Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, colleagues throughout the House here, for your contributions. I think we had a very good debate today. In fact, probably the most important role is to listen to our public, listen to our people and respond to their desires. That’s what we’re on about here today.

The issue here is not C-15, which has passed third reading and gone to the Senate. This motion has nothing to do with that. It assumes that Bill C-15 will be passed and implemented. This takes place in preparation for that, so you can toss out about half of what the Premier was on about there. It’s not about devolution. You can probably toss out the rest there. That’s a done deal. This is about responding to the voice of our people who are

concerned at what’s happening in this bill that was an omnibus bill, a typical approach that we had, seems less then democratic but is a common instrument these days so let’s deal with the impacts. That’s what this is. This is about mitigation.

I think a number of good points were raised, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate that we have this situation because, as many people said, there’s much support for devolution.

We’ve talked about this. In the spirit of the peace and friendship treaty, there should have been accommodation and discussions between Aboriginal groups and the federal government. We heard that very strongly and we are left in a situation where the public trust, public interest, has been ignored.

So let’s build a relationship with Aboriginal governments by working collaboratively with them on this issue. That’s a very strong theme that’s come out and was repeatedly mentioned.

GNWT has a comprehensive regional approach. That was an interesting point. We certainly do, so there’s huge potential for working together. There’s a big overlap with these big regional governments and it was mentioned that this motion represents a positive approach.

Again, one Member respected Aboriginal governments and claims but referred to the Yukon. Again, that was a misconception, in my mind, that was well laid out by Mr. Hawkins.

It’s less efficient. Again, I think it was well addressed in the remarks we heard today. The efficiency was clear. Again, I think the mining industry and development industry is very nervous because they realize that this new structure is likely to slow things down.

Several Members mentioned listening very closely at the hearings. I believe the Premier missed a good part of that. He made his presentation, the first presentation at the hearings, and then left, which was unfortunate if that was the case. Clearly, our people’s voices have not been reaching him and he has not been speaking for our people.

The motion encourages government to confine what they were doing already, to continue what they’re doing already and to work collaboratively, again seeking ways to resolve issues that are arising as a result of this new structure being put in place against the will of our people.

The loss of technical capacity is a huge part of what this bill is meant to do. It’s meant to recognize all of the positive things that have developed as a result of regional boards and technical capacity in regional offices. Is there a way we can capture those benefits? I appreciate that point. Again,

working with regional partners will strengthen their voices.

There is potential for integrating with new lands offices that are being planned again. This office could be taken by the Premier and is so much in line with so many of the things he is contemplating.

The suggestion that we have no jurisdiction in this because it’s federal legislation is simply not relevant here. This motion is not commenting on bills, it’s trying to deal with the results of the federal legislation that is about to be passed and implemented a year from now.

One Member had full confidence in the government to deal with the situation and that represents the diversity of opinion in the House.

Again, devolution, yes, but why should we have to pay for the other half of amendments to the MVRMA? That’s been repeatedly raised.

The regional boards clearly have a record of success and we want to capture their benefits.

An interesting couple of comments were the elucidation, really, of what the claims perspectives were by Mr. Yakeleya. Guaranteed positions on boards and so on, including territorial boards, but only after all land claims are settled and only then. Of course, this has not been achieved yet. One can’t help but wonder if this is going to postpone seriously getting down to work in our land claims in unsettled regions.

Aboriginal governments in claims areas where claims have been successfully put in place expected a strong opportunity for input in discussions with respect to the large board and they were prepared to have those discussions. I know they went to many meetings, but both parties didn’t agree, so again the spirit and intent of the agreements were not upheld, and there’s recognition that we have to deal, they have to deal with the reality, and I think we, as a government, have a responsibility to listen to them and work with them collaboratively.

It was mentioned that this is going back to the old ways, the colonial ways of doing things, and it represents a disempowerment rather than empowering of people to have a voice over their regions, and also about getting back constitutional rights and focused on successful oversight that regional authority brings.

The suggestion that this is part of devolution and not being able to support it because people have signed on and that’s a deal breaker, that again misses the mark here. That’s not an issue with this motion. I can assure Members of that. Because this bill before the House, Bill C-15, again, had nothing to do with that. This is a motion that directs us to prepare for when that bill is actually put into place and its consequences.

Again, Premier McLeod mentioned that there are a lot of accuracies and errors in the motion. I would suggest…