The results of the recorded vote: 16 in favour, zero opposed, two abstentions. The motion is carried. Bill 85 has had third reading.

---Applause

I'm going to say that again. Third reading of bills. Bill 85 has had third reading.

---Carried

Third reading of bills. Mr. Clerk, orders of the day.

All those opposed, please rise. All those abstaining, please rise.

Question has been called. The Minister has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.

Thank you, Madam Premier. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Mr . Speaker, I'd like to, first of all, say that myself and Cabinet, and many of the Council of Leaders, are extremely proud of this bill. I think this is the way of the future. It's exciting. It's scary. It's challenging. And it's about time that we took these steps.

I'd also like to clear for the record, Mr. Speaker, I was accused yesterday and today of not attending assemblies. Mr. Speaker, throughout my term as Premier, at any time that any Indigenous organization, government, has invited me to their assemblies, if I had been free I would have attended. As with other Members, if our schedules allow, we have attended. I do not impose myself as Premier into assemblies where I do not get invited. So if I was not invited, then I did not attend. That is just what I was learned growing up as basic manners - don't go to a party unless you're invited.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to clarify that this was being accused of my legacy. When I first started in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I never even knew what the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples was. I never put it as a priority. I never knew it. It was brought as a priority of all 19 Members. I soon learned what it was and became extremely proud of it and a champion of it as well because it is the right way.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is not -- if this is passed, this is not my legacy as the Premier. This is the legacy of this 19th Assembly. This states that we believe in the rights of Indigenous people and forever I shall be grateful to all Members who support this bill and the work that was done on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Deh Cho. The motion is in order. Madam Premier.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during debate during the Committee of the Whole, I expressed many concerns that I had with the process to getting where we are with this bill today. And a lot had to do with the lack of meaningful consultation that our Premier, our Cabinet, the Executive and Indigenous Affairs, did not attend many assemblies to present this to every First Nation group in the Northwest Territories and many times many of them were at the Dene Nation Assemblies. This government has never showed up to any assemblies whatsoever in the Northwest Territories with Indigenous groups to have meaningful consultation. That didn't happen because there were some concerns with certain articles within the document. And those are the things that they wanted to discuss. And after a consultation with the Deh Cho First Nations Grand Chief and after consultation with the Dene National Chief, who informed me that this UNDRIP was opposed at last year's Dene National Assembly. And having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I will abstain from the vote today. Mahsi.

Thank you, Madam Premier. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Deh Cho.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move, seconded by the honourable Member of Inuvik Boot Lake, that Bill 85, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, be read for the third time. And, Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member for Deh Cho.

Thank you, Member for Deh Cho. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment is pleased to provide its report on Bill 74, Forest Act, and commends it to the House. Report on Bill 74, the Forest Act.

Executive Summary

The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment was tasked with reviewing Bill 74: Forest Act in the final year of the 19th Legislative Assembly. Committee reviewed Government of the Northwest Territories policies, programs, and legislation related to forest management as Bill 74 is intended to change how the GNWT manages and protects forests, communities, and values threatened by wildfire. Committee travelled to four communities during its review and engaged with stakeholders and the public at large.

Committee recognizes that Bill 74 is the first legislation to be developed collaboratively with Indigenous governments and co-management bodies in accordance with the Intergovernmental council on Land and Resource Management: Legislative Development Protocol. Bill 74 is also the first legislation to be reviewed under the "Process Convention for the Introduction, Consideration and Enactment of Bills Drafted Pursuant to the Intergovernmental council Legislative Development Protocol." While this is a first for the NWT, the territory is the only jurisdiction in Canada where the legislative branch of government reviews laws not just with the executive branch but also with Indigenous governments. Committee also considered this precedent setting legislation, the input we received, and reflected on the review process generally. All this information informs a range of recommendations to the GNWT with the intent and purpose of improving forest management and wildfire prevention in the NWT.

Recommendation 1: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that the GNWT undertake an independent third-party comprehensive review of GNWT fire prevention and suppression with public engagement. This review should consider the policy framework, coordination with other governments and agencies, funding for these activities, as well as departmental practices concerning firefighter safety. The findings of the review be made publicly available on a GNWT website.

Recommendation 2: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that the department review what information it can and should provide regarding its internal interactive fire databases, its communication efforts and how information is presented and organized on its website to improve access to and knowledge of fire prevention and suppression activities and practices.

Recommendation 3: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that there be an annual meeting between relevant GNWT departmental staff and each community to review values at risk, fire prevention and suppression preparedness, coordination of efforts, and related matters.

Recommendation 4: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that representatives from technical working groups should meet with standing committee earlier in the process, closer to the beginning of the co-drafting process, to discuss opportunities to share information on policy options and policy intentions for resource management legislation.

Recommendation 5: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that if the overall legislative timeframe allows, there should be the ability to extend standing committee reviews of resource management bills to allow for completion of the collaborative review process.

Recommendation 6: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that exchanges between standing committees, the departments and technical working groups on the review of resource management bills should be made public where possible and documented in committee reports on resource management bills.

Recommendation 7: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that Departments undertaking the co-drafting of resource management legislation and regulations should secure additional resources for this process and conduct more robust public engagement.

Recommendation 8: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that departments undertaking the co-drafting of resource management legislation and regulations should share more information with the public about policy options and policy intentions and conduct public engagement earlier in the process (i.e., not wait until the end of the co-drafting process). Public engagement can and should run concurrently with the co-drafting process.

Recommendation 9: Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment recommends that the Department of Environment and Climate Change prepare a detailed budget and work plan for continued co-development of regulations necessary for a new Forest Act, allowing for more public engagement on those regulations and the implementation of its new responsibilities under a new Forest Act.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Deh Cho.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee report 58-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 82: Legal Professions Act, be received and adopted by the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Member for Great Slave. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Monfwi, that Committee Report 60-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 80: Dental Hygienists Profession Statute Amendment Act, be received and adopted by the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Member for Great Slave.

Introduction

Bill 82: Legal Profession Act (Bill 82) received second reading on March 30, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development (Committee) for review.

Bill 82 repeals and replaces the existing Legal Profession Act (Act). The changes modernize the legislation based on the recommendations from a discussion paper created by the Law Society of the Northwest Territories (Society) to the Department of Justice. Specifically, Bill 82 will:

• Specify the purpose and administration of the Society.
• Define "member" of the Society and revise conditions for membership.
• Broaden the definition of the "practice of law."
• Modernize and expand the tools available for dealing with lawyer misconduct.
• Define the Assurance Fund, create a time limit for claims, and permit the Society to make charges against the Fund and to pursue claims against lawyers.
• Give the Society the ability to appoint interim custodians of a member's property and practice and approve that a lawyer may open a trust account.
• Address other matters such as expanding on liability protections, disclosure and safeguarding of solicitor-client privilege, use of titles, violations under the Act and associated fines, and obligations related to financial inspections and audits of lawyers.

The existing Legal Profession Act was passed in 1976 and established the Society as the body that regulates lawyers in the NWT. In 2018, a Revision Committee was established by the Executive of the Society to consult on and recommend changes, as the Act has not been extensively reviewed since it was first enacted. Parts of the existing Act are considered obsolete, and key issues related to the regulation of lawyers remain unaddressed.

This report outlines key events leading up to the introduction of Bill 82; describes Committee's engagement with stakeholders; and summarizes stakeholder positions and Committee decisions.

Committee Welcomes Improvements to Legal Profession Act

In October 2022, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight (AOC) received the Legislative Proposal for Bill 82. AOC confirmed support of the Bill with the Government House Leader and Bill 82 was tabled in the House during the February-March 2023 Sitting.

Committee held a public hearing on May 10, 2023, and completed its clause-by-clause review of Bill 82 with the Minister of Justice on May 31, 2023. Committee did not propose any amendments to the Bill.

Committee Considered Public Input

Committee sought public feedback on Bill 82 with a public notice and targeted engagement letters. Committee received written submissions from:

• The Law Society of the Northwest Territories;
• Mr. Brian Flewelling, a private resident;
• Northwest Territory Métis Nation; and
• Délı̨nę Got'ı̨nę Government.

All written submissions are included in an Appendix to this report. Additionally, during the public hearing on Bill 82, Committee heard remarks from the Minister of Justice, asked questions to Departmental officials, and received oral comments from the Society and Mr. Flewelling. Committee thanks the Society and Mr. Flewelling for their engagement. Their participation helped inform Committee discussions on key issues for future consideration.

Committee Concerns

Overall, Committee supported Bill 82 since it was first introduced. However, before advancing the Bill, there were several areas of concern that Committee wanted further feedback on from the public and the Minister of Justice. Those areas are:

• Access to justice;
• Cultural safety trainings taken by lawyers;
• Public access to law libraries and legal materials;
• Regulating paralegals; and
• Pro bono legal services.

Before the end of the May-June 2023 Sitting, Committee received feedback from both the Law Society and the Minister of Justice regarding these areas of concern. Based on that feedback, Committee considered the Bill ready to be advanced to the next stage.

Access to Justice

In both its oral and written submissions, the Law Society explained that while access to justice is "an important and ever-present issue" for their profession, this is a broader issue that requires all justice system participants to help find the right solutions. The Society also stated that one of the recommendations in their discussion paper specifically addressed access to justice, which in Bill 82 is section 21(2)(e):

- S.21(2) No person shall carry on the practice of law in the Northwest Territories or hold out that they are entitled to practise law or that they are a registrant of the Law Society, unless the person is:

a. an active registrant of the Law Society;

b. authorized to practise law by the governing body for lawyers in an extra-territorial jurisdiction approved by the Executive and has met the requirements established by the Law Society of the Northwest Territories to engage in the practice of law in the Northwest Territories;

c. a student-at-law and is practising law in accordance with the rules;

d. a law student and is practising in accordance with the rules; or

e. otherwise authorized under this Act or the rules to carry on the practice of law in the Northwest Territories.

As well as section 22(4)(d) of Bill 82, which reads:

- S.22(4) The following classes of registrants exist for the Law Society:

a. Lawyers;

b. Students-at-law;

c. Law students;

d. Any other class of individuals providing limited legal services set out in the rules.

All specified rules throughout these two sections need to be further developed by the Law Society, with the end goal of greater access to justice. Upon learning this, Committee considered this concern sufficiently addressed.

Cultural Safety Training

Committee initially contemplated whether Bill 82 should have included a provision requiring all legal professionals practicing in the NWT to undergo mandatory training for cultural safety and trauma-informed practices. However, in the Society's written submission, they explained that this area would be addressed through the Law Society's rules, not the Act. Committee also learned the Law Society requires cultural safety training on an annual basis. Upon learning this, Committee considered this concern sufficiently addressed.

Public Access to Legal Materials

Committee recognizes that the NWT's sole Law Library was closed due to budgetary reasons, therefore there was concern that this created a barrier to public access to legal materials for residents and legal professionals. While the Law Society did acknowledge this in their submissions, they state that the Law Foundation is granted a mandate under the Act to establish, maintain, and operate law libraries. The Society also stated that their organization does provide public access to legal resources such as the Legal Resource Center, with the support of the Department of Justice, and CanLii, a free online legal database, with the support of the Federation of Law Societies. While Committee agreed that the responsibility of law libraries did not lie with the Law Society, Committee did identify concerns that law libraries and support services to improve access to justice resources are not being made available through the Department of Justice. This concern remains.

Regulating Paralegals

Committee wrote to the Minister of Justice on whether the Department considered including a provision within Bill 82 to regulate paralegals and clearly define what a paralegal is and what they can and cannot do. The Minister did not see this approach as practical given the limited number of paralegals in the NWT. Further, the Minister stated that this type of provision is out of scope of the Bill, would be too burdensome on the Law Society, and is better addressed through the rules of the Law Society itself. Upon hearing this, Committee considered this concern sufficiently addressed.

Pro Bono Legal Services

Committee is concerned about changes to the Law Society membership fee structure within the legislation for lawyers offering pro bono legal services to residents. The Minister indicated that as lawyers are a self-governing profession, the Law Society retains discretion over establishing fees through its rules. The Minister also stated that to protect the Law Society as a regulator, it is the Department's view that fees for pro bono services are an issue that is best addressed within the rules of the Law Society. Further, the Minister stated that the Law Society confirmed a willingness to reduce or waive fees in support of pro bono services through their rules. Upon hearing this, Committee considered this concern sufficiently addressed.

Conclusion

On May 31, 2023, Committee held a clause-by-clause review. Committee passed a motion to report Bill 82 to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. This concludes the Standing Committee on Social Development's review of Bill 82: Legal Profession Act.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. Bill 82 is deemed read and moved into Hansard.

---Carried.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 82: Legal Profession Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee Report 58-19(2) be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any think abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee report 59-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 77: Nursing Profession Act, be received and adopted by the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Introduction

Bill 77: Nursing Profession Act (Bill 77) received second reading on March 29, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development (Committee) for review. Bill 77 repeals and replaces the Licensed Practical Nurses Act (Act), which has only had minor amendments since coming into force in 2004. It is intended to improve regulatory function by establishing a single regulatory framework for all nurses in the Northwest Territories (NWT). It will also standardize the assessment of credentials and oversight of nursing practices under one regulatory structure.

Bill 77 was developed through close collaboration with Registered Nurses Association of Northwest Territories and Nunavut (RNANTNU), which will be renamed the College and Association of Nurses of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Regulatory bodies of this kind have been established in other jurisdictions.

Bill 77 changes the following:

• Repeals the Licensed Practical Nurses Act and transfers the authority of RNANTNU;
• Establishes new nursing designations, scopes of practice, registers, and associated requirements for Licensed Practical Nurse, Registered Nurse Authorized Prescriber,
• Registered Psychiatric Nurse, and Registered Psychiatric Nurse Authorized Prescriber;
• Allows Registered Nurses and Registered Psychiatric Nurses who meet certain qualifications to order and interpret specific diagnostic and screening tests, make diagnoses, and prescribe specific medications;
• Updates the complaints and discipline process, including the appointment of a Complaints Officer;
• Adds a requirement for employers to report to RNANTNU if they terminate a nurse, or if the nurse chooses to resign instead of being terminated, due to unprofessional conduct;
• Adds by-law making powers to regulate the practice of nurses, including nurses who practice solely through virtual care; and
• Modernizes language.

Committee Considered Public Input

Committee sought public feedback on Bill 77 with a public notice and targeted engagement letters. Committee received written submissions from the Canadian Nurses Protective Society (CNPS), Scott Robinson RN, and RNANTNU which are appended to this report.

On May 10, 2023, Committee held a public hearing to review Bill 77. At that meeting, Committee heard remarks from the Minister of Health and Social Services and her staff, and they received oral comments from RNANTNU and the public. Committee thanks all these participants for their engagement.

One area of concern identified was the need to provide clarity and certainty with respect to the complaints process. Committee agreed with this concern. RNANTNU stressed the need to redact information in the complaints summary to protect client health and other sensitive information. In response, Committee stressed the importance of procedural fairness, specifically that nurses should receive full, unredacted copies of complaints made against them.

Committee also had concerns about how complaints regarding unprofessional conduct would be addressed by the new statutory officer created by Bill 77, and asked questions about complaints related to Cultural Safety competencies and standards of care for Indigenous residents and those living in small communities. The Minister referred to Living Well Together: Indigenous Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity Training for GNWT employees, and RNANTNU discussed existing standards of practice with respect to Cultural Safety during the public hearing. While these continuing Cultural Safety initiatives are important, Committee stressed the need for nurses to provide culturally safe care in the NWT. Committee was initially concerned about changes to the scope of practice, job descriptions, and change of pay for some nurses. For instance, Registered Psychiatric nurses will see major changes with Bill 77 because they will now be regulated in the NWT.

Committee also asked questions about whether the Government of the Northwest Territories was corresponding with Nunavut on amendments to the Act and heard that the territories were working together but not aligned legislatively. RNANTNU maintains it will be able to operate under the NWT and Nunavut's respective Acts governing the practice of nursing in both jurisdictions.

One area that CNPS and other members of the public identified was the need to provide clarity around insurance and protection, as well as the appeal mechanism for respondents ordered to pay costs during the complaints process. Committee shared these concerns.

After careful consideration, Committee supported six motions amending Bill 77. Three of these proposed amendments were the direct result of public engagement. Committee negotiated the exact wording with the GNWT. The other three proposed amendments were non-contentious: two corrections were made to French language clauses in the Act, and one was an agreed upon change regarding insurance and liability protection.

Committee Amended Six Clauses

Motion 1

Both Committee and the GNWT supported the submission made by CNPS to amend Clause 20 of Bill 77 by adding the words “liability insurance or protection” to paragraph 20(1)(t), striking out "liability insurance." A motion reflecting this change was drafted and passed at the clause-by-clause review.

Motions 2 and 4

While Committee noted the mechanism in place to appeal decisions, submissions during public engagement noted this would not apply to costs of investigations in situations where complaints were dismissed by the Board of Inquiry.

Two motions related to this issue were drafted. The first proposed that Bill 77 be amended by adding language “establishing the procedure to be followed in appeals of directions to pay the costs of investigations” after clause 20(1)(z.19). The second amended clause 67 by introducing substantial changes regarding an “Appeal of Direction to Pay Costs of Investigation” where a hearing was not required 67.1(1), concerning notice of direction 67.1(2), appeal 67.1(3), referral to the Board of Inquiry 67.1(4), and language clarifying an order as to costs 67.1(5). The Minister concurred with both motions, and they were passed at the clause-by-clause review.

Motion 3

Committee feels that it is procedurally fair for nurses to receive full, unredacted copies of complaints made against them. Committee also noted that while nurses are entitled to receive a copy of a complaint made against them under the Act, they may be unaware of this right.

The GNWT and RNANTNU remain concerned about protecting client health information, and redacting potentially vexatious material from complaints, and therefore prefer to provide summaries of complaints.

After negotiation with the GNWT, a motion was drafted concerning “notice of right to receive copy of complaint” which proposed to amend clause 56(5) by adding “(5.1) A summary of a complaint provided under paragraph (2)(a) or (5)(a) must include a statement advising the respondent of the right to receive a copy of the complaint under paragraph (2)(b) or (5)(b) on request.” The Minister concurred with the motion, and it was passed at the clause-by-clause review.

Motions 5 and 6

Committee agreed to support the GNWT's recommendation to correct the French versions of clause 70, under the heading “Renvoi à une commission d'enquête” and 119(3), by striking out "qui n'est pas un médecin" and substituting "qui est un médecin." Two motions reflecting these amendments were drafted and passed at the clause-byclause review.

Conclusion

On May 31, 2023, Committee held a clause-by-clause review.iv Committee passed the motions to report Bill 77, as amended, to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. In the House on June 1, Bill 77, Nursing Profession Act, was orally reported as ready. On June 2, Bill 77 was cited in the Orders of the Day as one of the items under Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.

This concludes Standing Committee on Social Development's review of Bill 77: Nursing Profession Act.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 77: Nursing Profession Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee report 59-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 77: Nursing Profession Act, be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Introduction

Bill 80: Dental Hygienists Profession Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 80) received second reading on March 30, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development (Committee) for review. Bill 80 is a private member's bill, sponsored by the Member for Kam Lake, to amend the Health and Social Services Professions Act and the Dental Auxiliaries Act. This Bill proposes to provide dental hygienists with the option to work independently of a dentist. Specifically, Bill 80:

• • • Will require the Minister of Health and Social Services to recommend to the Commissioner regulations under the Health and Social Services Professions Act, on or before March 31, 2024;
    • Designate the profession of dental hygienists as a profession, effective April 1, 2024;
    • Transfer the regulation of dental hygienists from the Dental Auxiliaries Act to the Health and Social Services Professions Act, effective April 1, 2024; and
    • Replace gender specific language in the Dental Auxiliaries Act with gender neutral language.

This report outlines key events leading up to the introduction of Bill 80; describes Committee's engagement with the public; and summarizes stakeholders' positions and Committee's decisions on key issues.

Committee Welcomes Improvements to Oral Healthcare

The purpose of Bill 80 is to permit dental hygienists to work independently of a dentist. Currently, under the Dental Auxiliaries Act, all dental hygienists working in the NWT must be supervised by a dentist. Section 6 of the Dental Auxiliaries Act reads:

6. No dental hygienist shall practice dental hygiene except under the direction and control of a dentist who assumes direct professional responsibility for the patients in respect of whom the services are being provided.

On May 12, 2023, Committee held a public hearing on Bill 80. Committee heard comments focused on the important role of oral health in preventative healthcare, and its significance within the overall health of individuals. Members expressed concern with the current state of oral healthcare delivery across the NWT, especially in small communities and regional centres. Members also voiced concern about the lack of equitable access to preventative oral healthcare across the NWT. Committee agreed unanimously with the intent of Bill 80 and all Members agreed to support it.

While the Department of Health and Social Services (the Department) did not present at the public hearing, Committee did meet with the Minister to discuss the Department's concerns with the Bill. Committee also exchanged correspondence with the Minister to try reaching consensus on an agreeable timeline for when the proposed changes within Bill 80 will take effect.

The Minister stated that the estimated timeline for the Department to complete the work within Bill 80 would take up to four years to complete. The Department also sent draft motions to amend Bill 80 with the dates of July 31, 2027, and August 1, 2027, as the dates of enactment for professional designation of dental hygienists, as well as the date for the creation of dental hygienist regulations, respectively.

However, Committee did not agree with the proposed amendments from the Department and advanced motions with a more aggressive timeline to implement the regulatory work.

AMENDING BILL 80's TIMELINES

Committee held a clause-by-clause review with the Member for Kam Lake on August 10, 2023. Committee engaged with the Member for Kam Lake on a compromised date of enactment on the Bill's proposed timelines. Committee then passed two motions to amend the Bill's timelines for when dental hygienists become a designated profession, and the date by which the Department shall establish dental hygienist regulations.

Originally, clauses 1 and 2 of Bill 80 read:

1. (1) The Health and Social Services Professions Act is amended by this section.

(2) Section 5 is repealed and the following is substituted:

5. (1) The Commissioner in Executive Council may, by order, designate professions to which this Act applies.

(2) The profession of dental hygienists is designated as a profession to which this Act applies, effective April 1, 2024.

Additionally, the original wording for Clause 3 read:

(3) The following is added after section 67: 67.1. (1) The Minister shall, on or before March 31, 2024, recommend to the Commissioner regulations under section 67 to regulate the practice of dental hygienists.

(2) Before recommending regulations under subsection (1), the Minister shall consult with

a) Indigenous governments;

b) the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association; and

c) dental hygienists actively practicing in the Northwest Territories.

Committee proposed two motions to amend the timelines (included in Appendix 1). These amendments will extend the timelines proposed in the Bill to December 1, 2025, and November 30, 2025, respectively giving the Department more time to enact the proposed legislative changes. Committee believes these amendments, which will come into force approximately halfway through the 20th Assembly, will be a sufficient timeline for the Department.

On August 10, 2023, at the clause-by-clause reading of Bill 80, the Member for Kam Lake, sponsoring Member of the Bill concurred with these amendments.

Committee Considered Public Input

Committee sought public feedback on Bill 80 with a public notice and targeted engagement letters. Committee received written submissions from:

- Ms. Nadja Lennie;

- Ms. Ashley Morine; and

- Hon. Julie Green, Minister of Health and Social Services.

All written submissions are included in Appendix 2 to this report.

Moreover, during the public hearing on Bill 80, Committee heard remarks from the Member for Kam Lake, along with Mr. Todd Orvitz, CAO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, and Ms. Nadja Lennie, owner of Fireside Denture Clinic. Committee thanks Mr. Orvitz and Ms. Lennie for their engagement. Their participation helped inform Committee discussions on key issues for future consideration.

Committee Recommends Urgency in Oral Preventive Care

Committee strongly agrees with the Member for Kam Lake's concerns about the lacking areas of oral healthcare delivery within the NWT. Committee supports the intent of Bill 80 and acknowledges that the Department has stated its support of the Bill's intent as well. Committee considers oral healthcare as an urgent matter that must be addressed by the Department sooner, rather than later. While the amended Bill sets fall 2025 as the deadline for a new designation and regulations for dental hygienists, the Department should aim to complete this work even sooner.

In addition, during the public hearing on Bill 80 the CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) stated that their organization had recently established a Memorandum of Understanding with the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services Authority (NTHSSA) enabling IRC to employ their own practicing dental hygienist under the direction and control of the NTHSSA's contracted oversight dentist. Committee believes this type of arrangement is a great interim option to increase access to oral preventive care while the department works on designating dental hygienists a profession and creating accompanying regulations. Committee would like to see similar types of agreements as that between the IRC and the NTHSSA be established with other communities and organizations that deliver health services. Therefore, Committee recommends the following:

Recommendation 1: The Standing Committee on Social Development recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services increase efforts to improve oral preventative care in communities. This work should include:

• • • Providing interim options for dental hygienists to work independently of a dentist prior to fall 2025; and
    • Ensuring Indigenous Governments and other organizations that deliver health services are aware of other options to provide oral preventive healthcare.

CONCLUSION

On August 10, 2023, Committee held a clause-by-clause review. Committee passed a motion to report Bill 80, as amended, to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the Standing Committee on Social Development's review of Bill 80: Dental Hygienists Profession Statutes Amendment Act. Typically, Committee includes a recommendation in each report requesting a response from government within 120 days. The recommendation is then moved as a motion in the House and Cabinet is required to respond. However, since the 19th Legislative Assembly will dissolve in less than 120 days, Committee has decided to leave out this recommendation and requests that the government provide a public response to this report, even of a preliminary nature, before the beginning of the 20th Assembly.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. Bill 80 is deemed read.

---Carried.

Thank you, Member for Great Slave. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to provide its report on review of Bill 80, Dental Hygienists Profession Statutes Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Monfwi, that Committee report 60-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 80: Dental Hygienists Profession Statutes Amendment Act, be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee Report 57-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 65: Builders' Lien Act, be received and adopted by the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Introduction

Bill 65: Builders' Lien Act (Bill 65) received second reading on November 3, 2022 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Development (Committee) for review. The Department of Justice (Department) sponsored the Bill.

On January 18, 2023, Committee held a public hearing on Bill 65. Committee heard comments focused on why the Builders' Lien Act, as drafted, does not apply to the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), but does apply to municipalities, and does not consider Indigenous governments at all. There were also questions on how provisions related to lands owned by those entities would work, particularly the provisions on seizure and sale. Committee had previously raised similar concerns, particularly concerning types of lands subject to the Bill and the extent to which GNWT engaged with Indigenous and municipal governments in developing the Bill.

During the public hearing, Committee expressed concerns regarding the lack of consultation done on behalf of the Department prior to Bill 65's introduction. In response, the Minister of Justice made a commitment to Committee to conduct further engagement with the public. Following the public hearing, the Government House Leader formally requested that Committee seek an extension of the review period under Rule 8.3(2). The Department needed further time to engage in discussions with Indigenous governments, municipalities, and industry about Committee's concerns. Committee agreed and successfully sought an extension.

Over the course of reviewing the Bill, Committee considered several potential amendments and engaged extensively with the Department on amending the Bill to better reflect concerns related to land interests and exemptions from seizure and sale. Six months were dedicated to Committee and Departmental staff working together and negotiating on potential amendments. However, while Committee acknowledges that significant progress was made, in the end, the Minister did not agree with Committee on a path forward on several key areas of the Bill. Committee therefore decided that the Bill as drafted is not ready to proceed. Committee decided it was better to urge the Department to work to improve the Bill and reintroduce it in the next Assembly with significant modifications to improve it, rather than to proceed with a fundamentally flawed Bill at this time.

Committee's Outlook on Builders' Lien Legislation

Committee strongly supports the need for new builders' lien legislation in the Northwest Territories. The existing Mechanics Lien Act has not changed substantially for decades. Since then, real property development, contractual arrangements and construction practices have changed considerably and continue to evolve. The central intent of such legislation is to ensure that contractors, subcontractors, and workers are paid for their work and materials. In recent years, other Canadian jurisdictions have updated their builders' lien legislation, such as Ontario (2019), British Columbia (2020), and Alberta (2022).

However, Committee has concluded that Bill 65, as it is currently written, is not ready for passage in the Legislative Assembly. Committee believes the Department needs to approach this legislation differently and author a new Builders' Lien Act within the first half of the 20th Assembly as a significant priority.

Committee Considered Public Input

Committee sought public feedback on Bill 65 with a public notice and targeted engagement letters. Committee received written submissions from:

• • Mr. Dale Johnson of Clark Builders; and
  • Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN)

All written submissions are included in an Appendix to this report.

Additionally, during the public hearing on Bill 65, Committee heard remarks from the Minister of Justice and asked questions to departmental officials. Committee thanks Mr. Johnson and YKDFN for their engagement. Their participation helped inform Committee discussions on key issues for future consideration.

Committee Concerns

There are three main areas that Committee had concerns with regarding Bill 65.

• • • The primary issue was determining which land interests held by different levels of government and Indigenous governments would be subject to seizure and sale, as that is the the ultimate remedy for a lien that ensures a contractor or subcontractor is paid for their services.
    • Second, the core structure of the Bill being such that exemptions from seizure and sale are made on the basis of who owns a project, rather than what type of project it is.
    • Lastly, Bill 65 did not include a provision to introduce a prompt payment system that ensures a timeline for both issuing and paying invoices on building projects and provides a dispute resolution mechanism to resolve payment disputes.

Land Interests of Different Levels of Government

Committee's main concern with Bill 65 is how the Act would operate in regard to liens on construction projects within the context of several types of lands owned by multiple levels of government across the NWT. For example, of the lands to consider includes municipalities, lands withdrawn from disposition for the purpose of pending treaties, private land, and properties located within land, resources, and self-government agreement areas, among others. Given that within the NWT much land is either owned, or managed and administered by different levels of government, Committee considered it vital that the Act clearly state which types of lands may be subject to seizure and sale as a remedy for a lien on a project.

Ultimately, Committee did not want one level of government to be exempt from seizure and sale, while other levels of government would be subject to seizure and sale. From the start, it was Committee's desire that all levels of government be treated the same under the Act. However, the Bill as drafted does not bind the GNWT, but it does bind municipalities, and it makes no reference to Indigenous governments. This latter point, of having no reference to Indigenous governments, was a major point of contention for Committee, as it provided the sense that the Bill had been drafted without the consideration of Indigenous governments.

Committee had many discussions on this subject, including with the Government House Leader. Committee struggled with the notion that if Indigenous governments would be subject to the Bill, and would have their lands exempted from seizure and sale just like the GNWT or a municipal government, then how would an Indigenous government be defined? Committee proposed several draft motions to amend this aspect of the Bill, and considered many draft motions proposed by the Department. As these discussions progressed though, Members quickly realized that this topic raised bigger questions about defining an Indigenous government that could not and should not be answered within the context of this Bill.

Committee determined that it is inappropriate for both the legislative branch, as well as the executive branch of government to prescribe a definition on what an Indigenous government is within the context of Builders' Lien legislation. Especially while there is another Bill before the Assembly concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is an internationally recognized document that affirms the autonomy and self-determination of Indigenous peoples. Article 3 of the Declaration, which reads:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

With this consideration, Committee determined that the GNWT should not be the arbiter in defining what an Indigenous government is, as that is a matter that should be decided by Indigenous peoples and Indigenous governments themselves. Thus, Members concluded that while this is an important topic that is part of a larger discussion that should be had, it is not Committee's place to legislate on this matter with this Bill.

Furthermore, Committee did consider several options as potential paths forward with this section of the Bill. Those included leaving the definition of Indigenous government undefined, identifying Indigenous governments through regulation, as well as utilizing the definition of Indigenous government from another Bill before the Assembly, which is Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act.

It was at this point where discussions broke down, as Committee did not consider this subject sufficiently addressed within the Bill as drafted. Thus, since a compromise could not be reached with the government on what specific language to use in the Act, Committee decided that Bill 65 is not ready to move forward.

Exempting Governments vs. Exempting Project Types

Committee recognized that if Bill 65 was amended to bind the GNWT, along with municipalities and Indigenous governments, to be subject to liens but not to seizure and sale of land, then very little infrastructure in the NWT would be left to be subject to seizure and sale. Recognizing this, Committee determined that the Bill as drafted, which provides an exemption for seizure and sale on the basis of who owns a project, was problematic.

Therefore, following much consideration on this point, Committee determined that exemption for seizure and sale of land should instead apply to the type of project, rather than the owner of the project. Approaching the Bill this way would avoid the issue of having to define Indigenous governments altogether.

This approach to the Bill would ensure a better balance between protecting critical public infrastructure such as health centres, highways, or emergency services, etc., against the need to protect contractors, workers, and suppliers, which is the primary intent of the Bill. However, because this is such a substantial shift in how the Bill is structured, and since there is not enough time within the 19th Assembly to make this fundamental change to the Bill's structure, Committee decided that the Bill should be re-drafted.

Prompt Payment System

One aspect that was absent from Bill 65 is a section on prompt payment, which would provide assurances within a set timeline for contractors and subcontractors to issue invoices for their work, and for owners to pay invoices for services rendered. A prompt payment system would also create a dispute resolution mechanism by providing a framework for resolving disputes between parties. Committee is aware of several jurisdictions that have codified prompt payment systems into legislation, with the most recent jurisdictions whose amendments and regulations came into force being Alberta (2022), Saskatchewan (2022), and Ontario (2019).

Committee did ask the Government House Leader if this system was considered, and the response was that the Department made a conscious choice not to include this provision at this time. However, the government indicated that it is open to adding this provision in the future. The government also considered adjudication provisions, but chose not include it in the Bill, as the government considers the issue of payment schedules as a matter for the Supreme Court, under debtor/creditor law.

Committee heard prompt payment as a vital concern of the construction industry. Therefore, Committee considered the absence of a prompt payment system as a significant missing aspect within Bill 65 and Committee would like to see the inclusion of such a provision within future lien legislation introduced by the government.

Conclusion

On June 29, 2023, Committee held a clause-by-clause review. Committee passed a motion to report Bill 65 to the Legislative Assembly as not ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

Committee strongly recommends the Department to work on re-introducing Builders' Lien legislation that addresses the fundamental flaws with Bill 65 as a top priority for the next Assembly.

This concludes the Standing Committee on Social Development's review of Bill 65: Builders' Lien Act.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. The committee report is deemed read.

Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to provide its report on the review of Bill 65, Builders' Lien Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Great Slave, that Committee Report 57-19(2) be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. Bill 85 will be moved into Committee of the Whole.

---Carried

Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Thebacha, that Committee Report 55-19(2), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, be received by the Assembly and referred to Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Member for Yellowknife North.

Mr. Speaker, Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on Bill 85, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, and commends it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I'll read the first three pages of the report and then deem the rest read.

Introduction and Background

Bill 85, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act (Bill 85) received second reading on March 30, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a comprehensive international human rights instrument. The Declaration sets out the minimum standards to ensure the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples.

Bill 85 follows the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which calls on all levels of government to implement the Declaration. In 2019, the Legislative Assembly established a mandate for the Government of the Northwest Territories directing it to prioritize this work. The Legislative Assembly then set up a Special Committee on Reconciliation and Indigenous Affairs to seek and encourage discussions on implementing the Declaration within the Northwest Territories. SCRIA delivered an interim "what we heard" report and a final report with recommendations.

Bill 85 is a historic piece of legislation. It is the third of its kind in Canada, following similar legislation in British Columbia and at the federal level through the Government of Canada. The bill was developed in partnership between the GNWT and Indigenous governments or Organizations through a working group of officials. The bill is also linked to a separate Memorandum of Understanding that lays out a collaborative approach to implement the Declaration. As of May 2023, the GNWT and 10 of 15 IGOs had signed the MOU.

Bill 85 affirms that the declaration applies in the Northwest Territories. The GNWT will have to take "all reasonable measures" to ensure its laws, and their interpretation and application, are consistent with the declaration. Bill 85 also provides a framework for the GNWT and IGOs to collaborate and cooperate on implementing the declaration. Among other things, this framework:

• • Requires a "statement of consistency" to be released with most new legislation, to explain whether new laws are consistent with the Declaration;
  • Sets up an action plan committee, with Members from the GNWT and IGOs, to co-develop a work plan on making existing laws and policies consistent with the Declaration; and
  • Affirms the authority of the GNWT to enter into shared decision-making agreements with IGOs.

This report summarizes committee's review of Bill 85, starting with our engagement with IGOs, the GNWT, and the public. This report also describes committee's efforts to strengthen Bill 85, including 13 motions to amend the bill - ten of which were adopted at the clause-by-clause review - and eight recommendations.

Public Engagement

In April 2023, the committee received a public briefing from the Premier and her staff on Bill 85. The Premier's presentation is included in Appendix A.

Between May 2023 and July 2023, committee engaged the public. Our approach to engagement is described in Appendix B. Committee hosted six public meetings in Fort Simpson - Lidlii Kue, Fort Smith - Thebacha, Yellowknife - Sombak'e, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, and Deline. Committee also set out to travel to Hay River, which the Hay River and area Metis Local 51 had also specifically requested. When this summer's wildfires disrupted our public engagement plans, committee held a virtual public briefing with Metis Local 51 instead. About 50 people from across the Northwest Territories participated in these meetings.

Committee also sought written submissions on Bill 85. We sent over 100 targeted engagement letters to IGOs, local governments, advocacy associations, and non-profit organizations. Committee received detailed submissions from:

• • The First Nations Child & Family Caring Society;
  • The First Nations Financial Management Board;
  • The City of Yellowknife; and
  • The Hay River and area Metis Local 51.

These four submissions are included in Appendix C. The Gwich'in Tribal Council also provided a confidential submission to facilitate committee's discussion and review.

Committee appreciates everyone who offered their feedback at public meetings and in written submissions. Their participation demonstrates a commitment to promote the inherent rights of Dene, Metis, and Inuvialuit peoples in the Northwest Territories. Most participants welcomed Bill 85 as a positive step to advance Indigenous peoples' rights and offered thoughtful ideas to improve the bill, the action plan, and the GNWT's approach to implementing the Declaration more generally. The important themes, and committee's thoughts on those themes, were:

1. Honouring existing treaties. Work to implement the declaration must respect the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Cede and surrender clauses should be removed from existing land claims agreements.

Committee agrees. Members have asked the Premier to not put cede and surrender clauses into land and resource agreements but have not received a commitment to take out such clauses from existing agreements.

2. Stronger language on Indigenous rights and roles. Bill 85 should ensure the action plan is drafted with IGOs "holding the pen" and is implemented in accordance with free, prior, and informed consent. The preamble should say the GNWT "will" implement the Declaration, rather than "should". The bill should cite substantive equality as a guiding principle.

Committee notes that the action plan must be prepared through the action plan committee, which we find is sufficient to ensure IGO participation in the drafting.

Regarding free, prior, and informed consent, committee is unclear on how the GNWT intends to interpret and implement FPIC. Clarity matters in this area because, as SCRIA observed, people have different views on what FPIC means and operationalizing consent was stressed as the most important mechanism to realize reconciliation. Committee is concerned at the risk of people being uncertain or disappointed in the absence of clear interpretation of FPIC. Committee is making a recommendation on this theme.

3. Specific action plan contents. The action plan should have to include specific measures to confirm rights, devolve jurisdiction, build institutional capacity, strengthen fiscal autonomy, set service standards, and facilitate nation-to-nation relationships. The action plan should also be an optional pathway to self-government.

Committee agrees and is making a recommendation on this theme.

4. Accountability. Bill 85 should include further accountability mechanisms beyond the annual report and the 5-year review.

Committee agrees and passed an amendment on this theme.

5. Funding support. The GNWT should set up a funding framework for the action plan committee and fund IGOs to build their capacity on implementing the Declaration.

Committee agrees and is making a recommendation on this theme.

6. Definition of "Indigenous Government or Organization." Some participants found that the bill's definition of IGO too open-ended while others felt the GNWT is failing to recognize all Indigenous groups in the Northwest Territories, specifically the Metis Local 51.

Committee agrees that the bill's definition of IGO is too open-ended. Committee was unclear whether the bill's definition could range from Indigenous governments to corporations and voluntary societies. Committee suggested an amendment to provide greater certainty that an IGO must be a rights-bearing organization as selected by Indigenous peoples to represent them. The government indicated it would not concur, and committee did not pursue the amendment at the clause-by-clause review.

Committee notes the lack of a consistent approach across government to this definition which was highlighted in the review of Bill 65, Builders' Lien Act. Committee believes the GNWT's inconsistent approach will cause problems in the future.

7. GNWT intervention in the federal court case. The GNWT's intervention in a federal court case to challenge whether Indigenous law can prevail over provincial and territorial law for child and family services is disappointing and contrary to the principles of the Declaration.

Committee also finds the GNWT's approach to the court case hard to reconcile with its commitment to implement the Declaration. We hope the forthcoming ruling will make this situation less likely in the future.

8. Institutional skepticism. Some participants were skeptical the GNWT would meaningfully implement the Declaration. Some participants were also concerned about a perceived lack transparency of the Council of Leaders, Article 46 of the Declaration,38 and the trustworthiness of the United Nations more generally.

Committee notes these concerns which highlight the necessity for policy work to implement the Declaration to tangibly improve the well-being of Indigenous residents, individually and collectively. In Tuktoyaktuk, for example, residents wanted to know how Bill 85 would help revitalize Inuvialuktun and ensure access to basic dental services. Actions to implement the Declaration should start right away, and not be on hold until the action plan is finalized in two years.

A more detailed summary of these themes is included in Appendix D. Committee encourages the GNWT, IGOs, and the action plan committee to consider this input during the next steps to implement the Declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Thebacha, that the remainder of Committee report 55-19(2), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Carried

Recommendation 1: That the Government of the Northwest Territories, in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous Governments or Organizations, develop and release a clear statement on how it interprets and intends to apply free, prior, and informed consent. Recommendation 2: That the Government of the Northwest Territories, in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous Governments or Organizations, include in the action plan developed under section 9 of Bill 85 specific measures to confirm rights, devolve jurisdiction, build institutional capacity, strengthen fiscal autonomy, set service standards, and facilitate nation-to-nation relationships, among others. This work should refer to the written submission of the First Nations Financial Management Board to Committee's review of Bill 85. Recommendation 3: That the Government of the Northwest Territories should set up a funding framework to support Indigenous Governments or Organizations' capacity to engage with work to implement the Declaration going forward.

Amendments

Committee put forward 13 draft motions to amend Bill 85. These are included in Appendix E of this report. The GNWT shared each draft motion with Indigenous Government representatives; negotiated together toward a consensus position; and confirmed acceptance from leadership. 39 The GNWT indicated it only supported amendments where there is consensus from Indigenous Governments, citing the unique nature of Bill 85 and its focus on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Committee welcomed this approach, as Article 19 of the Declaration says that legislation that affects Indigenous peoples must have their free, prior and informed consent.

Committee engaged extensively with the GNWT on the amendments to find wording that everyone could support. Committee commends the Law Clerk, the Deputy Law Clerk, the legislative drafters, departmental staff, and Indigenous Government representatives for their effective collaboration, which was essential to progress on this Bill. The government ultimately concurred with 10 of the 13 of the motions to amend at the clause-by-clause review, held on September 20, 2023.

1. Excluding powers of the territorial court

The definition of “statutory power of decision” to which shared decision-making agreements could apply originally included powers of the Territorial Court.

Committee found this inclusion highly problematic, as it infringes upon judicial independence. Committee put forward and adopted Motion #1 to exclude powers of the Territorial Court, the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal from the relevant definition.

1. Clarifying timelines

Bill 85 required Ministers and Private Members to release the statement of consistency on new legislation “without delay.”

Committee was concerned this language was too vague. It allowed for situations where Members could lack access to the statement when voting on the principle of a bill at 2nd reading, or when reviewing the bill after 2nd reading. Committee believes the need for flexibility to advance urgent bills - even if a statement of consistency is not ready - may be justified at 1st reading, but not at 2nd reading. Committee also notes that appropriation bills, which could be required to advance quickly, are not required to have a statement of consistency.

Committee put forward and adopted Motion #2 to address this issue. Committee was also concerned that Bill 85 did not include a deadline to complete the annual report.

Timely reporting is important because it provides relevant information Report on Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act to hold governments to account and make better decisions. Committee put forward and adopted Motion #6 to require the annual report to be completed within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year. Several IGOs welcomed the added clarity. This timeline matches the standard set in BC's and Canada's legislation.

Unlike these jurisdictions, the Northwest Territories requires the Minister to co-develop the annual report with the Action Plan Committee.49 Committee encourages the GNWT and IGOs to collaborate on meeting the deadline.

1. Keeping Regular Members informed

Committee wanted to ensure that Regular Members are adequately informed of developments at the Action Plan Committee. This awareness matters because of the Action Plan Committee's position to influence the GNWT's agenda for legislative and policy work that Regular Members review and scrutinize. Committee does not trust Cabinet to provide timely, comprehensive, and detailed updates regarding the Action Plan Committee's work. Committee wanted to require the Action Plan Committee to include a representative chosen by Regular Members who could relay information back to them. This approach worked well in several similar instances during the 19th Assembly.

The GNWT was open to an amendment to address Committee's concerns. Committee put forward Motion #3, which required the Action Plan Committee to include a representative chosen by Regular Members. The motion also allowed the Action Plan Committee to restrict that representative from being a Regular Member as well as their rights of participation. Some IGOs were opposed in principle to allowing a Regular Member to act as a permanent observer on the Action Plan Committee. They were concerned that the political nature of a Regular Member could undermine a body that they expect to be non-political. The GNWT and IGOs proposed a compromise that would prohibit the representative from being a Regular Member. Committee could not accept this proposal because Bill 85 does not similarly prohibit the GNWT or IGOs from choosing political figures. Committee wanted to ensure if the Action Plan Committee ever became a more political body, the law would not prohibit Regular Members from choosing a representative from among themselves. Committee and the GNWT were ultimately unable to find a compromise. Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 4:

That the Government of the Northwest Territories, in consultation with the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight and Indigenous Governments or Organizations, set up a mechanism that ensures Regular Members can access timely, comprehensive, and detailed information about the Action Plan Committee's work. Report on Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act

1. Promoting transparency

Committee felt that Bill 85 did not go far enough to promote the transparency of work to implement the Declaration. Transparency matters because it makes governments more accountable to each other and to residents. In this context, it can also strengthen the credibility of governments in doing this work. Committee was not satisfied with Bill 85's vague requirement for the action plan to follow a “transparent process.”

The bill lacked specific requirements to ensure key documents would be publicly disclosed. Committee addressed transparency issues through five motions to amend. Four of the motions we put forward and adopted required the public disclosure of:

- The action plan - in Motion #5 (subclause 9(4));

- The annual report - in Motion #7;

- The examination of the consistency of proposed regulations with the Declaration and section 35 rights - in Motion #10B; and

- The results of the five-year review of the act - in Motion #13 (subclause 13(3)). to require public disclosure of the results of the five-year review of the act.

Committee put forward and adopted a fifth motion, Motion #8B, requiring the GNWT to notify Regular Members when it authorizes negotiations on a shared decision making agreement. The motion also requires the timely public disclosure of any finalized agreements on a website.

The motion represents a compromise. Committee would have preferred a requirement to disclose authorizations to negotiate to the public, not only to Regular Members. The GNWT opposed that proposal, citing concerns about violating Cabinet Confidences. The GNWT also wanted to maintain confidentiality to allow flexibility for negotiations to evolve.

Committee was not convinced these concerns outweigh the public interest in knowing, and notes that British Columbia requires some public disclosure in this area.

Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 5: That the Government of the Northwest Territories should, without delay, make all authorizations provided to a Minister to negotiate or enter into a shared decision-making agreement under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act publicly available by publishing it on a government-maintained website.

1. Ensuring public engagement

Committee was disappointed that Bill 85, as originally drafted, was mostly silent on how the public would be engaged. Committee believes the GNWT should directly involve its public while developing and reviewing the action plan itself. The public's Report on Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act concerns and aspirations should be consistently considered and directly reflected in the GNWT's position on the action plan.56 Some Indigenous residents do not have a relationship with an IGO, so their only way to be involved is through the GNWT. Public engagement can also improve the quality of decisions and build confidence and trust in public government.

IGOs were concerned that legislative requirements for public engagement could be confused with the GNWT's constitutional or legal duty for Aboriginal consultation. Committee acknowledges this concern but notes that the GNWT considers public engagement and Aboriginal consultation as distinct processes.

Committee put forward and adopted two motions to require the GNWT to engage the public on two items:

- The action plan - Motion #5 (subclause 9(3)); and

- The five-year review - Motion #13 (subclause 13(2)).

Committee also considered a third amendment to require the GNWT to engage the public on shared decision-making agreements in draft form. IGOs strongly opposed this idea, citing its incompatibility with Nation-to-Nation negotiations, emphasizing the rarity of public involvement in such negotiations, and asserting that it would lead to needless delays without meaningfully enhancing transparency, as final agreements will be made public. Committee accepted these concerns. However, Committee was uncomfortable with the lack of any GNWT accountability before entering these agreements. The GNWT is the public government of the Northwest Territories and must be accountable to its public. As a compromise, Committee put forward Motion #8A, which would require the GNWT to engage with Regular Members before entering a shared decision making agreement.

The GNWT rejected the motion, citing continued IGO concerns.

Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 6: That the Government of the Northwest Territories provide notice to and seek comments from the Standing Committee of Accountability and Oversight before entering into a shared decision-making agreement under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act.

1. Enhancing accountability and oversight

Committee was concerned that Bill 85 does not do enough to make the GNWT accountable for implementing the Declaration.

The First Nations Child & Family Caring Society also recommended further accountability mechanisms. Committee also notes that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that Report on Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act “all levels of government must make a new commitment to reconciliation and accountability” [emphasis added].

SCRIA's final report highlighted the need for effective oversight, monitoring, and accountability. SCRIA recommended that the legislation “include a mechanism that will monitor how the law is being implemented.” Committee agreed and put forward and adopted Motion #11, which basically implements SCRIA's recommendation. The Action Plan Committee, which will develop the independent oversight mechanism should draw inspiration from SCRIA's final report and federal Bill C-29: An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Committee also identified a deficiency in the independence of the five-year review. Making the Action Plan Committee responsible for the review could create a conflict because this body also develops the action plan.

While the Action Plan Committee is suitable for oversight in many ways, Committee put forward Motion #15, calling for an independent person or entity chosen by the Action Plan Committee to lead the review. The GNWT rejected this motion, citing concerns from IGOs. As a result, Committee put forward and adopted a compromise amendment

- Motion #13 (subclause 13(1)).

The motion explicitly states that the Action Plan Committee may choose an independent person or entity to lead the review. The GNWT did not object, considering the motion redundant.

Because we exhausted legislative options to ensure an independent review, Committee recommends:

Recommendation 7: That the Government of the Northwest Territories, in its capacity as a member of the Action Plan Committee, advocate for the Action Plan Committee to choose an independent person or entity to lead the five-year review of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act.

1. Clarifying the relationship between the legislation and the MOU

Bill 85 mentions the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in two spots. Committee found these references problematic because they may allow the MOU - a nonlegislative instrument - to require the GNWT to do things without oversight from the Assembly. Committee was particularly concerned that the reference in Section 10(2)(e) could enable changes to action plan priorities without legislative oversight. Committee brought these concerns to the GNWT, but we were not satisfied with their response. Committee therefore sought to clarify the relationship between the two documents. We put forward and adopted Motion #12, which addresses situations where the MOU is in a conflict with the proposed Act and ensures the act will prevail. The GNWT did not object, perceiving the motion as unnecessary. Committee welcomed the greater certainty. Report on Bill 85: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act

Bill 85 and Private Member's Bills

Bill 85 requires Private Members sponsoring a bill to table a statement without delay explaining whether the bill is consistent with the Declaration and section 35 rights.

Committee was displeased that Regular Members were not consulted on this proposal at any point before the Premier introduced the Bill. Committee discussed extensively whether the requirement infringes on Members' privilege. Committee was advised that the answer is no - Members can still move ahead with Private Member's Bills, even if they are deemed inconsistent with the Declaration or with section 35 rights. As a result, Committee did not further consider changing or removing the requirement from the Bill. However, Committee fears this requirement will have a chilling effect on Private Member's Bills. Members already face significant barriers to developing a Private Member's Bill. It is unclear whether and how Private Member's Bills must realize free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to be deemed consistent with the Declaration.

The GNWT's lack of clarity about FPIC does not help. Realizing FPIC could be challenging given Members' limited resources. Committee therefore recommends: Recommendation 8: That the Government of the Northwest Territories consult the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight when developing guidelines for statements of consistency required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act.

Conclusion

At the September 20th, 2023, clause-by-clause review, Committee passed a motion to report Bill 85, as amended, to the Legislative Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. This concludes the Standing Committee on Government Operations' review of Bill 85. Typically, Committee includes a recommendation in each report requesting a response from government within 120 days. The recommendation is then moved as a motion in the House and Cabinet is required to respond.

However, since the 19th Legislative Assembly will dissolve in less than 120 days, Committee has decided to leave out this recommendation and requests that the government provide a public response to this report, even of a preliminary nature, before the beginning of the 20th Assembly.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is carried. Bill 85 has had second reading.

---Carried

Second reading of bills. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 23 and 29, Committee Report 49-19(2), Committee Report 51-19(2), Minister's Statement 264-19(2), Tabled Document 681-19(2).

By the authority given to me as Speaker under rule -- order. A lot of sidebar in here.

By the authority given to me as Speaker under Rule 2.2(4), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider the business before the House, with Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes in the chair.

Thank you, Madam Premier. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Bill 85, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, be read for the second time.

This bill

• Affirms the declaration as a universal human rights instrument with application to the Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Territories and the laws of the Northwest Territories;
• Provides a framework for the implementation of the declaration by the Government of the Northwest Territories in collaboration and cooperation with Indigenous governments or organizations; and,
• Affirms the roles and responsibilities of Indigenous governments or organizations in the implementation of the declaration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, usually I don't trump my Ministers but this time I'm trumping them.

This is the bill we've all been waiting for. Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House Bill 85, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Implementation Act, to be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.