Mr. Chairman, along with the Department of Finance, we have a very similar role we have always played in relation to that question. For instance, the entire exercise brought on by the Legislative Assembly and Cabinet in looking at division; the implications of it; the work schedule; and, the work done by the Legislature and Cabinet over the last three years in preparation for division were all largely organized and followed up on by the ministry staff in conjunction with the Department of Finance. So we do play a large role in helping the Cabinet and the Premier's office answer questions related to division, in setting up and proposing processes for dealing with issues that arise out of that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I had said yesterday that because self-government negotiations is a new initiative that requires some focus and some clear mandates in order for it to be expedited, this government has suggested that we should come up with a clear mandate and a protocol, to be clear to the Members of this Legislature and the public, on what we see is our role and our mandate in how we will conduct ourselves in the course of self-government discussions and negotiations.

With that in mind, the Cabinet directed us to develop a draft mandate and protocol paper. We did that, the Cabinet approved a discussion paper for consultation purposes. We have gone to the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Deh Cho, Treaty 8, Dogrib, and I think the Metis Nation to get their input as to whether or not this is a good idea and what they think of the draft paper.

We are presently getting feedback from the different groups. As I said yesterday, there are a couple of points: one, there is an uneasiness about the fact that the federal government itself does not have any clear policy, they don't have a self-government paper. Although they have committed in their red book of the Liberal Party to recognize and support the inherent right to self-government, there hasn't been a paper yet and we expect that this month. It looks like it is unclear at this time when the federal government will come forward with it. I would suspect that they may need more time before they are prepared and able to come forward with a good paper.

In the meantime, this government has elected to try to do the same. It has been our view that we are a required party to the negotiations because we are funded and mandated to serve the public in delivering certain programs and services. To leave us out of it will make the process very cumbersome, since the federal government will need to consult with us continuously in order to be able to expedite the negotiations. So we think the best way is for us to be involved.

As well, the federal government has insisted from the beginning that we should be involved. Having said that, I have taken the view that we should be involved. I feel that because I think, as a government, we can help the aboriginal groups to get many of the things that they want. Certainly our paper, in our view, is unique in Canada, the extent to which we are prepared to almost dismantle ourselves in face of the call for self-government by aboriginal people. We put this government on the table. That is done nowhere else in Canada. If the aboriginal groups are insistent and all of them insist that we shouldn't be party to the negotiations and that we should sit it out, we would give that serious consideration. At this time, we are just going through the consultations. It will be a few weeks yet before we put all the discussions together and have something definitive for Cabinet. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we put this paper together because we think we take a rather progressive view nationally in our approach to self-government negotiations. The principles that we list are fairly wide-ranging. We use words that perhaps could, upon discussion with aboriginal groups, alleviate their concerns. We used "territorial" to define a central government because if we say we should be one central government, the animosity level rises incredibly. When we say "central," for instance, people think I'm talking about one government, no community governments, no regional governments, just one central government. I learned the lesson the hard way. Now we use the word "territorial" to mean that in a single western territory, there will be a territorial government made up of at least two, perhaps three, levels of government.

The principles are there. Some of them we have no choice. For instance, we think self-government arrangements must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights. We don't see any way around that. There are other draft principles that different groups have taken offence to and have questions about, certainly with the wording. I asked for consultation because I want to know what they think of these principles in the draft paper. That's what we're doing right now. The Deh Cho has made very little response to it.

As I say, if the whole paper is objectionable, then we need to know why. If it can be clearly articulated, then we may be convinced that, perhaps, the very people we want to help don't want our help at all. If that's the message, we're going to take that very seriously and bring it back to Cabinet. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if the Deh Cho comes back and says they would like to change the wording of many of the principles and suggest a number of principles are unacceptable and give reasons for that, we are prepared to listen to them because the principles are supposed to guide us in the conduct of negotiations. If they are seen to impede the advancement of certain positions, then we have to rationalize why we're doing that. I understand what the Member is saying. It's kind of funny to be consulting with the very groups we're negotiating with but, in our case, the aboriginal groups are also part of the public we serve, so it's important for them to know how we're going to conduct ourselves, the same way as we're consulting with the municipalities.

We're also asking the federal government to look at our protocol and mandate for their review. One of the things that I raised yesterday and I think the federal government has raised as well, is the Deh Cho paper says they want to set up a separate territory within the Deh Cho traditional boundaries. I don't see it as a starting point in negotiations but the federal government has said that themselves. However, the federal Minister, I believe, has also instructed his officials to conduct exploratory talks -- which is all that is going on now with the Deh Cho -- to say that let's explore the reasons why people are asking for a separate territory and what it is that they hope to achieve and how they how to achieve it so we can better understand the position that they're taking. Once we know that, we'll be in a better position to see what we can do to

meet the aspirations of the Deh Cho people. That is going on right now in the discussions with the federal officials.

While I understand that the federal government has said no to a separate territory, they haven't hard-lined it in the exploratory talks. They have taken the time to hear out the Deh Cho on a number of occasions to let them flesh out the parameters as the Deh Cho see it; how they envisage self-government for their territory. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see Mr. Overvold appear -- as I hoped he would -- on my left as of yesterday and the same today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what the Member is saying and I would have liked to hear him say that the federal government is very slow and they should have jumped the gun in delivering a policy but they haven't. The government said that they were going to deliver it last fall; last fall came and went and there is still no paper from the federal government. The last we heard it was due this month, in April. As a government, we had tried to take a positive approach. I did not want, as a Minister, to be told that I'm taking an ad hoc approach to self-government negotiations. I had asked the ministry, and the Cabinet had supported it, to come up with a draft that would tell the aboriginal groups and the public how this government is going to conduct itself and on what principles it would build its positions in negotiations.

The officials have just sent the draft to the aboriginal groups, the Association of Municipalities and the federal government for feedback, and if it appears that the aboriginal groups all want us to stay out, that they don't want a draft mandate and policy, then that will go to Cabinet. I'm preparing to go to Cabinet in the middle of May for a decision on this. We may defer, we may adopt it, we may withdraw it completely and take an ad hoc approach to self-government negotiations.

I should let the Member know that I think it would be totally contrary to the interests of anyone if no one in the north tries to capture an opportunity to put focus on the self-government aspirations of the six regional groups that make up the western part of the territory. How are we going to make sure that the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Dogrib, the Deh Cho, Treaty 8, the Metis Nation and the Metis of the South Slave and the North Slave all work towards self-government that has some semblance of commonality? We are categorically against the balkanization of a western territory; but the federal government, on the other hand, may not be. They may be very happy to see the aboriginal groups set up little enclaves for themselves. This government is not interested in seeing that. If there's some other way to ensure that people get to appreciate the merits of having a common front of all aboriginal people and northern people to deal with self-government issues, political and constitutional issues, then we have to provide that direction, that leadership. That's what we're trying to do. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I would like to touch on a different area than my colleague from Nahendeh. I would like to touch on the area of community transfers. In the budget there are many staff in the community transfer division of the ministry. I would like to ask the Minister how many staff we have in terms of PYs, if there are any vacancies within those number of PYs and the cost of their salaries and wages?

I have further questions, Mr. Chairman, after I hear from the Minister. Thank you.