Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Sergeant-At-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the chamber.
Thank you. Would the Minister please introduce the witnesses.
Thank you. Tram Do, director of shared corporate services; John MacDonald, deputy minister. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? I'm going to go to the Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My presentation is more of a comment. After we left here yesterday and the Member from Frame Lake sharing issues of concerns on progress, and the Member from Yellowknife North as well on the ongoings of the IGC and this department,
I totally agree with the partnership, the discussions that have been going on, and the presentation and replies from the Minister saying that this organization meets once a year. But considering our recent changes to the economy and the declining departures of resource development and the players being Imperial Oil and the diamond companies, considering that, considering the royalty losses and issues at hand being Arctic sovereignty, energy security, devolution, co-drafting of regulations, claims, land claims and self-government, all that in one basket I recommend to the Minister that maybe, in consideration, one meeting per year is not enough. Maybe a review of a new mandate for the remaining term of this Assembly is needed to expedite some of the rules for conclusion to welcome investors from the investment community, whether they're national investors or international investors. So I just bring that up and also take it into consideration there's different rules of engagement for the whole territory. Some of the rules in the North are really totally different because of the entrenched land claim. We have Chapter 21, for example, that give rights in the Sahtu land claim for incoming developers. So that's just one example.
So at the end of the day there, Madam Chair, half of the territory is split with a modern set of rules in your modern treaty, and the other half is still underneath negotiations. So maybe that should be an element for consideration in restructuring the mandate of these two groups going forward. So I share that, Madam Chair. And maybe the Minister is going to respond with some previous discussions that happened between both parties that would take this into account, but that's my recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will start with a question the Member asked yesterday, and it's about our meeting fund. And there is an increase in our intergovernmental meeting fund to ensure that there is more participation, more ability to participate for Indigenous governments.
In terms of the meeting frequency of the IGC, that is something that I am considering. Again, we are only one partner at that table, but I do see that there would be value in more communication. And so we don't have a plan on that yet. We have to go and speak with the secretariat, and there are a number of pressures on the time of the Indigenous governments and their officials as well, so I can't say for certain what will come of that but I do agree with the Member that more frequent meetings could be useful.
And in terms of the structure of the Intergovernmental Council, so I have an interest in ensuring that we have, as much as we can, a cohesive system across the territory. We have one system across the territory. And so the way it operates now, it is essentially -- it's all under the one Act. And I want to ensure that we can provide that -- continue to provide that level of certainty to industry and developers and the people of the territory as well. But, you know, these are all -- as was pointed out yesterday, there's no precedent for a lot of the things that we do in the territory in regards to Indigenous governments and the public government in that relationship and so there is -- we have to figure this out. Devolution has been around for about a little over ten years now, and I think it is time to assess how it's working and how it can work going forward. And so that's all part and parcel of the review that is beginning shortly. Thank you.
Thank you. I will go back to the Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got nothing further to add but if I do down in the coming weeks there, I will certainly share to the Minister via email. Mahsi.
Okay, thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from the Dehcho.
Thank you, Madam Chair, allowing me the opportunity to ask a couple more questions to the Minister. For the Dehcho process or the Dehcho land claim process, what is the major blocks to concluding the negotiations in this process? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to be careful not to try to -- or be seen as negotiating on the floor of the House. Like those types of discussions need to happen at the negotiation table. But there are disagreements about -- or not disagreements. There is differences of opinion on some significant issues related to land and wildlife and some of these things. But that being said, we are making progress on those and there is progress in other areas as well. The Dehcho are very committed to advancing this, and so are we. And so we're seeing progress. As I've said, I've had a number of meetings with representatives from the Dehcho this week and over the past number of weeks, and I am going to follow up with them and continue those discussions. So I think the hurdles are traditional issues that have been around for decades, and I think they're laid out in some of the early documents. But I don't think that they're insurmountable, and I think we can find a way to work together and come to a solution. It would mean being creative, and it might be a solution that doesn't look like anything else in the territory. But that's fine. But we just have to get there, and I think we can. Thank you.
Thank you. I will go to the Member from the Dehcho.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Can the Minister tell me which First Nations and organizations in the Dehcho that are involved in this land claim negotiations? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I can try and find a list here of everyone. But essentially the Dehcho is represented at the table by the grand chief, negotiator, and I know that they represent a number of communities in the Dehcho region. I am just trying to find it here so I can give everyone an accurate list.
No, it's in my other binder, so -- or it's not in this list here. So I can provide the Member with a list of the communities. I just don't want to leave anyone out, and I want to make sure I get it right, so. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I will go back to the Member from the Dehcho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My next question is going to be kind of a funny question, but nonetheless I am going to ask it. Can you tell me why the GNWT is part of this negotiation process? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you. So from what I understand, the GNWT has responsibilities over lands and resources, and there's a desire on behalf of Canada to have the partner who has that responsibility and that awareness of the situation at the table. Thank you.
Okay Thank you. I will go to the Dehcho Member.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have nothing further. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from Members? Seeing none. Okay, no further questions. I am going to continue on to page 143.
Executive and Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous and intergovernmental relations, $8,469,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Moving on to the Office of the Secretary to Cabinet on page 146, with information items on page 148 and 149. Are there any questions?
I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, yeah, I have a question just in the -- that is building upon some of the questions we were just asking on the previous page and we were discussing last night. It notes here that in the Office of the Secretary to Cabinet, some of the responsibilities include formalizing how the GNWT works with its partners when developing land and resource legislation.
So I am not going to repeat and tread back over the conversation we had last night regarding the IGCS, but something I did note in conversations with stakeholders who have kind of more knowledge of that table than I would, did note that it was felt that GNWT could be offering perhaps some more leadership at that table. And so regarding the fact that, you know, that I think it's been talked about that, you know, we are trying to operate that table right now on a true consensus model, my understanding of it is that we effectively don't move issues forward unless everybody at the table agrees which is, like, that's pure consensus, and all of us understand in the operation of consensus that's a pretty tough one to reach. And so I am wondering in terms of formalizing how the GNWT works with its partners, noting that most of the time when this stuff is proceeding -- or sorry, most of the time when items at the IGCS are proceeding, it's not politicians who are in the room, it's staff, so I am just curious what kind of direction, what kind of policy informs how staff make decisions and work at that table. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.
I'd like to go to the deputy minister.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when it comes to IGCS, typically the table is represented by the GNWT at deputy secretary to Cabinet level, so ADM equivalent. Also, there are director level representation present at all times. Deputy ministers, including myself, attend periodically, often when presenting new projects or dealing when issues are contentious, if that should be the case. But, typically, it would be at the ADM level where sort of the routine meetings are happening and updates are occurring. I should also mention that with existing initiatives such as a legislative initiative, there would be technical working groups where officials would be participating from the requisite departments relative to that project in addition to the representation from Indigenous governments and organizations who are participating on that working group. So, really, it depends on the conversation that would be happening per the agenda of any IGCS meeting and also in relation to any of the initiatives that are being advanced through that table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I will go back to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that response. So that response gave me the who. I think what I was trying to get at with the question was the how and what is informing the how. So to reiterate the question maybe to make it a bit more clearer, what I am looking for is what kind of policy direction are staff operating under. You know, I mean, I shared a perception that we're working in true consensus. I'd be curious to know if that's actually the case. But what I am wondering about, to get a bit more clear here, is how we're maintaining timelines, how we're maintaining timeliness. And, you know, this is a big subject to open up but just noting that, you know, for example, it's come up at a constituency meeting of mine that the long process that the Forest Act had to go through. You know, we've talked on the floor a fair bit about the targeted amendments to the Waters Act. Even targeted amendments take a certain amount of time. I am pleased to hear that those are proceeding, and it sounds from the people I've talked to that things are going well there. And, you know, for example, if we went to do a major amendment to the Waters Act, which was planned for this Assembly and ended up off the table, you know, that could potentially take multiple terms of the Assembly. And so the place where that work gets done is at this table so I am really glad that Members are paying attention to it, it's coming up, and that the table's work is being reviewed this term, in the seven-year review. And so that's what I am trying to understand, is how are we -- are we considering any changes, or how are staff being directed to work at that table in order to get things moving and potentially improve those timelines? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.
Thank you. And so the IGC is set up through the NWT intergovernmental agreement on lands and resource management through the devolution agreement, so that's sort of the primary framework. In terms of GNWT-specific policy documents, direction, we do have the legislative development protocol on how we work with Indigenous governments. But if the Member is talking about, on a specific issue, how do -- what direction is given to advance a specific issue or a specific file, well, that would be then what's the issue, what's the file. If there's political direction or a desire on Cabinet's part to see something happen, then that's the direction that would be provided. And so if there's a certain regulation that we would like to see advanced, then that would be the direction that we would provide, is, you know, move forward and try and figure this out. And if we need to come back because there's not agreement at the table, then -- and we need to make some calls to leaders, then let's do that. So there's not an overarching policy saying, you know, this is our position on every item. It's often item by item. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate that answer. I guess, so I can understand that it would be issue by issue. You know, something I have floated to the Premier previously is whether we need to establish timelines around our processes. I am curious while we're here to get a comment on that.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.
Thank you. And the Member has raised the timelines, and I think that that's -- well, that is something I will bring forward to the IGC. Because as I mentioned, the elected leaders around the table, I am not sure if all of us always know what's going on and it's not always possible to keep track of every discussion that's happening related to legislative development, so ensuring that, you know, we have things like that in place would help us all stay on top of these. And if there's a timeline, if you're working towards something, obviously there's a greater sense of urgency, there's going to be more involvement from -- at our level to ensure that things are on time. So I know that's something that I am very much interested in, and I will bring forward to the table. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to be clear, I think that that should be considered within the seven-year review.
If I could, with the time I have left, I'd like the Minister -- or sorry, the Premier to comment on the idea that perhaps GNWT could be providing better leadership at these tables, so. And what I am referring to there is often when I've asked about this on the floor, a process, the one that comes to mind for me, is the targeted amendments to the Waters Act. The Minister has repeatedly said, well, we are one member at the table and speaks of GNWT as being equal at the table. And I understand that that is the case; however, I think it's worth noting that GNWT is also very much the elephant in the room, right. GNWT is the government with a $2.6 million budget. GNWT is the government with significantly more resources than other partners. And so I think it needs to be looked to for leadership. And for what it's worth, it is still GNWT-owned legislation that is moving through that table. And so I am curious to hear the Minister's perspective on that thought, that perhaps GNWT could be providing stronger leadership on getting things moving. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think there is an opportunity to look at the direction that is provided to the officials at that table on the GNWT side. I think government sort of moves at a certain pace, but there's clearly a desire from the Assembly, and I know from Cabinet, to move more quickly on things. And I think that might fall under the category of providing more leadership. Because the Member's right, we do have more resources. You know, we've -- so, I am trying to avoid talking about the GNWT as being the boss at the table and being able to push things through against the wishes of everyone. The leadership that is being provided now, a lot of it is trying to bring people together, find a common ground, get to a point where everyone can agree on. Like, that's the negotiation. And I don't want to say we're just going to start trying to bulldoze over or push too hard on things. It is a balance, and we are one partner. But I take the Member's point that this whole discussion about meeting more often, about having some timelines, those are the types of things, areas, where I am going to bring those forward as part of this review so that we can -- and I see that as a way of sort of providing that type of -- that leadership. These are ways to advance those projects, so I will just leave it at that, sorry. Thanks.
Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question is an easy one. Just wanted to confirm that the $695,000 in the budget for contract services, is that related to the establishment of a residential schools monument or something else? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.
The monument. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
