Can I get an over/under on $2 billion? Thank you.

Thank you. I see we have some pre-construction engineering regulatory activities for Taltson Expansion pre-construction. Do we have a rough cost estimate of what we think the Taltson Expansion will cost? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addition, in that July report, you know, it kind of just says the work to create an Indigenous Procurement Policy is ongoing, there's no kind of timeline on there. I'm wondering if we have any sense of -- I know that's not going to be done in in the next week, but is there any hope of us getting that done in some sort of timeline, or will we have an Indigenous Procurement Policy as a government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounded like we're not going to quite get there in the remaining week. I'm skeptical that the next government will take that on. I know the definition of northern business is complex, and I think you really just have to make a decision and commit to it. I don't suspect there's agreement. But in reviewing that, it says, the Minister's report tabled in July -- or released in July, it says a new definition of northern business which will result in the removal of Schedule 3 from BIP has been created. I understand it's been shared with Indigenous governments. Can the Minister tell us what that new definition is of northern business? Is it the same one that the procurement review panel recommended two years ago, or have we come up with a new one? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really do not like leaving things to the next Assembly. I think if you look at the last Assembly's mandate, a lot of the things that were very close, and it's clear hundreds of hours of staff time went into them and, you know, there was perhaps some last minute disagreement. Never got done. We didn't take them on. They didn't make it into our mandate. And all of that work disappeared. There's quite a few things in our mandate that I'm sure the next Assembly will let die as well. I'm hoping that the Business Incentive Policy is not one of them. So my question is for the Minister of ITI, are we going to make any changes to the Business Incentive Policy in the life of this Assembly? I know there's only a week left, but perhaps I could dream, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We hired an independent panel, and they did some really good work on procurement, and they delivered their report in June 2021. And Mr. Speaker, I somewhat naively thought that, you know, within a few months after that we'd see changes to procurement.

I reviewed their report. I thought they did good work. I didn't really disagree with any of the recommendations. They made a few recommendations to change the thresholds in BIP, increasing the top $1 million to $2 million, recommended creating a local labour adjustment, and a few other tweaks.

They recommended a new definition of northern business, ones that a company would either have to have 51 percent ownership or a majority of its employees in the Northwest Territories. Importantly, they recommended using that definition which would then get rid of schedule 3 and finally remove Walmart from BIP. Yet, here are, Mr. Speaker, at the very end of this Assembly, and we still have not amended our policy.

Additionally, they recommended the creation of an Indigenous procurement policy. As far as I can tell, that conversation went completely off the rails, and there is no Indigenous procurement policy any hope in this Assembly. I personally would have just created a target similar to the Yukon and called it a day. I think getting everyone in the room who probably was never going to agree in the first place did more harm than good. But, Mr. Speaker, here we are.

And in August 2023, the government released finally its response to the review on procurement. And there are some hope in there. Apparently we have a new definition of northern business. We seem to be making no changes to the BIP threshold, and it doesn't look like Indigenous procurement is going anywhere. But maybe, just maybe, Walmart will finally be removed from BIP if we get that policy passed in the life of this Assembly. I'll have questions for the Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I've long had issues with the formatting of the way we present the capital estimates, largely because it's an accounting document, but I -- you know, I think you could go to any single municipality and see how they do their capital planning. They essentially have a get chart that shows you what year a project will start, what year it will finish, the total cost of that project, and you can kind of look through time what's planned weekly. We do not provide the total costs of projects in our capital estimates. We believe that that it will affect procurement. I don't buy that argument. And we seem quite bad at getting fair value for dollar on a lot of our contracts and committing them on time. You know, I could go through, as I've done in years past, almost every single project and ask the same three questions: How much is this total project going to cost? How much federal money did we get from it? How is it being tendered? You know, basic questions. But I really don't think I should have to answer those questions. I think that that should be presented with the capital estimates.

I've been promised for years now some sort of dashboard. I don't quite know what's going to be in the dashboard but I'm told that it will track projects as they progress and hopefully will track overages and change orders and delays and perhaps even some reasoning. But I remain cautiously optimistic that one day we will have a dashboard.

I guess to reiterate what I said in my statement today, really, I think the perfect example of this is the Taltson hydro expansion. The government is asking for an undisclosed amount. They won't tell us how much publicly they're asking for the Taltson hydro expansion in this document, and yet they won't tell us how much the project costs. I just can't understand any reason I can't have a general estimate of what that project costs. Is it a billion? Is it $2 billion? That is all I want to know so I can have a coherent conversation about it.

Absence some -- like, this is our last kick at the can but I just can't see myself supporting these capital estimates absent some progress being made on either that dashboard, on the costs of projects, on getting a copy of that Taltson business case, on just any sort of recognition that the way we are doing this is lacking in transparency. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last one, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Thebacha, that Committee Report 73-19(2), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Annual Reports of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission be received and adopted by the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

INTRODUCTION

The Standing Committee on Government Operations (Committee) has reviewed the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Annual Reports of the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Act requires the Commission to prepare an annual report. The report includes information on the numbers and grounds of complaints filed. The Speaker tables the report in the Legislative Assembly. Once tabled, Committee reviews the report.

As part of Committee's reviews, Committee received public briefings from:

- Mr. Charles Dent, Chair of the NWT Human Rights Commission;

- Ms. Nicole MacNeil, Executive Director of the NWT Human Rights Commission; and

- Mr. Sheldon Toner, Chair of the Human Rights Adjudication Panel.

The public briefings were held on April 26, 2022, and June 26, 2023, for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 annual reports, respectively.

This report summarizes Committee's reviews. Committee is recommending two legislative changes to address gaps that could give rise to human rights violations - the first, to prohibit genetic discrimination; and the second, to legislate accessible design standards. The report also makes observations about how the Human Rights Commission classifies and reports on human rights complaints.

Recommendations

Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination

The Human Rights Commission made one recommendation in its 2021-2022 annual report: To add genetic discrimination as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Commission previously recommended - and Committee endorsed - this change in 2019. At the time, Committee also moved a motion to amend the Human Rights Act to this effect. The government declined to make the change, citing reluctance to be the first province or territory to adopt such a ground. The government was also concerned that the change could undermine access to affordable insurance, based on a letter from a life and health insurance industry association.

Since then, the federal government has amended its human rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the ground of genetic characteristics. This Committee in the 18th Assembly also heard that all G7 countries have laws that protect against genetic discrimination, and that residents in the Northwest Territories want similar protections so that they can access genetic testing to identify inherited health risks without fear of reprisal. Northerners should not be denied insurance coverage based on their genetic make-up.

Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 1: That the Government of the Northwest Territories add genetic discrimination as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act.

Legislating Accessible Design Standards

Disability continues to be the most common reason cited in complaints of discrimination. About three in five new complaints in 2021-22 alleged this ground of discrimination. Over the past ten years, this type of discrimination has been cited almost 170 times. The volume of such complaints highlights the relevance of taking action to make the Northwest Territories more accessible and accommodating for residents with disabilities.

For years, the Human Rights Commission has called for the government to adopt an updated building code with stronger accessibility standards. The government currently relies on the National Building Code as the minimum acceptable standard - but this is not necessarily considered accessible by the broad concepts of the NWT Human Rights Act. The Commission has pointed to building standards from the Canadian Safety Association (CSA) as a preferred alternative.

Committee has previously endorsed the Commission's advocacy in this area. In 2020, Committee recommended that the government ensure building standards meet requirements in the NWT Human Rights Act. In response, the government referenced several encouraging examples of increasing accessibility requirements for the built environment. However, the government stopped short of committing to legislate more accessible building standards for all builders across new and existing infrastructure.

Committee believes that residents, builders, and building owners need to know what is required to make a building completely accessible. Committee acknowledges this work is complex and requires a broader cultural shift towards expecting inclusivity in the built environment. The government's role is to ensure residents have equitable access to opportunities and services, and standards and codes must be consistent with legislation.

Committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 2: That the Government of the Northwest Territories develop building standards legislation that incorporates minimum requirements for accessible design. The legislation should require new infrastructure to adhere to Canadian Safety Association (CSA) standard B651 “Accessible Design for the Built Environment” and set a timeline for existing infrastructure to meet the standard.

Observations

Classifying Human Rights Complaints

There are 22 grounds protected by the Human Rights Act. In its annual report, the Human Rights Commission breaks down how many times each of the 22 grounds was cited in complaints. Committee notes that certain grounds are conceptually closely related to others. For example, “race”, “ancestry”, “place of origin”, and “ethnic origin” seem closely related. Committee is concerned that the multitude of grounds could distort our understanding of the nature of human rights complaints in the Northwest Territories - in particular, that what the general public would consider to be “racism” may be undercounted in official statistics because these complaints are classified under a ground besides “race”. Committee encourages the Commission to explore this issue further and provide more understanding through the annual report.

Conclusion

This concludes the Standing Committee on Government Operations' Report on the Review of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Annual Reports of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission. Typically, Committee includes a recommendation in each report requesting a response from government within 120 days. The recommendation is then moved as a motion in the House and Cabinet is required to respond. However, since the 19th Legislative Assembly will dissolve in less than 120 days, Committee has decided to leave out this recommendation and requests that the government provide a public response to this report, even of a preliminary nature, before the beginning of the 20th Assembly.