Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to commend our committee for spending some time thinking about this. I wish that we had had the luxury of a little bit more time.
I don't think that we sufficiently appreciate that this is a watershed moment in governance in the Northwest Territories. GNWT actually took over management of land and water resources. As part of that arrangement, there were commitments, maybe even legal requirements, that changes in the way that things are done, in terms of how we relate to land and water, have to be done differently now. There are requirements in place that Indigenous governments have to be involved, not just in setting the principles, but should be involved in the drafting of new legislation moving forward.
This is something that hasn't been done before in other jurisdictions, and I think that it is something that we can and should be very proud of. I think we have some mixed successes, some lessons learned, and I think that that is what committee has been reflecting on with this report. As I said, I wish we had the luxury of a little bit more time to put some time and reflection into this.
There are three parts to this committee report. There is a lot of discussion in here about the co-development process, based on what we heard from Indigenous governments, and from Ministers and staff, as well. There are also some considerations of what role the public can and should be playing in this new co-development world. There is also some discussion and thought about what role standing committee has, because I don't think that that had even really been contemplated at the beginning of the process, and I am still trying to figure out what that role can and should be.
I do want to make some observations. There were very different approaches adopted by different departments, and sometimes even within a department, when it came to bringing forward post-devolution legislation. With ENR, there was the Protected Areas Act, the Forest Act, and the Environmental Rights Act.
I think that it is fair to say that, on the Protected Areas Act, there was pretty good collaboration and an effort to expedite that. Although I didn't really get everything I wanted, I think that, at the end of the day, it was a pretty good result for our citizens. I don't think that I can say that about the Forest Act. In fact, the Minister himself recognized that there were issues and problems with the speed at which it had been developed and, to his credit, I think it was the best decision for all our citizens, withdrew the bill. The Environmental Rights Act, I think, is probably more of a mixed approach with mixed results.
I guess I will say a little bit about Lands. With the Public Land Act, I think my views are on record, but I think that there can and should have been greater collaboration with the standing committee and even the public, because what was delivered was certainly not what was expected. I think that there were major policy issues with it, which leads me back now to ITI.
On the petroleum side, the idea was to make, basically, a two-phased approach, one to deal with some administrative, more urgent, matters with the Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Petroleum Resources Act. I think those were handled reasonably well. We may not have agreed on all of the outcomes, there is still a lot more work that can and should be done there, but I think that there have been some significant improvements made to those pieces of legislation.
Last, but not least, was the Mineral Resources Act, and I think that I have a lot more to say about that. I am going to say some remarks later today, but that is kind of the model of how not to do legislation, in my view. Information was not shared with committee. I had to go and actually use access to information requests to try to get information out of the Minister. That's not appropriate in a consensus-style government, but the Minister and his staff did eventually work better with committee towards the end. If the concerns and issues that were being brought forward by committee didn't fit within the square peg, it wasn't going to work. That is an unfortunate example, I think, of how legislation should not be developed in a consensus government system.
I think that the recommendations that committee has come up with here are in the spirit of trying to improve the process moving forward. There were ideas brought to the committee about some of this, and I specifically want to thank the NWT Metis Nation, because they actually had some very good ideas about how we can improve co-development.
The Sahtu Secretariat actually recommended that an audit be done. I think that it was more of an evaluation, but I think that that is a good idea, and as I understand it, there is to be some sort of lessons-learned workshop or effort amongst some of the individuals working for Indigenous governments, to survey them and find out how things could be done differently and better. I think we have some ideas in here as well. I think that this would be really fruitful ground for academics, researchers, northern students, to study and look at how the co-development process has worked with this first round and how we can further improve it.
There are a number of recommendations here, Mr. Chair, that I hope that Cabinet will take seriously, as we pass the baton on to the 19th Assembly, to improve this co-development process moving forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair.