Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 85 be amended by adding the following after subclause 12(2):

(2.1) Before entering into an agreement under this section, a Minister authorized under subsection (1) shall provide notice to and seek comments from the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight, or any successor committee that may be established by the Legislative Assembly. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Look, I've already said that I agree in principle with this, and I will take issue with the Premier's comments. This is not about me trying to exclude Indigenous governments from getting to shared decision-making agreements. This is about trying to find out how Regular MLAs can have a say in agreements before they're finalized. And it's about MLAs doing their job. I'm just not prepared to give Cabinet a bank cheque, I guess. So that's what I think this is about. But in any event, Madam Chair, I do want to move to a motion if I could.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Well, I don't think I can possibly respond to everything that I heard there. But, you know, I'm not here to get my way. If that's why any of us are here, we're here for the wrong reasons. I'm here to try to serve my constituents and try to think about the broader public interest. I've always tried to increase transparency, openness, accountability, as a public government. That's why I'm here so it's not about getting my way. Yeah, I'll leave that aside for now.

You know, I guess the issue here is the only way for Regular MLAs to hold the Cabinet to account with regard to these shared decision-making agreements is once they're publicly released because there's no other requirement. I think the process convention might allow for the Minister and Cabinet to come to the Regular MLAs and say, you know what, we've actually got this arrangement we've negotiated and by the way here's actually a draft. We'd like to get your input before it's signed. You know, we put a lot of time and effort into this. Maybe even an update or two along the way depending on the scope and whatever of the agreement. You know, if it's a simple administrative delegation of something, that's probably not a big deal. But if it's, you know, giving decision-making in a major program area to a government, an Indigenous government that might have implications for other things, I don't know. But the only way it seems that Regular MLAs would be able to hold Cabinet to account is after the agreement's released publicly and then, you know -- but it could be a legally binding agreement that's already signed and nothing could be done at that point. So how can Regular MLAs hold Cabinet to account for these shared decision-making agreements? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, no, thank you for that. Yeah, I think we're not like a lot of the governments that the Premier described that have party systems. This is supposed to be a consensus government. So the way that the bill has been drafted now -- and I think this was a helpful addition -- was that, you know, Regular MLAs will now at least get notice if negotiations -- a Minister's authorized to begin negotiations on a shared decision-making agreement. But the only time -- there's no requirement -- there's nothing in the bill about what happens with those agreements other than they're going to get published at the end of the day in the gazette, which not like anybody even reads. And I guess they're going to be published on a website as well thanks to the committee. But, you know, what happens between the time that a Minister's authorized to negotiate something and an agreement is reached; is there any opportunity for Regular MLAs to know what's happening inside the bill, outside the bill? How's that going to happen? Thank, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I said in my earlier remarks -- before somebody tries to say otherwise -- that I agree in principle to the idea of shared decision-making agreements. And, you know, I think we probably have some kind of examples out there of those sorts of arrangements. You know, you might say that Deline self-government is that kind of an arrangement. But I guess one of the concerns I have here is, you know, we don't really know or understand what the scope of these agreements could look like; how frequent they may be; how many there may be; what is GNWT going to look like at the end of the day. Is it just going to be some kind of a rump government that doesn't do much? You know, I don't know. You know, I think we're starting to verge on constitutional change here or looking at what is the relationship between public and Indigenous governments. And, in any event, I would like to get some understanding from the folks at the witness table as to what the scope of these agreements is going to be, how frequent they could be, what is GNWT going to look like after these agreements have been negotiated. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I respect all the comments I heard. You know, this motion does not require or enable elected MLAs to participate in any way in the action plan committee. It allows for a representative to be there on the terms and conditions that are set by the committee itself. This is not about interfering or trying to influence the process. It's about understanding what's happening there and how it will change the legislative branch of government. This is not about the executive branch of government. This is -- the plan, when it's done, will change the legislative branch of government. It'll change how we do things here. It'll change the legislation, the policies, the work that standing committees do. And to exclude Regular MLAs from that process, I just don't think that that's a good idea and I don't think it's in keeping with the process conventions. And that's all I have to say.

But I think this was a worthwhile debate. And I expect that the next Cabinet, the next Minister, will actually find better ways to share information about this because it didn't happen in the drafting of this bill. So whoever the next Minister is is going to have to work a lot harder in sharing information, and maybe even finagling an occasional invitation or something, for Regular MLAs or their representative. Maybe come and see what happens once in a while. So the next Minister's going to have to do a way better job in communicating what's happening at that action plan committee with the Regular MLAs. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So what this would do is create the ability for the Regular Members to have a representative, whether it's a Member or some other representative of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight, be at the committee meetings -- the action plan committee meetings. And this is further, though, restricted and so basically it would be up to the action plan committee itself to determine the classes of persons that might be eligible, whether that's an elected official or a hired person by AOC. The action plan committee would decide this itself.

The action plan committee would also decide how, where, and when that person could be involved in the action plan committee. The action plan committee could say, you know what, you're not going to be at -- you're only going to be at portions of meetings, or you're not going to be at this meeting or that meeting. And you can only send a staff person; you can't send an elected official. So basically this would put the authority with the action plan committee itself as to how and who from the Regular Members would be allowed to observe, participate in whatever capacity, at the action plan committee.

And the reason why I moved this and bring it forward is because, as I said in my earlier remarks, I think this has the potential to significantly change the work of this Legislative Assembly, the legislation that comes before it, the policies that will come before committees. And I'm sorry, I think that the best way to convey that information is for the Regular MLAs to have somebody at the meetings. Cabinet has not demonstrated to me that they can share the information that the Regular Members need sometimes. And we've seen that in the development of this bill. They didn't bother to talk to us about Private Member's bills, having statements of consistencies, a number of other items in here. That's just one example. So I'll just leave it at that for now, Madam Chair.

No, I won't, I have -- look, I'm not trying to stop this bill. I'm not trying to slow it down in any way. People are going to say that about me; that's fine. I want to support this. I want to make this better. And I want both sides of the House to be involved in how we actually implement Indigenous rights. And that's how consensus government is supposed to work, and that's what this motion is about. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 85 be amended by deleting subclause 8(2) and substituting the following:

(2) The action plan committee must be comprised of

(a) members appointed by Indigenous governments or organizations of the Northwest Territories;

(b) members appointed by the Government of the Northwest Territories; and

(c) subject to subsection (2.1), one member appointed by motion of the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight or any successor committee that may be established by the Legislative Assembly.

(2.1) The action plan committee may, in respect of a Member appointed under paragraph (2)(c), limit or specify

(a) the classes of persons eligible for appointment; and

(b) the rights of participation of the member in the work of the action plan committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I'd like to move a motion if I may.