Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In quick summary; shortly after the new government came into office in Ottawa, I asked the new Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, a very short question: would he take seriously a proposal from us to resume discussions about the devolution of prosecutions, with a commitment to complete it, if he had clear terms and conditions that he wanted met to do so. He responded yes, he would seriously enter into such a process.

I then directed officials to begin the discussion. At this time, it's still unclear to me if the Minister is entering into discussions with the intended purpose of concluding devolution, provided his terms and conditions are met. Previous governments have realized governments had entered into discussions without a clear commitment to conclude the process. As I understand it, the last government, at the last moment, decided -- without any substantial decisions -- to turn down the suggestion after months of discussion.

So the first question we're asking the federal government to answer is being done through appointment of an official: Stien Lal a former deputy minister of Justice to this government. Mr. Stien Lal has taken the question of deciding how this process should be conducted by both governments and will be making recommendations to the federal Minister of Justice in the next month or so. We have argued that the first question that should be answered is should the federal government enter into these discussions with the intended purpose of concluding the negotiations or the discussions clearly, if their terms and conditions are met. That first question should be answered within the next month or so.

Again, I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but I'm trying to avoid a situation where I negotiate in good faith for months with the government only to be told at the end that even if we meet all their conditions, they will still not honour the intent of the negotiations. So I'm trying to get the federal government to commit, as we are, that if they have their terms and conditions met and if we have our terms and conditions met, we should conclude the negotiations. That first question is being addressed up front. Hopefully, we should have a response by the federal government in the next couple of months and, hopefully, we will have some definitive response to give to Members by June. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the issues that will be addressed in the course of discussions. That is to ensure the impartiality of that function, the office of prosecutors. We have developed some models for the federal government to consider and we will be advancing it to them officially, once we have established that we have a credible negotiation process to both adhere to. We recognize that as a critical, fundamental issue that we can address and we

believe we have developed some models which can address that issue directly. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are presently over 17 person years allocated to the regional office in the Northwest Territories, and a budget of $2.75 million. We believe, at this time, that it is sufficient to help us carry out the function that is being carried out by this particular office under the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the most obvious benefits to this government assuming responsibility for prosecutions will be in the ability we will have to give policy direction to that office. For instance, at the present time, there is a limitation in ability of federal officials who carry out the functions of the office of prosecutors. They get their direction from Ottawa. So when we are pursuing

more community control, more community direction in the area of Justice, there is an anomaly with the people who are players in that forum.

We cannot give any direction to that part of the Justice system that, for instance, lays charges and decides on the way in which justice can be performed because they work and get direction from the federal government. So we are trying to move towards more localized decision-making by communities, certainly by the people of the Northwest Territories. Unless we bring that function closer to home, we believe there will continue to be a serious limitation on the flexibility and the sensitivity that is needed to be brought into that element.

There is also an example that we have given in recent days, should the proposed Firearms Act, brought in by Allan Rock, be passed into law, that while as a Legislature we should continue to push for less punitive and severe penalties to be placed on those people who break the law as set out in legislation, we will also benefit from having this government assume the powers of prosecution by giving us the flexibility to decide where the law should be severely imposed and where there should be some flexibility imposed. Again, there is an example where that could not be done from an office in Ottawa. Thank you.