Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the Member for meeting with the students, because as soon as I met with elected officials, they were really anxious and provided suggestions and ideas. There is one area, the cultural programming that the Member is referring to through the college, it won’t be through my department, but I can definitely work with the college, because there will be a college campus. The college will be going through their strategic planning, as well, and this will be related to them as well. The meetings with the students have been circulated, as well, the minutes, and then part of that will be highlighted as part of the culture programming at the main campus. I will be sharing that with the Aurora College Board of Governors.

I appreciate the compliments from the Minister. Actually, it was Mr. Moses that headed up this meeting with some of the Members here, and we actually had a good discussion.

I want to talk about the attraction. We talked about how do we attract people. Aurora College can be a very unique campus that would bring students or people from outside into the Northwest Territories saying, yes, this is a worthwhile place. I want to ask the Minister because he controls the budget. We control the budget. The Minister makes presentations to us through this form of session. Is this something that he would look into presenting at maybe in the future Assemblies, our positions for elders in the campuses of the Aurora College?

This Legislative Assembly controls the budget, and once it’s passed we start implementing per departmental initiatives. I understand where the Member is coming from. This particular subject will be brought to the attention of the board of governors so they can add it to their strategic planning within their college campuses, whether it be one campus, two campuses or all three campuses.

Two, I agree with the Member that we need to attract those students to our three campuses throughout the Northwest Territories. That is our overall goal, and I promise the Member that this will be addressed with the board of governors so at least that will be part of the discussion as they move forward with their budget preplanning process.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The time for question period has expired. Item 9, written questions. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Finance. The revenue summary in the 2014-15 Main Estimates, Department of Finance, page 5-9, lists personal income tax at $104.8 million and corporate income tax at $53.1 million. The 2014-15 budget address stated these revenues will be about $30 million lower than forecasted.

1. Please advise, in dollars, how much personal

income tax and corporate income tax revenues are expected in fiscal year 2014-15, including the anticipated loss of $30 million.

2. Please advise the total expected revenues, in

dollars, for the fiscal year 2014-15.

3. Please advise how our expenditures will be

adjusted to account for the anticipated $30 million loss of revenues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to

opening address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start by noting that, of course, this motion is in response to the crystal clear and unanimous voices of our Aboriginal partners, who between them constitute the greater part of the residents in the Northwest Territories. It’s in response to the many residents who have similarly spoken clearly through groups like Alternatives North, the unions and Ecology North and as individual citizens. It is in response to the Chamber of Mines who have nervously, though perhaps belatedly, acknowledged that the regional boards are indeed working well.

We could put forward a motion simply objecting to the closure of the regional boards, and of course we would be ignored. This has happened at the federal level. But we have a situation where we need to try and do something to make the best of a bad situation, keeping the regional capacity in places that allow the boards to keep a finger on the pulse of each region and allow for direct engagement with people in each region.

But really this motion, rather than be overly specific here, urges Cabinet to sit down with our Aboriginal partners and discuss with them what mitigation can be taken, what specific actions can be put in place

and structures to address the gap that this will be leaving.

I guess the Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board will remain largely unchanged. Well, that’s a given and that’s the whole point here. In fact, the point is that all of the regional boards will disappear and the structure that already exists for the rest of the unsettled areas will remain, clearly a major change to what’s happening.

Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley board will include at least one member appointed from an Aboriginal government, but the problem is for a regional project it doesn’t have to be the representative from that region. Representation similar in proportion, but the problem is again that the people doing the representing will not be as familiar. How can a large board be familiar with one region as to the same degree as it might be with the regional boards? That, of course, was the whole intent of these structures, was to provide that regional focus and the power, which I believe this government professes to, in the hands of the people to control the pace and scale of development within their own area.

The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is a similar institution. It functions without regional clans. There are considerable concerns about not having regional nominations confirmed by the Minister, which is currently the case over and over again. In fact, that’s happening as we speak, and the basic fact is that a representative from the region will be more knowledgeable and better at representing the best interests of the public when they are based in the region. That holds for the boards as well.

The Cabinet might say, well, who supports this? I think I’ve already covered that and it was clear, if you were at the hearings on this subject, that many boards, many groups, many citizens and even the Chamber of Mines were speaking out in ways that showed there was little support for this.

Cabinet might claim that these regional land boards were not meant to be there in perpetuity. Well, that may be, but they were meant to be there for a good while and to, again, enable the ability of the local and regional people to control the pace and scale of development in their regions. That’s what they did and they did it very well. With the number of evaluations that were done, clearly they were doing it very well.

Again, Cabinet might say the chair can appoint people to small panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to bring a regional emphasis, well, they can indeed, but this is not required and therein is the rub, because the federal government provides policy direction to the structure of this new super-board. Cabinet might question the efficiency and effectiveness, but again,

studies have been clear on that. They might say that there’s no reason to believe that a single larger board would not be as effective and efficient as a series of smaller boards, but I submit that this is highly debatable. Many think the new approach, in fact, will lead to an adversarial approach, lack of confidence, delayed processes because they’re not based in the regions, and I think that’s where the nervousness of our…(inaudible)…mines is coming from and the reason why they’re sort of shaking in their boots. Again, a highly debatable point that we need to raise.

Again, I know that Cabinet, at our urging, has raised a number of issues in the past that were highlighted in the environmental audits. Unfortunately, they’ve raised those ineffectively. Even after these amendments to the MVRMA those issues largely still remain.

The Surface Rights Board Act that is being put in place through these amendments, of course, comme ci, comme ca. I mean, there have been no issues, almost zero issues in the settled land claims on surface rights issues. All of them have to do in the unsettled land claim areas and where is the settlement on those claims? That’s what we need, not these sorts of things that take power away from the people.

Cabinet might say the creation of a single board is not intended to deal with every issue that exists but to focus on the efficiency of board operations already. I’ve already addressed this, so we’ll move on.

Again, the reference to the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that communities and regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into the land use decision, a draft policy of this Cabinet, this motion is totally in line with that. So I don’t think there’s any question to be raised there.

The opportunity for meaningful engagement, again, will be reduced. As a result of this, Cabinet will likely claim that, oh, there’s still the opportunity in the Big Apple. I’m sure they’ll go out every once in a while and have coffee, you know. But in fact, clearly when you remove regional land and water boards, that opportunity is reduced substantially, that’s what we’re on about here.

The GNWT has continued, I am sure, to press Canada to retain a regional administrative capacity in each region and so on. This motion is meant to very much support them in that work.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are saying let’s work with our regional governments, regional Aboriginal governments. Let’s sit down with them, find out what structure they have in mind. We’re offering some suggestions on what Cabinet could take to the table. But let’s sit down with them and have those discussions and have them in a transparent

way, publicly, so that everybody can contribute to the discussion if they so wish, and let’s capture those and put them in place.

Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is not responsible for conducting assessments for the Legislative Assembly. One might ask where does that come from, what would they be thinking. We work with federal counterparts all the time and I would submit that with devolution and with these sorts of amendments that are not supported by the people, we’re going to have to do that more and more.

I’m happy to say, in wrap-up, that basically, as stated in the recent hearings on Bill C-15 with respect to amendments to the MVRMA, the vast majority of problems the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has are associated with areas where the unsettled land claims are, not with the regional boards which have been proven effective and efficient.

The bottom line is we have a system that isn’t broken but the federal government is insisting on fixing it anyway, and against the will of our Aboriginal government partners and many residents. Our Aboriginal partners feel so strongly about this that they are thinking about taking the federal government to court. I know there’s a lot of work going on in that area. I don’t see how our Premier could ignore that factor or not speak up for their interests. Again, this is a majority of people we’re talking about here.

This motion recognizes this situation and proposes some mitigation measures to provide support to our regional partners to address the needs and gaps that would be left by C-15 amendments to the MVRMA, and it helps our land and management regime to continue its regional success with a strong regional role. In fact, I don’t doubt, as the Premier has said, there are a number of initiatives underway, so I would expect that the Cabinet should take this as support for those initiatives. But I hope they would also take it as making sure that those are very transparent and reported publicly to the people of the Northwest Territories and this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know my seconder, Mr. Nadli, and I both very much appreciate the support of our colleagues here and very much look forward to debate on this motion put forward today. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’ll allow the seconder of the motion, Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of this motion because of the fact that on one hand devolution can be a good thing; however, on the flip side of this, unfortunately, we’re doing away with structures that happened and were long, battled-out boardroom discussions especially for claimant groups. I don’t prefer to speak on their

behalf, but every inch that has been gained has been a long, hard battle, I believe, for regional land claim groups, and more so for unsettled regions that don’t have. In particular are the Dehcho First Nations and the Akaitcho Territory, and other groups more than likely down the line will want to negotiate a settlement at some point. This limits their opportunities to have a voice in terms of aspiring to become autonomous in terms of a region and working together collectively as a tribal alliance. This basically doesn’t really support their efforts.

I wanted to just highlight that in another time I had an opportunity to work in a forum where we were trying to move a negotiations process, and there are some very fundamental beliefs you have to try to get beyond. In this instance, there was a meeting that I personally attended, and we talked for about three days and they were talking about how, between First Nations and the federal government, they should be strictly bilateral, that it’s based on a treaty and it’s based on the principle that First Nations have brokered an arrangement through their treaties basically on the idea that it was a peace and friendship treaty, so, in that spirit, any kind of arrangement should continue to be bilateral. It took a long time to come to the realization that for us to move forward, we have to move beyond our fears, move beyond the concepts that had been embellished in our mind for a long time and had become part of the passionate beliefs that we had. After three days of meetings, it came to be that we had to expand our forum and allow ideas of a tripartite body of ensuring that First Nations, the Government of Canada and the GNWT would sit down at the same table and talk about issues that are affecting First Nations, but with a public interest at the end of the day that everyone’s interest and well-being of the NWT be considered.

That’s basically the philosophy I became familiar with. It’s helped me in terms of walking a path of ensuring that we listen to all the voices. One very strong lesson that I’ve learned through elders – and this House is founded on the idea of consensus – is we might disagree and we might agree to disagree, but at the same time we have to listen to each other to ensure we have respect. We are trying to understand what the other person is thinking in terms of their grievances, their perspective, and trying to not to become so entrenched in your position that at the end of the day you disregard the common interest that you are trying to build a relationship on.

Those principles have been the guide of how structures have been set up in the regions. Unfortunately, as well intended as this devolution process might be, it’s got some consequences. One of the ultimate and very clear consequences is it’s going to eliminate regional water boards.

Earlier I pointed out in the regional administrative structures within which the GNWT works, you have the Inuvik district centre, the Sahtu or Norman Wells district, the Fort Simpson district office and the Yellowknife district office. Then you have, perhaps, Deh Cho district offices, then Fort Smith, Hay River district offices. So you have regional structural organizations that could work well, yet we’re not building up on that. We’re pulling at the very foundation of ensuring that we work collaboratively together and respectfully within regions.

There was a time that this government was very strong in abdicating the idea of regional councils. Now they’re absent. Now what we have is tribal alliances. It’s most tribal First Nations that basically work to ensure the best interest of the regions. There was a time when this government funded regional councils so that municipal leaders and First Nations would come together and come to at least a common agenda of ensuring the regional interest was put first.

In that same experience, a prominent, very strong leader that I looked up to at the time explained to me how it is that we could certainly bridge the gap between what First Nations were thinking and the GNWT and its public aspirations to represent all the people of the NWT. This leader explained to me, regions are trying to set up self-government structures. Perhaps you think the path that you’ve taken is so far apart from what we think, but look at the regional district structures that the GNWT has in place. It’s so close to how, at some point, it can converge the GNWT and First Nations and they can work very closely together and pull their wills together to ensure we have a very good structure that works for all the regions but at the same time the people of the NWT.

I think we have structures and precedents in place that easily could be re-adapted, revitalized to ensure that regional voices do continue. I think this motion is constructive. The hard fact of reality is devolution is going forward. Unfortunately, in that same swipe, we’re doing away with regional boards. We have to show some leadership to the people out there that have perhaps lost sight of working together, becoming disenfranchised and at the same time being very fractured. Things are kind of in disarray, and I think this motion is a gesture of ensuring that there is another body that we stand for and that includes regional voices. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion, Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the mover, Mr. Bromley, and the seconder, Mr. Nadli, for bringing this motion forward as it is deserving of a spirited and fair debate in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud all groups and residents who have commented on federal Bill C-15 leading up to today’s debate.

First of all, is this bill a perfect bill? I think many would say anything that provokes any type of change or provides a different vision is never truly perfect in design, as we are finding out. I know from other polls or speaking to many residents of Range Lake or Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, I found most are in favour of devolution and moving forward as we mature with province-like powers.

I don’t want to go into the detail of the bill or regurgitate the pillars behind the new federal legislation, as this is not my duty as an elected official of this House. Instead, I want to offer some general collective thoughts that I have received from many of my residents in preparation for today.

Many agree that we have much to learn and a lot more work ahead of us as we face the many challenges of resource potential. As a Northerner concerned about ensuring the future of our territory, I respect and understand the positions of Aboriginal governments and their current land claim agreements.

That said, there are still a number of incorrect or misleading ideologies that are surfacing that suggest our environmental process will be left in the hands of potentially unfamiliar people with some of these proposed changes. I believe we have seen improved processes with our land and water boards, as a general rule, and I believe we are striving for a territory for greater efficiency putting us, in my humble opinion, at the same level playing field as other jurisdictions such as our sister territory of the Yukon.

I also believe we still have a number of issues that need to be ironed out to make our mining and oil and gas sector a lot more effective. I don’t believe all our hopes and dreams are within the creation of a single board of the Mackenzie Valley as I believe this would be a tall order.

However, I believe this new concept should allow us to focus on more efficiency and, all the while, hopeful that we are able to concentrate and further develop our land use plans and have strong, continued negotiations for our unsettled land claims.

I firmly believe that all 33 communities and the regions of the NWT will continue to have the same, if not more, opportunities for effective management and dialogue in a post-devolution environment when home rule of our resources is managed right here in our backyard.

I wish to leave the Members of the House with a small excerpt from a presentation to the House of Commons’ standing committee on Bill C-15 from our very own NWT Chamber of Commerce as I

believe it summarizes my final thought quite eloquently.

“In our view, Bill C-15 is the next logical and biggest single step forward in the devolution of powers of our territorial government in history. We are a resource-based economy. Managing our resources effectively and creating a healthy investment climate will support a strong local and national economy and provide significant benefits to all communities and to all residents. Bill C-15 is a new beginning for the Northwest Territories.”

Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, given the complex and very direct narrative within the context of this motion that is being asked of the GNWT to undertake, I will not be supporting this motion today. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion brought before the House today is one of concern of some Members and also some Aboriginal groups throughout the Northwest Territories. The concern, obviously, is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was included in Bill C-15 when it was brought into the House of Commons.

I was very lucky to attend the one here in the Northwest Territories at the Explorer Hotel. I listened to all types of individuals, leaders, past leaders, and new and future leaders speak about these bills and these provisions. I listened very carefully to all sides of the story and to the governments talk about how these provisions were in the land claims agreements when those were all signed. Now they are just bringing those out to address this issue.

Also, if you look at the reports that come out on the low grade the GNWT gets on the red tape system to get projects moving forward, which I also agree with. Obviously we did miss out on a big project in the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie Gas Project.

Those all lead up to something else that is great, our traditional land, pristine waters, environments. I was lucky enough to attend an event, I believe it was last night, where they showed the way people used to live off the land. It was really great to see that and also see the traditions carried on today in this day and age.

The MVRMA also talks about revisiting this in five years. I just want to bring forward that I’ve heard a lot of good things and some of our strong leaders were mentioning why fix something that’s not broken. They wanted to have their voice and concerns moved into this.

There was also some very good points brought up from the legal staff of these Aboriginal groups and Aboriginal leaders that pinpointed sections and

clauses in the act that they didn’t agree with that needed to be addressed and they made sure that committee, at the time, was listening.

The motion itself just encourages something that this government is already doing, and that’s engaging our Aboriginal partners and Aboriginal leaders and continuing to discuss things going forward. I believe the motion is asking that our government continue those discussions and maybe encourage the dialogue to see the importance of these and whether or not amendments need to be made in five years to get this changed.

So I do thank Mr. Bromley and the seconder for bringing this to the table today and addressing the issues. For the fact of everything I heard during the hearing, I will support this to increase the dialogue and discussions and am looking forward to seeing if there is some resolve on this in the next five years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments I would like to make. I’d like to, first of all, thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Nadli for bringing this motion forward and bringing this issue into the public and for us to debate it.

I was also able to attend the hearings in front of the federal standing committee when they were here and it was a fascinating day. We heard from all sides and I was particularly impressed with the Aboriginal governments, who were extremely passionate about their position and about the impact the loss of the regional boards would have on them.

I think that one of the things that struck me the most, and it wasn’t from the Aboriginal governments but was from one of the later presenters, was the point that was made that closing off the regional boards will also close off the regional offices, which have the technical capacity to support the boards. I think that’s going to be a very large loss.

The Land and Water Board staff assist with the Land Use Planning Board staff. The Land Use Planning Board staff assist the Land and Water Board staff. To close one of those offices, the Land and Water Board office, means the technical capacity of that office is lost to the other one.

This motion, as Mr. Moses just said, asks the territorial government to do something that they are already doing and something we have done extremely well, and I have to commend this government for the work they’ve done with Aboriginal governments. We have excellent relationships, I think, with most of the Aboriginal governments within this territory now and that’s because of a great deal of hard work.

This motion asks the Government of the Northwest Territories to work with our regional government partners. If you’re doing it already, why should we not continue on and work with them on something which they think is so terribly important? I do believe that the regional voice will be lost if we lose our regional boards and I think if we have regional offices that will certainly provide both the technical capacity and the opportunity for a regional voice to be heard. Without the regional office, yes, the board will assign three people to act as a board for a hearing, there’s no guarantee that there will be any regional representation on that board.

A board, yes, is supposed to represent all residents of the NWT, but we know full well that that doesn’t always happen. There are issues that are particular to a region that the board members may not be aware of if they’re not part of that particular region.

Those are the most important things for me. I am in support of this motion and I think that it asks GNWT to do work which will only be for the benefit of residents. I think we will have a new Lands department come April 1st , and I think that there’s

an opportunity for the asks in this motion to be combined with the lands offices that are going to be set up, but there needs to be a melding of the two jobs. We can’t just have the Lands department without also considering the work that the regional offices and the regional boards do right now.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I’d rise and make a couple comments quickly. My colleagues all had good points and I thank the mover and seconder for this motion.

At this time I feel it’s difficult in the fact that we are making a motion to talk about C-15, a federal motion, which, I mean, we have no jurisdiction on. The other thing is that, as Members have indicated, our government, the McLeod government, has been working with Aboriginal groups strongly. Devolution has been moving forward. Devolution is one of those things that’s going to give us control over the things in the Northwest Territories in the future, so this will allow us to do that, this type of stuff. I have full confidence in the government to work with the Aboriginal governments in the future when we have full control over these items.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to first rise and begin with something that I keep hearing about. I hear about all these southerners, and certainly I’m going to say this westerner, and when I say westerner, I’m actually referring to the Member of Parliament for the Yukon, and these southerners I sometimes refer to as these Albertans, and all I ever hear about is how much

they want to make us like the Yukon. I have to tell you, I like the Yukon. I enjoy visiting there. I like the people there. I like the feel of the Yukon, but I don’t want to be the Yukon, and I wish people from Alberta and the Yukon would say you’d be better if you were like the Yukon. We’re Northerners. Yes. We share that. We’re brothers, sisters, friends, relatives, all those good things, but let them do business their way, no different than why we want Bill C-15 for the devolution portion. We want to do business our way, you know. No different.

People in Ottawa, if you’re listening – and I know you are – stop trying to make me and the rest of the Northwest Territories like the Yukon. I’m kind of getting tired of hearing that, because I think they have every right to be like themselves and I think we deserve every right to be like ourselves, so I wish they would stop that comparison about saying we’ve lost our way and things would be better if we were the Yukon. Well, please, nothing irritates me more.

When we first started off talking about devolution when I came in 2003, it was this distant dream. In 2007 it was off the table, then it was on the table, and now in this Assembly it’s not only on the table, we’re almost there. But when we talked about devolution, and certainly before this House, we talked about it in the context of assuming powers and responsibilities, but I don’t recall us ever having the chance to sit down, roll up our sleeves and say if you agree with the devolution portion, you’re now being served this, which is the reorg of these boards. Now, I understand why the Inuvialuit support it, because they get to keep their board. They get to do business their way. I can tell you I understand why the Gwich’in don’t want it, and I can understand why the Tlicho don’t want it, and I can understand why the Dehcho are concerned about it, and I can go on. They don’t want it. Many Aboriginal groups have fought very hard for their land claims, and I certainly respect that, and not just because it’s constitutionally protected, because it’s right, and that’s the difference is because it’s right. Is it because it’s protected? That just reaffirms why it’s important.

Now, signing this Devolution Agreement, yes, it makes sense. We have to follow the ability to do home rule, as I’ve called it many times, and I’m glad other people are calling it now, because that’s what it is. But by allowing this we’re forgetting why there were issues with the review board. What were they? Well, they were all linked to the federal government. Appointments weren’t made. Appointments weren’t made in a timely manner. They weren’t resourced. Decisions weren’t signed off. This is why this motion is here before us, is because the board itself could be working, could have been working and functioning very well, but yet, at the same time, it was being denied its ability

to do the work it could have been doing. It was doing good work.

I ask this House and I challenge anyone to show me an application for development that they ever refused. There wasn’t any. They all found a way to work with industry. They have good, honest people with good intentions to provide opportunities for Northerners to work in partnership with industry to find a way so we can all achieve the same thing. Prosperity for everyone. Those are good things. But yet the federal government has decided, through its wisdom, that everything was going awry. The problems they’re trying to fix are the ones they created by not resourcing the board, by not making the appointments in a timely way, by not doing what they were obligated to do.

It frustrates me, as a resident of the Northwest Territories that this second half of the C-15 bill was served up with the first half. Although I don’t normally agree with our parliamentarian Mr. Bevington, I do agree with his concept about splitting the bill. Many people share that perspective. It’s a very frustrating one to see. It’s two issues.

When I was in Inuvik in January, I had Senator Patterson lecture me about, oh, don’t worry, in 10 years you’ll be phoning me, he said, and saying you’re sorry, you were right, we should have done things this way. He told me. I think he’s wrong. I think in 10 years he’s going to be phoning me and telling me we were wrong and we should have listened to you, and the reason we should have listened to you is pointed out by people like Member Bisaro, and certainly highlighted passionately by folks like Member Nadli is the fact that people have these boards, they’re connected to them, they’re the regional boards. People are taking care of their land. What better way of doing this by ensuring that these regions are in touch with the modern issues that are affecting them at that day. I know no one more connected to the region than the people who govern, who belong there, where their ancestry pulled them towards those regions.

I don’t think we’re serving territorial citizens better. I think we’re serving the platform of the particular government in Ottawa better by only doing it this way, because they perceive there’s a problem with the system. There is no…

[Microphone turned off] …C-15. We’re talking to the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s why this motion is so important, because we have to reconnect what these things are doing. Rather than following along blindly of what’s being served up, we need to support this motion. Don’t be afraid, Cabinet. Don’t be afraid, Premier McLeod, or as Mr. Bouchard says, don’t be afraid, McLeod government, to release the shackles of Cabinet

solidarity and vote with us. It’s true, because you want to deep down inside, and I can tell. I can see it right now. Be honest with yourselves. Don’t accept what the federal government’s had.

Mr. Bromley has presented an option for all residents. If we would give the chance for folks to recognize what’s really being fixed, I’m going to say nothing is being fixed by the federal government. Mr. Bromley is presenting an option here before all of us that can continue to do business in a good way. We will be in charge of the system. We can deal with appointments, as I said before. We can worry about the resourcing as we’ve had problems before. We can work together as dual Ministers, both territorial and federally, we’ll sign these things off together. We can do business the NWT way, the northern way about collaboration.

The last thing I’ll say is, in some manner or form, in my view, this is a setback by allowing what’s happening without a stance from our government. I mean our collective government. Premier McLeod came in and said I’m going to renew relations with Aboriginal governments in a new way. I’m going to bring those ties back. I’m going to strengthen the way we do business in the North, and in some ways he’s done that, but where is his voice on this one when the federal government divides us. This motion pulls us back together as a people, and to that I can only imagine, if people don’t know yet, I’ll be voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.