Thank you. There is no work on it, looking at combining it with Intergovernmental Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs, but at one point in time they were together and then they were split. They are both under my portfolio as responsible to the Executive as well, so certainly we could take a look at it to see what the possibilities are. Thank you.

They were combined before, so I guess it would not take that long to take a look at it. You would probably be able to give it an initial study to see the amount of dollars that you could save and within the period of time before this budget is passed in this House, like you have got two to three weeks, I believe? Would that be an adequate amount of time to take a look at whether or not it would be a cost-saving measure to this government to combine Aboriginal Affairs in with the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs?

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, I do not think a couple of weeks is enough time to do it. I think something like that we need to take a real close look at it, look at the costs, the operation, the organizational structure, and so forth. As well, it has to go to Cabinet for approval to make the changes, so I do not think two weeks, the life of this session, would be long enough to do justice to looking at it and trying to do what the honourable Member is saying, to move ahead and make the changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How long would that take? Two months, three months? Your year starts April 1st. April, May, June, July?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know about the timing. This is the first time it has come up here and I do not think we have thought of doing that. I do not think it will be that much of a cost saving when you do that. I think it would be very minimal because, as you say, this Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is very small. The Intergovernmental Affairs section of the Executive is even smaller. I do not think there would be very much of a cost saving even if we did that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further to the comments on the Dogrib Treaty 11 land claim, I am not that familiar with their actual claim. However, I am familiar with other claims such as the Sahtu and the Gwich'in and I understand that there are similarities such as water boards and land management boards, those types of things. If those things exist in the Dogrib Treaty 11 claim, then presumably the area over

which they are contacted and over which they have a great deal of influence is over the total area of their land claim, within their land claims boundary. What I would like to know is, are there such boards of management, water boards and land management boards in the Dogrib Treaty 11 claim?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer that to the deputy minister.

Yes, there is. It is an area of federal jurisdiction under the MacKenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Dogrib have agreed to the same types of boards that the Gwich'in and Sahtu have agreed to. I think there is only one difference and that is in the area of land use planning. Rather than fitting into a public system, the Dogrib are going to be able to do land use planning on their own land.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I proceed, I would like to move that we extend sitting hours until we conclude Aboriginal Affairs today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, those boards then, the water board and the land management boards and the wildlife management boards also exist, do those extend over the total land claim area that the Dogrib Treaty 11 have?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the deputy minister to reply to that.