Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a map that accompanied the agreement-in-principle to indicate the settlement area. The settlement area is all of the area of interest to the Dogrib. Contained in the settlement area are selected lands around the four communities. This map has been public. I think the honourable Member generally described this map and the area. I would say yes, if he is asking me to confirm that, the answer is yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also part of the Dogrib claim is the provision of self-government. I understand from the Minister, in answers to questions from Members of the House, that there are still questions of incremental costs. Has the question of incremental costs been resolved? Who is going to pay for the self-government? What is the implication on this government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the final agreement of the Dogrib Treaty 11 negotiations has not been concluded. There is a negotiating session in Ottawa this week as we speak. Subjects on the table are incremental costs, the financial issues, as well as the question of certainty and the whole area about boundary and overlap. These are the three very major issues that are on the table for discussion as we speak.

The position of our government has always been that Canada is responsible for 100 percent of the incremental costs required to implement the Dogrib final agreement. This government will provide funding for most programs and services, but as a small jurisdiction with a very limited revenue base, it will be very difficult, so we cannot afford to pay the incremental costs of implementing self-government without reducing the level of programs and services to all NWT residents. As a result, the GNWT's position has always been that Canada has to be responsible for the incremental costs. This is one of the issues that is still outstanding. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the context of land selection, I understand the Dogrib are negotiating self-government and I want to know what the implications are for those people living in the city, the fishermen from Hay River who fish within waters identified as traditional territories, the business owners who own the hunting and fishing lodges, the trappers that own cabins within the traditional territory, and the non-Dogrib people living in the Dogrib communities. What are the implications of this agreement on all these people? Also, Mr. Speaker, what are the implications for the Akaitcho, the Deh Cho and the South Slave Metis who want to negotiate their own rights within the traditional territory as identified by the Dogrib with the Government of Canada and this government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the land selection and aboriginal title to land is the federal government's jurisdiction. It is Canada's jurisdiction and it is Canada's mandate to protect existing rights and interest to lands, specifically legal rights and interests, such as producing mines or lands held in fee simple title. The outfitters the honourable Member mentioned do have such legal rights in these lands and they do have the privilege of operating their businesses according to the regulations of this government.

The Dogrib land selection includes only a small portion of the vast Crown lands that are available to outfitters in the North Slave area. The ability of this government to continue to authorize commercial activities on Crown land is not negatively impacted through this Dogrib land selection. If these businesses wish to operate on Dogrib lands, there is nothing to stop them from approaching the new landowners to operate once this claim is concluded. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Dogrib land or settlement area outside of the Dogrib land that surrounds the four communities is huge. It almost goes right across the whole Northwest Territories, and it encompasses three diamond mines and potentially more diamond mines. We see examples around the world of how these kinds of conflicts can escalate to unmanageable levels.

I would like to ask the Minister, what are the implications for the Akaitcho, for the South Slave Metis and for the Deh Cho, who are negotiating their own processes with the federal government and this government, when they want to select lands within what is identified in the agreement-in-principle as Dogrib traditional territory or identified as Dogrib land? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Dogrib leaders, Chief Joe Rabesca, and the Grand Chief, Mike Nadlii, I am told recently had a meeting with regard to the boundary between the Dogrib and the Deh Cho. I heard the meeting was positive and I think that the Grand Chief of the Deh Cho is in the process of relaying the outcome of this meeting to the Deh Cho. At this point in time, I have not heard any reaction to the type of arrangements with respect to a boundary between the two First Nations areas. It seems to be going in a positive direction, but as we all know, in the case of the Akaitcho, there is currently a court or legal challenge through the federal court by the Akaitcho regarding the Dogrib settlement area.

The Member asked what the implication would be. At this point in time, it would only be speculation. There is the legal process in place, as well as the boundary issues. As we said, there are negotiations going on in Ottawa as we speak and one of the subjects to be talked about would be the boundary overlap. There are still processes in place to try to deal with this really tough issue and I cannot speculate at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.