Mr. Chairman, I move that Rule 65(2) and Rule 66 be deleted and the following substituted therefore:

65(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, when a bill is read for the second time it stands ordered to the appropriate standing or special committee;

65(3) Not withstanding Rule 65(2), when a bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue of the Northwest Territories is read for the second time, it stands ordered to the committee of the whole for consideration;

66(1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, bills referred to a committee shall not be proceeded with until the Assembly receives the report of the committee, or 120 days pass from the day the bill has been given second reading;

66(2) All amendments made in committee must have the concurrence of the sponsor of the bill;

66(3) All amendments made in committee shall be reported to the Assembly. Every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, shall be received by the Assembly and ordered into committee of the whole;

66(4) When amendments to a bill have been made in committee, the bill shall be reprinted as amended and introduced with the report of said committee;

66(5) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, a bill reported by a committee shall not be taken into consideration until two sitting days have passed since the report;

And further that Rules 67(1), 67(2) and 68 be renumbered 68(1), 68(2) and 68(3), and new Rule 67 be added: 67(1) In proceedings in committee of the whole on bills, the preamble and title are first postponed, then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order, the preamble and the title to be last considered;

67(2) All amendments proposed to bills in committee of the whole must be written and translated and made available to the Assembly at the time the amendment is proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Rule 20(3) be amended to include "Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills" as Item 11 in the daily routine of business in the Assembly; and that Items 11 to 16 be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I have made my report to the House already and I think it is straightforward, but if Members feel they need more information maybe I can elaborate a little later on after I hear some concerns and general comments, but I think the report is straightforward. It basically reflects the wishes of the legislation committee that made the report in regard to the process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges has the responsibility to review the Rules of the Legislative Assembly on matters brought to its attention by Members.

During our first meeting, the committee agreed to undertake a comprehensive review of the current Rules of the Legislative Assembly. A comprehensive review of the rules has not taken place since the 10th Assembly. It is the opinion of the committee that such a review is necessary to ensure that the current rules allow Members to best perform their parliamentary duties in a consensus system. Some Members have also expressed the view that the rules could better reflect the cultural tradition of the many peoples that it serves.

The committee will be consulting with all Members to solicit their views and recommendations to improve the current rules of the Legislative Assembly. The committee has already received communication from the chairperson of the ordinary Members' caucus asking the committee to review the time allotment for Members' statements. We will be reporting on this review and any recommended changes to the rules in due course.

This report of the committee deals specifically with a matter referred to it by the Legislative Assembly. During the first session the standing committee on legislation's report on a review of the legislative process for the 12th Legislative Assembly was adopted by the House and referred to the standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges. The committee was asked to prepare the necessary amendments to the rules needed to implement the new legislative process.

Rule Changes To Implement The New Legislative Process

The report of the standing committee on legislation recommended sweeping changes to the way legislation is reviewed by committees of the Assembly. After examining the process recommended by that committee and adopted by the House, our committee had some difficulty with the process as proposed. While we have based our recommendations for amendments to the rules primarily on a process recommended by the standing committee on legislation, we are recommending three further changes to allow this process to function better in our consensus system. The committee recognizes that our recommendations represent some changes to the process as proposed by the standing committee on legislation, however, we are of the opinion that these proposals conform to principles 2 and 9 of that report. The three changes to the proposed process that we recommend are:

1) Chairman's Liaison Committee

The standing committee on legislation had recommended that bills receiving second reading be ordered to the committee's liaison committee for referral to the appropriate standing or special committee. The chairman's liaison committee would be made up of chairmen of all standing committees and chaired by the Deputy Speaker.

The committee was of an opinion that as this is simply a co-ordinating committee that decides which committee should review bills, there is no need to recognize it in the rules. The Office of the Clerk can develop procedures whereby this committee can meet during session to delegate the review of legislation to the appropriate committee.

2) Amending Bills In Committee

The standing committee on legislations report also recommended that "bills may be amended by a motion passed by Members of the standing committee" that is reviewing the bill. This may be done without the consent of the sponsor of the bill. The bill, as amended, would be then received by the Legislative Assembly on the report of the committee and moved into committee of the whole for consideration.

Similar types of responsibilities are given to committees in other jurisdiction in Canada. However, all other jurisdictions operate on a party system and the party in power usually has the majority of Members on committees, perhaps with the exception of minority governments. It was pointed out that the proposed system allows for a committee to pass amendments that are directly opposed by the sponsor of the bill, whether it is a government public bill or a private Members' public bill. It would be the responsibility of the sponsor to propose a motion to rescind that amendment in committee of the whole. If such a motion did not pass the sponsor of the bill would be in the unenviable position of either proceeding with a bill that they find objectionable to some degree or allowing it to die on the order paper.

Another potential problem with the process discussed by the committee was the possibility that a few Members can change legislation. For example, there are seven Members on the standing committee on legislation; five Members constitute a quorum. Under these circumstances, it is possible for three Members of this committee to pass amendments, without the consent of the sponsor, that substantially alter a bill. The committee was of the opinion that decisions such as this should be made by the whole Assembly sitting in committee of the whole.

The committee was also informed that any amendments proposed in standing or special committees are subject to the same rules that exist for amendments in committee of the whole. Therefore, the committee recommends that a standing committee charged with reviewing a bill be given the power to amend bills with the consent of the sponsor of the bill. It is our opinion that this will occur in the vast majority of cases, and the committee would encourage Members to attempt to reach such a consensus.

However, if the committee has proposed amendments where a consensus cannot be reached with the sponsor of the bill they can then propose them in committee of the whole when that bill is under consideration. The whole House can then decide the matter.

3) Review Of Bills In Committee Of The Whole

The committee was concerned that a bill reported by a committee could be proceeded with in committee of the whole on the next sitting day. We were especially concerned that any Member wanting to propose amendments to the bill may have only one day to review the bill, draft amendments and have them translated. This seemed somewhat unreasonable. For this reason, we are proposing a two day lag between the time the bill is reported and when it can be proceeded with in committee of the whole.

Finally, it was apparent that there are numerous administrative and procedural changes that will occur when a significant change in process such as this is implemented. It is the opinion of the committee that the Office of the Clerk should be charged with developing the necessary procedures to ensure that the process functions as well as possible.

Recommendations

Therefore, the standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges recommends:

1) That Rule 20(3) be amended to include reports of committees on the review of bills as Item 11 in the daily routine of business in the Assembly and that items 11 to 16 be renumbered accordingly.

2) That Rule 65(2) and Rule 66 be deleted and the following substituted therefore: 65(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, when a bill is read for the second time it stands ordered to the appropriate standing or special committee. 65(3) Not withstanding Rule 65(2), when a bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue of the Northwest Territories is read for the second time it stands ordered to the committee of the whole for consideration. 66(1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, bills referred to a committee shall not be proceeded with until the Assembly receives the report of the committee or 120 days pass from the day the bill has been given second reading. 66(2) All amendments made in committee must have the concurrence of the sponsor of the bill. 66(3) All amendments made in the committee shall be reported to the Assembly. Every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, shall be received by the Assembly and ordered into committee of the whole. 66(4) When amendments to a bill have been made in committee, the bill shall be reprinted as amended and introduced with the report of said committee. 66(5) Unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, a bill reported by a committee shall not be taken into consideration until two sitting days have passed from that report. And further, that Rules 67(1), 67(2) and 68 be renumbered 68(1), 68(2) and 68(3) and new Rule 67 be added. 67(1) In proceedings in committee of the whole on bills, the preamble and title are first postponed, then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order, the preamble and the title to be last considered. 68(2) All amendments proposed to bills in committee of the whole must be written and translated and made available to the Assembly at the time the amendment is proposed.

3) That the Office of the Clerk develop the necessary administrative and procedural changes to implement the new legislative process.

4) That the adopted rule changes come into effect on the next sitting day of this Assembly.

Motion To Move Committee Report 1-12(2) To Committee Of The Whole, Carried

That concludes the first report on the standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my colleague for Inuvik, that the first report on the standing committee on rules, procedures and privileges be received and moved into committee of the whole for discussion today.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his speech on Wednesday with regard to capital, the Minister indicated that capital projects were guided by four criteria: firstly, to achieve equality and fairness among communities; secondly, to ensure that vital community infrastructure is put in place; thirdly, to honour commitments to communities; and fourthly, to allocate and deliver capital projects in a manner that maximizes local employment and business opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I raised a concern yesterday that the honourable Member for Natilikmiot, regarding one of the capital projects his department, is delaying or cancelling. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if our government is going to honour commitments that were made to the communities, as he stated in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, a commitment was made to a community. It was already budgeted for construction this year. All of a sudden the department, at the stroke of a pen, has either cancelled or is planning to delay this project.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the department has consulted with the community; and if they did, I would like to know who they consulted with. I was surely not consulted. I would like to ask those questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked a specific question as to when the decision was made to defer or cancel this particular project. I do not think the Minister answered me. Also, who made the decision?

Mr. Speaker, maybe you are not paying attention, but I indicated in this fiscal year 1991-92.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been doing some follow-up with regard to capital for my region pertaining to this fiscal year, 1992-93. Mr. Speaker, we budgeted approximately $240,000 to construct an office/warehouse complex for the Department of Renewable Resources in Lac la Martre. I understand that this project has been delayed, or even cancelled. I would like to question the Minister as to when this decision was made and who made this decisions?