Could I just add to the first part of his question? Part of the problem we were having in negotiations is not enough depth to our negotiating team. We were having problems keeping up with the negotiations because both the federal and the aboriginal teams were very well resourced. They usually brought a team of five or six and from the territorial government we had one negotiator from Aboriginal Affairs and we would bring along a justice lawyer and maybe somebody from one of the departments that might be affected by that specific negotiation session. What we needed was more ability, more depth to our team, so we hired some assistant negotiators and that got us at least two people. We also hired some policy people so we could better prepare for sessions.

In terms of where we are at with negotiations in the Northwest Territories, the Beaufotr-Delta negotiations have been ongoing now for a couple of years. They are hoping to get an agreement in principle by this September. The Dogrib negotiations, as well, are fairly well advanced. There is a session coming up next week in Ottawa and the hope there is that we can come to an agreement in principle at the end of that session. There are some fairly major issues that have to be resolved, but we are very close. We are also negotiating with Salt River First Nation and a new band that was split off from Salt River, the Smith Landing Band in northern Alberta. Because of the split they have been putting a lot of emphasis on getting the northern Alberta band in Smith Landing up and running and what they have been trying to do with Salt River and the rest of Treaty 8 in the South Slave region and the Metis is to see if we can rationalize one process rather than negotiating with the Metis, negotiating with Salt River and negotiating with Treaty 8. See if we can get the groups together and develop one process. We are in a bit of flux in that one.

Madam Chairperson, I would like to defer to the deputy minister for a more detailed answer to that question. Thank you.

Thank you. The economic measures chapter of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu agreements. There are only broad commitments to implement some broad principles in our economic development programs and strategies in legislation. It is very difficult to determine, you know, exactly what should be done. We did come to an agreement between Canada and the territorial government and the Gwich'in and with the Sahtu for their claim on an implementation plan for those chapters and we think we are living up to the implementation plan we agreed to. However, there are some disagreements. I think the aboriginal groups feel we are not doing enough and I believe we have made a commitment to sit down with you and see if we can work out those kinds of problems.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, there is no economic review that has been done. The only one that I know of is that there is an economic strategy that Mr. Kakfwi has taken a lead role in and it has not been done. We are just starting to get into it. It is a consultation process that he is starting on. Certainly everybody is going to be included. If there are provisions in certain land claims agreements that states that people will have to be consulted certainly we will do that. Everybody is going to be consulted through the economic strategy that Mr. Kakfwi is implementing and starting to consult with the people now. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, we do not have an in-house lawyer per se within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. We have a Department of Justice that provides the lawyers and that is who we utilize. On occasion we do utilize certain individuals that have expertise in constitutional affairs. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, I too am quite interested in the progress of the land claims to date. Unfortunately, I did not quite hear the comments on exactly how far along the Dogrib land claim is. Could we get another explanation of how far along they are in their land claims?

Thank you. The Dogrib Treaty 11 negotiation process is going along. About three weeks ago there was a session in Vancouver where treaty government tabled a chapter on self-government. We have progressed quite a ways along. There is another session that is slated, a negotiations session that is slated to happen next week in Ottawa. At this session, we were told they would like to cover all the major issues, hopefully, at that session. There is pressure by the Dogrib Treaty 11 to have an agreement-in-principle before the spring because they are saying that they wanted to bring something to their assembly this summer. There is a push on the part of the Dogrib to try to compromise and move along substantially at this negotiation session in Ottawa next week.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, some time ago I had made a statement in this House that the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, who are in the Yellowknife North constituency, had a problem with the boundaries that are involved in the Dogrib Treaty 11 land claim, and that in fact the Dogrib Treaty 11 land claim boundary went so far that the communities of Detah and Ndilo actually are within the Dogrib Treaty 11 claimant area. When that area was instituted, it said on the maps that it was for the purposes of interim protection and to this date I do not think that area was made any smaller. In fact, I think it was made larger, if I remember correctly what some of the Deh Cho chiefs said, who were also concerned with the size of the claimant area. What I would like to know is, has there been a boundary established yet between the Dogrib Treaty 11 claimant area and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation area because both groups are trying to finish their claims or their treaty entitlement negotiations or whatever you call them?

The federal government policy indicates that these things are supposed to be negotiated and out of the way before things are put into place and, in fact, several years ago before the Nunavut claim was finished there had to be a boundary established between us and the Inuit in the east. A few days ago, two new territories came out as a result of that land claim and the boundary that was established for their claim was actually used to split the territories and come up with two new territories. If there had to be a boundary in between us and them at that time, it seems to me that there has to be a boundary established between these two First Nation groups. I would like to know if there has been a boundary established between Dogrib Treaty 11 and the Yellowknives Dene First Nations. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson, I have taken the concerns of the honourable Member very seriously when he first raised this issue in this House earlier on in the Legislative Assembly here and the instructions to our negotiators every time they go to the table and specifically even more strongly in the last session in Vancouver. Even prior to the last session in Vancouver I met with the grand chiefs and the forum chiefs of the Dogrib and among other concerns we raised the issue of the boundaries directly with them, saying this is going to be a political tough one for us if the boundary has not been resolved before you reach an AIP.

This was again raised at the negotiating table. I know there have been efforts put forward by the Dogrib Treaty 11 to talk with the chief in Ndilo here, as well as to representatives of the Dene in Deh Cho to try to resolve these two boundary issues. Specifically about the Ndilo and Detah people that are encompassed within the boundaries of the Dogrib Treaty 11, there was a meeting earlier today with the Grand Chief again on the negotiation issue there again. There again, I reiterated the concern that there should be some boundary arrangements prior to any agreement-in-principle and I understand from the Grand Chief, Joe Rabesca, saying that there was a MOU that was developed between Chief Fred Sangris of N'dilo and our own negotiator John B. Zoe. That is what I understand, but I do not know what the content of the MOU is. I do not know whether there is a boundary involved in the MOU, but since I do not know, I have to answer that there is no boundary that the Dogrib Treaty 11 and the Yellowknives Akaitcho agreed on to date. My understanding from what I have been told by the negotiators on the federal side is that the question of boundary must be dealt with before a final agreement. The federal government is still reluctant to divide up the North Slave region, so it is not a question of whether the Dogrib Treaty 11 want to draw a boundary. There is a question for the negotiating table, so the instruction to our negotiators coming up next week again is to further push this point. Thank you.