Thank you, Member from Range Lake. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed? Abstained? Motion has passed.

---Carried

Motions. Notices of motion for the first reading of bills. First reading of bills. Second reading of bills. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Minister's Statement 4-20(1), Minister's Statement 5-20(1), Minister's Statement 17-20(1), Minister's Statement 24-20(1), Tabled Document 93-20(1), and Tabled Document 94-20(1), with the Member of Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh in the chair.

I now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the committee? Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wish to consider Tabled Document 94-20(1), 2024-2028 Business Plans in Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We will proceed with the first item. Thank you, committee. We will take a short recess, and we'll resume with the first item. We'll take a 15-minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 94-20(1), 2024-2028 Business Plan. I will now open the floor to general comments on Tabled Document 94-20(1), and each Member will have ten minutes to speak. I'll go to Member -- any hands? Any comments? Yeah, general comments on the Tabled Document 94-20(1). I'm going to go to the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure, I will kick it off with some comments. I will be fairly brief. We have some long days coming, and I'll try not to keep Members here too late today.

Listen, the business plans are great. I mean, I don't know what else I can say. I think there's a lot of excellent work done in there. I think this is --

This is the plans.

Except.

You know, could I have been a little more aggressive in some areas? Absolutely. And I guess we can all say that about our ridings and individual things that we want to see action based on the business plan and things that are in here. But, yeah, overall, it's a great document, and I appreciate the work that the departments did putting it together. It's a bit of a read, but certainly, it's -- yeah, so -- you know, I can point to specific things that I'd like to see but, Mr. Chair, I'll save those for when we go through the main estimates, as we will be going through by department by department. I will be referring, as we know, the main estimates are annual, and this is our four-year plan, which, again, I appreciate. And, yeah, I'll speak to individual departments at such time when we go through the main estimates and talk about and refer to some of the great work that's been done in this document. So other than that, Mr. Chair, again, thank you, good document, let's get 'er done now.

I want to thank the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake. Any other Members that want to make general comments on Tabled Document 94-20(1)? I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, as a planning document, I think this is the right kind of document for what we need out of a four-year plan and to give clear direction to government. And you get everything in here from programs that are going to be implemented to legislation that's going to roll out to policy changes that are going to be significant. So if anyone's looking for the Bible of the 20th Assembly, it's right here, at least when it comes to the affairs -- or the business of governing. Where the rubber meets the road is, of course, in the actual budget deliberations that are forthcoming, but -- and that's where we're actually going to have the opportunity to debate whether or not we think the cuts are appropriate, where we can see some changes in programs and policy. But what this is, it's not our document. It's not a document of the Assembly. It's a document of Cabinet. And in that regard, they have succeeded, and they should be commended for bringing this forward in a tangible, measurable way.

My comments yesterday about the mandate were pretty harsh, and I'm not retracting those because this is what I'd like to see, and I think we've kind of -- we should be moving forward in this direction. Any time we do forward planning at the start of a new Assembly, we should be as measurable, as clear and concise as possible, so people can get a sense of where we're going and what we hope to -- what the government hopes to achieve, and then we can course correct as we move forward through budget cycles, through deliberation, through debate, all that kind of stuff. But having a very clear vision of what to expect, that's priceless in a democracy, especially a consensus government that often struggles to have kind of a decisive vision moving forward. So kudos on the business plans. Everything else needs more work. Thank you.

I want to thank the Member from Range Lake. I'm going to go to the Member Danny McNeely from Sahtu. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too agree with the principles of the business plan; however, there's always room for improvements. It's a four-year document that really sets the direction for this Assembly and a everchanging climate, whether that climate is the cost of living in the small communities, the larger communities, and our territory as a whole. So realizing that, we really don't have any idea what the economic environment is going to be next year or the year after, but having the guiding principles to move forward with an updated review, certainly shows efficiency of this Assembly in moving forward and capturing and addressing the many challenge that could possibly create barriers and challenges for this Assembly. We have no idea on the water levels of next year for an example or what the prices are going to be of fuel to generate power in our smaller communities. So those are unforeseen costs that we will face.

But focusing on the principles for the next 48 months is really a challenging but a good corporate strategy to give our people the impression that, yes, we have faith in our abilities to move forward and here's our four-year plan, and I look forward to going through the finalization. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Member from the Sahtu. Any other general comments from the Members? I don't see any hands -- oh okay, I see one there. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I actually prepared detailed notes so it might take longer than ten minutes, but here it is. Buckle in.

Overall, I want to start by thanking the civil service for the work they put into these business plans within such a short timeframe and for the efforts that each department took to see itself in each priority even when the link is not obvious. So, for example, how ITI might see a role for itself in promoting access to health care, I think each department really did try to see itself in each of these priorities.

I do think that these business plans are a work in progress and that there's still a disconnect between the intentions we set out in our priorities and the targets and measures we see in these business plans. In some cases, I see important pieces that are entirely missing. In other cases, the objectives are not ambitious enough and, too often, the targets are entirely process-oriented instead of being outcome-oriented. For example, the target is the number of meetings held instead of what is actually accomplished in them. So I'm going to department by department. Here I go. I'm going to start with ECE.

I appreciate that the ECE targets are, for the most part, specific and measurable; however, one gaping absence in the business plan is a goal related to basic education and literacy, and that should be linked to the economic foundations priority because it's fundamentally how we build the workforce. So I would propose we add an objective that says improve literacy and numeracy outcomes amongst JK to 12 students. And I appreciate that the department should not be telling teachers which methods they should be using in their teaching, but we need to set concrete goals and expectations around literacy. I note that there's a contradiction between a goal stated in this business plan to maintain or increase uptake in the small community employment support program when we are at the same time seeing cuts in the main estimates to this, although I'll speak more to that later.

I support the commitment to work with ITI and GNWT partners to advance plans to transition the diamond mine workforce, but ECE does not specify any targets or measures on this one, saying it first wants to consult with partners. I have to say I find it rather astonishing that at this late stage of the game, ECE still cannot define its role in terms of transitioning the diamond mine workforce. I think there's been a lot of work with partners, and I think we're ready to know what the actions are to move forward.

In terms of the Giant Mine remediation project, the proposed action is to continue to participate in the project, and yet, the logic is that that will somehow lead us to meet or exceed the employment targets even though they haven't yet been met. So I would question that logic. And similarly, ECE commits to work with the mining sector and GNWT departments to make northern hiring requirements more clear and the idea is that will lead to increases in the number of residents -- northern residents hired and trained. I think that there's some analysis missing here in terms of what actions will actually lead to our desired outcomes instead of just continuing to do the same things we've been doing and expecting that's going to give us different results.

And finally, for ECE, the objective around access to health care is to focus on health promotion and preventative care in schools. So I agree that there's a place for this. I'm just concerned that the pendulum has swung too far away from recognizing the benefits of offering mental health counselling in schools, and we're exclusively focusing now on prevention and promotion, given that I don't see objectives mentioned at all in terms of clinical mental health counselling in schools. And I do think schools have a role in facilitating that. So now my comments on ECC.

While some of the targets laid out by ECC are meaningful, my main comments in this one are pointing out that often the measures are too process-oriented and somewhat meaningless. So the target of we're going to participate fully in the integrated resource management regime, I would argue doesn't say much. So on this note, I am begging all departments, please don't waste resources collecting or reporting on data such as number of files we post to an online portal or the number of routine meetings we hold. I don't think that's useful and so I would beg you not to collect that data. One important objective is the efficient and timely regulatory review and EA processes in decision-making, but disappointingly, once again the measures seem to be process-oriented such as the number of reviews that the department participates in, the number of processes coordinated by the department. But what we need is evidence that improvements are being made. On this, ITI's business plan is more helpful in terms of identifying goals, actually completing regulatory initiatives identified by the Mackenzie Valley operational dialogue. So these two business plans need to be dovetailed and aligned. I also see goals around completing and addressing recommendations in the 2025 Environmental Audit, which leads us to wonder what happened to the 2020 audit and why aren't we establishing goals to implement those recommendations.

In terms of supporting communities to access public land through individual parcel transfers and bulk land transfer processes, so ECC is promising to -- and I quote -- initiate all processes for land transfers. But clearly there's -- we're hinting here that there are some barriers to completing them. So I think we need to be more upfront about identifying those barriers and how we propose to address them, how the government proposes to address them, such as if there's resources needed for land surveying or changes needed to legislation, some indication of that needs to be in the business plan so we know how we can move forward.

Okay, next, Executive and Indigenous Affairs. So a significant new role that EIA is taking on is to lead GNWT efforts to support NGOs to secure sustainable multi-year funding. That's great. The catch is that all the actions seem to involve helping NGOs get funding from other parties, third parties. Even when NGOs are delivering core social services on behalf of the GNWT, yet they're still expected to cobble together funds from the federal government or private charitable donors. And so some of the actions identified, I would argue, are not helpful in many cases. So in many cases, NGOs don't need guidance in their funding submissions to other parties. They don't need more meetings. I think they would rather, honestly, just take the money and just -- just give the money directly to NGOs instead of having all those meetings and trying to help them with funding applications to other people. I think a more useful action in this regard would be to commit to implement the recommendations of the report, strengthening the nonprofit and charitable sector external advisory committee report that was tabled near the end of the last Assembly.

Okay, and in terms of the homelessness strategy, which EIA has also taking the lead on, there's a large disconnect here. So I appreciate that EIA states its goal is to implement the strategy, that's great. But the actions that it proposes will get us there are focused on putting together five teams of staff that are colocated and setting up regional committees. So that, on its own, is not going to solve homelessness, and I think we could all admit that. But I think these business plans should instead just adopt the goals and the measures that are already laid out in the homelessness plan itself. We've already got the targets and measures provided. Just adopt them, work them in to these business plans.

And, finally, in terms of EIA, in the list of departmental highlights, I would say that the project that sticks out like a sore thumb is the one gov project in terms of its disconnect from our core priorities. I would venture a guess that no one in this room campaigned on the idea of consolidating GNWT websites. So I would strongly question the urgency and the cost of this project.

On to finance. One action that I think is missing here in terms of addressing our labour market challenges is that we need to address our extremely long timelines for hiring. I've heard that we often lose out on good candidates because our hiring processes take much longer than anywhere else. So that's something that's tangible that we could put into that plan. Other than that, I actually think the targets and measures are well thought out for finance, and I'm encouraged that the department will advocate that all proposed initiatives undergo a Macro-Economic Policy Framework lens review. The problem I see is when the Department of Finance has other lenses it's requiring departments to consider, like the Government Renewal Initiative, the Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, that can sometimes be in conflict. And I could perhaps conclude if I was given a second chance, if others let me at a later time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I want to thank the Member from YK North. I'm going to continue on with round one, and then I'll come back to the Member to conclude her statement. Is there any further general comments from the Members? I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, let me just get organized here.

So, yeah, I'm going to try and keep it to ten minutes but similar to the Member for Yellowknife North, I mean, we are talking about a very large document so it's hard to go through all my comments on it in such a short period of time. But I want to speak kind of generally to it and then speak to some of the things that I would have liked to see in there and maybe some things that I would like to advocate to be put in there.

So, first of all, have we established measurable targets? I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. There are areas where they are clearly measurable. There's dates established but in many cases, targets simply say literally TBD. Or the goal is quite vague, or as, you know, articulated by the previous speaker, goals are process-oriented, number of meetings as opposed to outcomes-oriented. And so we need to look back to the smart goals principle. Are we setting goals that really lay out what we're trying to achieve?

Have we been focused? Are we focused on our priorities? When I look through this document, I'm a bit less confident about that. I will say that the process of having each department speak to the priorities shows me that the government is thinking about the fact that we need kind of an across departmental approach. And I really do appreciate that, because I know that there's been criticism in the past of siloing amongst departments, so I really do like seeing that every department has found ways to see themselves in the priorities of the Assembly, and I think that is really positive. The question is are we being particularly focused and strategic in terms of actions that we're taking to achieve those priorities? Are we trying to do too much? I would say I'm a bit less confident about that just noting how big of a document this is.

So I'm going to go -- try and go through department by department with some things that I would like to see. And I'm not going to speak to all of it because, of course, that would make many hours, and, you know, I'd love to ask some questions, but I think we talked about -- AOC brought forward, you know, the idea of perhaps reviewing the business plans in more detail, and I think that is something that we -- we're still talking about, and I would love to see us do a kind of a more fulsome review of the business plans as part of our process because I recognize that this document is incredibly important to the work that staff are doing and to achievement of the priorities. So I really do think we need to be focusing on this and not just the numbers in the budget. So let's go to department by department.

ECE first. The grow and enhance mandate commitment. So I appreciate that the government is kind of speaking to some legislative targets, but I would like to see the government establish clear targets for polytechnic university implementation. Whether or not they're going to be investing in a Yellowknife campus, which has been stated as a need, and how the polytechnic university implementation is going to go forward, the college has been said that they need housing, so there's a lot that's not contained in here that needs to happen in order for this project to go forward. And my colleagues have been speaking to that, and I've been speaking to that in the House, the importance of focusing on that project. So I'd like to see more in the business plans on that. And I also think that we need more of a focus and targeting of JK to 12 education. We touch upon it, but I don't see a strong statement in here of where we are, what the current conditions are, where we would like to be at the end of this Assembly. So a goal of progression towards something better than what we've got now. I think we have -- we recognize that this is a critical need in terms of building up people and the workforce in the NWT, but we haven't really addressed it in the business plan. So I'm going to move on to ECC.

There's a -- one of the mandate commitments is encouraging private investment in housing. One item I'd like to see added to the business plan here is working to eliminate overlap between municipalities on land management. So not simply processing applications, but eliminating the overlap, replacing overlap with policies about how funding is to be used to address concerns about land mismanagement, but rather than kind of managing the lands within municipal boundaries, simply setting processes -- policies and expectations and letting the communities take on that role as most other jurisdictions do.

Further to ECC, increasing investments in certainty. The business plan speaks to the 2025 Environmental Audit but doesn't speak to the current environmental audit, which I would note many recommendations from have not been implemented yet. So ITI also speaks to the Mackenzie Valley operation -- or sorry, I'm going too quickly here.

So I would like to see ECC establish targets for implementation of the 2020 Environmental Audit and prioritize actions based on implementation time, start getting them done in order. Just noting that I would expect that many of the recommendations from the 2025 audit, recognizing that many from the 2020 haven't been done, will reiterate the recommendations. So let's get moving on it now as opposed to waiting until 2025. I would also note that ITI speaks to the Mackenzie Valley operational dialogue in their business plan, but it's not spoken to in ECC's, but it's worth noting that ECC is responsible for many of the MVOD recommendations. So I see a bit of a disconnect there in terms of where the department sees itself and where ITI sees itself with regards to regulatory.

I'm going to jump very quickly into MACA. I realize that it's at the end but I'm just going through my notes in the order that I made them. I would like to see MACA, similarly to ECC, work to eliminate overlap with municipalities on land management, and I'd like to see them implement a new formula funding agreement for communities. There's lots of talk about underfunding of the communities. I think implementing a new formula agreement is the fair way to address that problem. So I'd like to see that addressed.

Man, does the timer ever go quick. Moving on to EIA. Land claims, I mentioned -- I had mentioned previously, but I think that we're not being particularly ambitious here, or at least we don't appear to be. I realize that they need to work with partners and that there's more to item than the GNWT, and they don't stand alone on this. But I just want to emphasize the importance of land claim settlement to the First Nations involved, to our territory, and I want to see the department prioritize getting these claims done as quickly as they can and coming to the table to the parties saying, what do we need to do to get these claims done, what do you need from us, let's get this done, as opposed to dragging it out indefinitely.

Similar to my -- the Member previous to me beat me to it, but I would also like to see an implementation plan timeline and costing for implementation of strengthening the nonprofit and charitable sector report. And I would like to see us commit to and fund NGOs with core funding. And I want to speak to this one a little bit, just that I think often in the past, we've seen GNWT's answer to things tends to be, what can we do, what can the GNWT do to solve this problem. And it tends to result in the staff growing. We've seen the government grow at a virtually exponential rate over the past number of years. And I don't think that we're thinking about the fact that we need to be thinking about what the government can do in terms of funding others to help them grow their sectors themselves as opposed to the government doing it for them and taking the funding that could be going to them and using it for staff. So that's a shift in the way that we do business, and I know that the mandate speaks to shifting the way we do business. I think that's a key way. I could speak to that quite a bit more, but I don't have the time.

The health department, I'm going to try and be quick. I've got a huge number of notes here. But I will just say with health, I'm quite happy with the business plan in this case. I like that they're focusing on primary care. The one glaring omission that I don't see in here is the issue of management and human resources at NTHSSA. There's been lots of talk, agency nurses, the issues that nurses are facing on the front lines. I'm not going to reiterate them here, but I don't see a concerted plan in these business plans to address these issues. And we've been hearing from frontline health professionals for years now that they are approaching a breaking point. They may feel that they're at the breaking point. We really need to address this problem head on.

Moving on to ITI. I appreciate that they are talking about laying out an economic vision. What is missing right now is the Ws of that - the who, what, where, and why, what the timeline is for it. I would like to see us establish a timeline and say when it's going to happen because it relates so closely to all the work that we're doing, and I think that having a vision is really key. I note that I'm out of time, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to stop there and hopefully have a second opportunity to finish up my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. Before I go to the next Speaker, I just want to make a little comment here.

Members, I just wanted to remind everybody to wait for their light to come on and before speaking, and when you're done, if you could just say thank you as well so that it will give a much clearer picture to our technical staff and for people watching as well.

I'm going to continue on. Is there any other Members that want to make general comments? Okay, I don't see anybody else. I'm going to go back to the Member of Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the second stab at this.

So in wrapping up my statements on the Department of Finance, I think it's really important that we put a macroeconomic policy lens on our decisions. What I was trying to say is that the Department of Finance also is asking departments to put a fiscal sustainability lens on things. And some of that can be in conflict in that if I was asked, I could either consider a rigorous macroeconomic policy framework or just find a few things to cut that will be noticed by the least number of people, I would definitely choose the second option.

But moving on to health and social services. There are a lot of important actions in here that I support. In particular, I appreciate the commitment to clarify and redefine roles and responsibilities for Health and Social Services corporate support and program and service delivery between the department and the health authorities. That's a really important step. I would note that the actions listed under recruitment and retention strategies mostly focus on recruitment. Retention still seems to be this black box. So that's where the health care task force that I mentioned yesterday could fit in nicely.

Also, in accordance with another of the NWT Medical Association's recommendations in that March 1st letter that I tabled today, the business plan should include the objective of establishing a health care workforce plan. So that would build on the physician workforce plan that was completed in 2020 but that has not actually been implemented yet.

To put things in perspective, we currently have 310 unfunded positions within NTHSSA and 52 unfunded positions within the TCSA. And that's not certainly the fault of the health authorities because we don't have a clear idea if we're allocating funds for the services we want or we need to provide, whether our staffing models actually meet those needs, and where medical travel would be cost effective and where it would be better to provide those services locally. That is a real in-depth analysis that I'm not sure anyone within the health authorities have had the time or resources to do. And I think it's important we set ourselves on that path.

On to ITI, so in contrast to the macroeconomic policy framework being proposed by finance, I see the ITI business plan committing to basically increase the number of people and organizations funded in every sector imaginable when you look at the targets and measures. And yet we're not increasing the funding pots. So that leads me to conclude that we're proposing to just reduce funding amounts and sprinkle it around more thinly to more people and businesses and organizations. To me, that doesn't seem wise or sound according to economic principles. And I'm not sure that we always want to simply increase the number of, for example, artists or filmmakers that we're funding. I would argue that we need to increase the value of the income, the employment, and look at increasing value as opposed to just the number of people we're funding.

And finally, with ITI, again, we have a goal of a certain number of lower emission infrastructure projects or climate resilient projects in NWT parks. They picked a number of ten. So, I, again, would focus on the value for investment GHG reductions, not simply on the number of projects.

Moving on to infrastructure. My first main point here is that I don't think we can continue to advance all three of our major infrastructure projects that we've had on the books for a long time. We just need to pick one. It just hasn't worked to keep our fingers in all these pies and kind of play coy with the federal government on stating which one's our favorite. I think we need to come up with clear criteria on how we're going to evaluate what's most important and urgent based on this Assembly's priorities and just pick one. Sound simple? And no, it's not.

The business plan for infrastructure is strangely very silent on energy policy, which worries me, and specifically the role of the GNWT in directing energy with clear energy policies that will lead us through an energy transition to keep up with the rest of the world. I do appreciate that there's a policy initiative to issue some policy direction to the Public Utilities Board. So that's a good step. But we also need to extend policy direction to NT Energy and NTPC.

I would note that the renewed energy strategy is due to be released by the fourth quarter of 2025-2026. I would argue we need it sooner. We've already had consultation complete and a draft What We Heard document. I think we need to move forward on some of the recommendations in there, including developing a short, medium, and long-term roadmap for our electricity system.

Justice. Just a few comments here. I note that the measures -- so despite the fact that our mandate really emphasizes crime prevention and addressing social issues and addictions and things that would lead to crime, the measures and targets we've got in this business plan focus heavily on RCMP-related actions. So I don't see much that's going towards the crime prevention and social issues. So I think we need to add an action that basically states that in cooperation with law enforcement officials, we're going to build better, on-the-ground outreach services and integrate teams of social and health support workers to ensure that noncriminal social issues are addressed appropriately.

And I do understand from numerous statements by the Premier that that is his intention as to the approach that he wants to take. So let's just state it straight out in the business plans and hold ourselves accountable to it.

MACA. So there's some really weak targets in here. For example, in terms of supporting communities in developing or updating emergency plans, the measure is how many MACA is able to contact. So we need to strengthen the accountability in terms of making sure that our communities have emergency plans in place. And I think we need to rethink the value of -- I think the go-to move in MACA is to run workshops for communities, and that's not always the most helpful thing. I think we need to expand our toolbox there.

Okay, finally, I'm going to move on to housing, the last department. I have to say I very much appreciate the new transitional housing program for those who are returning from, say, addictions programs, so aftercare. That's a really important step. I think we also need to set some goals and targets around other kinds of supportive living facilities, including those that are focused on harm reduction, that are getting people off the street, and stabilizing them. I don't see mention right now in our plan, and I think that's a really important aspect for this Assembly.

I notice one of the goals is around -- talking about investing in Housing NWT infrastructure, including new construction and repairs, and it's mentioned that the goal is to spend $120 million over four years, but there's no context provided in here in terms of what are we actually trying to accomplish with that money, what are the goals of what's going to -- what we're going to be left with at the end of this Assembly. And it's also not clear where this money is coming from. So I would like that spelled out more in the business plans.

I actually really appreciated this section under housing that talks about the risks in terms of the challenges that are faced in accomplishing the goals under this business plan. And it articulates those risks really well. But there's not much in the way of identifying solutions or what we're going to do to confront those risks. So that stood out to me. And it's okay, but I think we need to be honest about this is going to be really challenging and we need to lay out some kind of path on how we're going to start identifying solutions or ways to mitigate those risks.

So that brings me to the end before the end of the time. I appreciate your patience. I really just wanted to get all this out now before we go line by line into the main estimates. But I very much appreciate you listening. And I know this is not a voteable item, but I hope this has been useful and that we can move forward with the discussions in a productive way. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, the Member from Yellowknife North. I'm going to go to the second round of questions, I'm going to I believe Member from Frame Lake.