Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now introducing another leg of this tool here, which is this protocol. So my question is: The protocol that is being discussed here today, is that protocol itself legally binding for a formal review of legislation to take place? Thank you.

So, do we have anything legally binding that will force a review of this legislation within a specific time period? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve already committed to doing a review. We committed to that to the Members. We’ve always said we are going to devolve and evolve and we can start reviewing as April 1, 2014, if this transfer goes through and these legislations are passed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I think the Premier knows fairly well that many Members on this side of the House support what has taken place, support devolution. There’s support where we’re moving forward here with mirror legislation. The concern we have is whether or not we’re actually able to have a wholesome and consultative debate with stakeholders after devolution within a meaningful period of time.

It’s clear today, with the information that’s provided, there is no mechanism whatsoever, there’s no protocol that’s legally binding, and so I’ll ask one final time: Is there anything that would give this Member or Members on this side of the House and the public reasonable assurance that a formal review will happen within a specific period of time after devolution date?

I’ve already committed to working with committee and with participating Aboriginal government partners and whomever else that committee would see fit to involve in the review process, and I committed that we could start soon, as of April 1st , and we would develop a process and

a plan that would be acceptable to all parties.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Next I have Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, following in the footsteps of the other Members and the fact that this being the first bill of 10 to come forward, I thought it would be a good point to make some comments about the whole process and the fact that there is very limited debate and discussion on the mirror legislation. I’m not that critical of that issue because I know when we were discussing devolution that mirror legislation was one of those requirements of devolution. I was supportive of devolution. Most of my constituents were supportive of devolution, so I think, for the most part, I’m very comfortable with the process of us providing this mirror legislation.

I agree with some of the Members’ statements about us doing reviews of some of these once we have control of them and when we are able to make some changes and go to the public on public consultation. I think that is a process and something that we should implement once we have control after April 1st . I’m very confident that the Members

on this side are very passionate about this and we will look at these amendments and these new responsibilities of the government.

I don’t want to say that we’re circumventing any system. We actually knew this going into this process of devolution that this was the way it was going to be. This was part of the whole realm of devolution. We accepted that and I think I expressed that to most of my constituents, so I feel they’re comfortable with this process. I would like to indicate to them that we are looking and reviewing where required. Some of this legislation, some of it may not be necessary. Some of it, we definitely feel on this side, and I’m assuming some of the other Members of Cabinet feel that as well, and even the GNWT, that we want to tweak some of this stuff once we own it. That’s the whole concept behind devolution, being able to put the decisions in the hands of the Northerners, so some of this process and some of this whole system will have to become NWT systems, not a mirror legislation of the federal government. Going forward, I’m confident that as a Legislative Assembly we’re going to look at these and put it out to the public what our concerns are, what the issues are out there, once we have it all established and get it going.

I just wanted to make those comments that we are not, you know, from my constituents, we’re not circumventing their opinion. This is something that

was part of devolution that we had to agree to when we took it on, but going forward, we’re putting it back in the hands of Northerners. We’re going to have a look at this in the future, I’m very confident of that.

I have no questions, really.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Premier McLeod, anything in response?

I just want to thank the Member for his comments. That’s the approach that we’re taking exactly and we will undertake a review soon. We’ll start working on that so that we can start working to that effect as of April 1st after we

devolve and evolve.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. General comments. I have Mr. Bromley then Mr. Nadli. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to comment and ask a couple of questions. Several times now I have heard a clear commitment from the Premier to conduct a review, and basically, as soon as possible starting or immediately after April 1st , and I

appreciate that. I think the Premier would agree that there are plenty of good reasons to do this, not the least of which is, really, including the opportunity for the public to become familiar with this legislation and to provide their comments on it and also to assist in their role of providing oversight and input based on their understanding of the legislation, and I suspect the government itself would appreciate some quiet, focused opportunity for an internal review of the legislation. Things have been happening very rapidly here. I appreciate the Premier’s commitment.

Just on that, would the Premier agree that if the review indicates that the public or the Members would like to see a clause inserted in this legislation requiring an interval period for review, would the Premier support such a thing?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve always said from the start of this process that we will devolve and evolve, and I think I’ve indicated to the Member several times now that we can start evolving as of April 1st , and if that’s

following due process that we can make those changes.

I think the Premier basically repeated what I just said. I guess I was asking for confirmation that he would put such a clause for review in the legislation, if indeed that was indicated from a review, but I will assume that that general statement was agreement with that but welcome any additional comments.

I guess when we’re going forward with this review, we have a new policy, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that has come in just recently at the same time that we’ve received this legislation. Would the Premier ensure sort of a sustainability review in that process combined with Members and public input in which we would consider such guiding principles, as I’ve mentioned previously, as transparency, accountability and consistency with co-management of resources, and finally, equity amongst regions, social class and future generations?

As I’ve indicated, I will be pleased to work with committee to come up with a process that would be acceptable to all.

That’s really all I had on the general comments. I think, obviously, we and the general public would be interested if there was a schedule available as of April 1st or whenever the

Premier could come up with it to help the public and Members prepare. I think that’s just a notice that that would be appreciated as soon as that was available.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. More of a comment. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’d be pleased to make sure that the public is aware of what we are doing so that they will have adequate time for input.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Next, general comments, I have Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, had some comments. This is the first of a series of legislation that are going to be mirrored to move the devolution forward. I just wanted to highlight a couple of comments and end off with a question.

Throughout this process as we contemplate this mirror legislation, what got us here was the negotiations process towards devolution. Usually in a negotiation process you have parties, and each party that’s represented at the table reports to their principals. Of course, in the negotiations process, parties agree to the subject matter that needs to be negotiated and, at the same time, consider at least the parameters or the framework of just the scope of perhaps the subjects to be negotiated. Then after that, as the parties roll up their sleeves and hopefully come to the point of an agreement-in-principle, which we will witness. Beyond that, it’s basically the final stretch towards the final agreement. Where we’re at, at this point, is we’re poised to move towards April 1, 2014, and we’re going to be implementing or operating the provisions in terms of how the Devolution Agreement is supposed to work.

The key in that, for me, is understanding the role of the principles, the role of the principals of the

GNWT and the parties, of course. In that role in the relationship is how the whole devolution process came about. I don’t really want to dwell on the “should have beens” but the fact of the reality is we’re here today.

In saying that, as legislators, our role, as I understand it, we represent our constituents on very important and pressing matters we raise in the House. If there is enough common support amongst our colleagues, we work in consensus and arrive at a point where we can move towards legislating actions to remedy concerns. That’s the role I believe we have.

The comfort in this process at this point is, indeed, the Premier has committed that at some point there will be a review process and perhaps an amending mechanism in terms of some legislation in what is before us.

We also have to reflect on what brought us here. For a long time, being a student of politics and First Nations, especially at the community level, seeing my grandparents and my parents and my uncles in leadership roles, what the struggle was all about was the land in terms of lifestyle. We are a nomadic people, the Dene, who roamed throughout this land and developed their culture around the seasons, springtime, summer, fall and winter, and moving to where the fish were, the inlands of big land masses. We moved to the shores of bigger lakes where moose were more plentiful. That became the fundamental basis of the First Nations and ensuring their lifestyles were maintained. Their very innate relationship with the land or the environment was connected all the time. We try to maintain that culture for as long as we can. That became the premise of the movement of First Nations towards protecting the land and our culture.

So this is where we’re at. It’s basically about the land. Some people say that perhaps the land has changed. Some people would also say we’ve changed, the land hasn’t changed; it’s us. So, in that respect, we look forward to the dawning reality of April 1st , a new age of the NWT, of perhaps

looking back and ensuring that what we have learned from the past, we’ll put in our pockets like our elders did, that rock on the trail of going very courageously into the future and making the best possible place in the world for future generations to come.

I feel comfortable today that that plateau has been reached by the leaders of the day. Of course, the parties that were involved in the process were the government, the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories. As we move forward, there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Fundamentally, there is still a strong stand in terms of the relationship that became what is the treaty of 1921 and 1899, that puts into relationship First Nations and the federal

government. That is still strongly standing. Some groups have gone to modernize those treaties and called them land claims. In modernizing their treaties, those land claims were put into the constitution, Section 35. That’s where we’re at today.

For the most part, a lot of the key initiatives were based on a lot of the accomplishments of land claim agreements, some benchmarks, the Dene/Metis Agreement-in-Principle, some discussions on constitutional advancement, the Bourque Commission, those laid pillars of discussions that will signal to the parties that we need to define the framework of this House so we can all sit at the table equally, not one sitting below another.

I would like to, at some point, witness the day when that time will come. Many of the leaders who have passed before me, many elders who have walked this path, I am hoping to witness that at some point.

In saying that, my question the other day was to the Premier. A lot of the key initiatives that government has reached are based on co-management and collaboration. As we make changes to the devolution process, key pending agreements and major initiatives, we’re trying to improve things, make things better. One of the key things that we’ve pushed forward is we’re going to set up a new structure that supposedly is to be very effective and timely in terms of decision-making processes.

I would like to know, once again, what kind of land management regime should we expect after April 1, 2014? Mahsi.