I think that was a maybe, Mr. Speaker. And I get that when things are going through the Cabinet process, there's Cabinet confidentiality and you can't, as a Minister, you know, expose the outcome of that. I guess I'm trying to understand what is going to Cabinet potentially or could possibly. My understanding is we -- version one was an Indigenous employment policy and then a diversity and inclusion policy which added a number of new categories, including P2 and disability and sexuality and racialized persons. That was version 1. We went out, engaged on that. Version 2 essentially dropped the entire equity, including the old P2s, and just had an Indigenous Employment Policy. So those are the two options. I'm just wondering is there some sort of third possible amendment that exists or is in the work to the Affirmative Action Policy? Is there more work being done that may or may not result in the change? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a bit of a back and forth there between the Minister of Finance and the Member from Twin Lakes about if or when the Affirmative Action Policy is being changed, and I think I kind of lost the plot there. Can the Minister just confirm whether the Affirmative Action Policy is going to be changed in the very short remaining life of this government? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Affirmative Action Policy that the GNWT has been in place for about 40 years and has seen little improvement in increasing Indigenous people. And, Mr. Speaker, I think before any review is conducted by the government, they have to ask themselves whether they're willing to actually make changes.

The Affirmative Action Policy is a bit of a political bombshell, Mr. Speaker, because I think there is broad agreement that everybody wants Indigenous Northerners to be priority one. And then, really, the question becomes what to do about P2s. And if the government is going to remove P2s from the policy, then they have to go out and do that. Because, Mr. Speaker, at this point it's very unclear whether anything will result from the government's months and years long review of the Affirmative Action Policy.

We have seen different drafts of the policy. We've seen different versions of the policy. It is clear there are very strong divides and opinions in this territory on this but, at this point, we have to do something, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are truly committed to increasing the number of Indigenous people in the public service in this territory, then I think the government has to look no further than the Standing Committee on Government Operations' review of the Affirmative Action Policy.

We had four simple recommendations:

1. Run P1 only hiring policies. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a job advertised that was just open to P1s. That is a step we can take tomorrow. We should do that. It can rebuild trust.
2. Mr. Speaker, recommendation number 2 was around decentralization. It's not rocket science. If you want more Indigenous people in the public service, put the jobs where the Indigenous people are. You have to identify positions in headquarters, and you have to move them to communities, Mr. Speaker. That is how you increase Indigenous people in the public service.
3. Mr. Speaker, change the appeal process so that the appeal process can actually overturn a job. Mr. Speaker, right now the appeal process just kind of leads to this end thing where you may or may not be offered another similar position in the future. It does not overturn a mistake and give you the position that you should have got in the first place if you are an Indigenous P1 candidate who didn't get it.
4. Mr. Speaker, recommendation number 4 from our committee, guarantee one ADM position in all departments is Indigenous.

These are four tangible recommendations made by our committee after years of reviewing this. If the government is serious about this, they need to listen to that report and respond to them and make up their mind whether we're removing P2s or not, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Can I just confirm -- I think before that this was money administered on behalf of others and then we changed the financial reporting, and it shows up this way. And essentially we're just holding this money for the communities and these fluctuations are based on how we get it out the door, is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can someone just explain to me what's going on here with this line item? It was, last fiscal, the actuals were $18 million, and then we were advised -- sorry, two fiscals there was 18 then we were advised it was 66 and now it's 22. Can I just have a high level explanation of what's going on? Thank you.

Yeah, I understand we've been asking the federal government for money for this so they must have a guess of what it's going to cost. And actually at one point, the Minister Vandal said that the money was very close. Like, he almost said he was giving it to us. I think it was coming out of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. So I'm assuming the feds know how much the project costs. And I mean, I don't know how they can if we haven't picked a route but they must know something. Are the feds giving us any money for Taltson any time soon, or did that kind of disappear with this whole first we have to go through the MOU process? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. You know, and I get that's the nature of these; you got to do a lot of planning work and you got to spend a few million dollars. I mean, we've been spending -- I think since the 16th Assembly we've been spending a few million dollars every budget on Taltson to do some engineering assessments. And I get the project is kind of evolving and it's, you know, no longer going to the diamond mines and it's relying on a bunch of metal mines. I know Pine Point in their preliminary economic assessment says they're buying power from the Taltson at 11 cents a kilowatt hour, which is very, very cheap compared to everyone else. Do we have any idea what we would sell the power at Taltson for? Is it going to be significantly lower than everyone else in the territory pays? Thank you.

Thank you. You know, I think this requires a very fulsome public debate. How much are we selling the power for? How much power are we selling? How long -- how many mines do we need to exist to buy it? What's the payback? You know, what is -- what are these projects doing in other jurisdictions? How much are their cost overruns? How much is it roughly going to cost? I just can't believe I'm being asked for money without any of that information. I guess can I have how much money right now is the government asking for this Taltson Expansion pre-construction? Thank you.

Yeah, that's all fine. I get the debate. I get the debate when to build it and, you know, this debate if you build it they will come. You know, I just don't understand why we can't have a rough estimate of what it's going to cost. It just doesn't -- it's like I'm having a debate with no idea. I don't even know what to ask next. Do we know the route yet? Did we make a decision on whether it's submarine or going around the lake? Thank you.