority to compel appropriations then future Private Members' bills could compel government spending on a variety of matters all because they are presenting something that is not in itself an appropriation bill.
It should also be argued that the insurance liability and increased assessment costs incurred by the Government of the Northwest Territories arise from a policy decision rather than Bill 29 itself. The Workers' Compensation Act authorizes the governance council to establish the rate or basis for calculating the assessments to be paid by the employer. The governance council has adopted a policy model establishing that the full liability associated with presumptive coverage for firefighters be borne by the Government of the Northwest Territories. On this basis, it can be argued that the resulting financial obligations fall on the government because of that policy choice, not because of the bill before us. Again, I present these arguments to reflect on how this bill itself does not appropriate.
However, in my view it cannot be overlooked that the bill involves the appropriation of public funds. The government would necessarily be required to spend public money from the consolidated revenue fund as a result of assuming liability for presumptive coverage and such expenditures would be essential for the presumptive coverage created by the bill to be effective. It cannot and should not be ignored that Bill 29 significantly expands presumptive coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act.
These are not incidental or administrative adjustments. They alter the scope, objects, and conditions of entitlement under the Act. They extend benefits to a broader class of persons and ease the qualifications required to receive compensation. This has been established in the House of Commons as sufficient to be considered a "new and distinct" expense.
Again, the evidence before the Assembly establishes that the coming into force of Bill 29 would result in:
- An immediate insurance liability estimated at approximately $4.3 million; and
- Ongoing increased annual costs through higher assessment rates applied to the Government of the Northwest Territories.
These amounts are separate from and in addition to any current appropriations. This is not a case of incidental implementation costs that may be absorbed within existing departmental budgets. It is a substantive expansion of statutory entitlements that creates a new financial obligation.
In referencing Bill 8 during the debate on this point of order, which was a Private Member's bill passed by this Assembly, it was stated that an appropriation was required to fulfill the obligations of that bill. This is incorrect. Bill 8 did not compel a supplementary appropriation. However, an additional piece of legislation which increased the revolving fund for the student financial assistance program was brought forward. No appropriation bill was required.
In reviewing other Private Member's bills adopted throughout our Assembly's history, there is little evidence that they required an additional or separate appropriation in order to be enacted. Some of these Private Members' bills contemplated charges on private industry rather than government. Some were policy changes, or authorized government departments to develop new regulations for industries or professions. However, no additional appropriations were necessary to carry out this work.
If the effect of these bills was to increase the workload of a department, the incidental costs incurred could be addressed through the usual budget process.
I wish to also discuss the Commissioner's recommendation.
The Member for Range Lake noted that a bill similar to Bill 29 might require a Royal recommendation in other jurisdictions. The Member was referring to the practice in the House of Commons of including a message from the Governor General recommending that Parliament appropriate the funds necessary to defray the expenses listed in an appropriation bill or for the purposes set out in a bill that authorizes new charges against the consolidated revenue fund.
In the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, a similar "Commissioner's recommendation" is included as a preamble to appropriations bills. This recommendation is not included in other bills, including other public bills such as the Workers' Compensation Act, and this practice in the Northwest Territories differs from the practice of the House of Commons in that respect.
Despite this difference, the criteria applied in the House of Commons to determine whether a bill touches on the financial initiative of the Crown is still critical in determining whether a bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly appropriates public funds and therefore whether it would be inadmissible as a Private Member's bill. The absence of a Commissioner's recommendation does not, in itself, render a Private Member's bill procedurally in order.
In summary, I find that Bill 29 creates a new and distinct financial obligation resulting in a real and unavoidable expenditure of public funds; compels the government to spend money in order to meet statutory entitlements; imposes a fixed coming into force date that binds the executive to incur those expenditures, and therefore involves the appropriation of public funds within the meaning of Rule 1.2(I). Accordingly, Bill 29 does not meet the definition of a Private Member's bill.
There is a valid point of order. Bill 29 is not in order and will not proceed. The bill will be removed from the orders of the day.
Members, this ruling should not stop us as Members from working together. Members on both sides of this House need to advance our shared priorities. We need to stop being adversarial and focus on working together. That is what the residents of the Northwest Territories expect of us. Thank you, colleagues.
Ministers' statements. Minister of the Status of Women.