We’ve heard clearly for quite a number of years that some of the groups, in their opinion and their position developed, is one that clearly they feel they need to deal with their process first before any agreement-in-principle was to be signed. In fact, in our protocol work it was talked about having key issues dealt with first before having any signing, and those issues, as I expressed to the regional leadership, are actually in the agreement-in-principle talking about how we go forward in building that relationship in a formal way, so there is jurisdiction and sharing of the delivery where there is an overlap. For example, look at our land claims that are in place where there are co-management boards, those types of things exist and could be used in that area. It’s a sense of not luring them back, but as we have consistently said, the table is open for them to join us and that we’re looking forward to them coming back to this table, because to influence the overall outcome and decisions made, they need to be in the tent earlier rather than later. Thank you.
Floyd Roland on Question 353-16(5): Devolution Agreement-In-Principle
In the Legislative Assembly on February 2nd, 2011. See this statement in context.
Question 353-16(5): Devolution Agreement-In-Principle
Oral Questions
February 1st, 2011
See context to find out what was said next.