Mr. Chairman, that is not what am advocating at all. For instance, if the group said, "We feel there is sufficient work being done in the commission and there is a need and we all agree we want to go out there and want to be involved in the campaign, whether we support it or

not, all of us agree we want money." Then it would come forward. I do not want to have it misconstrued. One of the concerns that a request for additional moneys came forward, was not because of the political position of a certain organization, but the fact that some money had been given to all the different groups and some of the groups could not initially provide any kind of justification for having spent the money that they did and then coming back and asking for more.

It put some of the other groups in an awkward situation, and myself as a Minister, because I know if I come back here and ask for additional money, I have to be able to say that all money that was spent out there was well used it here are the results of it. I just feel that I am getting set up to be seen as somebody that is seen as somebody that is against a particular group and not with another, and I do not think I want to end up there. The fact is that if the groups all said, "We think there should be a campaign made, people should be visited, communities should be informed, the *yes" people, the "maybe" people and the "we do not know" people and ..absolutely no" people should all go around and campaign.' I would bring it forward to this Legislature because it is not the government that made the political agreements and the funding allocations in the first place, it was this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct. Technically, the plebiscite vote is on whether that particular boundary is acceptable or not to be used for the purpose of dividing the Territories. Technically, that is the, question. It has always been the common view that people, particularly in the West, will not vote or will vote massively against any boundary regardless of how viable it may be as long as they do not have some constitutional assurance of what they will be faced with. That has been consistently reflected over the last 10 years. If we are going to divide as Inuvialuit, as Dene/Metis, if we are going to be in the West, then we have to have some assurances before division takes place that there is a constitution -- a future government that

we will be comfortable with before division goes ahead. This has been one of the conditions. This is why I raised it. The Member is right. It is not really explicit, but the fact is that is what needed to be done before we felt people would take a vote. We felt it would be a useless exercise to set up a plebiscite vote if we did not do anything here in the West. That is what the Legislature had agreed to make moneys available for last year in preparation. There have been instances in the committee where at least one group asked for additional money. It has been rejected or vetoed by other Members because they felt it was not well thought out, and they did not feel it was proper to come forward at this time. I know that if there is a request by political leaders to ask this Legislature for additional money, as lead Minister for this, I would bring it to the House to be considered. How well I would be able to defend is another point. That is what I would do if I was so directed by that group. Thank you.

I cannot speak for the Metis or Dene leadership or the different aboriginal organizations or anyone else. I just know that when this understanding was reached, it was felt last year that one way or another the boundary issue is going to be resolved and people may or may not like that. But that is not going to be the only basis on which people are going to vote. The consensus was that the way that people want to approach it is to support division

if they can get sufficient development of the constitution in the West that, for instance, a commission was set up and it talked to all the people in the communities and it came up with sufficient outline of what a future constitution might look like in the West, that would be sufficient for people to vote. It would give you enough substance to say, "Well, based on where I see the boundary is, based on what I know about the possible western future constitution, and based on what I think I know about the cost of division, that sort of thing, I am in a position to make an informed vote."

There was no provision requested by the groups to say, 'We want this much money for a commission and yes, we also want this much money set aside for a campaign in the West to get ready for the vote on the plebiscite." That was not in the discussions at all. It was for the East but it was not for the West. The question can only go back to the committee of western leaders to say, "Now that we are at this stage, are they going to reconsider?" The question might go back.

It requires a little political assessment. I am kind of reluctant to do it, but as I recall, there was some reluctance to provide the amount of money that the Western Constitutional Commission required, particularly from eastern Members. So there was some allocation made for the East to get some money, That was done last July. We have yet to receive the results for the allocation made to the West. We provided a certain amount of money for the Western Constitutional Commission to do its work. So far, we have an interim report, we have yet to see a final report in which we have to find some satisfaction as a Legislature that the money we expended through them, not only the report, but the commission, and the money we gave to the different groups was well spent. I think Members are going to be, I hope, just as jaundiced in their view about where all this money was used and how well spent it was by the different groups that were funded by the commission over the course of the last year.

So there is a reluctance on my part, I guess, to suggest we start providing additional moneys at this time. I wanted to express it. I am concerned about it. When we do something I want it to be well thought out and well considered before we do it. I think that was the sentiment that was expressed as well by the committee of western leaders and that is why they sort of said they would not support individual proposals and actions taking place, because it does jeopardize the activities of other groups. It has to be well co-ordinated. That is the point.

Mr. Chairman, the group was set up last spring and it follows, basically, the membership that made up the Western Constitutional Forum that collapsed in October 1989 or 1990, 1 cannot remember, in Norman Wells. It is the Dene Nation, the Metis Nation, and it also includes the Gwich'in Tribal Council which had asked for separate status, the Sahtu Tribal Council which had asked for special status, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, and there are Members of the Legislature, Charles Dent is currently sitting on it and as Minister in cabinet, I am still sitting on it. Those

are groups that comprise this formal group. I say ad hoc -it is not a good word -- informal, because we are not incorporated in any way. We just sit together and work together through consensus through a political agreement.

I guess I am saying that if the Dene Nation said they want $70,000 to get ready for a plebiscite vote, I would say, no, it would not be considered, because it goes against the political understanding I had with the other aboriginal groups that formed that political group. I am saying, if the committee of western political leaders met and said, "Look, we want to request so many dollars to get involved in an active way on the plebiscite vote." Yes, we would consider it.

Mr. Chairman, the political agreement that was reached again last year was that -- and the understanding that I have been operating with, both in the last government and this one is that any funding proposals regarding plebiscites or political or constitutional development issues made by aboriginal groups or public groups, particularly in the western part of the NWT, would be done through this committee called the committee of western political leaders. This is sort of an ad hoc informal group that made the proposal together to request the Legislature to fund a western commission. I think it was agreed in our meetings last summer and this fall that the Legislature would not be expected to respond to individual groups. All the funding requests made by these groups would properly be done through this committee. There has been no mention, in the last meeting I was at, of any suggestion by the Dene Nation or the Gwich'in or the Metis, that they would be requesting additional funds for any activities leading up to the plebiscite vote.

Mr. Chairman, if I could, without aggravating anyone, the reason there is no money sifting out there for western aboriginal or public bodies to use to get involved in preparing for a plebiscite is because up until now no one has asked for it. I bring Members back to July, which was when we made this sort of political agreement. I think Jeannie might remember that far back. It was clear, the deal was it was the western groups, the Dene Nation, the Metis Association, Gwich'in, the Sahtu, that said, "What we want if the plebiscite is going to go ahead is we need so much money." I forget the exact amount, it is over one million dollars, so that we can set up a commission that would begin work on drafting principles for a future constitution so that those of us in the West might be able to put ourselves in a position where we can be given assurance that we can support a plebiscite. This is what we require if we are going to be even able to consider taking a positive view of the plebiscite. That was the full extent of the request at that time.

The Members of the Nunavut caucus had said at that time that they want some sort of public moneys made available for TFN to carry out an awareness campaign. That is why we are at the stage where we are. I cannot say much more than that. If Members are suggesting that groups are going to come back for additional money, revisit the trough, so to speak, I do not have any comments on it, except to say, if the question is, "Why is there not a pot of money for the West and the East?" There e was. A very unequal pot, you might say. That has been the way it has been through our history. The West does certain things that the East is not particularly interested in. The East does things that the West does not consider timely. That is the way the deal settled in July. You are looking at the figures now.

Mr. Chairman, if the question is, are we planning to do any more transfers of person years or partial person years, the answer is, no, not at this time.