Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Members would, I think, all agree that had the original debate been limited just to taking issue with the commission going beyond their explicit terms of reference, then this would have been a non-issue. I agree that the commission made recommendations beyond what this Legislature appeared to have given them, at least explicitly, and therefore, we can rationalize that we should only make those changes that we originally explicitly mandated them to do, which would not have been a reason to set up the commission in the first place. It would just have been a matter of passing a motion in this House. We didn't need a commission to do all that work in the first place.

But, what happened was the integrity of the Sahtu claim was brought into question. Whether or not people were on side of the Sahtu claim was dragged into the debate and I took strong objection to that. I want Members to know that I also recognize that when we have constituency boundaries drawn, they in no way have to conform, at this time, to the boundaries of the regional claims, as set out in the western territory by the Inuvialuit settlement boundary, by the Gwich'in settlement boundary and by the Sahtu settlement boundary.

But, it may be wise for us to keep in mind always that when we are talking about setting up a government in the western territory, if it is to be a single government for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, and it is going to take form as an aboriginal public form of government, we may very well need, in the future, to show that the boundaries of the claimant groups will be reflected in the way we draw up constituencies. It may be a requirement by aboriginal groups that this is recognized in drawing up constituencies. That is the concern I have.

We cannot, for instance, argue that the north side line that divides east and west will be a claims boundary and then choose to disregard it as a potential benchmark for further development in the western part of the territory. I want Members to know that, although we appear to be suggesting that we will not make any more changes other than those that are minimally required to respect the boundary between the western territory and Nunavut, as far as I'm concerned, as a Member of this Legislature, I am prepared to respect the claims boundary of the Inuvialuit and the way it borders on the Sahtu. I am prepared to respect the boundary between the Sahtu and the Gwich'in regional claims. I am prepared to respect and recognize the boundary between the Dogrib people and the Sahtu, as they have negotiated it. The applies to the Deh Cho because, as I said, the boundaries of the Sahtu are set in legislation.

If Members choose not to do that, then I can respect that as well. I just want Members to know that it is not an issue with me at this time. If you want to stay with the minimal requirement for changing the constituencies, then that's fine. Thank you.