Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the biggest things that I realized when I came to this Assembly is that, even though I am from Hay River and we have KFN close by, Enterprise, Kakisa -- and these communities aren't that remote; they are connected on the road system -- I didn't really know that much about them. I was quite ignorant, despite spending so many years so close to them. I learned a lot from the people who I worked with, the Members who I worked with. I think that there are a few layers that you can use in order to hear from people in the communities.

There is no substitute for actually being on the ground in the community. I am not going to ignore a good idea just because it came from some of the other contenders, but getting into the communities is a good idea. There is no substitute for it, and not just in and out on a charter, in in the morning and out in the afternoon; I think that there needs to be some time spent in the communities.

Another way to hear from the communities is to listen to the Member who represents that region. I know that it was frustrating for me, as a Member from outside Yellowknife, to try to get things across to some Ministers. It was almost like they didn't believe you. I understand that we have to take it seriously when these concerns are brought by the Members.

I also talked in my speech about a feedback loop, where the government employees on the ground who are delivering the front-line services, who know communities, can get information back to the decision-makers. How do we hear from the GSOs, from the social workers, from the health nurses, what is going on in the community? We need to establish some sort of communication channel like that. Even meetings like we had yesterday with the Indigenous leaders; more like that.

Even when guys are here in the Great Hall just coming to watch the proceedings, I usually go out and chat with them. If it is someone whom I met in Trout Lake, I ask how their community garden is doing, or things like that. There is an effort on each of our own parts, as well, in addition to the government-wide effort, but we each have to educate ourselves, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is a perfect question for me. I was on the Indigenous file since 2007, and I understand completely all of the obstacles that seem to be in the way of an implementation of a claim. I agree with the adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. I really believe in that. It has been 17 years with Salt River, 17 years, and we still don't have recognition as a reserve within Canada. We do not have the O and M capacity and infrastructure that the other reserves across Canada have, just because we are north of 60.

I think that it is extremely important that we do all of the things that came out of the meeting yesterday. I felt that I was part of the meeting, even though I didn't say anything. It is extremely important that each and every one of us pass the -- I keep on forgetting the name because I don't have it in front of me. The Government of the Northwest Territories should fully endorse and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no problem implementing the articles of UNDRIP. My concern is that, while we heard a lot of support for implementing UNDRIP, we also heard a lot of support for certainty. To stand up and say that we are going to implement this blanket international document creates a lot of uncertainty for people.

I think that I would prefer to go to each table, to talk to each leader, and say, "What is the issue? What part of this are we not implementing? What can we do better?" and live up to the actual spirit and intent of it, as opposed to just say, "Okay, let's do it." What does that mean? I am not clear what that means. Legal scholars don't know what it means. I would rather just do the work to actually get the claims settled, to actually live up to the articles of it, than to make a statement like the 16^th Assembly did that really didn't amount to much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Masi, Mr. Chair. We heard clearly from yesterday's meeting with Aboriginal leadership across the Northwest Territories, and they have identified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Obviously, the federal government has it on their [English translation not provided] as Mr. Simpson alluded to, as part of the spirit and intent of such an agreement, I, for one, would like to engage more with the communities and the leaders on where they are going with this. I would like to engage them and hear their perspectives. We just heard the tip of the iceberg yesterday, and I would like to hear more from the communities, and also from the Regular Members, as well. Before we proceed to develop such an agreement from this House, I want to engage the general public on this particular piece of work. Masi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we are going to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I am in total agreement. In fact, the Government of the Northwest Territories endorsed that move in 2008. However, it is not only the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have the Truth and Reconciliation also that we need to consider and the Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. These are all serious pieces of research that have been done, suggestions, and we need to work towards implementing all of them in a true spirit, not to just say we are endorsing it but actually move forward.

I truly believe in self-determination. I believe in self-government, and I believe that we need to be able to offer our services, not to tell Indigenous governments, "This is how you do it," but to say, "We are here if you need support. We will help you if you need tools, if you need advice, whatever you need to be able to actualize self-determination and self-government." I think it's key to moving forward, to becoming better governments and to actually meeting all the needs of all the people in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the last sitting of the Legislature, it was apparent to those outside government that the Premier and Cabinet used the model of "Cabinet and three friends" to make decisions for the NWT. This was further confirmed by the Premier during an interview. This practice not only alienated the remaining MLAs in the decision-making process, but it further excluded the people they represented, which is totally unacceptable when what we need is inclusion and not exclusion.

Mr. Chair, the question I am going to pose comes from a resident of Hay River. The question is: if elected Premier, how would you do things differently to prevent Cabinet from perverting the consensus model of government by using the "Cabinet and three friends" model used by the Premier of the 18^th Legislative Assembly? Thank you.

Masi, Mr. Chair. I believe [Translation] when you look at that, it's very important. As you noticed yesterday and last week, we spoke about this issue, and yesterday a lot of leaders came and talked to us and gave us their own views. Right now, there's not very good communication. Right now, we have a consensus government; it's three people who work together to make decisions, but here, if I am Premier, I will work with all the Members. I know that we will agree on some and not agree on some, but we have to hold on to each other and support each other in order to meet with the federal government and also with other self-government people and also other groups.

Sometimes, you know we do not always agree on things. That has happened in the past, and I wish it would not happen. Right now, one of the Members from Hay River spoke. I agree with him. How can we work more together and move forward? I know we cannot always agree on everything, but we have to listen to each other. When someone is speaking, I want to listen.

I realized yesterday there are a lot of people who spoke, wanting us to resolve a lot of these issues from the past, and they want us to work with many different governments. I want to support that. If there is some issue, we have to go to our MLA or our elected Member and say, "This is my issue." We have to listen. Even though we do not always agree on the same issues and we have different opinions, we have to listen and try to resolve, especially when we are sitting at table with the federal government. We have to listen to each of our concerns, and that is the way we can move forward. Thank you for the question. [End of translation].

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was the crux of my speech earlier. I spoke about a number of things. First of all, there is always going to be an element of benevolence in any form of democratic system. You know, you have to trust that the leader will not take the easy way out. I put a lot of thought into how can we completely eliminate that, and you cannot, so you do have to trust your leader.

I think there are some things that we can do, though, like I mentioned: codifying having fireside chats so that issues do not become problems; requiring regular meetings between the chair of P and P and the Premier so that issues are not left to fester. Communication is the problem. There was a communication breakdown, and one side did not know what the other side was doing, and people thought the worst, and people decided, instead of having to deal with that, let's just not deal with that.

I think that we need to create an expectation on how we are supposed to govern, and that is what I was encouraging all of the Members here today to do, expect something from your Premier. We need to go forward with an expectation that the "plus three" model does not work. In Parliamentary systems, if something happens long enough, it becomes taboo, and that is what we need to make happen. We need to make a concerted effort so that, every time a new Assembly comes in, the idea of "plus three" is off the table because it is bad governance and everyone is aware of that.

I think this needs to be an ongoing process. I threw out a few ideas, but I would like to see, as we learn things, that we begin implementing those, as well. Consensus government is not that old. It's a relatively new style of government, the type we are using, and it's still growing, and we need to adapt it when challenges arise. This was one of those challenges, and we need to adapt and overcome. If there are changes now we can implement, great. If two years on, we see that, oh, here's another issue, here's another way we can fix this issue, let's implement that, as well. It should not just be the beginning of the Assembly and then we are done with it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I strongly believe that a good leader listens and is approachable and also has an open-door policy. Building relationships and making sure that everybody is inclusive is extremely important. We are all newly elected people here. My door will always be open. You do not have to be a Cabinet Minister to come and see me. You know, we built relationships with other people outside of this House and partnerships that will last forever. We will not agree on everything, and, if we do not agree on everything, we leave it at the door. You've got to be able to leave things at the door. If you are going to take it outside of the door, you have problems. I have been through a lot in my leadership and learned a lot of qualities of good leadership. Everybody should leave the room with a smile and be happy when they leave the room, no matter if we do not agree because we are not going to agree on everything, but I know that building a relationship with all of you would be a priority. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have said many times in this House, and in fact I have been kind of criticized in the media for saying it, and I think I still maintain it, that I am humble enough to say that I am not the expert in everything and that together, as a team, we make better decisions. I believe that better decision-making is not only around the way we operate and how we do our relationships. It's about policy development and how we do legislation. I did not like the three-vote idea. I never walked down the hall and got three specific votes, but I did walk down the hall, and I looked for support from all MLAs, met MLAs who would support me. That is normal practice, and I think that is good practice.

I also feel I worked really well with standing committee, mostly with social issues because that is the standing committee I went to, so I had changed kind of the format and I will talk about polytech for a minute. The usual procedure is that you go to Cabinet, you get authorization, you kind of have a game plan, and then you go into standing committee, and then you accept the changes or not, and then you fight it on the floor.

I worked with our standing committee chair at the time, and we came to an agreement that, instead of doing that, I would go to standing committee first, take their input, change the presentation, then take it to Cabinet for their approval, and then go back to standing committee. I thought that was a great example because the Polytechnic University when I announced to this House was accepted. It wasn't slaughtered all over the floor like junior kindergarten was previous to that.

So I think that we need to stop, as Cabinet, cramming legislation down people's throats. I don't think that is appropriate. I think we need to stand back. If we don't get legislation passed, it means that we as Cabinet did not do a good enough job, and we have to take ownership of that. So we either pass legislation that is agreed on by majority, because as everyone has said, not everyone will agree, but the majority needs to. If it is not passed, we need to accept that, and work harder at making it. It is about relationships, and we need to respect that all of us have expertise, and all of us together will make the best decisions for all residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Cabinet solidarity exists in virtually every parliamentary system, but also in every parliamentary system there are exceptions and free votes are often allowed on key issues. I believe this model of "Cabinet plus three friends" really gets down to the issue of Cabinet solidarity. Are you, as Premier, willing to allow exceptions to Cabinet solidarity, and in what cases would you allow that?