In the area of self-government negotiations, it's the position of this government and the Government of Canada as well that, given the nature of the issues being negotiated, particularly programs and services presently handled by this government, the Government of the Northwest Territories has to be party to the negotiations. We could let the federal government and different aboriginal groups negotiate unilaterally without any consideration or regard for the impact on the public that we're set to serve by staying out of negotiations, but we believe it's contrary to the interests of the public, including the aboriginal people who are a substantial portion of the public. We are set to be part of the self-government negotiations at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, when the claims negotiations started some years ago, the Inuvialuit negotiations and every one subsequent to that, there was no policy that directed and gave focus to this government to participate in the negotiations. So when the self-government discussions starting being initiated, we decided that we wanted to be clear to everyone about the mandate and the manner in which we would conduct ourselves in such negotiations would be. So we drafted a self-government mandate and subsequent protocol. We brought it to Cabinet and Cabinet approved it for consultation purposes. We have circulated this paper to a number of different aboriginal groups down the Mackenzie Valley and across the territories, asking for their input.

There are two concerns at this time. One is the concern about the integrity of the bilateral relationship between First Nations and the federal government. The second concern has to do with the fact that the federal government hasn't come up with its own policy on self-government. The Liberal Party is committed to coming out with a paper on the inherent right to self-government. The last I checked, which was about two months ago, the Minister had a page of talking points after a year of discussions and internal work. So I think it is very tough. We have been pressuring the government to try to expedite the process, so that we have a good quality paper that fully embraces the inherent right and, secondly, to try to come up with it in short order, so that self-government negotiations can proceed with groups, knowing the full scope of what is available from the federal government.

At the present time, there is some attempt for negotiations to proceed, but without any mandate or knowing the full scope, it is very difficult to proceed at all. This is our thinking on it. We haven't finished the consultation on the mandate and protocol. Once that is done, we will take into account all the comments made by the aboriginal groups and make some recommendations to Cabinet as a result of that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The federal government doesn't have a policy. We are trying to develop one for ourselves that will tell all groups, the federal government and the public, what we are going to do in the self-government negotiations; what mandate we will have in going into those talks. The federal government has no policy as such, so it is unable at this time to meet the demands of the Dogrib, for instance, who want to get into full-fledged self-

government negotiations. They simply can't do it. They are having full-blown discussions; what they call exploratory discussions. They are directing their officials to have exploratory talks about the visions or aspirations of aboriginal groups in these talks with a view that Ron Irwin will get Cabinet to move quickly to adopt a paper on self-government, particularly a position on inherent rights. We have no demands. We are simply trying to insist that, in order for negotiations to be orderly; in order for negotiations to have some focus, we all should have very clearly spelled-out expectations, so we can get on with the work and try to articulate self-government for our people.

Mr. Chairman, regarding the Constitutional Development Steering Committee work, as I understand it the Members of that group have left the doors open to Treaty 8 and the Deh Cho to become full members whenever they choose to. At this time, they are enjoying observer status and have a very good rapport with the Members of that committee, as was reflected in the concluding moments of the last constitutional conference.

With regard to specific self-government discussions with Treaty 8 and the Deh Cho with the federal government, Treaty 8 is being supported in trying to move ahead with some discussions with the federal government, particularly with regard to programs and services. I'm not certain that this is moving ahead with any great speed at this time, but we have tried, particularly with the Premier, to be supportive of initiatives taken by that group.

With regard to the Deh Cho and self-government, as I said, it is exploratory at this time. They've indicated that they don't want us in the negotiations and on other issues, they want us to be informed and involved. There is no clear-cut sentiment at this time regarding it. It is our view that just about anything can go in these exploratory talks. For instance, the Deh Cho has said on occasion that they want their own separate territory and the federal government has no reason to say no because, again, they don't have a policy, but, neither can they say yes. So, all they can do at this time is maintain a holding pattern.

There have been exploratory talks with the view of finding out what the aspirations are and what it is the groups want. We know in many cases that people say they have a particular way to approach issues and they know exactly what they want but I think the federal government is of the view that if they have enough discussions with these groups, they will be able to come up with an idea of what it is that these aboriginal groups really want and then try to come up with alternative suggestions to meet the things they want met. This is the strategy, as I see it, on the part of the federal government right now. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my view, as a Minister -- and I think the federal Minister articulated at the opening of the constitutional conference that we're not going to have three territories; we're not going to have six either in the western part of the territory -- there are going to be two territories and so whatever self-government aspirations we have, whatever political or constitutional aspirations we have as a people in the western territory, we have to accept certain realities. At this time, it seems to be that they're not setting up territories for 2,000 or 3,000 people.

Those of us who wish to pursue this can. I just think it's going to be a couple of generations before it's realized. As long as everybody accepts the difficulties of certain scenarios, it's not a problem. Nobody wants to undermine those things. But it's important, in any case, to try to get clear what it is that groups really want. For instance, if it becomes clear that the general public, the treaty public, the aboriginal public, is willing to take a decrease in the levels of services they have in order to come up with a complex system of government, that would entail, for instance, very strong regional governments. That's a message that all political leaders have to take.

As long as it's clear that's what people want, there is no agenda on our part to undermine that. But, at the same time, as a government, if a group like the Deh Cho would say we want to set up our own government and it is going to be such that there is a change in the level of service but that's our mandate in any case, we might find that we need to, not so much challenge it, but make sure the people who are going to enjoy or suffer the change in the level of service have a chance to endorse that or reject it. That's the thinking on our part. There's no secret.

As a Minister, I've talked to the Deh Cho directly and I've talked to Treaty 8 as well and have said that I don't think it's realistic to suggest that we can actively support the territory separating. In the case of Treaty 8, it would just be for a few hundred people; and in the case of the Deh Cho, it would be a few thousand people but I don't think it's economically realistic and I've yet to hear anybody suggest that I'm wrong on that count.

At this time, the federal government is not hard-lining this. They want to find out more, as I said, about what the Deh Cho wants and why they are choosing the route they are. If there is any possible way to meet the wishes of the Deh Cho people through another approach, I think that's what the federal government wants to do. We're certainly trying to be involved in those talks to help with that. Thank you.