Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About three weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, we met in Fort Simpson, and one of the things that was a concern in the region, at the regional council and tribal council meeting, was with regard to their report and, I guess, the delivery of health services. Another one that was conveyed to me was with regard to Mr. Alan Regel, who gave me a report responding to Strength at Two Levels with regard to legal aid in the Northwest Territories.

I also have a motion, Mr. Chairman, to see if perhaps the government could try to halt the current procedures that will implement recommendations and proposals in the Strength at Two Levels report, and further, that the regional council want to reserve their support of it until they have reviewed the whole document. I keep hearing, Mr. Chairman, in this House, statements like, "Whatever happened in the previous government does not necessarily have to be followed by this government." I think that was the response Mr. Zoe had this morning, anyway, and the report itself was done in 1987, or was worked on and put together, perhaps, by a consultant that used to work for the government.

Since 1987 there have been two things that happened that were of significance, or three things. One of them was that there was a final ratification of the Gwich'in claim; the other is that there was an agreement between the federal government and the aboriginal organizations to have a parallel accord with regard to the shaping of governments for aboriginal people; and the third, of course, is the royal commission. One of the things that the regional council does not want to get into, at least in the Deh Cho region, is they are not at this point in time even considering negotiating a land claim. They are not interested at this point in time, and one of the reasons for that is that they would hope that instead of looking at extinguishing their rights, they would go on what the national forum has to offer them. Most of the agreements that are being implemented now do extinguish certain rights. Also, any kind of self-government that is going to be implemented has got to be reflected in the form of public government.

So I support regional councils that wish to implement that under their regional claims, but I would hope at the same time that perhaps this document is also outdated. It is from the 11th Assembly, and it looked at things before these new developments occurred, and naturally there was also an election at that time, and one of the things that we allowed to happen was that we allowed the Western Constitutional Commission to be created to look at the views through the North, and they have come with an interim report, too, on that.

But what I see, from the last Assembly to this Assembly, is that I still see the difficulties as a Member, Mr. Chairman. For eight years I still see the difficulties of having the government come up with a good strategy plan that does not involve us at all. I do not know how the new Members or the Executive felt about this report itself, but my feeling is that it was a report that was good at the time it was made, but it should no longer apply to this new government. We should be looking at a new vision.

I think that the Minister of Aboriginal Rights and Constitutional Development and the government have also suggested that they will recognize the inherent right to self-government and have made that presentation to the Dobbie Commission.

We have a situation in which we could be offering the communities programs that they could control, but the dollars for the delivery of those programs are there but the resources are not there. What I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that we could be offering programs to the communities -- we are asking the communities to get into contribution agreements for the delivery of certain programs. At the same time, we are looking at communities -- there are different scenarios; we have claimant areas and we do not have claimant areas.

For the claimant areas I believe the section on self-government has to be in with the public government process. Where there is not, I am afraid that if communities start accepting programs under that direction, as if it was a claimant area, we might find a situation in which those communities have accepted it and the federal government could view that as taking the principle in the form of public government, as opposed to aboriginal government and self-government.

The federal government could also take the view, "We could have given you the inherent right to self-government and those programs could have gone directly to you, but since you accepted the concept of the territorial government's focus on public government, we are sorry, we cannot offer you that under the inherent right to self-government," in whatever shape or form it will take eventually. This is why the Deh Cho Regional Tribal Council has requested the halt to the implementation of Strength at Two Levels until they have looked at it; as I would like to see it, before any kind of implementation is done. I am aware that there are communities where negotiations are going on with this government with regard to the responsibility for programs; I am aware of that in the Deh Cho region. I certainly do not want to stop them from doing that, but I would also like to ask other communities if they have not started the process that they should not start at all.

Political Future Of North Unclear

We have a situation where the political future of the North is unclear. We have areas where political process has already been agreed to through the claims process, but we also have communities where there is no consideration for a form of self-government through the claims process. I do not wish to see communities, if they are looking at delivering those programs --that government should be pressuring communities to do that, or even suggesting that they take on programs.

Mr. Chairman, we do have a situation where municipal governments are in a deficit position. We also have a situation where, if we deliver those programs to the communities, they are going to be getting those programs in a deficit situation too. I find it very difficult that we would be giving them a program that is modelled to fail. We could give them the social assistance program, but if you limit the amount of money that is going to be going to communities with regard to social assistance, the community governments are the ones who are going to look bad. If we say, "The government did not give us enough money. We know that we are supposed to give you $400, but $200 is all we can offer you," this would make the community government look pretty bad and the territorial government would look good at that time when the transfer occurred.

At the same time, we are also sending a message with regard to plebiscite questions, for example. We are going to attain the same level of civil servants, and how in the hell are you going to do that and deliver community governments if you are going to deliver responsibility? I would think that if you deliver the responsibilities more to the communities, the level of civil service would go down.

I do not have any answers, Mr. Chairman, but I see all these different scenarios, and some of them are good and some of them are not good. We have a situation where the political future of the North is going to be questioned within the next two months. At the same time, we are fighting a report that -- I do not know whether it has been implemented or not, but it seems like it has been implemented. Also, we do not know if this applies to the East or for Nunavut or not. I would think that the intent of the report is for a more efficient delivery of programs to the communities. We are already $50 million in debt, and I do not know how much more it is going to be before the programs are actually delivered to the communities. If we are looking at a year, perhaps the program would be reduced substantially by the time it gets to the communities.

I do not know whether we should also be looking at maybe reducing our deficit even before we consider giving some self-government to the people. If you do not have 100 per cent self-government, then I do not see it working at all. I think it would have a negative impact on the communities if we give them poor programs. I think the government has to sit down and really look at that seriously. If the communities are going to take on programs, they should be healthy programs. The situation that we are in right now, I have doubts that it will work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Government Leader.

Status Quo Not Acceptable

I fully agree that communities should not be taking programs unless we thoroughly involve the community to make sure that those programs can be delivered.

I do not believe -- and I hope I am not hearing -- that people want things status quo right now. I seem to be hearing, "Do not do anything." But, I think that if a series of communities just do not want to move with this, they can pass motions in their communities saying they do not want to do this, or they may take a period of time.

Different regions do different things. This is all going to take time to do. If Deh Cho does not want to receive or talk about taking over more programs, we are not going to force feed people to do this. However, we have a very large Northwest Territories. There are different regions wanting to approach things differently. As I said, if people want to move, and one region does not, we cannot do anything about that. If the honourable Member was feeling that his communities do not want to be involved, that should not be viewed as something that is negative, because some people feel they have other mandates or want other ways of to dealing with things. We have to look at each community and what they are able to do as well as what they want to do. This is the work that is going to be done with a community so that it does not get short-changed in the delivery.

One thing I will tell you for sure is that if we do not do something about this government and reshaping it in a manner so that people want to take over responsibilities, it will be more than $50 million in debt. Right now, we know what it is going to cost as we go along. I am concerned that the people that are taking the programs over should be fully involved with this discussion at the community level because they are the ones that have to run it; they have to know what resources they require, and the support they need to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the honourable Member that if Deh Cho wants to pass a motion that they do not want to be involved with the process for a number of years, so be it. They will be given respect accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi.

I would like to move to the report as quickly as possible. I am allowed to ask Members for general comments. Let us go page by page. Right now, I would like general comments. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to stop communities from taking on programs. I am not letting it happen. The concern addressed, Mr. Chairman, is that we say we are going to give programs to the communities and that we are not going to short-change them. But, what does this mean for other people that are not taking on these programs? Are we short-changing them if they do not have these programs? The more we spend on giving money to communities that have control, the less we have for the government to deliver to other communities.

I do not know what the Deputy Government Leader is referring to when he suggests that when we deliver those programs, we are not going to short-change them. Are we then looking at an increase in our deficit in order to maintain those programs?

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that there is an old saying where you put the cart before the horse. I think what we really need to do is to quickly move toward putting the three ordinary Members who were elected into the process of developing an implementation strategy. That has to be done quickly to give this side of the House the confidence that their input is being acknowledged and accepted on an ongoing basis. That is one.

System Needed For Resolving Disputes

Two, it is fine to say, "Let us get on with it," but as there are, in any document, imperfections, and according to everyone's statements, there are things in this document that some of us are not satisfied with, there needs to be a system set in place for debate, and for the resolve of disputes or differences. To me, this could go on for days. It seems to me that what we have is a feeling of lack of confidence. I think the easiest way to bring about this confidence is to move quickly to move the three Members on this side of the House into the development of the implementation strategy, and then debate the report on an ongoing basis. Until we solve this, I think there is still going to be a feeling of neglect.

My feeling is that no matter how well-intentioned the objectives are in the period of time between when the report was tabled and where we are today, perhaps, in hindsight, we should have involved the ordinary Members in the development of implementation.

Given that, I think this is what we need to do now: Bring forward the ordinary Members into the implementation process, and then the document and the implementation strategy will reflect not only cabinet's concerns, which are understandable, but will also reflect, to some extent, the concerns of ordinary Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Todd. General comments. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one particular question of one of the Ministers. Could Mr. Kakfwi clarify for me whether or not the government has developed a proposal of the process and the items to be considered for negotiation with the communities that are interested in the process? Could he table the document so that all Members may review it?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Options To Be Laid Out For Communities

Thank you. Any further general comments? Mr. Nerysoo.

I would like to make one point before we move on to more specific issues. I think there is a view that -- and it was expressed a few minutes ago by Mr. Kakfwi -- aboriginal government may fit into this scenario. The fact is that we had better be open to the idea of how this government may possibly fit into the scenario of aboriginal self-government rather than the reverse. We may find ourselves in a situation where we may not have as much jurisdiction as most aboriginal governments in a few years from now. We have to be careful about these kinds of things.

The other aspect I want to mention with regard to this is that I believe the Minister pointed out that staff have, in fact, conducted discussions with various groups and communities. Has he any documentation on the matters that have been discussed and whether or not there are any specifics which have been discussed with various communities and regions?

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi.

Presentation Made To Gwich'in Tribal Council

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Nerysoo.

Maybe if I could get additional clarification, Mr. Chairman. While I can appreciate the position that Mr. Kakfwi has put on the floor, or at least has made known to us, I just want to ask the honourable Member whether or not the matter of legislative authority is a matter that is on the table for discussion with the regions or with the communities, because there are certain things you can do that cannot really be done without any, what you might say, legislative responsibility, and I do not necessarily mean the ability to pass the laws here, but to be able to pass appropriate legislative instruments, I guess, that will implement overall legislation or restrict certain things. By-laws, for instance, are one good example. Regulation is another, because those instruments give certain powers to groups or communities that ordinarily do not exist at the moment. So I just want to know if that particular matter has even been discussed, or is it going to be a matter of discussion at some time in cabinet so that we somehow resolve that matter? Whether or not you like it, it is a matter that can be discussed with the Gwich'in through their agreement, so it has to be dealt with at some time. My assumption is that it is not going to be only that region, but other regions as well, so I just wanted to find out if the matter has been discussed or whether or not it is going to be dealt with at some future time with regard to cabinet and with regard to your position on the table.

Thank you. General comments. If not, does this committee wish to go page by page? Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Page By Page Review Of Report

Thank you. We start on page five of the report. Mr. Nerysoo.