Mr. Chairman, the political agreement that was reached again last year was that -- and the understanding that I have been operating with, both in the last government and this one is that any funding proposals regarding plebiscites or political or constitutional development issues made by aboriginal groups or public groups, particularly in the western part of the NWT, would be done through this committee called the committee of western political leaders. This is sort of an ad hoc informal group that made the proposal together to request the Legislature to fund a western commission. I think it was agreed in our meetings last summer and this fall that the Legislature would not be expected to respond to individual groups. All the funding requests made by these groups would properly be done through this committee. There has been no mention, in the last meeting I was at, of any suggestion by the Dene Nation or the Gwich'in or the Metis, that they would be requesting additional funds for any activities leading up to the plebiscite vote.

I guess I am saying that if the Dene Nation said they want $70,000 to get ready for a plebiscite vote, I would say, no, it would not be considered, because it goes against the political understanding I had with the other aboriginal groups that formed that political group. I am saying, if the committee of western political leaders met and said, "Look, we want to request so many dollars to get involved in an active way on the plebiscite vote." Yes, we would consider it.

Mr. Chairman, the group was set up last spring and it follows, basically, the membership that made up the Western Constitutional Forum that collapsed in October 1989 or 1990, 1 cannot remember, in Norman Wells. It is the Dene Nation, the Metis Nation, and it also includes the Gwich'in Tribal Council which had asked for separate status, the Sahtu Tribal Council which had asked for special status, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, and there are Members of the Legislature, Charles Dent is currently sitting on it and as Minister in cabinet, I am still sitting on it. Those

are groups that comprise this formal group. I say ad hoc -it is not a good word -- informal, because we are not incorporated in any way. We just sit together and work together through consensus through a political agreement.

It requires a little political assessment. I am kind of reluctant to do it, but as I recall, there was some reluctance to provide the amount of money that the Western Constitutional Commission required, particularly from eastern Members. So there was some allocation made for the East to get some money, That was done last July. We have yet to receive the results for the allocation made to the West. We provided a certain amount of money for the Western Constitutional Commission to do its work. So far, we have an interim report, we have yet to see a final report in which we have to find some satisfaction as a Legislature that the money we expended through them, not only the report, but the commission, and the money we gave to the different groups was well spent. I think Members are going to be, I hope, just as jaundiced in their view about where all this money was used and how well spent it was by the different groups that were funded by the commission over the course of the last year.

So there is a reluctance on my part, I guess, to suggest we start providing additional moneys at this time. I wanted to express it. I am concerned about it. When we do something I want it to be well thought out and well considered before we do it. I think that was the sentiment that was expressed as well by the committee of western leaders and that is why they sort of said they would not support individual proposals and actions taking place, because it does jeopardize the activities of other groups. It has to be well co-ordinated. That is the point.

I cannot speak for the Metis or Dene leadership or the different aboriginal organizations or anyone else. I just know that when this understanding was reached, it was felt last year that one way or another the boundary issue is going to be resolved and people may or may not like that. But that is not going to be the only basis on which people are going to vote. The consensus was that the way that people want to approach it is to support division

if they can get sufficient development of the constitution in the West that, for instance, a commission was set up and it talked to all the people in the communities and it came up with sufficient outline of what a future constitution might look like in the West, that would be sufficient for people to vote. It would give you enough substance to say, "Well, based on where I see the boundary is, based on what I know about the possible western future constitution, and based on what I think I know about the cost of division, that sort of thing, I am in a position to make an informed vote."

There was no provision requested by the groups to say, 'We want this much money for a commission and yes, we also want this much money set aside for a campaign in the West to get ready for the vote on the plebiscite." That was not in the discussions at all. It was for the East but it was not for the West. The question can only go back to the committee of western leaders to say, "Now that we are at this stage, are they going to reconsider?" The question might go back.