Thank you, Madam Chair. Can the Minister tell me which First Nations and organizations in the Dehcho that are involved in this land claim negotiations? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can try and find a list here of everyone. But essentially the Dehcho is represented at the table by the grand chief, negotiator, and I know that they represent a number of communities in the Dehcho region. I am just trying to find it here so I can give everyone an accurate list.

No, it's in my other binder, so -- or it's not in this list here. So I can provide the Member with a list of the communities. I just don't want to leave anyone out, and I want to make sure I get it right, so. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go back to the Member from the Dehcho.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My next question is going to be kind of a funny question, but nonetheless I am going to ask it. Can you tell me why the GNWT is part of this negotiation process? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.

Thank you. So from what I understand, the GNWT has responsibilities over lands and resources, and there's a desire on behalf of Canada to have the partner who has that responsibility and that awareness of the situation at the table. Thank you.

Okay Thank you. I will go to the Dehcho Member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from Members? Seeing none. Okay, no further questions. I am going to continue on to page 143.

Executive and Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous and intergovernmental relations, $8,469,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Moving on to the Office of the Secretary to Cabinet on page 146, with information items on page 148 and 149. Are there any questions?

I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, yeah, I have a question just in the -- that is building upon some of the questions we were just asking on the previous page and we were discussing last night. It notes here that in the Office of the Secretary to Cabinet, some of the responsibilities include formalizing how the GNWT works with its partners when developing land and resource legislation.

So I am not going to repeat and tread back over the conversation we had last night regarding the IGCS, but something I did note in conversations with stakeholders who have kind of more knowledge of that table than I would, did note that it was felt that GNWT could be offering perhaps some more leadership at that table. And so regarding the fact that, you know, that I think it's been talked about that, you know, we are trying to operate that table right now on a true consensus model, my understanding of it is that we effectively don't move issues forward unless everybody at the table agrees which is, like, that's pure consensus, and all of us understand in the operation of consensus that's a pretty tough one to reach. And so I am wondering in terms of formalizing how the GNWT works with its partners, noting that most of the time when this stuff is proceeding -- or sorry, most of the time when items at the IGCS are proceeding, it's not politicians who are in the room, it's staff, so I am just curious what kind of direction, what kind of policy informs how staff make decisions and work at that table. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.

I'd like to go to the deputy minister.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the deputy minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when it comes to IGCS, typically the table is represented by the GNWT at deputy secretary to Cabinet level, so ADM equivalent. Also, there are director level representation present at all times. Deputy ministers, including myself, attend periodically, often when presenting new projects or dealing when issues are contentious, if that should be the case. But, typically, it would be at the ADM level where sort of the routine meetings are happening and updates are occurring. I should also mention that with existing initiatives such as a legislative initiative, there would be technical working groups where officials would be participating from the requisite departments relative to that project in addition to the representation from Indigenous governments and organizations who are participating on that working group. So, really, it depends on the conversation that would be happening per the agenda of any IGCS meeting and also in relation to any of the initiatives that are being advanced through that table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. I will go back to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that response. So that response gave me the who. I think what I was trying to get at with the question was the how and what is informing the how. So to reiterate the question maybe to make it a bit more clearer, what I am looking for is what kind of policy direction are staff operating under. You know, I mean, I shared a perception that we're working in true consensus. I'd be curious to know if that's actually the case. But what I am wondering about, to get a bit more clear here, is how we're maintaining timelines, how we're maintaining timeliness. And, you know, this is a big subject to open up but just noting that, you know, for example, it's come up at a constituency meeting of mine that the long process that the Forest Act had to go through. You know, we've talked on the floor a fair bit about the targeted amendments to the Waters Act. Even targeted amendments take a certain amount of time. I am pleased to hear that those are proceeding, and it sounds from the people I've talked to that things are going well there. And, you know, for example, if we went to do a major amendment to the Waters Act, which was planned for this Assembly and ended up off the table, you know, that could potentially take multiple terms of the Assembly. And so the place where that work gets done is at this table so I am really glad that Members are paying attention to it, it's coming up, and that the table's work is being reviewed this term, in the seven-year review. And so that's what I am trying to understand, is how are we -- are we considering any changes, or how are staff being directed to work at that table in order to get things moving and potentially improve those timelines? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I am going to go to the Minister.

Thank you. And so the IGC is set up through the NWT intergovernmental agreement on lands and resource management through the devolution agreement, so that's sort of the primary framework. In terms of GNWT-specific policy documents, direction, we do have the legislative development protocol on how we work with Indigenous governments. But if the Member is talking about, on a specific issue, how do -- what direction is given to advance a specific issue or a specific file, well, that would be then what's the issue, what's the file. If there's political direction or a desire on Cabinet's part to see something happen, then that's the direction that would be provided. And so if there's a certain regulation that we would like to see advanced, then that would be the direction that we would provide, is, you know, move forward and try and figure this out. And if we need to come back because there's not agreement at the table, then -- and we need to make some calls to leaders, then let's do that. So there's not an overarching policy saying, you know, this is our position on every item. It's often item by item. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate that answer. I guess, so I can understand that it would be issue by issue. You know, something I have floated to the Premier previously is whether we need to establish timelines around our processes. I am curious while we're here to get a comment on that.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.