Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The benefits of a Service GNWT model or single service window model are pretty obvious. There's Service Canada. Service BC. Service Alberta. I actually don't think there's a single jurisdiction in Canada, other than us, that doesn't have a single service window. And we actually kind of have one. We have service officers in the communities. But the Premier throughout this government has refused to bring them in to Yellowknife, refused to even consider a single service window, and seems to think it's impossible. But in reality, Mr. Speaker, it's one of the few things we could do that could create efficiencies. For example, a Service GNWT office would do things such as help with income assistance, housing, you could get your birth certificate there, you could pay fines there, you could apply for a lease, you could get your marriage license - typical things that the government does that, right now, are scattered through about 12 different offices in Yellowknife with a multitude of workers.

And the benefits to a service window model, Mr. Speaker, are numerous. Firstly, it allows you to buy one piece of E-services software. Right now, we are spending tens of millions a year on software licenses. Every year that software budget line just goes up and up, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. Right now, E-services is housed in the Department of Finance despite the fact that all of the services it's providing are kind of scattered across the GNWT. And in some cases, there's actually the E-services platform and then another piece of software within the department being used for the same thing and they don't talk to each other. And never do the workers in the other department. We've heard multiple stories throughout my term of housing asking for your employment records, then income assistance asking for your employment records, and then sometimes the workers get in a fight. This is all well documented by integrated case management in the Department of Justice which basically gave up trying to get GNWT departments to work together. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we have made negative progress on this issue.

So for the next Premier, do something about this, adopt a Service GNWT model. It's not that complicated. Every government does it. It saves you a bunch of money. It really is a win-win-win situation.

And another thing it does, Mr. Speaker, is it allows you to be a little bit more flexible with your operating hours. Most service offices are open evenings and weekends. You could, perhaps, renew your license at the DMV on the evenings or weekends, which I have been asking for four years, Mr. Speaker, and have made no progress at all. So I give up. Next Premier, do better. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Prosper NWT is the greatest name ever; I love it, I'm excited. I'm really excited for the CEO and board and to truly become arm's length and hopefully they don't have to deal with any more MLAs for a long time. My only concern, though, is I think the board right now has four Yellowknife Members and one Fort Smith Member, and then has some vacancies. Can I get an update on how we're doing with trying to add some diversity to the board. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I don't really like stat reviews ever. I don't even know if I want to review the act. To me, what I would have liked to see is basically two paragraphs added. One is that this act binds the Government of the Northwest Territories and then another one that says for further clarity, public lands can't be subject to sale or seizure.

I do think it's that simple. I get all of this other conversation about Indigenous land and municipalities and the nature of the infrastructure. It's similar to BC's legislation. Got roped into this, and then we kind of went down this spiral. And then I get that prompt payment legislation got tied into all of this and I -- but I really do think you could just bind yourself and then exempt yourself from sale and call it a day. That's really all I -- if that review accomplished that, then I don't even need a review. If that legislation was introduced in the next Assembly after the department gave it some thought, that would make me very happy, and I would not feel so begrudgingly voting for this presently. But, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I'm not actually sure that this is in other acts, that it does anything to list the specific land claims. You know, the original motion says section 35 of the Constitution Act and existing Aboriginal treaty rights, which then is meant to include of them. But we've done this before. And then we've kind of been having this debates in every single piece of legislation since this wording was introduced. And I would encourage the government -- I guess we don't have any time but to just put this in the Interpretation Act and then it applies everywhere, and we can call it a day. But here we are. We'll have the debate again about whether the specific matters when we have the general. Thank you.

Thank you. And just so I'm also abundantly clear about the binding the government part, I understand we're not selling public land or government land but if someone builds a health centre and doesn't get paid and it's on public land, assuming the Public Land Act has been implemented, and they go to file a lien, would they accept the claim of lien or would that be a no? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Member finally getting there. Yeah, I just -- you -- I think if you applied to sell, you know, the Tlicho, Gwich'in, or Inuvialuit, or Sahtu settlement lands under a constitutionally-protected agreement, you just can't. That's pretty clear to me. But it's less clear to me whether how, you know -- that's kind of just a backstop saying you can't sell them. How is the government interpreting this applying to them? So this is passed. Someone doesn't get paid on a Tlicho project on their lands and goes to file a lien, is land titles going to accept a lien on those lands? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. This motion just says that before we enter into one of these agreements, they're going to come to AOC and say, you got any thoughts. I found it odd the Premier said that, you know, we enter into agreements all the time without talking to Regular Members because it's actually been exact opposite in my experience. I think I got two briefings on the offshore accord negotiations before we actually signed them. I think we -- I got a briefing on almost every single land claim and what was going on through the special committee on reconciliation in Indigenous affairs. I mean, maybe officials weren't as forthcoming as I would have liked at times but there certainly was no sense that they were going not tell us anything before they signed an agreement. We actually got to see some of the correspondence on the carbon tax negotiations that was actually sent to the Ministers.

Similar when we were -- the feds were in negotiation for child care and the health care deal. So, you know, I felt whenever we've asked for a briefing on hey, where are you at with this, Ministers are more than willing to come and tell us what they're doing with the feds. And they do it in-camera. And I just expect if, you know, a Minister's going to enter into a shared decision-making on education or something, they would go to the applicable standing committee and say I'm about to sign this, this is what's happening, you got any thoughts? And, you know, sometimes they take the thoughts and sometimes they ignore them. But, you know, I'm kind of given the heads up and listening. It seems to already occur. I don't see any issue with this motion of kind of formalizing what we already do. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't support this motion. I think the Premier has made it clear that it's going to be mostly made up of officials. And I think, you know, as a general understanding that politicians meet with politicians and officials meet with officials. You know, I don't ever expect to show up to a deputy ministers committee, but I -- you know, I would appreciate, and I do appreciate, when Cabinet invites, you know, MLAs to the Council of Leaders or the IGC. And, you know, I even think they go a little farther when they're in bilaterals with an Indigenous government. If the leadership is there, they could invite the MLA from that region. But I don't view us either sending a staff person or sending an MLA to a group largely made up of officials.

I also think this is -- it's kind of -- it's pushing our role. And I get Regular MLAs, we always want to see how the sausage is made. But, you know, ultimately, we operate under the principle that, you know, Cabinet proposes and the legislature disposes. And there's going to be a bunch of lawyers in a room spending the next few years fighting over the definition of free prior informed consent. And we're going to get reports that they're sitting there fighting over the definition, and I don't know what that does. You know, really, at the end of the day, we have to wait and see what the end result is. It would be similar to, you know, me asking to attend a negotiation with a bunch of lead negotiators. I would love that opportunity but I recognize that that just isn't my role. You got to wait and you got -- sometimes you got to wait for decades to see what the end result is, and that's done in confidence, and that's so officials can speak frankly. And then when the time's finally done, they can take it back to their leadership who can go through their council approval process or their Assembly approval process or back to the Assembly and go through their legislative approval process. So, you know, given that the Premier has made it quite clear this will be mostly officials, I can't support this motion. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just will make some general comments on my thoughts. I think we as the government are in a pretty good place in implementing UNDRIP. We have a bill here before us today which is, you know, essentially identical to the ones passed by the federal government and British Columbia with a few minor tweaks. You know, there was a bit of a debate whether we should have done this earlier in the Assembly or a bit of a debate whether we should not have done it at all. I think, you know, getting it done within the life of this Assembly, considering it's a bill that -- you know, the reality is that it doesn't really accomplish anything. It's a plan to create a plan.

The real details are in the government's action plan that is to come. But I want to commend the government and the Premier for all of the work on getting agreement with Indigenous governments. Even after, you know, the MOU was signed and the bill was tabled, I note that the Premier went out and her staff went out, and Salt River and IRC have now signed onto the MOU. So, you know, there's still hope that we could eventually get everyone to the table, which is really what the goal of, I think, this government has been, and the Premier's goal has been, with the Council of Leaders and other similar bodies.

I look forward to following the work of the action plan committee and seeing, you know, what we really can do. We've now seen a federal version of the action plan. We've seen what BC has done. We've seen some of their failings. And I think there's an opportunity yes, for us to go well beyond what they're doing, get it right, and be true leaders in implementing UNDRIP.

I would like to thank everyone for their work in committee, thank all of the communities we visited, and all of the people who provided submissions. This work is just getting started. It will make many more years to come but I do think it is a moment to be proud of. And I am happy that, you know, despite perhaps some hesitancy, we got it done in the life of this Assembly. Thank you, Madam Chair.