Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would like to clarify the 1991 concept of a comprehensive approach the Minister talked about. It's a concept that the Standing Committee on Finance has pushed very hard on in dealings with the federal government. But the original intent wasn't that the whole comprehensive approach was through the ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. The fairly consistent thinking of our committee and MLAs has been that we want a comprehensive Cabinet approach so that Cabinet Ministers, led by the Premier, would deal with these issues in a coordinated way.

I want to say again that we're not making any of these recommendations as a criticism of the past. I think we're trying to look at some of the political realities of the future. If the Minister wants some examples of an enhanced Ottawa function I think there should be a specific self-government component where we have support staff in Ottawa to assist aboriginal groups as they, over the next few years, carry on with their self-government negotiations, so our government is seen as providing constructive support, office space, fax facilities, computers, et cetera.

I also see an increasing role of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs -- it could go to the Premier's office or, if the Minister's feelings prevail, either/or -- in dealing with a range of economic issues. What's happening, for instance, is the federal government is essentially in the process of cutting off regional development funds to many regions in the country. I see that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs should be coordinating strategies with, for instance, the Maritimes, regarding the western diversification fund. I see that as more and more of a role.

In order to protect the very viability of the Northwest Territories in the next four years -- and the same problem will be compounded when there are two territories -- we have to demonstrate in a very visual and strong sense that we're a key player. Otherwise, we're going to be swept under the table and become irrelevant very quickly. The concept of having meetings and monitoring information is very useful and an important part of the ministry, but if the ministry is not to be with the Premier, then the ministry should provide that sort of leadership. It should say, okay, there are issues developing

across the country and this is how we're going to deal with them.

If I have concerns, as an ordinary MLA, I would like to know who I'm going to go to. I really strongly believe that we have to take a much higher profile, both nationally and internationally. That's my belief; the Minister might not share it. I would like to have somebody accountable for dealing with this. I would like to have somebody say, no, we don't want to take a high profile, I believe that's the wrong approach, I think we should just monitor, we should keep a quiet profile and let fate decide which way we're going to end up. I would like to know who is going to say that.

Now, if it was the Premier and intergovernmental affairs, the Premier would be the key person but I don't know who to ask now. I don't know who to ask. For instance, we have the turbot wars. I think we should be very vocal; that is my own personal belief. Whose responsibility is it? Is it the Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs Minister's responsibility? Is it the Premier's responsibility? Is it the Renewable Resources Minister's responsibility? Is it the Economic Development Minister's responsibility? The point here, Mr. Chairman, is that we would like some clarity as to who is going to coordinate the intergovernmental strategy? If it is this Minister, what is the strategy? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Ballantyne.

Any changes will have to be rationalized. The obvious area is if our staff in Ottawa had enough time, I really think there's more that we can do with the central agencies and more we can do with deputy ministers. What is

going to be happening in the next few years that each one of the provinces have people in Ottawa. They have contacts and connections. We have to always be there to protect ourselves. We have to invite as many federal Ministers up here as we can. Everything is going to be more aggressive than we have operated in the past. Not because we have been wrong in the past, but because the world is changing rapidly. I think it is very necessary that we address that. I am glad to hear the Minister will review it and hopefully when we come back in June, we will perhaps have some further thoughts.

I would like to leave the future for the moment and deal with the present. Perhaps the Minister can tell us his ideas of how the department is going to deal with the whole referendum issue. What is the strategy of our government dealing with its upcoming referendum?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Ballantyne.

That is good to know. I think all of us agree that Quebec issues have to be handled with a lot of sensitivity. I just want to get it on the public record the approach the Minister wanted to take with these issues.

I personally don't have a problem with a slow approach with Quebec, but I still strongly feel that on economic issues we should be taking a strong high-profile approach. But it would be useful if the Minister kept Members informed as to what is happening in Quebec. All of us should keep in the back of our minds that there are more important ramifications to the Northwest Territories than just whether we ship through Montreal or not. If the centre is slashed, if Quebec leaves, the edges of confederation are hurt the worst; not as much blood pumps through half a heart, as it were. So it is a very, very significant issue for us. It has to be handled with a lot of subtlety. But what we always have to keep in mind is that we -- at the end of the day -- can probably be the most adversely affected of anybody with Quebec separating.

Or on the other hand, an area where I definitely think that the Minister should be meeting with his federal and provincial counterparts about is what happens if they don't separate, so we can have some input to whatever the fallout would be from either a referendum being delayed, or a referendum losing, and another constitutional round begins. As the Minister knows, you can never get in the game too early.

So, my question to the Minister is, is the Minister, or is the Premier's office, being kept up to date -- as I know all other Premiers are -- as to what is actually happening? And if new thinking evolves out of what happens in Quebec, can we be confident that we will be right in there on the ground floor, we won't find ourselves in another Meech Lake situation where the die is cast and we have to get into the game after the fact. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi, as the leader of the Ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. General comments. I have Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on the Quebec situation, I would like to ask the Minister if he has considered whether the Northwest Territories government should have a role or should be involved, or can assist in the proposed planning of the pan-Inuit referendum that has been recommended by ITC to take place around the time of the Quebec referendum. Since we want to promote the special interests of the Inuit and the people of the Northwest Territories, in case Quebec should separate, I wonder if there is a role for our government to assist in this referendum. We have an election machine and we have a Plebiscite Act that have been used in the past for these kinds of major questions. I just wonder if the Minister has any comments on that issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that response. I would like to ask the Minister about intergovernmental issues more as they relate to the circumpolar

world. Firstly, what has been the Minister's role in the proposal to create an Arctic council? Thank you.

Qujannamiik. Mr. Minister.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, this is great news if our recommendations to the circumpolar ambassador has resulted in the Canadian Prime Minister persuading the American President to change the historic opposition of the US to the Arctic Council. I think this is great news and it is the first that I've heard of this breakthrough. I'm quite delighted with the Minister's response.

I guess I'd like to ask, generally, about circumpolar relations and about the ministry's role. I'm frankly concerned that circumpolar relations have not been given the priority lately that they should have been. I know full well that there has been major fiscal issues and government reorganization has been a preoccupation of the current government, but I am concerned that protocols and agreements that have been signed with Greenland, for example, and with the Sakha Republic may not have been given the attention that they should have been in recent years.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.