Masi. Honourable Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wrote a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning, requesting the opportunity to brief the committee.

Is it fair to say, then, that the Regular MLAs were not informed? We haven't seen these offers, the letter. We weren't informed or involved in the preparation of them before they were delivered to the appropriate Aboriginal governments earlier this week.

These negotiations, a lot of the time, are a confidential process. We requested an opportunity to brief a committee. The only days that the Akaitcho and NWT Metis Nation were available to meet to discuss a revised offer was on May 24th and 25th. To date, we have not received a response to our requests for a briefing of committee.

I would like to ask the Minister of Executive and Indigenous Affairs, then: What role did the joint advisory committee, that is supposed to be Regular MLAs working with Cabinet members, play in the development of these offers and the letter that went to the Dehcho First Nation?

As part of our request, we asked for direction from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning as to whether we should deal with the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning or the joint committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Mr. Speaker. Just to make it crystal clear, we were not informed of the offer. We have not seen it. We have not seen the offers to the Metis Nation or to the Dehcho First Nation, so I am just wondering: Can the Minister commit to provide this information, these letters, to Regular MLAs on a confidential basis so we can actually find out what our government is negotiating? Merci, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Honourable Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely, as soon as we hear back as to when we can brief the committee. There has been no revised offer made to the Dehcho First Nation as of yet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get to a couple more of my questions on the unfounded cases with the Minister of Justice. My question about the review of the unfounded cases is whether there was any additional communication between the RCMP and the complainants who talked about the review and about any of the results that might be relevant to the individuals. Mahsi.

Masi. Minister of Justice.

From the information that has been provided to me, Mr. Speaker, I am not certain as to whether that was done. I can ask the RCMP to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that commitment from the Minister. We don't have the opportunity to question the RCMP ourselves, of course, and so we are appreciative of his efforts to do that on our behalf. I am wondering, after the Minister read the response to the unfounded cases, what he thinks may need to change in terms of best practices in dealing with these sexual assault complaints.

As I mentioned in my response to this issue yesterday, when I read in the return to the written question, there are many things that the RCMP are doing. Clearly, enhanced training is part of it. There were quite a number of things that were identified in the curriculum for sexual assault investigation, and it appears that the police are, of course, treating this very seriously, as they should. It appears that, to me at least, the training is exactly what is required to sensitize the RCMP further on this issue.

Thank you to the Minister for that information. The training was very helpful. Now that the Minister has seen the results of this survey, has he given any more thought to the idea of advocating for the Philadelphia model, where there is a civilian member of an unfounded oversight committee? Does he think that is a good idea?

I have, of course, heard of the Philadelphia model, which was developed some time ago so that it would be more civilian oversight. I think that kind of decision would have to be made by the RCMP, not just in this jurisdiction, but throughout Canada. I am not certain whether such a major change is being contemplated. If they did decide to follow that model, which has been used in the United States, hence the name "Philadelphia," and some jurisdictions, I think, in Canada, that decision would have to be made at the national level by the RCMP. Thank you.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. My final question is whether the Minister will advocate at the FPT table for the RCMP to adopt this civilian oversight at the national level so it can be implemented everywhere that they serve. Thank you.

Masi. Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I think before I did that, I would have to receive more information as to the Philadelphia model. I will undertake to do some personal research into that area and also determine which other police forces in Canada are using that model and attempt to determine how well that is working. So I am prepared to investigate it. Whether I bring it forth at an FPT, I am not prepared to make that decision at this time until I have looked further into the matter. Thank you.

Masi. Time for oral questions has expired. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to Commissioner's opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Member for Nahendeh.