Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I would like to first thank the committee for presenting an interim report on its findings on the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, and Negotiating Agreements.

Two of the priorities of the 19th Legislative Assembly are settle and implement treaty land resources as self-government agreement and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The UNDRIP discussion and recommendations make up the bulk of this report which includes scholars, experts, and Indigenous governments.

There were insights that the declaration is not legally binding, that it was only an aspirational document but ignores its intent to guide action. There were many interesting insights, especially for First Nations without agreements, in that they wished to develop their own mechanisms and processes to move their negotiations ahead. Others who have settled UNDRIP may not align -- this may not align with their existing agreements.

I'm getting the sense from this report that UNDRIP requires more consultations and legal review by First Nations organizations in the Northwest Territories.

When the subject of the other priority to settle and implement treaty land resources and self-government agreements, I seldom hear that it is the other party that is stalling the negotiations, and this goes both ways. Obviously, I'm not a party to information regarding negotiations, whether any movement being made, whether the GNWT is actively engaging the federal government and First Nations organizations in ongoing talks to spur movement in negotiations.

I need to express that I am not negotiating for any group. That is not my role. My role is to ensure the GNWT is accountable in their commitment to want to work with First Nations, especially when it is identified as a priority of this Assembly. I applaud the committee on their work to advance these two priorities. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bonnetrouge. Any further comment? Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'd like to begin by I'd like to thank the Premier today who tabled the GNWT's territorial principles and interests, and I'm going to speak to that a bit in that in conjunction with this report. I think that's a great step, and I think this report is a great step in bringing some transparency to this issue.

I have spent lots of time, both in this committee and otherwise, trying to figure out and get to the heart of why we are not settling, I'm going to speak specifically and start with land claims, in the NWT most -- specifically the Akaitcho, Deh Cho, and Metis land claims which don't -- or still remain unsettled. And I think we, in this House, need to have this conversation much more often, and I don't think it's just on us. I think also Indigenous governments need to be having this conversation much more often. I think it needs to be clear when positions are being taken and why they are being taken. And today's territorial principles and interests are a step in that direction. I also think we have to acknowledge a bit of the reality we find ourselves in where we're approaching 20 years since the Tlicho Agreement which, to be honest, has not really even been fully implemented. So we have two decades of no progress in this area. And I think given what we have heard, I don't see us making any progress absent some serious and transformative change.

Some of those factors are not necessarily the GNWT's fault but they certainly -- the GNWT is responsible for upholding them.

One is the increasing complexity of land claims. We have moved a long way from the numbered treaties which were, you know, a few-page documents that you could get signed in a day, and every single modern treaty these days is thousands of pages and thousands of hours of lawyers working diligently at it. And it's becoming a reality that you just can't get one of those agreements done in an election term, whether you are a Premier or a chief or the prime minister.

Additionally, we've learned lessons from, you know, previous land claims where things have not been implemented and there's been debates about what they actually meant to say. And that increasing desire by GNWT means that we are really getting into the weeds in modern treaty negotiations. And I think when you combine those factors, it takes about a decade at least to get one of these. And we've seen, you know, with the Deh Cho, which had an agreement-in-principle, it's on draft, I forget, in the 40s now, and we are a long way from that agreement-in-principle actually informing a final agreement as different direction was taken each time by various political actors and negotiators.

And so when I think when you put all those factors together, we find ourselves in a position where we just are never going to settle another land claim in the NWT without some serious action taken. And, you know, this committee report doesn't speak to recommendations, but I think transparency is clearly one of them. There's a lot of good work by organizations such as Treaty Talks, making sure that members of their Indigenous nations and citizens of the NWT are aware of what's going, and I think there's a lot of education to make sure that people make these election issues.

I want to point out a couple of the GNWT's territorial principles and interests today and just colour them a little. And I think the question we have to ask ourselves is whether these are hills we're willing to die on politically.

One of the interests of the GNWT is that the open and public nature of communities in the Northwest Territories should be preserved. I think that's an understandable interest for a public government to have, but this is unique to the NWT in that any reserve down south now negotiating a land claim inherently doesn't have an open community. We all recognize and understand that I can't move on to the Salt River First Nation Reserve tomorrow. They have exclusive control of who resides in that community.

And I am unaware right now to the extent that this is, you know, one of those issues that can't be solved at the negotiating table, but I'll tell you it's one of those issues that if a specific community wanted to have a similar kind of closed nature for its citizens, that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

Additionally, it is, as tabled today, a GNWT principle and objective that a single integrated coordinated system of resource management apply -- should apply throughout the Mackenzie Valley. This is essentially, you know, saying that we want the MVRMA to be the tool; we want Indigenous governments in signing new agreements to sign on to the MVRMA.

And, you know, I -- this is another one of those areas. I think it's understandable that this is somewhat of a GNWT interest that we continue with the comanagement system and we continue with, you know, interests of public bodies, but at the end of the day if this is one of the reasons, and I don't know, that we are not settling a land claim is that we have an Indigenous nation who does not view comanagement as the solution to managing land and resources, it -- I just simply do not think it's a hill that we should be willing to die on. And I think we really have to be having these political conversations because absent, you know, very large compromises being made, I think by the GNWT, and probably allowing a little bit more flexibility and, you know, allowing some uncertainty, we're not going to settle land claims.

I do want to point out that there is some great steps that have been taken. The Premier has directed that, you know, we don't have this unilateral approach to core principles and interests. That's a great step. The GNWT has made it explicit they are not asking for accede and surrender clauses anymore in land claims. That is long overdue.

I think there are some big questions outside of this core principles and interests we need to ask ourselves. Are we willing to open up existing agreements?

Some of the Indigenous governments who have existing settled agreements have a desire to have them reopened, to have those accede/surrender clauses removed perhaps, and to work on areas where that is disagreement. You know, I think we have to start exercising perhaps some of those amendment clauses in existing and settled agreements.

I guess I will leave it there. I want to thank the committee for their work. I want to thank all of the Indigenous governments and negotiators who presented.

Many of them have been at those tables for decades, Mr. Chair, and I hope that we can start having that conversation and make some compromises about, you know, how much land we actually want, how much money we're willing to give, where we're willing to kind of, you know, not take such a positional negotiating stance and hopefully, you know, have the next 20 years look a lot better than the last 20 have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the Indigenous governments for their input into this work that the special committee's been doing. I believe in my own opinion that the report is very fair and a balanced report. So I thank the committee. Good work, committee.

The work of the committee actually, I think, validated a lot of the concerns that I was hearing previously to the committee as well. I do also want to recognize the MLA for Boot Lake -- Twin Lakes, Twin Lakes actually. Not the MLA for Twin Lakes. I'd like to thank her husband who first brought the idea of the core principle and objectives as an issue to my attention. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that because he's not here but if so, I apologize and thank the MLA. And that was the start of it. And then I heard from other Indigenous governments that I had met with that the core principles and objectives were an issue as well. The work of the committee reinforced that. So it was an easy win. If that's major -- and that was one of the major stumbling blocks. If that's a major stumbling block, you know, I think that taking it out, all of Cabinet discussed that, the land claims, the self-government are actually an all of Cabinet, not just my own. So we discussed it all, and we all agreed that it was something that we could take out. So we did that.

The other major thing that I had heard in negotiations is the confusion around negotiators not having mandates, and yet we have mandates. I remember getting asked in the House here what is the mandate of self-governments, and I said I'd have to review it again. And the reality is that it's a big package. In fact, there's a summary of the mandates that I tabled today but it's even more comprehensive. It goes into every single area of services. So hopefully by making -- one of the committees was about transparency, one of the recommendations. Hopefully by making the negotiating mandates public will also assist in negotiations.

Now, I know that there's going to be some feedback from there and some contention, because that's how nothing gets without. So I am hopeful that all MLAs have that. I don't know if it would come through a committee or if it would come through special committee; I'm not sure, but I really would appreciate feedback from the Members. If you could send it to me in writing, I'd appreciate that. We're also in the process of we've also released this stuff to the Indigenous governments. So hopefully they will provide feedback. And then we'll be looking at it again.

As for the slow pace of negotiations, I do think that a couple of things, like I said, the CPOs was a real stumbling block for at least one Indigenous government. So hopefully it will get faster. But I've always said you can't push these things. We want them to get done. But the Indigenous governments have different priorities. And so it's respectful -- we have to respect and do it on their time, in fairness.

I know that another thing that within the agreements that people talked about was the legal certainty. I think that that's important. That's not one I'm willing to look at too closely right at this point because we had agreements that were very legalese in that you couldn't understand what they were saying. So I'm all about clarity. I want to make sure that these agreements are clear, that there's not the contention that comes after and says well, this isn't what I understood. I want to make sure people are understanding on all sides, three sides.

As for the comment that was made about, you know, is it hills to die on? There's two kinds of Indigenous governments. There's exclusive Indigenous governments, which only serves -- provides services to their Members, no one else. Tlicho people, I believe are part of that. And then there's other that are looking for inclusive, and that would mean that anyone -- all the services would be provided to any person whether they're their members or nonmembers of the Indigenous government. So we have flexibility around that but we also have to make sure that we abide by the Canadian Constitution. Things like freedom of mobility for access to services. I would hate to see somebody that's not -- non-Indigenous in the community that is Indigenous and not be allowed to get health care or income support or education or their children, those kind of benefits. So we do have -- some things we do have to be a little bit more firm on just to make sure that everyone has the same. But we're open to working with the Indigenous governments. Again, I really thank the Indigenous governments for their input. And I thank committee. I know sometimes I could be a thorn. Imagine if I was on the other side. But the reality is by listening and being open to things and challenging ourselves is how we provide the best services to people.

So I'm looking forward to the next year and a half and what we can get done. But I am grateful for the work.

I also want to say before we go there, there are things -- like, I know that -- it's easy to say at first -- like, I did that too with each mandate part and say well, maybe it's not a hill to die on, for example, the MVRMA -- or the Mackenzie Valley Land and Resource Act. That may not seem important, but we have the southeast corner where Indigenous governments from other communities are wanting to come in to our territory land claims and they want to do their own. So it's by having our Mackenzie Valley Land and Resource Act that protects the Indigenous governments here to be able to have a say on the land and water. So with each one, there's a reason for it. I'm more than willing to provide -- I think I offered that to standing committee if they would like a further technical briefing, I would be more than willing to provide that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier. Ms. Nokleby.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having not sat on this committee, and also this is probably the area that we deal with that I feel the least comfortable to comment on, I'm not going to get down into the details of this document. But I do appreciate that those that are more knowledgeable than myself sit on that committee and are doing this really, really important work. When I sat on the other side of the House, it's one of the most important things I've heard from anybody who's Indigenous, is implementing this.

So I guess what I just want to comment on is around before I ever ran, I often heard about the detriment of the unsettled land claims to do with our exploration sector and our inability to really sort of prosper and get at some of our mineral resources. However, one thing that's really been highlighted to me in the last couple months is around the recent flooding and our climate change adaptation and how the land claims not being settled is actually prohibiting us from adapting properly to the flooding that is occurring.

For example, in Jean Marie River, you can't move houses out of the floodplain, which is the band's land into the -- and I'm probably not going to say this all totally right, but onto the GNWT land surrounding the area because it's not in a settled land claim and therefore it would have to be around -- done under a transfer, swap of land, versus being able to move homes out of the risk up and up into the area where it's safe, which is eventually going to be their land anyway, but has to go through this whole process to begin with.

So I guess why I raise this is that all I ever hear about this work or the land claims work is how slow it is, which has been acknowledged by everybody here. However, I think the crucialness is not only now around our economy, it's now also around our climate and our ability to keep our people safe during these changes.

A lot of these places need to be moved, and they need to be moved up out of floodplains. In British Columbia, you wouldn't be allowed to build in those floodplains anymore. You can't build in the riparian zone of a river or a stream or even a creek sometimes. So for us to be leaving our people in those situations solely because we can't figure out some way through all of this, I think is a neglect and a detriment and so I just -- I guess just want to say I really support empowering the Indigenous governments and organizations to do work for themselves.

When I was a Minister, that was one thing I always said when I went in to discuss infrastructure plans was what do you want for your community. And it often felt to me that the GNWT was a hindrance in moving forward. So the more we can empower Indigenous people, I think the better that our communities will be and the more our people will prosper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Nokleby. Ms. Martselos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too want to thank all the Indigenous governments that we heard in the hearings. And I didn't always agree with the people that presented, okay. These were people that were from the south, lawyers and academics that cannot speak for the people of the North.

Being a Chief for 14 years and at the negotiating table with two levels of government during those 14 years has not been always beneficial. And at that time, the territorial government was the main -- the main problem within those negotiations. I cannot say that it is like that today because considering that there has been change in leadership, I think that from what I hear from at least from Salt River, they're very -- you know, it's 20 years now since they signed the agreement. June 22nd will be 20 years. They have an excellent agreement but the implementation of that agreement is still not settled. And I speak on behalf of the people of Salt River to ensure that, you know, the most crucial item within this agreement is that they have the same rights as any other reserve south of 60, that O and M and those issues have got to be settled to ensure that they have the same status as any other reserve across Canada.

And Madam Premier, I wish that you expedite that issue and help the people of Salt River on -- to the federal government that this has got to be done.

The other claim with the NWT Metis Nation, I heard some of the concerns at the meeting in Fort Smith. And it is also a priority, of course, because I'm the MLA that represents some of the people, or the majority of the people actually, because Fort Smith has the majority members on that claim. And, you know, looking at the whole issue of being objective and trying to make some progress on this claim would be a big feather in the cap of the Government of the Northwest Territories. And I urge you to take that really seriously because of anybody I know that could look forward to this and has that understanding of the Indigenous people, it's you.

And so I'd like to, at this time, say that it's extremely important on who you select as the people that actually do the negotiation on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories. Many times you have people who are lawyers and who are non-Indigenous. Sometimes that does not always work.

You know, there are people that were former leaders who would go in and probably settle some of these things very quickly for you. And that has to be considered. I don't think that people that have all these titles and all these lawyer things and think that they know it all because they're a lawyer is not okay.

There has been other -- you know, I don't think the claim would have even been done for Salt River if it was done in that manner at all times. You know, there was some other Indigenous leaders that were involved in that initial claim. And also it has to take will. You know, we're using COVID as an excuse. There is too much division of time from one time to another. Meeting twice a year or three times a year is not enough to settle a claim. And so, you know, the will has got to be there to meet with them more often, get it done, and then everybody celebrates the settling of a claim. And with that, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Martselos. Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the report. I want to mention about the consultation and relationship because it's emphasized in this report. When we say "consultation", it goes two ways, you know. Because, okay, you go to people, you work with them, you listen to them. Then I note that we are going to make progress. But if we don't do any of those things, then we're still going to be like we still have three outstanding land claims. And when I said that, you know, when you go to them, you work with them, you talk to them, you listen to them, you know, like, we have to build a trust and a respect for each other because there's -- in Northwest Territories, we are overpopulated with half -- over half is Indigenous but we all have different view. Our views are not the same. So that's where I think you -- that what the government needs to do is that to go out there and work with the people, listen to them.

Even when we just mention Tlicho Agreement, Tlicho Agreement is a living document. So when Tlicho government pass a law, it is a different -- it is different from GNWT and our law prevails. So there's -- when people settle land claims or they settle land claims, it needs to be respected. And the government needs to work with us to implement the agreement. Even my friend from Salt River said it's been 20 years and the agreement is not implemented yet. So what GNWT needs to do is that to work with us, to work with the people out there, because our views are different. And many of the people that may have -- whoever worked on this agreement or on land claims, life is different in the small communities, especially in higher up north, especially in the fly in communities. It's totally different, different view, world view. So that's why what I would like to see is that for this government to work, go to the people, listen to them, and so that's the only way that I know that we can make progress. So that's -- it's more of a comment that I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I too would like to thank the committee for its work. I was able to sit in on most of the presentations from experts on UNDRIP and its implementation. However, I was not able to hear directly from Indigenous governments on any of their concerns around negotiations or implementation. I was interested and would have benefitted, I think, from participating or observing those meetings but was not allowed.

I haven't had a chance to read it cover to cover, but I certainly scanned the report. And I think it's a good summary of the UNDRIP presentations and some of the issues around UNDRIP and its implementation. However, I guess I'd hoped for some more definitive discussion and solutions in terms of delivering on negotiations for Indigenous land rights here, the ongoing negotiations and improved implementation, and I really want to see more of that happening during the lifetime of this Assembly.

And I'm well on record as expressing concerns about the pace of negotiations. In the last Assembly, the previous Premier promised to have everything done in four years. The only thing that happened was one agreement -- agreement-in-principle on self-government from Norman Wells. That was it, in four years. I do not want this Assembly to be in the same boat.

We've got three major sets of negotiations going on - Northwest Territories Metis Nation, Akaitcho, and Deh Cho - and we have a window to get those negotiations done in the lifetime of this Assembly. And I really want to impress upon my Cabinet colleagues to get the job done. We don't know what's going to come after us, but I'm a little bit worried. So I'm impressing upon you the need to get those three major sets of negotiations done in the lifetime of this Assembly. I know it takes two to tango, or three, but we've got to get that work done.

You know, and I guess in the discussions I've had with negotiators, I've heard the issues around that, you know, the problem used to be the federal government. People now say the problem is the GNWT. And I know there's better intent and some of the work that was tabled today will help with that, but I'd heard that, you know, there's issues with the negotiators for GNWT not having new mandates, that they have very little authority at the table, that they have to go back and check everything, and that maybe some of the negotiators need to be changed out and put in different jobs or whatever. So that's what I was hearing from negotiators. And that's consistent, I think, with what I read in this report. So again, I want to urge my Cabinet colleagues to get on with this.

And if it needs more dollars, more resources to get this done, put this as a high priority in the last year and a bit for this Assembly. And if you need more money, put it on the table, and I'm sure you're going to get support from the Regular MLAs for that.

I want to turn, Mr. Chair, to the two documents that were tabled today by the Premier, the Principles and Interests document, and then the Aboriginal Rights Agreement Negotiating Mandates Summary. And I guess I'd -- first off, I want to compliment our Cabinet colleagues and the staff for the language that's used in the document. It's very progressive. It doesn't use antiquated colonial language like "claims." So thank you for that. And I urge that we are very careful in how we discuss these matters as well in this House; we don't use colonial language, like "claims." These are not claims. These are rights.

But. But now that I've said the nice thing about this with Cabinet, and I know that the Premier asked for comments, but it would have been nice if we had seen those documents before they were tabled. I would have made some suggestions about how to make them more user friendly. It's pretty dense, the presentation. I would probably have included some kind of summary, some background on negotiations. People don't know what happens with negotiations. I don't know what happens at the negotiations table. But we have to do a better job explaining to the public what actually happens at these negotiations and who's at the table. We don't do a good job at that. And I think this was an opportunity to do some of that work.

So the presentation in the documents I think leaves a lot to be desired. I probably would have used some tables and so on, as I said, to try to better present some of the information. But it's out there now, and I hear from the Premier that she's interested in getting comments and feedback on that, and I will do that.

I think it would have also been helpful in the documents to explain how this differs from the old approach. That's not in there, really, in any detail. So I think that would have been a helpful addition to these documents that were just tabled earlier today.

I think that's all I have, Mr. Chair. But I just can't impress strongly enough the need to get a move on this. As I say, we've got a narrow window to get this important work done and that should be one of the top priorities for our Cabinet -- or our colleagues on the Cabinet side, please get that job done before the end of this Assembly. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Ms. Weyallon-Armstrong.

There was one more thing that I wanted to mention is that what I would like for the GNWT to do is to recognize and respect the Indigenous agreement that's already in place, that's already settled. So that's what I would like for the GNWT to do, because right now the process is too slow. You know, like -- and there's a lot of fighting right now. I know that there's a lot of disagreement between two parties. So what I would like for the GNWT to do is to recognize and respect the settled agreement that is in place and work with the people, work with the leaders, Indigenous government leaders. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Wawzonek.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to speak a bit about the opportunity I had to be on the committee. I was very grateful to be on the committee. It was an honour to be on with this committee dealing with this topic. It was an interesting -- I mean, I'm new to the Assembly, this is my first time here, but it was clear even so that this was something being done very differently to have both Members of Cabinet and other -- and MLAs all on one committee working together figuring out the process by which we would do that. So it wasn't just about what, you know, Cabinet would do, or what Ministers would do, but what we could truly do as a collective and as a group. So that was a very positive experience simply in and of itself but particularly dealing with something like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

I wanted to speak a little bit about that process too, more specifically, which was that having such a wide range of witnesses appear. We had both academics, we had Indigenous leaders, we had members from Indigenous governments, representatives on behalf of the Indigenous governments as well as leadership directly. So again, it was quite a breadth of opportunity to hear from many different perspectives, many of which did not align one with the other. So, you know, I do encourage people to read the report because the report -- part of the reason, at least in my view as one Member why it was determined to be worth the time and the effort to come up with an interim report, which went through many, you know -- quite a lot of effort by the staff and the officials who put it together and reviews, is to put to the whole of this House but also to the public what we've been doing as a committee, where we are at thus far, and also to try to take this opportunity to lay out the challenges of this area, to lay out the challenges presented in trying to say, well, why aren't you doing something with the declaration, why don't you just implement it? Because it's not really that simple. And too easily complexity perhaps being an excuse. Well, something's complex, the problem is complex and therefore it's going to take time. But in this case, that is true and this report deals with it.

But I'd also said, Mr. Chair, in this case complexity in some ways is our opportunity. We have, you know, a diverse range of governments operating within the territorial boundaries of the Northwest Territories, different treaties, different stages of implementation of treaties and land claims and self-government agreements. And, you know, and yet we were able to bring those representatives together.

One thing that was acknowledged, and it's at page 43 of the report, is that diversity and the acknowledgement of it were stressed in all of our discussions, that the declaration itself could not solve the diversity with one legal regime but, you know, there's a lot of folks noting that the way forward has already begun with the creating of the different Northwest Territories forums. So of course there's Modern Treaties, there's Council of Leaders. And so this is where I say it's an opportunity.

And I think that positivity comes through in the report, that while it's complex and the road may be long and it's been a bit winding, we are showing leadership here in the Northwest Territories.

So, you know, I wanted to highlight that piece of positive news that, in my view, comes out of the report, which is not to say that there's not still work to be done, which is not to say that when we heard from Indigenous leadership or those representing them, that there was a lot of passion being brought to the table to implore the work to continue and to not let the kind of momentum that we had get lost.

And again, with respect to this being an interim report, you know, as I think people have already spoken to, I do hope that colleagues here read it, that the public reads it, that we do hear back and we hear feedback, particularly in the areas of potential future recommendations.

So at the very end, at page 53, it says its potential areas for future recommendations, which is a bit of a mouthful, but it really is -- it's an interesting opportunity because here we are being told, you know -- and at the very top of this section it's about operationalizing consent. The idea that consent should permeate all activities, not only land and resources. That applies to the very work that we are doing. So, you know, in a sense you don't want to find a simple solution and say well, it's going to be this way; we will legislate and it will say this. Or it will just apply as a blanket. You know, if we're going to truly, you know, embody reconciliation and embody the principles of UNDRIP -- or I'm sorry, the declaration, well then we need to be doing that in the process itself. So this is an effort to embody that in the process itself, of sharing what we've heard, sharing what we've learned, checking back in broadly with Members here and with members of the public.

So, again, I am hoping that people will take that call up quite seriously and hear and review this and read this and turn their minds to it, because the solution isn't going to be a simple one. But it can be a truly made-in-the North one. And so in that sense, it's -- you know, again, was where I say it was quite an honour to be a part of getting us this far but we're really just one part. So this is an opportunity, again, to have a made-in-the-North approach. The discussions will be ongoing; they'll continue forward. And, you know, again I think this's a tone of while there's much work to be done, there is a tone of opportunity and hopefulness, and I'm certainly looking forward to how this might move forward and where this might see the Northwest Territories and have our leadership as a territory be put forward -- going forward within Canada, in my view. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. Are there any further questions -- I mean, comments? Ms. Martselos.

I just have a couple questions for clarity.

One of the questions I wanted to clarify, the different objectives of the Council of Leaders and the Intergovernmental Council. Because I remember sitting on the Intergovernmental Council, which was a federal -- a federal kind of criteria that you had to follow to sit on the Intergovernmental Council and all of a sudden now we have the Council of Leaders, and a lot of the ones that are on the Council of Leaders are not -- I mean, they both have different perspectives but, you know, it's confusing to -- if I'm confused a bit about this, can you imagine everybody else? And that's my first question.

The Premier doesn't have staff here or witnesses. So if she would like to answer that question, I will allow it. Premier.

This isn't my report so I shouldn't actually be on the stand. But in fairness, I will answer that question because it's an easy one. If you give me a hard one, I'm not answering it.

But really there is three roles. So we've always had the Intergovernmental Council that was formed part of devolution, it was before my time, the previous Premier. And the Intergovernmental Council is strictly around land and resources and royalties. I mean, that's their whole goal. But I noticed even with the last government that I was in, and this government, is that there was always issues brought up at that table that weren't land and resources that they wanted to discuss as well. So that's why we developed the Council of Leaders table.

The Council of Leaders table does not talk about land and royalties at all. That's not the place. That still stays with the Intergovernmental Council. The Council of Leaders talks about everything else, such as housing, health, everything that is not -- everything except land and resources. So it's a forum that all Indigenous governments can speak to.

And then we also have the Modern Treaty and Self-Government table because -- ironically it started they asked for it. They started it because of the fear of our mandate for the United Nations' declaration as a mandate. The land claim governments that already have signed agreements were really not liking that, and so they were really adamant that they have rights and within the United Nations' declaration, it says recognize the self-government agreements that are already signed. So they asked for the implementation table. And I just agreed to carry it on.

So the Modern Treaty and Self-Government is strictly around implementation of agreements, things in common. So land and water, Intergovernmental Council. Everything else, whatever social programs, whatever, the Council of Leaders. And then Modern Treaty have their own. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier. If there's no further comments, I'll give -- oh.

(audio) is in relation to the presentations that were given to SCRIA. I made it very clear that educating those who have never been involved in land claim issues and sitting at a table was not the priority hopefully of SCRIA. I have a real problem when I have -- I was sitting there. I almost decided I was going to leave at one point because I didn't think that was going to be overkill on the presentations of all these people who said they were this and that and that and the other. And had no -- no knowledge of what was actually going on at the table. And I felt very strongly about that, and I want to say that publicly because, you know, this is the kind of situation that we get into with regards to people who also get into negotiation with Indigenous people, and it's never a good outcome. Okay. I'm not here -- we're not here to -- you know, that's -- and if your colleagues on that side do not understand all these different things about negotiation, then they should do that on their own time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.