Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both the Gwich'in and the Sahtu leadership are quite aware of that provision in their claim. Mr. Nerysoo and I had arranged a meeting in September that for whatever reasons did not materialize. But Mr. Nerysoo had called to arrange a meeting with myself with the specific purpose of beginning discussions on that specific provision. The Sahtu leaders, as well as their legal counsel I believe, is aware that that provision is there, and as a Minister I have tried to suggest that we need to organize a conference or a meeting to discuss that provision. There is no suggestion yet from the Sahtu Secretariat as to when and where and with whom they would want to begin discussions on living up to the intent of that provision. I am prepared to do that on request from either region at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is in regard to an area that was listed as one of the priority items of this government and also to be concluded as soon as possible in regard to the Northern Accord and as we followed the procedure and also as a Member of the resource committee, we have always felt that in order for us to receive other revenues, we have to conclude the Northern Accord in order to access the royalties that the federal government presently receive, in which those revenues remain in the north without flowing south to Ottawa. I would like to ask the Minister in regard to the Northern Accord, which from the comments from the Premier, he has given you the mandate to carry it out to see what you can do to conclude it. I would like to ask the Minister, how soon are you going to start the process trying to conclude these negotiations and have an agreement in place to transfer the Northern Accord to the north?

Mr. Chairman. It is a fact that the federal government, when the previous liberal government first took office, the Minister at the time, Ron Irwin, tasked an individual named Mr. Wright to advise him on the issue of devolution for the Yukon and devolution for the Northwest Territories, on how he may be advised to proceed in regard to the two jurisdictions. It was Mr. Wright's view at that time that, in short, was in the Yukon. It is politically improbable and not doable in the Northwest Territories. The federal government consequently focused its attention on beginning talks with the Yukon Government which concluded last month with an agreement.

In the Northwest Territories since Mr. Irwin was first elected and even previous to that, different Ministers of this government have tried to reach an agreement with the various aboriginal organizations and leaders. In particular, the Mackenzie Valley, it proved impossible, to reach consensus. At one point, I think, with Mr. Todd, the majority of the aboriginal groups were on the side of the government because it was literally four months before an election, and it was felt politically, not the right thing to do. They decided not to request the federal government to proceed on a transfer.

As a Minister, I have been recently asked by the Premier to accept this file and advise Cabinet on, how probable it is to proceed with this file. It is my view, with division a year and a half away, it is more than highly improbable we can advance this case with the federal government. It is going to take a lot of work, and demand a lot of our attention that is politically very difficult to project. I have difficulty in seeing any consensus of most of the aboriginal communities, let alone the aboriginal groups, particularly in the southern part of the territory in the Deh Cho, in the South Slave and in this area as well. I do not know that even if we could give everybody the benefit of the doubt, that even in this case we could reach a consensus fairly quickly on the fundamental points regarding division. The time lines are such, that it would not be possible to proceed with the federal government.

Having said that, we will still be working to try to advance the file. We need to give the aboriginal groups the benefit of the doubt and see how prepared they are to move this file along and not just see it as a bargaining chip with us. We should look at ways we could perhaps deal with the different elements regarding devolution on an interim basis, for instance, revenue sharing. Is it possible to advance the issue of revenue sharing with the federal government and with the support of the aboriginal groups? If not, without compromising or creating implications for the aboriginal case. Later on, if we proceeded with that, what are the implications of moving within the different elements within the overall devolution file at this time. We will have some discussions with aboriginal groups on this, and it will take some work. I know one of the previous Ministers spent just over three quarters of a million dollars on this very process, this very question, only to find as Mr. Wright had done, on a lone crusade, that politically it is difficult, if not improbable to proceed with this file in an expeditious way. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole question on the Northern Accord, there was a letter that was signed by Tom Siddon, I believe in 1992, to the president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council outlining the obligation this government had to the Gwich'in to conclude the Northern Accord to ensure they are able to develop benefits with regard to access on their lands, for development of their lands for oil and gas interests but because there is no Northern Accord concluded, it jeopardizes the economic viability of the region because the oil and gas company are left in doubt of having

exactly what rights apply and in exactly what conditions they are going to operate under.

That is why it was critical that the Northern Accord be concluded because there is that obligation, not only from the federal Minister but also the letter was signed by Dennis Patterson, then premier of this government. I believe that obligation has not been fulfilled. It is a fiduciary responsibility from this government and also which that right was given to this government on behalf of the federal government by the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister if there is a possibility of these negotiations being concluded with those claims organizations that have that obligation in their land claim agreements and try to conclude the negotiations with those groups who that obligation presently exists, through the letter that Tom Siddon signed as the Minister of Indian Affairs and also Dennis Patterson? Can the Minister ensure or basically state exactly, if that is a possibility?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what the Member is suggesting is worth considering. I have just got the file recently, assigned to myself from the Premier. One of the more recent developments is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is an Act that is going to send out a management regime for land and water in the Mackenzie Valley. Much the same way, in the spirit of the original, in the government proposal that suggest that the Dene at the time, who wanted to govern themselves as a unit and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, simply proposes to set up land use planning, water and or regimes in keeping with that, we do not become vulcanized.

There is some consistency in the coordination up and down the Valley. Devolution fits in there because it would see us coming up with a single regime, a simple single set of rules for instance, oil and gas exploration for revenue sharing, mineral exploration, as well as management for inland waters and land in the Mackenzie Valley. What the difficulty is, is in the Inuvialuit region where there is a claim that is settled, the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. In those cases, for instance, the people there have land use planning capability, under their claim and under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The Deh Cho would not have the capacity, nor would the Dogribs or the South Slave. They would get that through the provisions of the claims that they have yet to negotiate.

Devolution would basically provide an opportunity for two things. To all citizens of the Northwest Territories, it would provide us with a chance to have management control over land and waters and access to benefits, royalties from those resources. It also gives us an opportunity as aboriginal people to negotiate specific things for ourselves and to make it fit into whatever claim provisions that were negotiated. That is how I think people see the Northern Accord. Unfortunately, some of the aboriginal people simply do not want to proceed with this until it becomes clear to them what it is that they want and clear to them what it is that they might be able to get in the claims negotiations with the federal government. So, in many cases, they simply said no to the notion of devolution at this time.

One of the thoughts I have had is that there are really two questions we are putting to the aboriginal people. One is, as a citizen of the Northwest Territories, do you see benefit in proceeding with devolution at this time? And I would have to say that I think if a substantive case can be made that it is to the benefit of everybody that we get management control and ownership over our resources, our land, our water, our minerals, our oil and gas. All we have to do is figure out how we are going to do it together. The other question that is specific to aboriginal people is, can this be done in a way that will enhance and not undermine or threaten your rights as an aboriginal person? There, perhaps, it is too befuddling. In many cases it is not clear enough and so it prevents people from answering the question. It is my view that if we can proceed we need to clarify those two things. Perhaps we can if the answer to the first instance is generally yes, then that would be sufficient for me to proceed even if the answer to the second question is no. If we can find provisions that would provide for the protection of unsettled, unclarified aboriginal treaty rights. That should be the basis on which to proceed. But these are just my initial thinking at this time and we would have to, in any case, make my case to the aboriginal leaders and then proceed from there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My other question has to do with the whole amalgamation of the three departments and the concerns that were raised by the public, especially in regard to the whole notion that you are mixing protection of the environment and development, in regard to the economics, in the other and you are pulling them together. At the end of the day is the environment going to loose? I think that through your department and the amalgamation in regard to the positions that have been vacant, a lot of concerns have been raised about the credibility of this amalgamation, especially in regard to people that, call them environmentalist or people that have concerns about the environment, especially environment versus development. So I would like to ask the Minister in regard to the whole notion of amalgamation, where it has gone and what has been done to ensure the protection of the environment? Especially in regard to public concerns that somehow we are selling out the environment for the sake of economics? I would like to ask the Minister, what has your department done in relation to that concern and what are they doing to clear it up?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, what the amalgamation provided for us was, it ensured that we still have some money to put into some of the programs we have in regard to wildlife and the environmental part of our mandate. Had we not amalgamated I would suggest that the Department of Renewable Resources, specifically, would have largely been gutted in order to meet the targets that we had set for ourselves in cutting our operations and maintenance budgets. The fact is, we have had through the process of amalgamation been able to retain sufficient money, for instance, to try to do something about the Peary caribou. We have had enough money left so we could continue trying to do what we can to salvage the Bootleg Bison Herd, to do cooperative research work in different areas of the Northwest Territories, where the money to fund the Kitikmeot Slave Study.

There are a number of initiatives like this that we are continuing to do some work on. One of the things that I think I personally felt, I do not mean to say badly, but I wish it had not happened, was that some of the biologists we had who were, in my view, very well respected biologists, not only by myself but everyone in the department, by their own academic scientific colleagues, but some of them chose to resign rather than help people like myself figure out a way in which to meet the challenge of downsizing and reorganizing. I felt perhaps personally I could have done a little more had I known early enough to try to salvage the work relationship and to try to find a way to keep these type of individuals working with us as a team, but it was not possible. I was not given the opportunity, but I still feel that we did the right thing. We have not done anything to compromise the importance that all people of the north put on the land and the environment. The Member will know that this government in fact has very little actual jurisdiction in those areas, but we act as if we do, because we know how important it is. It is only through devolution that we will actually have real management, real ownership, real control over the land, the water and the minerals. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the whole area of your department, the whole question about affirmative action and your department in which a lot of the positions that are there are basically community based in regard to economic development officers, the forest fire centre, people in the energy sector; so, I would like to ask the Minister in regard to the whole idea of affirmative action which we have been mentioning time and time again in the House to ensure that the numbers are increasing, not decreasing, and that we uphold statistics of trying to improve on the affirmative action policy and putting in place in all departments, especially the departments where they serve the aboriginal community the most. I would like to ask the Minister in regard to that area, how does he feel his department is doing and what has been done to improve it?

Thank you. When we started the reorganizing and the amalgamation we also did an inventory of the existing staff so we were quite aware of the aboriginal employees we have and the other designated groups within the affirmative action policy. The senior management was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that everything possible be done to retain all affirmative action employees, all aboriginal employees. The majority of our employees were at the regional and community level. That was the area where the minimum amount of change took place, so, statistically, we could provide to the Member a briefing note that could give him more specific numbers so that he can actually have numbers that were within the existing organizations, within the existing departments before amalgamation and what it is now under the new department. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the study is still being carried out at this time. The biologist is still out there conducting the study. The study is not completed yet. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, no, I am not asking a question. I suggest we move on to the next Minister if nobody wants to ask a question.