Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I can proceed.

Thank you. The Ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs is responsible for several important tasks which are within the Cabinet's strategic planning priorities. The tasks include self-government negotiations, community transfer initiatives, settlement of land claims and their implementation, devolution and intergovernmental affairs. In its O and M budget, the ministry proposes expenditures in 1995-96 of $4.2 million. Members will notice that this is an increase of $240,000 over the Minister's 1994-95 budget of $4 million.

The ministry has identified several areas in the budget where reductions are proposed in an effort to show fiscal restraint. The most significant of these are: $138,000 from the community transfer, O and M; $100,000 from grants and contributions for community transfers; and, $88,000 in the directorate.

The largest proposed increase is $400,000 which results from the added efforts required for the negotiation of self-government agreements over the next several years. The federal government has been supporting the commencement of negotiations and this government is expected to be a party to those negotiations. These negotiations, in part, will serve to shape the future of government in the Northwest Territories. The proposed increase will be used for contributions to municipalities to allow a more informed participation in self-government discussions and for salaries to hire analysts and negotiators.

An increase of $200,000 is proposed for the implementation of a grants and contributions to aboriginal organizations policy, specifically as it relates to special events. Up until this point, funding of $250,000 had been budgeted for core funding for NWT Metis locals, and no funds had been budgeted for the special events component of the policy.

Mr. Chairman, the ministry currently has 24 person years under vote 1. There are three vacancies. Of the 21 employees, ten, or 48 per cent, are "indigenous" or long-term residents and six, or 29 per cent, are aboriginal. The ministry also has six approved person years under vote 4 for the implementation of land claims.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs budget proposals reflect the political and constitutional challenges that face this government and its successor over the next few years. As Members can see in the listed definitive objectives, Mr. Chairman, the ministry has an important role in coordinating and leading the government's response to these challenges and recommending to government strategic options for the future.

Finally, in line with the ministry's responsibility for coordination of political and constitutional development activities, I would like to briefly respond to Standing Committee on Finance recommendations numbers 10 and 11 regarding the intergovernmental function of the ministry and the Ottawa office.

The first recommendation states that: "The committee recommends that the Premier ensure that sufficient resources are provided to the government's office in Ottawa to enable the government to increase its presence in the nation's capital, so as to ensure that the Northwest Territories is adequately represented in discussions regarding financial, constitutional, self-government and other important issues."

This recommendation is related to number 11 which states that: "The committee recommends that in the next government, the duties of the Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs Ministry be divided and further, that the next Premier assume responsibility for the intergovernmental affairs responsibilities."

As background, Mr. Chairman, Members should note that this government, at the beginning of its mandate, decided to merge the Aboriginal Rights Affairs Secretariat, the Devolution office and the office of Intergovernmental Affairs under a single Minister in order to implement the "comprehensive approach to political and constitutional development" which was adopted by the Legislative Assembly in 1991.

The comprehensive approach was based on the principle that the elements of political and constitutional development, including land claims; division; devolution of land, water, oil, gas and minerals; western constitutional development; aboriginal self-government; national constitutional reform; and, intergovernmental relations are all interconnected with each other and could not be dealt with in isolation.

It was agreed then that a separate Minister, and not the Premier, would assume responsibility for the ministry because of the importance of the comprehensive approach, the heavy workload associated with the ministry's responsibilities and the time commitment that would be involved in representing the Northwest Territories during the national constitutional discussions. Mr. Chairman, the Government of the Northwest Territories is not alone in having a separate Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Four provinces and the federal government have similar arrangements.

We should take note that this approach does not prevent the Premier and other Ministers from participating in intergovernmental issues. For example, the Premier represents the Northwest Territories in all western Premiers' conferences, annual Premiers' conferences and First Ministers' meetings. She is provided full support by the intergovernmental affairs branch of the ministry in preparing and attending these meetings. In addition, NWT Ministers regularly meet their provincial and federal counterparts.

Mr. Chairman, the political and constitutional work of the government is not yet completed. I believe the comprehensive approach to addressing these issues continues to be critical to their successful conclusion. Having said this, I am encouraged that standing committee Members recognize the valuable role played by the Ottawa office in representing the interests of the Northwest Territories to Ottawa. I also agree with standing committee Members that the role of the Ottawa office has evolved and expanded since its incorporation into the Ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. I am committed to fully review the functions of that office and the intergovernmental affairs responsibilities of the ministry, taking into account the useful recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance, and report on that review to the Premier and Cabinet in the near future. Thank you.

Thank you. On my left, the deputy minister, Bob Overvold. On my right, the director of finance and administration, Terryl Allen.

Yes, we will make them available.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also a Member of the Standing Committee on Finance and I brought a copy of my task-level detail. I would like to get into specific questioning for the Minister.

With regard to the policy and coordination section. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister, how many staff are in the policy and coordination division of the ministry? And I would also like to know what is the total cost of their salaries and wages?

The reason that I am asking this, Mr. Chairman, is that the budget documents say that there are 7.1 PYs for $611,000 in the directorate, presumably including the deputy minister's position, the executive assistant, and an executive secretary. But I note in our government telephone directory, it says only three other staff: a director, a policy and planning analyst, and a special advisor. So, for those reasons, I am asking this particular question. I wonder if the Minister could provide me with an answer, because what is in the budget documents is different than the telephone directory for both of these figures. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The seven positions include the deputy minister; reporting to him is: an executive secretary; an executive assistant; a special advisor on constitutional affairs, which is presently based in Ottawa; a director for policy and coordination; and, reporting to that director, is a policy and planning analyst; and, a senior financial and administrative coordinator. Those are the seven.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are these positions that the Minister just outlined all filled?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I'm a little confused. The recent government telephone directory lists, as I indicated, only three positions, but the Minister has indicated there is a director and policy planning analyst. Is the Minister indicating that the names and positions listed in the telephone directory are not correct?

Mr. Chairman, under policy and coordination, there are three positions in the directorate, including a policy and planning analyst and a senior financial administrative coordinator. The directorate includes the executive secretary, executive assistant and the special constitutional affairs advisor.

Mr. Chairman, I'll continue on. I will get to the specific task later on. I would like to ask the Minister, why does a department of only 27 staff need three staff in the role of policy and coordination? Surely this could be handled in such a small department by the deputy minister or his executive assistant. Why do you need three people?

Mr. Chairman, I'm not clear what the Member is suggesting. The ministry, itself, is largely policy driven. It is a function that requires a full-time position tasked simply to look at policy and planning, doing required analysis of ongoing activities and following up on work done by the ministry. The director is in charge of general overall coordination within the directorate, specifically in charge of policy and coordination of the work of the ministry. The position of financial administrative coordinator...Again, there is $4 million we deal with. We also do a lot of work with FMBS and other departments. There's work to be done with the federal government, other ministries and communities. These positions are required.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look through the government budget as a whole, other departments which have more than 27 PYs don't have more than three people in their policy and coordination section so we're wondering why this particular department, with only one activity and I think four or five tasks, requires three people in their policy and coordination section. Other departments which have hundreds of people in various activities don't require that many people to do their policy and coordination.

We're questioning this because we compared it to various departments in the budget and we note this particular department had three people specifically assigned to policy and coordination. We're questioning why it is required to have these three people specifically assigned to do this work. We felt, for a cost-saving measure, there was a possibility that the deputy minister and his executive assistant could take on this role, rather than having three people in this area. We raised that concern in our internal discussions and are questioning the Minister here today.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, in my view and in some of the committee Members' views, we don't think this department requires this many people to do this function. We felt that this function could possibly be taken care of through the DM's office where the DM and his executive assistant could carry out all of these functions. The Minister has indicated that he doesn't think that is warranted and it should be left to the status quo. I think that most of the Members on this committee, when we discussed this issue, felt that was one possibility and could be a cost-saving measure if the role was incorporated into the deputy minister's office. I would like to ask the Minister if that could be a possibility. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the Member is saying. Either they are going to make a recommendation or they are just making an observation, based on their own internal discussions. I don't get the point. As far as I'm concerned, the directorate is required and they're working full-time, as is the deputy minister. It is unlike other, very task-oriented, cut-and-dried departments. We work with people and political issues. We work with issues that are not so clear cut; dynamic issues that require, I believe, a massive amount of coordination and attention. That's what the ministry is all about.

It's not one that's prone to just having a number of tasks all piled up and just a few people. We have a number of jobs that are required to be done and all the work we do and that I'm responsible for, as a Minister, is done through the directorate. The directorate keeps me informed, on a daily basis and weekly basis, of all the different things we're involved in. They keep abreast of national issues as they develop. They keep abreast of the issues going on in Ottawa, so this government keeps a progressive profile and perspective on things so we aren't caught looking as if we're sitting on our rear ends.

It is important to have people free to monitor activities across this country. This is what the directorate does. It serves as a secretariat for the Political and Constitutional Development Committee of Cabinet as well. All the things that go on in the Northwest Territories with the aboriginal organizations, the claims, self-government issues and within Ron Irwin's office, those things alone, can keep a few people busy just trying to figure out what is going on. We try to track the policies that the federal government comes out with. We try to anticipate how they are going to form. We try to have input wherever we can with these initiatives and to keep abreast of proposals and other initiatives that the federal government may want to take.

We have ongoing discussions and dialogue with aboriginal organizations on a number of issues. It isn't possible to give a black-and-white definitive measuring stick to the Member and say this is how much work is being done. If the Member has any inkling as to how much work it takes to just keep abreast of claims alone and self-government discussions of national issues that affect this government, he might begin to get some idea and develop an appreciation of the need for the person years that are assigned to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister would have appeared before the standing committee, as scheduled, then we wouldn't be asking these questions. Unfortunately, he wasn't available. I don't appreciate the Minister asking what is your point. If he was there, then all of these questions would have been asked at the committee level. Unfortunately, he wasn't available. So now we are discussing his budget to get all this information from him, so we can make certain recommendations to the ministry. That is why I am asking all of these questions. We observed that while he was absent from our committee meeting.

Mr. Chairman, those are the reasons we are asking these questions. We didn't have the opportunity to ask our committee meeting. It is only fair to say that we observed these things. That is why we are asking questions now. I don't appreciate the Minister asking what our point is; if you are going to make your recommendation, make it. We are going to wait until we receive that information from the Minister, before we make any type of recommendations. We didn't have the opportunity during the January review when we were discussing this budget. Mahsi.

Mr. Chairman, the status quo that the Member suggests I am defending is, in fact, what I thought this Legislative Assembly and this Cabinet has always endorsed, which is to deal with all the issues in a comprehensive manner, that takes into full account all the elements that relate to it. So when we talk about Justice and aboriginal languages, it is always suggested that we take a comprehensive full-scope view of issues before we start acting. It was that message that was so resoundingly endorsed by this new Cabinet and Legislature in 1991 that led to the formation of this ministry.

In the standing committee, the Members suggest there are some functions that should be looked at, and that we should look at expanding the Ottawa office. I accepted those good suggestions but the Members and I have to substantiate why. We can't just put one or more people in there, we have to be able to substantiate to each other what it is we're trying to do. There is no difficulty in looking at how the Ottawa office is now and the tasks they are to deliver to see what kinds of changes we should make.

What we don't want to do is simply make changes without solid reasons for it. The Premier has the power to give, take away and divide up portfolios as she sees fit, but even the Premier has to be able to rationalize why she would do that. If she decides, after a full commitment to a comprehensive approach, to separate the intergovernmental function, then she has to be able to articulate why. She articulated clearly why she was wedded to the comprehensive approach in 1991 so if there is reason for change at this time, then it's probably to make sure that she has it if she is going to take up the suggestion by this committee.

There are questions about what other things we do. Well, one of the functions of the Ottawa office, of course, is to keep abreast of issues and developments across this country that would have an effect on this government and the people of the Northwest Territories. The developments of the Parti Quebecois and the separatist movement is a case in point. I think even with one person monitoring in Ottawa, it still requires those of us up here to do our part in trying to develop our own perspective as things develop almost on a daily basis.

We know that issues such as the fishing dispute with the European community has some relevance to issues up here and when it first came out, it wasn't that clear. The more we monitored it and kept abreast of daily developments, it became clear that we have some interest. For instance, we recently injected the fur issue into that debate and brought it to the attention to the federal Ministers and our Members of Parliament.

It is by monitoring and keeping in touch with government officials, that brings the value of these positions to my attention, at least. Some things we get advice on. We get impressions of whether the referendum in Quebec is going to be delayed, what the rift between Parizeau and Bouchard is, and what other dynamics there are in the business community of Quebec. These are all things we have ongoing discussions about and, as I said, it is not black and white. It is important that we keep interested and keep monitoring it. Thank you.

Again, Mr. Chairman, just to repeat again, we are committed to doing a review. There are suggestions that the committee has made about changes they would like to see. There is no argument with the suggestions; just that I can't blindly agree to them, no more than the Premier can. We need to do a review that can substantiate very clearly the direction which different departments would like us to take. For instance, the Department of Economic Development and Tourism would be a bit offended, I would say, if I developed a staff position in Ottawa that took on economic issues. That isn't the way we work. We have written to the different departments asking them to give us some input into the type of review we will need. Give us some ideas of what your expectations of the Ottawa office are and your view of the kind of requirements we will need over the next few years. It may be that we all will agree that a very high profile approach to deal with all the issues is the way to go.

However, we all need to articulate to our people why, in this time of fiscal restraint and cutbacks; to beef up the Ottawa office is going to require some rationalization. That is what we are going to look for in the review. We think can start quickly. We have started to work on it already. It should give us the kind of ammunition we need to articulate and support the changes that the committee is looking for. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, when the Quebec election happened, there was a real sense of a tremendous momentum in favour of the separatists. With the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ together, they had sufficient momentum to muster the forces required to have an early referendum and to have a very clear categorical yes to separation. They both had different suggestions and ideas. The Prime Minister's office was to keep out of it; to simply suggest that they believe the Quebec people didn't have their heart in it and that people were concerned about economics. Different provincial Premiers, Romanow and Klein had different reactions; so did Harcourt. In the end, everyone has taken a low-key approach as if to say whatever Quebec will decide to do, they don't need to have any external pressure brought on them. This has been our view as well because Quebec hasn't always been receptive to helping the Northwest Territories, certainly not in the discussions we had about trying to become equal partners in the different forums that provinces have protected for themselves over the years.

Other than monitoring and keeping abreast of issues with regard to Quebec, we have had no request for meetings with the Ministers or the Quebec government. I don't think any of the other provincial or territorial governments have done much of that either. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, through the principal secretary, the Premier's office is kept informed as to issues of national significance, national interest, issues that we feel she should be made aware of as a result of our own interest here in the Northwest Territories. Our Ottawa office and our office here make a point to make sure that the information is provided to the Premier's office every day.

We are also developing a paper -- which will be developed over the next month or two -- in partnership with other departments. Other deputy ministers will scope out more of the national issues that are of concern to this government, and the approach that we should take as a government, in our view as a ministry; that this government should take in pursuing these issues.

For instance, on some issues we may very well agree and be able to articulate detail. For instance, the economic issues that the Member is continuously referring to, we may find that we are in full agreement with his sentiments and suggest that we should do that on some issues. On other issues, we may disagree and find that we want to take a more wait-and-see approach, a monitoring approach. So we are working on such a position paper. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been keeping abreast of the work being done by the Inuit, with regard to their suggestion of having a pan-Arctic referendum. We have not been approached and we have not been asked to become involved or to lend any type of assistance. If such a question was asked, we would take this to the Premier and have it considered by Cabinet before we made any comments on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been of ongoing interest to the Minister for some years. We not only supported the establishment and the appointment of the Circumpolar Ambassador, Mary Simon. When she indicated interest in visiting the Northwest Territories, it was our ministry that did the support work to ensure that the meetings she wanted were arranged and scheduled appropriately for her. We ensured that there is a committee set up of the deputy ministers to ensure that the work is being done to lobby for an Arctic council and information is provided to Mary Simon's office, and, certainly to our own, about the work that she is doing overseas and in the United States; and to do political assessments of the developments that are occurring as a result of her own personal presence in that office.

Just one more point; we, as a government, wrote to the Prime Minister shortly after the appointment of Mary Simon and before she went to Ottawa, which resulted in the Prime Minister writing a letter to President Clinton of the United States, and this has acquired his support for the establishment of an Arctic council. So that type of work is being done and it is producing results. It is not as a result of our own intervention, but it is a result of that with many other things, especially the personal presence of Ambassador Mary Simon, that lent tremendous credibility to this quest for more circumpolar relations and the establishment of the Arctic Council.

Mr. Chairman, some years ago we had a function within the Ottawa office specifically assigned to take care of circumpolar issues and that position no longer exists, as part of downsizing. Since then, we have not been monitoring the agreements we've had in any detail. Certainly, I have not been keeping abreast of these things myself so I would have to ask the ministry for more details on it. I'm fairly certain we haven't been, with any great commitment or energy, keeping abreast of the past agreements we've signed.

As the Member knows, we've also signed a number of agreements with various political entities within the former Soviet Union. We've signed education agreements, language agreements, I believe, and we've had a northern management program with Russia. I will get a listing of all the different agreements that are the responsibility of this ministry and report back to Members for their information. Thank you.

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.

With land claim negotiations, I was taking the view that it is primarily the function of the federal government and all funding for it should come from the feds. Where there are requests for assistance, advice and support by different groups, we've always taken a very positive approach to trying to meet that.

We think the federal government should also fund self-government negotiations. It should be seen as incremental costs and something the federal government should provide money for. If there is a specific request from groups, if they ask us to take a supportive role or to try to do certain jobs on their behalf, with their support, we would again be very happy to try to do that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Treaty 8 has indicated they are willing to meet with Caucus. A meeting with me was not what they were asking for. So we have passed it on to Caucus. I think it is important to make some comments here about the rift between certain political leaders in the Mackenzie Valley. It involves the former regions and members of the Dene Nation, as well as myself. When the comprehensive claim of the Dene-Metis collapsed, there was an alternative given that those people who wanted to reject the comprehensive claim. There was no alternative given to people of the communities to vote on it. The Dene assembly rejected, although it wasn't unanimous, the comprehensive claim, rather than give people a chance to vote on whether they wanted to reject it or accept it. They elected to throw it out. There was no leadership provided to tell the people what

the options were. People will recall that the Gwich'in left, the Sahtu left and that was the end of the Dene Nation.

The Gwich'in have gone on to settle their regional claim and so have the Sahtu. The Dogrib are now proceeding with that. The original dream of the Dene Nation was that the entire Dene up and down the valley would work towards one government for themselves, Metis and non-aboriginal people. That is the vision that many of us had when we originally came to support and believe in the Dene Nation. The Deh Cho says that for whatever reason, they elect to separate themselves from the other Dene from up and down the valley. They want their own separate territory. We can't rewrite history. The Dene wanted one government for themselves and they still believe if they put a proposal in front of the Deh Cho people, in front of the Treaty 8 people and give them two options: one, small regional governments; or, one single government for all Dene, Metis and non-aboriginal people, they will go for the one-government system. This is what has been driving me for half of my life. So it is a political rift. I can't, in all honesty, go to the Deh Cho and say I am going to support you blindly with whatever you want. I can't do that.

I don't think it is realistic to say if the Deh Cho people want their own separate territory, let them divide. We have to find a way to meet the things they want in a larger territory. I would suggest the Deh Cho may find that they are not the only people who have principles that they believe in. They will find that the original members of the Dene Nation would strongly support almost all of the principles that are contained in their proposal. They have to make an effort to meet with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Dogrib, Treaty 8, and Members of the non-aboriginal public to say here are the things we believe in, let's all work on it together. That is what started in the first constitutional conference. I have no qualms about saying the things that I don't think are going to jibe. I also have a tremendous amount of optimism about the Deh Cho meeting its aspirations. We will just have to take a different approach. It is through discussions that we are going to do it. In one meeting to discuss self-government, we were kicked out of the room. The next time we were allowed to stay, but for only part of it. We are still insisting we want to keep working. We are trying to make a positive effort. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the Deh Cho and the other chiefs of the Dene Nation met prior to the constitutional conference, I was invited to go down and speak with them, so I had -- without any notes or a prepared statement -- gone down and given them my expectations of the conference and how I thought it should be focused. In the resulting comments, perhaps I was too negative and hard on the Treaty 8 and Deh Cho position, as I understood it, and simply called for some changes. I didn't gain any fans from that particular leadership group.

As Members know, the constitutional conference itself mended a tremendous number of fences, and the goodwill that resulted is still enjoyed by people now. It was a very positive conference, it showed the extent to which ordinary people are willing to go to embrace the massive degree of change that aboriginal groups are calling for. The dynamics of these negotiations are difficult to explain, and I can't explain the animosity or the goodwill that results.

For instance, when the Gwich'in started negotiations, the Gwich'in decided to become very tight knit and to exclude all outside people. I was the Minister at the time; we were very supportive of their negotiations. We worked very hard with the federal government with them to expedite their negotiations. We, too, we received a tremendous amount of negative feelings and animosity from the Gwich'in in the course of the negotiations.

There was no appreciation for the fact that some of us involved, particularly Bob Overvold and myself, were largely responsible for at least 75 per cent of the content of the Gwich'in claim, because it came from Dene/Metis comprehensive claim. There was no appreciation for the ownership and the work that we put into it. There was very little fanfare given to some of the issues that we advanced on behalf of the Gwich'in. The dynamics were such that the Gwich'in were under the impression that they were doing all this work on their own, and they were going to do it and they didn't want anyone coming to their aid. At least, politically, that seemed to be the perception. So, we did our work and didn't expect any applause or praise and we weren't disappointed, we didn't get very much of it.

The animosity that digs in any time that we sit down for negotiations. It was in the Sahtu negotiations, not to any great degree, but it was there. Presently, with the Dogrib, there is a lot of apprehension and animosity on the part of some leaders, about this government's position. Or apprehension as a result of our lack of clear position on self-government. It ties into many other issues.

So, it is difficult to say or explain how it all works, but I do know that the dynamics, at the best of times, are incredibly complex. It is no surprise, given that the issues that we deal with are forever. Once you give up some land, once you decide not to define certain rights, once you decide certain rights are not worth dying for and you are willing to extinguish them, it is forever.

So the stress from the magnitude of what you are doing is tremendous and there is some aberration, perhaps, in some of our behaviour. Once it is done, relations and...(inaudible)...our relationship with the Gwich'in right now is as if those days of perceived battle and differences never happened. Same with the Sahtu, and I expect it will be the same with all groups as we resolve these issues of self-government and comprehensive claims. Thank you.

Just a short comment to clarify that we are part of the federal team and we're not a separate party. Secondly, we will provide detailed briefing papers for the Members, particularly for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Pudlat, as soon as possible. Thank you.