Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I guess this is one of the areas that I highlighted in some of my earlier remarks. You know, we do need an action plan to help implement the declaration. Section 8 sets out the membership of the action plan committee. And, you know, 8(2) says the action plan committee must be comprised of members appointed by Indigenous governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories. So can the Minister speak to why there's no role for Regular MLAs with regard to the action plan committee? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Every one of the motions that were brought forward by the standing committee were brought back to the Indigenous governments. The comment was made that this will be the Premier's legacy. This is not the Premier's legacy. The Premier did not direct this. This was done at the table. The GNWT was one member at the table of the Council of Leaders. This is the Council of Leaders legacy, Madam Chair.
So within that spirit of working together in consensus, every single suggestion was brought forward to the Council of Leaders table. When we brought this motion forward and said, you know, the Regular Members would like to have a say in it, the Council of Leaders pointed out the power imbalances.
Within the act, it does state that the Members will be appointed by Indigenous governments, organizations and the Government of the Northwest Territories. That action plan committee will be taking off, probably in the next government. They can elect to have their officials there. They can elect to be there themselves if they wish to.
Any official that works for the GNWT is well aware that they report directly to the Minister, in this case myself, and they have accountability with that.
When we brought this forward, the officials had concerns, Madam Chair. They talked about the power imbalance. They know that they know the structure of the Legislative Assembly. They know that when Members Ministers are elected by the Regular Members, they represent all residents of the NWT, but they also know that Regular Members don't necessarily have to represent all members of the all residents of the NWT.
In fact, they are mostly reportable to their constituents and often will lobby for their constituents' needs versus all needs although there's some overlap often. So when we brought it forward, they said no, it would put them in a place that they weren't comfortable. If they had to have representation from the Legislative Assembly as the Regular Members, then they would have to consider inviting their leadership and then there couldn't be the frank discussions that happen at that table. So there was a real concern about the power imbalance, about the obligations, about the freedom to speak at will, because often when your Minister or your chief or your leader is there, you don't have the you have to be very careful what you say. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay. Thanks for that. I guess I'll we're going to get to a debate about something a little later here, but.
So I just want to turn to the there's a process convention on communications between Cabinet Ministers, standing committees, and Regular Members, and section 3 is consultations with standing committees. I'm just going to paraphrase something in here.
You know, from time to time Cabinet may wish to see considered input from a standing committee on a proposed government initiative plan, activity, or discussion paper. In these instances, Cabinet may provide a committee with proposals, draft plans, or discussion papers for the committee's formal review and comment.
So, you know, I suspect this you know, we don't know what's going to happen in the next Assembly but the usual starting point for the process conventions is the ones that are currently in place. So, you know, how does the Minister then see sharing information progress on the action plan with Regular Members? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There's several methods that the Regular Members can use to determine progress on the action plan committee. In theory, Madam Chair, the Minister that's applicable would actually offer that to standing committee or make a statement in the House. But if that doesn't happen, then the Regular Members have the option to ask questions in the House of the applicable Minister and the applicable standing committee can ask the Minister to present to standing committee either as a technical or as a political one. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay, that's very interesting. But what should the Minister do about this, Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. What sort of tools or things would this Minister expect they would use to communicate what's happening with the action plan committee to Regular MLAs maybe on a more proactive basis? Not wait for questions in the House, not wait to be called before a standing committee. What should happen? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I wasn't loud enough or clear enough when I started with saying what a Minister should do. A Minister should be making statements in the House about the work they're doing. They should be offering briefings to standing committee. And, in my opinion, they should have an open door whenever a Member has a question or a comment or a concern, they should be available to them. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks. Yeah, we have you know, the Intergovernmental Council's in place now for a number of years; it's actually established through legislation. The Council of Leaders is in place, and that was through a series of discussions and negotiations led by the Premier, and I compliment her for that. Regular Members have actually been able to send observers to those meetings. I personally attended Intergovernmental Council meetings. They've actually asked me to say things once or twice. I actually give my colleagues in the standing committee written reports from my meetings. I share agendas with them. What's the problem with having some kind of, whether it's an MLA or a representative, being, you know, there to observe and share the information with the colleagues back on the AOC or, you know I don't think we ever want to put a staff person here in that position but maybe AOC would have to hire somebody to an experienced person to go and observe and provide feedback. I just don't understand what the problem is. Maybe it's because we do such a bad job in explaining the difference between the legislative and executive branches of government. But I'm kind of thinking if it I was an Indigenous government, I would actually want Regular MLAs to know what's happening in those meetings so that if things go off the rails, the Regular MLAs can then start to raise those issues and hold Cabinet to account. But what do I know? So if we're already doing this in a couple of other you know, in the Intergovernmental Council, the Council of Leaders, why can't it be done with the action plan committee? And maybe it's just trust or we're so new at this we don't know what we're doing yet, but I just don't get it. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a difference. And, Madam Chair, the Member is right. There is a Regular Member that's invited to the Intergovernmental Council table, and there's a Regular Member that's invited to the Council of Leaders table. Those tables, both the Intergovernmental Council and the Council of Leaders, are the leaders of the governments GNWT, Indigenous governments, and organizations. They are chiefs, Ministers, Premier, presidents, whatever chair, whatever the title may be. The difference, Madam Chair, is that this is an action plan committee. There may be the occasional leader there if that Indigenous government or organization deems that they need to be there. But the majority of them, my guesstimate, will be officials. And as stated before, and right up to this morning when we asked about it again, it was really clear from the Indigenous governments that doing this will put them in a very challenging position of having to consider bringing their own political leadership to the conversation. They stated very clearly that it might jeopardize the good collaborative working relationship that we have built on this file.
We have taken four years to work on this file, Madam Chair. And to jeopardize it and even, Madam Chair, I have to clarify. Even myself, as the Premier, was not at every single meeting. I had faith in my officials to be able to carry the concerns of my own and the government's and the general public forward. So that is the difference. Those two tables that the Member identified are leader tables. This action plan working group might not all be leaders. Thank you, Madam Chair. And there is power imbalance.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I'd like to move a motion if I may.
Thank you. The motion is being distributed. Member for Frame Lake, go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 85 be amended by deleting subclause 8(2) and substituting the following:
(2) The action plan committee must be comprised of
(a) members appointed by Indigenous governments or organizations of the Northwest Territories;
(b) members appointed by the Government of the Northwest Territories; and
(c) subject to subsection (2.1), one member appointed by motion of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight or any successor committee that may be established by the Legislative Assembly.
(2.1) The action plan committee may, in respect of a Member appointed under paragraph (2)(c), limit or specify
(a) the classes of persons eligible for appointment; and
(b) the rights of participation of the member in the work of the action plan committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So what this would do is create the ability for the Regular Members to have a representative, whether it's a Member or some other representative of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight, be at the committee meetings the action plan committee meetings. And this is further, though, restricted and so basically it would be up to the action plan committee itself to determine the classes of persons that might be eligible, whether that's an elected official or a hired person by AOC. The action plan committee would decide this itself.
The action plan committee would also decide how, where, and when that person could be involved in the action plan committee. The action plan committee could say, you know what, you're not going to be at you're only going to be at portions of meetings, or you're not going to be at this meeting or that meeting. And you can only send a staff person; you can't send an elected official. So basically this would put the authority with the action plan committee itself as to how and who from the Regular Members would be allowed to observe, participate in whatever capacity, at the action plan committee.
And the reason why I moved this and bring it forward is because, as I said in my earlier remarks, I think this has the potential to significantly change the work of this Legislative Assembly, the legislation that comes before it, the policies that will come before committees. And I'm sorry, I think that the best way to convey that information is for the Regular MLAs to have somebody at the meetings. Cabinet has not demonstrated to me that they can share the information that the Regular Members need sometimes. And we've seen that in the development of this bill. They didn't bother to talk to us about Private Member's bills, having statements of consistencies, a number of other items in here. That's just one example. So I'll just leave it at that for now, Madam Chair.
No, I won't, I have look, I'm not trying to stop this bill. I'm not trying to slow it down in any way. People are going to say that about me; that's fine. I want to support this. I want to make this better. And I want both sides of the House to be involved in how we actually implement Indigenous rights. And that's how consensus government is supposed to work, and that's what this motion is about. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't support this motion. I think the Premier has made it clear that it's going to be mostly made up of officials. And I think, you know, as a general understanding that politicians meet with politicians and officials meet with officials. You know, I don't ever expect to show up to a deputy ministers committee, but I you know, I would appreciate, and I do appreciate, when Cabinet invites, you know, MLAs to the Council of Leaders or the IGC. And, you know, I even think they go a little farther when they're in bilaterals with an Indigenous government. If the leadership is there, they could invite the MLA from that region. But I don't view us either sending a staff person or sending an MLA to a group largely made up of officials.
I also think this is it's kind of it's pushing our role. And I get Regular MLAs, we always want to see how the sausage is made. But, you know, ultimately, we operate under the principle that, you know, Cabinet proposes and the legislature disposes. And there's going to be a bunch of lawyers in a room spending the next few years fighting over the definition of free prior informed consent. And we're going to get reports that they're sitting there fighting over the definition, and I don't know what that does. You know, really, at the end of the day, we have to wait and see what the end result is. It would be similar to, you know, me asking to attend a negotiation with a bunch of lead negotiators. I would love that opportunity but I recognize that that just isn't my role. You got to wait and you got sometimes you got to wait for decades to see what the end result is, and that's done in confidence, and that's so officials can speak frankly. And then when the time's finally done, they can take it back to their leadership who can go through their council approval process or their Assembly approval process or back to the Assembly and go through their legislative approval process. So, you know, given that the Premier has made it quite clear this will be mostly officials, I can't support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Member. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.
I too feel very you know, government to government is very important with this whole bill, okay. Government to government is the governments that the Indigenous all have their own governments. They make decisions in one day. They don't wait ten years. And so, you know, I always say that, and government to government relationship is really important. I think we have a role a different role. If something went wrong or someone said something that just wasn't quite right, I mean, you're already called on to the carpet to advocate on behalf of that First Nation as an MLA. I think we have roles to play all over. I played those roles with all the First Nations that are in my area. And you know, if they certainly let me know when something is not quite right. I mean, that's part of our role. And I appreciate that role because, you know and being a First Nation leader for many years, I see that as it's a different part of my role now but I understand the whole way it comes about. Less interference is great because, you know, First Nations don't you know, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They have some they have pretty smart leaders. They've been through the mill. They've had a lot of people say no to them without really listening to both sides.
Our leaders, don't take them for granted, okay. The Indigenous leaders are extremely brilliant. I've worked with some extremely brilliant leaders, just like I'm working with extremely brilliant people around this table. And never take anybody for granted because, you know, I always say, even in business, you never know which door you're going to have to knock on. Always leave the door open. And I don't think that it is our role to be going to observe or try to influence in any way, shape, or form a decision that is being put forward on a working paper that the Indigenous government and our government has got to make a decision on. And, yes, they will inform us of that decision, I'm sure, because we'll make sure of that, right, as Regular Members. So that's my two cents, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Thebacha. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Oh, did you sorry. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate committee's careful consideration of the bill and that there is a strong interest in the future work of the action plan committee to be established. The action plan committee will have important work to do that will further guide the implementation of the United Nations Declaration for Indigenous People. It will help ensure that our laws and policies align with the principles of the declaration. This is a key feature to this legislation and the two other examples from Canada like it.
The action plan committee does not change the fundamental roles of Cabinet and Regular Members. We continue to have process conventions on the sharing of information, committee review of proposed legislation, and the opportunity to review policy changes. None of that changes as a result of the action plan committee meant to provide a place for Indigenous governments and the GNWT to work collaboratively on areas of shared priority.
To speak as plainly as I can, consensus government does not require MLAs to participate directly in the workings of the executive branch. That is why this Assembly elects Ministers from within its ranks to serve as Ministers. And Ministers are then responsible to consider the interests of all residents of the NWT. Indigenous governments do not want to muddy the waters of accountability and do not want to unnecessarily complicate the work of reconciliation. The concern from Indigenous governments is a real one. They are concerned that legislatively requiring MLA participation, even as observers, potentially challenges the hard work of reconciliation and could further complicate the balancing of interest that may be required as the United Nations Declaration for Indigenous Peoples matters are considered. Indigenous governments know that Ministers are accountable to MLAs. But they also know that Ministers must represent and promote the interests of all residents of the Northwest Territories. GNWT officials at intergovernmental meetings are accountable to Ministers.
And Indigenous governments organization officials know that their governments have their own intergovernmental relationship with Ministers as the heads of the executive branch of government. The same responsibilities and obligations are not part of the accountability of Regular MLAs. Their accountability is to their individual constituents. MLAs should and will continue to have oversight of government business, but we do need to keep a distinction between the executive branch and the legislative branch in our intergovernmental work. As stated, Madam Chair, the Indigenous governments and organizations are not in support of this motion and, therefore, Cabinet will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now go to the mover of the motion for any closing comments. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I respect all the comments I heard. You know, this motion does not require or enable elected MLAs to participate in any way in the action plan committee. It allows for a representative to be there on the terms and conditions that are set by the committee itself. This is not about interfering or trying to influence the process. It's about understanding what's happening there and how it will change the legislative branch of government. This is not about the executive branch of government. This is the plan, when it's done, will change the legislative branch of government. It'll change how we do things here. It'll change the legislation, the policies, the work that standing committees do. And to exclude Regular MLAs from that process, I just don't think that that's a good idea and I don't think it's in keeping with the process conventions. And that's all I have to say.
But I think this was a worthwhile debate. And I expect that the next Cabinet, the next Minister, will actually find better ways to share information about this because it didn't happen in the drafting of this bill. So whoever the next Minister is is going to have to work a lot harder in sharing information, and maybe even finagling an occasional invitation or something, for Regular MLAs or their representative. Maybe come and see what happens once in a while. So the next Minister's going to have to do a way better job in communicating what's happening at that action plan committee with the Regular MLAs. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is defeated.
Defeated
Clause 8, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 9 through 11, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Clause 12. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I said in my earlier remarks before somebody tries to say otherwise that I agree in principle to the idea of shared decisionmaking agreements. And, you know, I think we probably have some kind of examples out there of those sorts of arrangements. You know, you might say that Deline selfgovernment is that kind of an arrangement. But I guess one of the concerns I have here is, you know, we don't really know or understand what the scope of these agreements could look like; how frequent they may be; how many there may be; what is GNWT going to look like at the end of the day. Is it just going to be some kind of a rump government that doesn't do much? You know, I don't know. You know, I think we're starting to verge on constitutional change here or looking at what is the relationship between public and Indigenous governments. And, in any event, I would like to get some understanding from the folks at the witness table as to what the scope of these agreements is going to be, how frequent they could be, what is GNWT going to look like after these agreements have been negotiated. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So this concept of shared agreements comes actually from the BC legislation, the United Nations Declaration there. We had much discussion on that at the working level when we were drafting this bill.
The agreements might come in different forms. Martin Goldney can expand on that later. We don't know yet. We haven't had that experience and that's why we were careful with it as well.
But I do want to say, Madam Chair, that there's many agreements. The MLAs are not always part of every single agreement that the executive branch makes. For example, we make agreements with land claims, selfgovernment agreements that are often not shared with MLAs until later, if ever. We have agreements with the federal government, Madam Chair, that we make. I mean, often the federal government binds us and says we're going to do this with you but you cannot say anything to anyone until we announce it publicly. So this is not a differing aspect of how we work. This has been done with other governments. We're just expanding this to Indigenous governments. We have it already with the federal government. Why should it be any different with the Indigenous governments? Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.
Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, no, thank you for that. Yeah, I think we're not like a lot of the governments that the Premier described that have party systems. This is supposed to be a consensus government. So the way that the bill has been drafted now and I think this was a helpful addition was that, you know, Regular MLAs will now at least get notice if negotiations a Minister's authorized to begin negotiations on a shared decisionmaking agreement. But the only time there's no requirement there's nothing in the bill about what happens with those agreements other than they're going to get published at the end of the day in the gazette, which not like anybody even reads. And I guess they're going to be published on a website as well thanks to the committee. But, you know, what happens between the time that a Minister's authorized to negotiate something and an agreement is reached; is there any opportunity for Regular MLAs to know what's happening inside the bill, outside the bill? How's that going to happen? Thank, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, as I stated, the MLA has pointed out that I am not good at communicating with standing committee. I guess I'll take ownership. I was in the last Cabinet. I thought the same MLA had said that we were better than the last Cabinet, but perhaps not, and did state that the next government has to do better. I do believe, Madam Chair, that we all have to work at being better all the time. So I do think that's a process.
But I also think, Madam Chair, the Member has many times stated about consensus government. Consensus government is not about just getting your way, Madam Chair, in my opinion. Consensus government is about sitting around the table looking for compromises, looking at flexibility. When this was brought forward to myself, as the Minister applicable for this, by committee, we did make a compromise with committee. But I'm hearing now that the Member doesn't like the compromise. And that is consensus government. It's about being flexible. It's about compromising so that all Members' needs will be ideally satisfied. Maybe not get a hundred percent of what you want. But that's the reality of consensus government; we all have a say. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Well, I don't think I can possibly respond to everything that I heard there. But, you know, I'm not here to get my way. If that's why any of us are here, we're here for the wrong reasons. I'm here to try to serve my constituents and try to think about the broader public interest. I've always tried to increase transparency, openness, accountability, as a public government. That's why I'm here so it's not about getting my way. Yeah, I'll leave that aside for now.
You know, I guess the issue here is the only way for Regular MLAs to hold the Cabinet to account with regard to these shared decisionmaking agreements is once they're publicly released because there's no other requirement. I think the process convention might allow for the Minister and Cabinet to come to the Regular MLAs and say, you know what, we've actually got this arrangement we've negotiated and by the way here's actually a draft. We'd like to get your input before it's signed. You know, we put a lot of time and effort into this. Maybe even an update or two along the way depending on the scope and whatever of the agreement. You know, if it's a simple administrative delegation of something, that's probably not a big deal. But if it's, you know, giving decisionmaking in a major program area to a government, an Indigenous government that might have implications for other things, I don't know. But the only way it seems that Regular MLAs would be able to hold Cabinet to account is after the agreement's released publicly and then, you know but it could be a legally binding agreement that's already signed and nothing could be done at that point. So how can Regular MLAs hold Cabinet to account for these shared decisionmaking agreements? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Madam. Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As stated earlier, the first role of one of the first roles of any Legislative Assembly is choosing your executive council, who are there to represent the interests of all residents of the NWT. And so therefore, Madam Chair, I would challenge to say that MLAs have to have faith in those that they elect as the executive council.
Madam Chair, there are I think we need to step back here a minute and look at it. If we we're signing selfgovernment agreements with Indigenous governments. If we really believe in selfgovernment, then we have to recognize that these Indigenous governments are going to have a role in decisionmaking. They are going to take on aspects of education, health, housing, you know, all right across the spectrum. So I'm sensing a fear of this. But perhaps we should have had this conversation 30 years ago when we started talking about selfgovernment because that is what selfgovernment is. So Indigenous governments are going to get there anyway, Madam Chair. If we really respect them, then we need to let them at the table. That's what this is about. Thank you, Madam Chair.
