Mr. Speaker, the process in the western territory is called the Constitutional Development Steering Committee process. The agreement reached a year and a half ago, under the initiative and the leadership of the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit, was that the process to develop a new constitution and to set up a political process for arriving at it in the western territories should recognize that the process should start at the community level. The Inuvialuit original proposal for regional government, called WARM, has gone through some changes because the Gwich'in have formed a partnership with them. That regional government proposal reflects that start, that agreement that the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in reached with everyone else in the Mackenzie Valley. The regional government proposal -- as Mr. Koe said earlier -- reflects the commitment that community governments are paramount.

Again, a year and a half ago when we decided to initiate this constitutional process again, we also agreed it would be logical for communities to decide what powers and authority, rules and responsibilities they want for themselves. From there, it would progress to what they think they can and want to manage, administer and govern at the regional level. From there, it would go to a central government level. They figured that was a logical way to proceed.

This regional proposal, as it is, is a natural progression of that commitment made a year and a half ago. The status of the proposal, at this time, is in constitutional talks. The official discussion paper and position of the Gwich'in, Inuvialuit and, as I understand, the town of Inuvik, being used as a basis to pursue their objectives in that area.

There are a couple of possibilities, as I understand it. One, they will inform as many people as they can of the elements of the proposal, take it to the Constitutional Development Steering Committee meeting in December, and push for some early recognition and adoption of this paper and this position by other regions. They would seek some assurance that all or most of the elements contained in there will be supported by the other people, and try to figure out what work plan and process will have them arrive at a table with the federal government in the near future to negotiate recognition of this proposal.

The other option is for them to consider, unilaterally, approaching the federal government very early on, to recognize and adopt this proposal. It's unclear at this time what options they may choose. They may elect to go to the meeting in December, then make their decisions from there. They may approach the federal government on their own, earlier than that, to seek federal response, since it's the federal government that's going to be negotiating any changes to the NWT Act and negotiating any new forms of government. At some time or other, the federal government, I would hope, would be prepared to indicate the parameters of what is negotiable in that forum. For them not to do that would be an indication of what may be their agenda.

The status of that, as I say, is a discussion paper. They feel very strong that that's what they want to arrive at, at the end of this process, which is a six year process. I believe, as I've said, there are very positive elements in the paper. What is missing, at this time, is a collective sense, strategically, of what we should all be doing to arrive at some sort of satisfactory solution for all of us in the near future. One of the dangers, of course, is the federal government could be open to entertain any and all proposals, only to suggest that the status quo should be maintained at the end, since we're unable to come to any sensible agreement on what we want collectively in the western territory.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't discussed with the Minister any suggested processes as of this date. The agreement was -- and both the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in agreed -- that, at this time, the process set up by the Constitutional Development Steering Committee will be followed. In December, we'll be meeting and we will discuss a work plan and a budget, as well as hear from this regional group how they would like to advance their proposal.

It was a long-winded response to the earlier question simply because of the word "status" in the region itself. The paper they have has good status. It's supported by the region, by the leaders and it's being pushed. It's been blessed by every citizen in that particular region. The Members of the Legislative Assembly have given it some positive status by receiving it. The government has said it has some good, positive elements. It's a natural part of the process that was set up, but it has no status with the federal government at this time. That is the reason for my attempt at rationalizing why I gave such a long response earlier. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, those suggestions have been made, although not on paper. I know some suggestions have been made that the Members of Parliament, Jack Anawak and Ethel Blondin-Andrew, because the two groups are within their constituencies, may be called on -- if they haven't already been -- to consider advising it directly to the Minister. It's been suggested to me they might consider doing that. In the absence of any collective strategy, any time given to thinking out strategically how that may impede or impair the chances for achieving the many things we want, I haven't been prepared to respond positively. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it has been understood by everyone who has been involved in this process that all the Dene/Metis communities are of the view that if it's possible to have it at the community level -- all powers, authority and responsibilities -- that's where it should be. If it makes sense to put their powers and responsibilities at the regional level, then that should be considered. The proposal itself is not out of line with what I think is going to be coming out of other regions. The thing, I think, that alarms some people is the fact that there is very little, if anything, mentioned for the role of a central government.

As I've said, there is mention of some powers that will be assumed to be left at a central government level. The rationale used in the paper suggests that if it's not efficient or convenient to leave it at the regional or community level, it will reside at the central level. The discussions have not reached a stage where people have been convinced that any substantial amount of power, roles or responsibility should be exercised at the central level. They haven't objected to it, they just haven't been convinced of it and the discussion hasn't reached that level yet.

I think that's the element for concern, but I think most of those who have seen their paper and the proposal and have talked to them, are convinced that logic and common sense will prevail since the communities are in control of this. The bigger concern that some of us have is the absence of any collective strategy, at this time, and how to advance it. Thank you.