There was a letter submitted May 9th to the Premier of the Northwest Territories that

recommended some 40 suggestions on the amendment process and things that need to be considered in light of the land claim agreements, the Tlicho land claim, and the whole element of independency of regulatory boards from the political arms of the Government of the Northwest Territories or the federal government. I’d like to know the government’s positions on those amendment areas and have we responded to the letter from Alternatives North, who was working with the Gwich’in Tribal Council, Tlicho Government, and the Aboriginal governments, to recommend these suggestions prior to tomorrow’s deadline.

Again I’ll try to get back to my question. Hopefully I can get an answer. I’d like to ask the Minister if there was a list of amendments being proposed to the Government of the Northwest Territories. My understanding is there is a working group that was established between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. I’d like to know what those items are on that list of amendments that they’d like to be made, and can we see that since the Government of the Northwest Territories is part of that working group.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are directed to the Deputy Premier. With regard to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, apparently there’s been a list of prescribed amendments that the federal government would like to meet which has been shared with this government. I’d like to ask the Deputy Premier what the government’s position is when it comes to the amendments, the possibility of having a centralized board and having regional boards which presently are part of the land claims agreements. I’d like to ask the Deputy Premier what position this government is taking when it talks about restructuring the boards in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has come to our attention that the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act concludes the consultative process tomorrow, which again shows the lack of respect for the Aboriginal claimant groups in the Northwest Territories for the land claims and the people of the Northwest Territories to have the decision-making process in the Northwest Territories for the people of the Northwest Territories, and simply leaving the decision-making process up to the governments, whether it’s the federal government or a panel of so-called specialists. We’ve been talking about the McCrank Report or talking about the reports done previously.

I think it’s important for this government to declare where we stand on the list of outstanding issues and the items that were being discussed between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government about Indian and Northern Affairs. What exactly was the list of items? How will those items affect the regulatory system in the Northwest Territories and those groups that do have land claims?

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act came into force and effect to ensure that we implemented those land claim obligations into a regulatory system that meets their requirements, and ensure that the Tlicho Government and their land claim agreements are also enacted.

I think it’s important for the Government of the Northwest Territories to come clean and say where exactly we stand as a government when it comes to making those major revisions to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in regard to the regulatory system in the Northwest Territories. Do we support regional boards or don’t we? Do we want to have one system of regulation in the Northwest Territories by a centralized board? Do we accept the land use planning provisions that are in those arrangements? Do we allow for the environmental assessment to have an independent process so that it’s independent from government, it’s independent from industry, and it does give us the decisions that are there for the benefit of the public, the people of the Northwest Territories and communities?

At the appropriate time I will ask questions of the Minister of Environment on where this government stands when it comes to the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Again, I have to note that Highway No. 1, there were a bunch of upgrades and that taking place. That’s part of the carry-overs. I’m just wondering if there are any penalties associated with the contractors to conclude the contracts within a particular contract season, because it seems like a lot of these carry-overs are very large sums by way of the numbers of them. What contractual obligations do contractors have to conclude contracts within specific time frames in those contracts and are we sticking to them?

I notice at the bottom of the page you do have $3.8 million for bridges, culverts, structural rehabilitation. I’m just wondering, in light of the situation on Highway No. 7, is there a possibility that any of these dollars can be re-profiled to deal with that crisis we find on Highway No. 7 today?

As we heard earlier today from the Member for Nahendeh with regard to the closure of Highway No. 7, is this part of anything close to where the washout took place or where the road is closed because of the lack of bridges or bridgework in Highway No. 7?

I’m just wondering where Shale Creek is.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to various bridge program, territorial, it’s $1.365 million. Could you give me a breakdown of

exactly where these bridges are going to go and where they are going to be expended?