Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, over the years, as we first began discussing protected areas, there hadn't been a lot of progress being made. I was beginning to wonder if this was just going to be another boondoggle. Clearly, in yesterday's commitment by the Minister of Environment, the current Minister is certainly determined to move ahead with these. I was pleased with the announcements yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other areas. I did talk to him about the ramparts area west of Fort Good Hope, the Horn Plateau. We had some brief discussion about the Nahanni expansion and also the East Arm. So, Mr. Speaker, while it is not time to cuddle up with the federal government on this one yet, we are moving in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This one is getting pretty specific in terms of our plans, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer it to the Minister of ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the impact benefit agreements are with people on whose traditional lands the activity is taking place. The socio-economic agreements were broader umbrella agreements that provided for training, employment opportunities, contracting and purchasing. It was all done right across the Territories for everybody. Mr. Speaker, it was impossible to bring everybody into the room to help negotiate these things, so, as a government, we negotiated on behalf of all people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Mr. Speaker, I might also add, though, that those who settled claims have not been cut out completely from the benefit of economic development, the mines for example. They do get a share, revenues through their claim, from the economic activity. The situation we have now is in the Sahtu or the Gwich'in area, they do get benefit through their land claims already even though the activity is far away from their lands. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, in terms of the agreement with BHP or Ekati mine, there is a provision for travel assistance, I believe, in hiring that goes way beyond the traditional boundaries for people whose traditional land the activity is taking place on. So there are provisions of points of hire from communities as far away as Inuvik and further, I believe. I am not so sure about the Diavik agreement. I believe it does give northerners preference, but it doesn't provide the same level of assistance as the Ekati mine provided. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, and I wasn't involved directly in all of them at the time, but the impact benefit agreements were negotiated with those people on whose traditional lands that economic activity was taking place. The GNWT, our government, did a broad umbrella socio-economic agreement as well with

each of the mines. In those cases, we represented the interests of the people in the Territories as broadly as we could on employment opportunities, travel to work, contracting, purchasing and so on. But communities were not asked to all come in and have input into it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I never did say we would complete all our negotiations and resource revenue sharing agreement by the end of March. I think the media may have taken it that way, but what I said is I want to achieve an agreement-in-principle by the end of March, recognizing that the final details would have to be worked out probably over a year or so. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that we're down now with the federal government, first time in history of negotiations, we're down to negotiating some very specific items between ourselves and the federal government. We're not going to leave a lot of these loose ends hanging out there to be dealt with somewhere in the future. We want to know that this deal is going to be a good deal. We can't just accept it for nothing. Mr. Speaker, but on principles we're still on target. We've got agreement with the aboriginal governments, the majority of them on that and I hope we can conclude that with aboriginal governments. I hope to see the same thing with the federal government. I don't know that we'll have employees moved very quickly, but I hope to agree on how many and how we might deal with the issues like salaries. I see that the federal negotiator in an article said that he wants to make sure that those people are treated fairly, that they don't make a financial sacrifice. I hope the federal government keeps that in mind as well when they negotiate or when we negotiate self-government. We have to keep the same principle in place. There are some principles we can agree on, though, and I haven't given up on the end of March for an agreement-in-principle. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have not had the opportunity to sit down with a group of employees whose positions would be considered for moving North. We have been working through a negotiator. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are still negotiating the exact positions. Which ones? Because again, Ottawa says, well, a lot of positions provide services right across the North, so those would have to stay in Ottawa. These ones provide services specifically for the North. If I remember correctly, the number that we are looking at is somewhere between 15 and 50 people, roughly in that range that would be people who are designated as providing services directly to the North. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of the jobs are already located in the Northwest Territories, and they are jobs where people are working for Indian Affairs in the land resources northern program side. So most of them are here already. The biggest issue we have is with salary and benefits, where there is a difference, and that is a subject of negotiation right now. Mr. Speaker, there are some that will be moving from Ottawa, but not a big, large number of employees. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While it is primarily land and resources, it does consider all of the positions within the Northern Affairs program that deliver services in the Northwest Territories or for the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.