Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lastly, I move that this committee recommends, to the extent that it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly, and for the public record, that the government provide a response to these recommendations, even of a preliminary nature, that the committee may publicly disclose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Do you agree that we have concluded consideration of Committee Report 29-18(3)? Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We have concluded consideration of Committee Report 29-18(3), Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment Report on the Perceptions Held by Northern Businesses Toward the Government of the Northwest Territories' Procurement Processes. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will take a short recess.
---SHORT RECESS
Thank you, committee. I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to next consider Committee Report 32-18(3), Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, Committee Report on the Process Used for Devolution Legislation Initiatives. I will go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment for any opening comments. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. During the course of committee's review of the seven devolution-related bills, we found that each department approached bills in a different way. We also found that, while the bills had some common language, other common concepts were not treated similarly in the bills. Rather than making recommendations in each report, the committee decided to issue an overarching report on the process. The recommendations in this report should be considered extensions of the recommendations found in the reports committee has already presented. With that, Mr. Chair, we have a number of motions towards recommendations that I will put forward at the appropriate time. Individual Members may have additional comments or questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. I will now open the floor to general comments on Committee Report 32-18(3), starting with Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, I want to thank our staff for putting together yet another report on top of all of the other reports they had to put together. The committee found itself in a pretty unique position at the tail end of this Assembly. We were tasked with reviewing a number of devolution-related bills from a number of different departments, and I think it offered us a unique perspective, and I think this report is important in highlighting that. It could be very useful for the future Assembly, future Cabinet, and future standing committees.
Because we looked at bills from different departments, I think we saw things in a way that Cabinet did not see. When we get bills, all of the committee delves right deep into them. We have researchers working across the different bills, and we have a lot of cross-over; whereas I do not think there is that equivalent in Cabinet; I think things are a little more compartmentalized. So we were able to see a unique perspective, and I think that what's contained in this report are the kind of details you would like to see hashed out before this devolution process began or the work on this devolution legislation began, but, because there is not that sort of central policy shop in Cabinet, I think that was not able to be done and each department took their own approach. So I think all of this stuff in here, pretty much everything, is just a practical recommendation that will improve the way legislation is created and the way legislation is reviewed, and I hope that everyone supports it because there should not be anything controversial about what this report discusses. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really am appreciative of the committee staff and the committee members who worked on this report, but staff really deserves an important shout-out. We, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, had an unprecedented legislative agenda that it was seized with, and common issues arose from each of those around the unique nature of co-drafting bills in a special relationship with Indigenous people as guaranteed by the intergovernmental agreement, and that was broadened in some cases to include Indigenous nations that had not signed on to devolution, so this was a really wide-ranging, important process that speaks to this government's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and nations. I think it's a very commendable effort. I am reminded of the Premier's call to "devolve and evolve."
It is with some regret, though, that there was a different approach taken by each of the sponsoring Ministers on each of the bills, and I would hope, if it is to realize that promise of evolution after devolution, that we have a common approach to how we deal with these things. Another key concern was the capacity issues that were shared with us by Indigenous governments and nations, that some wanted to fully participate and were impeded by a lack of capacity, so there are many recommendations to deal with this. This was a very worthwhile exercise, and I think it shows a lot of good will and a lot of commitment towards reconciliation when a public government gives up its exclusive right to draft public bills and opens and shares the pen with Indigenous governments and nations. I think that is a really landmark sea change and is very unique to the Northwest Territories, and the government should be commended.
The purpose of this report is not to scold or chide government on what they could have done better but to offer really common sense, practical observations of how this process can be done better in the future and how we can ensure that our efforts towards reconciliation through this process can be continued, strengthened, and ultimately result in a lasting positive relationship with Indigenous peoples and nations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Any further comments from committee? Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to thank the staff for the many reports that were edited and drafted and edited and drafted again during this whole legislation review. I recognize since the days of our government leader Nellie Cournoyea saying devolution would be a timely one for this government to take over the responsibilities of its own resources and its own land and the management of those, and I was quite pleased to hear the announcement made back in 2014 that the success of negotiations ceased and the devolution was concluded. In some opinions, it may not be the best one, but this is what we have. It certainly sets the foundation of governing your own resources towards your own concluded destiny as a consensus government. This report, as the chair had mentioned, overarches the many devolution acts or bills and brings it into one with one follow-up report and summarizes the consolidated legislation related to that sector. I see this as a punctual or sound management practice to follow up with a report to government and saying right here, "This is our summarized version."
It is great to see that government has reached out to the IGC, and a smaller group representing the IGC, through the TWG, or the technical working group, and using the technical working group as stakeholder engagement throughout the devolution upgrade-to-modernization process.
It seems that all of the systems are there, and I don't feel that it would be appropriate to negatively discuss or share on the downfalls of what we went through on these pieces of legislation coming to fruition today or arriving at this point. I am of the opinion that here is the report, and government can use that or portions of it to design the appropriate measures that one could call more efficient. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Next, we have Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to commend our committee for spending some time thinking about this. I wish that we had had the luxury of a little bit more time.
I don't think that we sufficiently appreciate that this is a watershed moment in governance in the Northwest Territories. GNWT actually took over management of land and water resources. As part of that arrangement, there were commitments, maybe even legal requirements, that changes in the way that things are done, in terms of how we relate to land and water, have to be done differently now. There are requirements in place that Indigenous governments have to be involved, not just in setting the principles, but should be involved in the drafting of new legislation moving forward.
This is something that hasn't been done before in other jurisdictions, and I think that it is something that we can and should be very proud of. I think we have some mixed successes, some lessons learned, and I think that that is what committee has been reflecting on with this report. As I said, I wish we had the luxury of a little bit more time to put some time and reflection into this.
There are three parts to this committee report. There is a lot of discussion in here about the co-development process, based on what we heard from Indigenous governments, and from Ministers and staff, as well. There are also some considerations of what role the public can and should be playing in this new co-development world. There is also some discussion and thought about what role standing committee has, because I don't think that that had even really been contemplated at the beginning of the process, and I am still trying to figure out what that role can and should be.
I do want to make some observations. There were very different approaches adopted by different departments, and sometimes even within a department, when it came to bringing forward post-devolution legislation. With ENR, there was the Protected Areas Act, the Forest Act, and the Environmental Rights Act.
I think that it is fair to say that, on the Protected Areas Act, there was pretty good collaboration and an effort to expedite that. Although I didn't really get everything I wanted, I think that, at the end of the day, it was a pretty good result for our citizens. I don't think that I can say that about the Forest Act. In fact, the Minister himself recognized that there were issues and problems with the speed at which it had been developed and, to his credit, I think it was the best decision for all our citizens, withdrew the bill. The Environmental Rights Act, I think, is probably more of a mixed approach with mixed results.
I guess I will say a little bit about Lands. With the Public Land Act, I think my views are on record, but I think that there can and should have been greater collaboration with the standing committee and even the public, because what was delivered was certainly not what was expected. I think that there were major policy issues with it, which leads me back now to ITI.
On the petroleum side, the idea was to make, basically, a two-phased approach, one to deal with some administrative, more urgent, matters with the Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Petroleum Resources Act. I think those were handled reasonably well. We may not have agreed on all of the outcomes, there is still a lot more work that can and should be done there, but I think that there have been some significant improvements made to those pieces of legislation.
Last, but not least, was the Mineral Resources Act, and I think that I have a lot more to say about that. I am going to say some remarks later today, but that is kind of the model of how not to do legislation, in my view. Information was not shared with committee. I had to go and actually use access to information requests to try to get information out of the Minister. That's not appropriate in a consensus-style government, but the Minister and his staff did eventually work better with committee towards the end. If the concerns and issues that were being brought forward by committee didn't fit within the square peg, it wasn't going to work. That is an unfortunate example, I think, of how legislation should not be developed in a consensus government system.
I think that the recommendations that committee has come up with here are in the spirit of trying to improve the process moving forward. There were ideas brought to the committee about some of this, and I specifically want to thank the NWT Metis Nation, because they actually had some very good ideas about how we can improve co-development.
The Sahtu Secretariat actually recommended that an audit be done. I think that it was more of an evaluation, but I think that that is a good idea, and as I understand it, there is to be some sort of lessons-learned workshop or effort amongst some of the individuals working for Indigenous governments, to survey them and find out how things could be done differently and better. I think we have some ideas in here as well. I think that this would be really fruitful ground for academics, researchers, northern students, to study and look at how the co-development process has worked with this first round and how we can further improve it.
There are a number of recommendations here, Mr. Chair, that I hope that Cabinet will take seriously, as we pass the baton on to the 19th Assembly, to improve this co-development process moving forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also, thanks to committee for the work on this report. Mr. Chair, I look at all of these bills that we have been working on recently. I look at this, and it says "devolution" across it, and sometimes we see a draft, and I think, coming from Inuvialuit Settlement Region, our working relationship is never perfect, but nothing ever is. There are differences between Indigenous governments, points of view, even though they sit at borders, look at the languages. Those are different. When you have those little bit of differences within Indigenous peoples or even with the governments on the language of bills, there are some differences.
I see my fellow Inuvialuit coming to the capital to negotiate with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and I am actually proud of that.
I would like to thank the committee for highlighting all of these. Some of these are issues that need to be worked out. At the same time, as I mentioned, we all have our differences, but when we work towards something together, that is when we actually make progress. This is it.
As we move in to the end of this Assembly, we have a couple of days left. I think we have a lot to be proud of as a government as a whole. Sometimes, we don't celebrate the altogether. I think we always reference somewhere else and something else. The fact of the matter is: we are here right now, and we were here for four years. We need to look at the progress that we have made and the progress we hope to make moving ahead. I would just like to congratulate everybody on this.
Like I said, I look at all these bills and all the amendments to all these bills. I see Indigenous governments, Indigenous groups in a lot of this. I think that this is actually a step in the right direction. I just wanted to share that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Executive Council develop a protocol or protocols for engaging Indigenous governments, co-management organizations, and the intergovernmental council in the development of legislation governing land and resources and any related regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and is being distributed. We will just give a few seconds here. Thank you, committee. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't say much more than what has already been shared in terms of what we have heard out there. What this does is it encourages that protocols be set so that we have some degree of consistency in how we are going to approach the co-development and co-drafting of legislation.
As we travelled out on the road, we heard from a number of stakeholders, Indigenous governments, and others that there just didn't seem to be a very consistent approach. Sometimes, there was significant time to make input. There were other times where it seemed that Indigenous groups felt that they were pressured at that moment in time to make their contribution known.
There were concerns about not having enough resources on behalf of Indigenous governments to effectively contribute and that that would have required more time for them to get those resources so that they could effectively and meaningfully contribute.
Really, this is about developing some form of protocols so that when we do engage Indigenous governments with regard to co-drafting, that we have a process that everyone can expect and understand and, therefore, create some degree of certainty and reliability. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to concur with what the chair said. First off, what we heard: we heard from Indigenous governments. We heard from municipal governments. We heard from industry. We heard from NGOs, individual citizens. There is a lot of interest in the significant public policy matters that have been shunted off to regulations through these bills. A lot of the important substance matters of public interest are going to be developed by Ministers or Cabinet. There is no requirement in the bills for any public participation.
Committee tried, through amending the bills, different kinds of processes, whether it was the wording from the MVRMA to require some kind of consultation. We tried to include authority for the Minister, enabling authority, not requirements, to enter into agreements with Indigenous governments to allow for collaboration moving forward. We tried the wording from the Petroleum Resources Act, the Oil and Gas Operations Act, the gazetting process. We tried everything that we could think of to get some agreement or some commitment from Cabinet on what this process would look like. All we got were some intentions to involve people in the future, intentions. Our government shouldn't operate on intentions.
We came up with lots of options. There was nothing from Cabinet. There still is no government-wide approach to development of regulations. I have heard excuses like, "We are going to leave it to the 19th Assembly," or "We can't do that." All I have heard is excuses so far. I still don't understand nor does the public understand what the process is going to look like moving forward.
We tried lots of different options. This is the last-ditch effort on the part of the committee to try to get this Cabinet to actually come up with a process. So far, they have completely failed. As I say, this is a last-ditch effort to try to get a response on what that process is going to look like going forward. They can snicker and laugh all they want, but we came up with the ideas. They have not. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share with you some of the systems we have on behalf of the region and this government. I sat in on a number of these bilateral meetings and in preparation leading up to the bilateral meetings between this government and the Sahtu Secretariat. The intent of these bilateral meetings, held twice a year and follow-ups between, is to design protocol to how better implement and provide services that are facing challenges or meeting policy upgrade.
To me, that protocol is in place. I sit back and wonder, "Is this motion really contradicting what is in place already?" The intergovernmental council is there. In between bilateral meetings, the opportunity is there to have private one-on-one with government if the region leadership decides to do so. There are a number of engagements that are happening. Within those engagements, the agenda is designed to address the concerns from the region. I see that in place already. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, worry about this, as well. I, as well, too, like Mr. McNeely, sat in intergovernmental council meetings between the Inuvialuit and Cabinet. I see the working relationship. I see there are examples out there that we see here as a government that have come through this House, funding and implementation of programs and services. I wonder about this. I wonder where this is coming from. That is my question, Mr. Chair. Seeing it in action, I don't know about this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Next, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to support this motion. I think it is a way to hold the government accountable. If there are no standards, then they can do whatever they want and say they are right. I think it is also a way to protect those Indigenous groups that don't have settled claims yet like the ones in my region. I will be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Next, we have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would support the motion even if it is just for the co-drafting. As many of the organizations have signed on to devolution, they also want the responsibility to be able to co-draft for their governments. Right now, what's in place, and solidly in place, are technical working groups. The technical working groups get together, the governments, the Indigenous governments, the GNWT, and they draft legislation through that process.
As we've seen in the Forest Act, the Indigenous governments are not happy with that, and this would just ensure that they get an opportunity to co-draft. All the legislation which they co-draft on, I think some of the legislation wouldn't need it. It could be something that could be maybe non-substantial, and it would be something that the government could co-draft, and after discussion at an intergovernmental forum, it would probably be acceptable in that way. The opportunity of the Indigenous governments really have a strong desire to co-draft legislation with the government. This gives them that opportunity. This will ensure that that opportunity could be set in place, and I don't think it does any harm. I think all it does is allow the governments to have their say on legislation that's going to govern their people.
I can't see how this would be something that would be viewed as something that is negative. It's beyond me how individuals could consider this to be something that they couldn't support or consider to be a negative when all this says is that given the opportunities that Indigenous governments they co-draft legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you. I support this motion, as well. I'm a bit surprised to have a suggestion that this motion is in some way troublesome. This is based on the evidence that we obtained, that committee obtained, speaking to Indigenous co-drafting partners that there was a lack of capacity, or their experience in the technical working group, and inconsistencies between them. I don't think there are any ulterior -- I know there are no ulterior motives here. These concerns were not raised when these motions were developed and the report was drafted. These are new to me now, and I'm not sure why they're coming on the floor.
I certainly don't expect debate from the government Members at this time, but I think this is an important standard to set going forward, and I strongly support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. Any further comments from committee? To the motion.
Question.
The motion is in order. Al those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop a standard process and criteria for determining when a technical working group is to be employed, and the membership thereof. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The motion is on the floor and has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is almost a little bit of a part two to the one that we've just passed. This is going to give technical working groups a little bit more certainty. We are of the understanding that technical working groups are being utilized more often. They are being utilized right now as we speak to help draft other bits of legislation that are going to be coming forward in the 19th Assembly. We've identified or believe that this is becoming a standard practice. That's a good thing. What this is going to do is it's going to let the IGOs and the co-drafters have, as I said, more certainty of when they're going to be called upon, and in that way, they can coordinate their internal resources and be able to contribute significantly when the co-drafting process takes place. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The intention of this motion, it's my understanding that Indigenous governments, their staff don't need or necessarily want to be engaged or involved in any change that's made to regulations or legislation, but why not sit down and have a discussion, work out when they would like to be engaged and involved around certain subject matters, types of changes that might be made and so on. I think the suggestion is a helpful one to sit down and work this kind of arrangement out so that it's in everybody's best interest. They know how they're going to work together in the future. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place now. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion.
