Mr. Speaker, since I first stated in 1975, it is a mission of mine. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the paper, itself, is in its final stages, and has been effected by the internal workings, as I mentioned earlier.

I think it is important to note two things, one is that the talks at the national constitutional level have added a lot of weight to those sceptics who have always taken the view that we can offer some but not all, it is up to us to decide what can and cannot be transferred. It has been my view from the beginning that the aboriginal people have the inherent right to govern themselves, that includes everything that this government has the capacity to govern, legislate on, and perhaps more. That has been my approach.

Understandably, perhaps, there have been elements in this government that have taken a different approach, so the developments at the constitutional level has, in my view, landed, I think, in my favour, the favour of this Cabinet as well on the views of the M.L.A.s, and certainly the communities that were slated for. We have taken the view that it is all part of self-government negotiations. It kind of flies contrary to one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance. It says that M.A.C.A. should be the lead Minister on this. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when the statement was made to the Gwich'in, I made the comments that, in my view, the motion that was passed in April, said that none of the recommendations contained in the "Strength at Two Levels" document should be implemented until the Members have had a chance to review, approve them, and implementation put in place. That signalled, to me, that departmental reorganization, as well as the community transfer talks, could not be assumed to have a go ahead until it has been reviewed. That has been my interpretation of that, and, as well, I think Members know my own personal frustration with the lack of emphasis on the

discussions of the Strength at Two Levels. My view, having been involved in this political and constitutional issue for all the years that I have, I guess that I assumed that when the government says that they are prepared to begin right away, to begin talks, and transferring programs and responsibilities, and authorities to communities, that we would get a green light, and I did not feel that it really warranted that discussion, that we should have proceeded much faster than we did.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it has been my personal view for many years that the Dene, and the Metis, and the Inuit, the aboriginal people in the north, have a right to govern themselves, and that if they want the entire authority and responsibility, the resources that this government now has the good grace to manage and administrate it, is there for the taking. That has been a long standing view of the Dene leadership over the years, and I believe that is the approach I take, so I do not suggest for one minute that I want to wait until I figure out the cost. My view was we should have all jumped up in November, and said, "we have finally got a commitment that gives us the green light," and go at it as fast as we can, because the communities will give us the instructions. That was a disappointment in the approach. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is part of the problem that is skirting this exchange. It is my view that we have to accept as political fact the debate about what happens, in large part, is not going to be decided in the confines of this House; that, as well as the larger constitutional political issues, involves more than just M.L.A.s and Ministers. It involves the Metis leaders, the Inuit leaders, the Dene Chiefs, and it applies to the same things as the community transfer initiatives, I think we should have some general parameters that would govern our approach to it. But, by and large, it has to be a community based developed joint approach, and the communities will be the ones who tell us what they are interested in talking about, how they want to talk about it, and what resources, if any, will be required to get into this approach. Any other kind of approach, any kind of prepackaged approach, is going to fail, because it will have come out of this Legislature, this government. The ownership that we need to develop by the people at the community level is not going to be there. I agree with the Member, if, for instance, Dene Chiefs want to go to Ottawa, and say "we will negotiate bilaterally with the federal government," they can do that. There is no difficulty with it whatsoever, but I believe the Member will agree that this is the prerogative for the communities to decide, and not the Members of this Legislature.