Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have submitted a terms of reference for a Joint Cabinet Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs negotiations and I believe it's part of the terms of reference and I don't see as to why we wouldn't do that. In the meantime, we have looked at several mandates which we believe have resulted in a log jam for a number of years and we are expecting to, as we committed, put forward new offers in the near future for those outstanding land claims. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for highlighting that initiative that was just recent in terms of the move forward in terms of bringing the regular side of the House to be involved in the spirit of consensus of trying to at least address the outstanding land claims that are still ongoing. And trying to at least help out the process. Maybe the Minister could at least outline to us maybe some of the principles or interests that he might ensure that negotiators have in terms of moving forward. The fundamental question is: how can this government help negotiations move forward? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've undertaken a number of initiatives. One is we're looking at a new collaborative way of negotiating these long, outstanding land claims. So we'd be prepared to discuss that. I believe we've offered a briefing to the standing committee to discuss that. The mandates, there were at least three mandates that we think were part of the log jam. One was the requirement for consistency, the other one was to use population numbers from the failed Dene/Metis Comprehensive Land Claim, and also the “Me Too” Mandate if I could call it that. Those were the three principal mandates that were important to look at. Consequently that affects land quantum and other considerations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Nadli, anything further?

Maybe a final question on this section there, Mr. Chair. With negotiations I mean there are impasses and points of disagreements. Really what happens is the parties just agree to disagree and, unfortunately at some moments in time the negotiation's evolution points would be arrived at. It could be inevitable that, you know, you do have very fundamental differences of parties. Would there be maybe down the line, you know, other jurisdictions have kind of dealt with the idea of dispute mechanisms in terms of trying to bring mediation of parties together and to try and at least put a very good exhausting effort in terms of trying to resolve some issues. Would perhaps a body like that be considered as we try to assist in trying to support the outstanding land claims? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As long as you recognize that there are three parties to the negotiations. I don't think anybody would rule out any different attempts as to how to move forward. So I expect that as we run into additional roadblocks, I wouldn't rule out any other opportunities to move forward. You have to recognize there are three parties to the negotiations. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Nadli, no further comments? Mr. O’Reilly.

Page 41 table, here. I have a couple of questions for clarification, and then maybe some comments. The contracted services are going up. In 2015-16, they were $182,000, so they're going up to $362,000 in 2016-17. Are we actually contracting out the negotiations? What's going on here? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's where we put the $200,000 that we've identified for those new collaborative processes for negotiations that the Members identified we would need additional resources in order to accomplish. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That sounds interesting. On the travel, though, it's being reduced from $350 last year to $250. So can I get an explanation for the reduction in travel? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With this new collaborative approach, our expectation is that we would have longer periods of negotiations, so that would consequently reduce the travel required. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've been in my position now since November 23rd, or whatever, and although we've had one, perhaps two, briefings on general negotiations, I don't recall actually seeing any sort of regular updates that are provided to Regular MLAs. Is there supposed to be some kind of regular report provided to Regular MLAs on negotiations? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was one on my desk, but I had to send it back for some corrections because I realize that, if it goes without corrections, it's brought to our attention very quickly. So you should be receiving it very shortly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I look forward to getting an update, and I hope that they will start to come on a regular basis. I guess I'm very concerned about the inconsistent messaging and what seems to be a log jam emerging here within this building. As part of the mandate, we all agree that we were going to try to move this along. I heard promises from the Premier in his accepting his new position to try to move things forward. A new offer was to be put on the table with the Deh Cho within 90 days. There was supposed to be a joint Cabinet/Regular MLA committee set up, but I don't really understand what this new approach is. I don't have any updates. The joint committee is not established. There is not a new offer out on the table, at least according to the Dehcho First Nations. There are some very inconsistent things going on here, and can the Minister provide some assurance that this is still a priority with this government and that things are going to start moving? Thanks, Mr. Chair.