Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m certainly interested in the questions and exchange with Mr. Bromley. A lot of questions have to be thought out. Certainly, when we negotiated and settled the Sahtu Dene/Metis Comprehensive Land Claim, chapter 27 spoke to the Surface Rights Board. Because that legislation hasn’t happened until today and a few months ago we had a Surface Rights Board, we had an arbitration panel that was before us. The arbitration panel, under chapter 6 of our land claim, was like the Maytag repair person, very quiet. The agreement was already negotiated and settled, put together, and we had an arbitration panel but it was never called upon or needed. I met with them every year at our annual Sahtu General Assembly and they were very quiet. So we know we have a value in working things out.
The Sahtu, again under chapter 27, we have the Surface Rights Board. As Mr. Bromley stated clearly, it gets quite complex and confusing. You have settled land claims and land claims being negotiated, so you have different access to lands and different interpretations to lands. In our land claims it’s set out very clearly on the roles and responsibilities of the Surface Rights Board and what we negotiated in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and received assent to this document.
The point I want to make, for clarification, is this act will take in the agreement that we settled here and just to clarify that all members of the board must live in the Northwest Territories. Is that correct?