Mr. Chairman, the committee wishes to proceed with Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction.

Is it the wish of the committee that we deal with Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite

Direction? Agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction

We will now deal with Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction. Are there any general comments? Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There have been some comments regarding that the western part of the NWT has not been well informed of this. I am sorry that is the case. The previous plebiscite vote in 1982 was carried out and there was a majority of residents who voted in favour of splitting the NWT. From there on we have been rather active in determining where is the most fair boundary that both East and West can agree on. We came up with different ideas, but eventually through an arbitrator -- there is so much overlapping interest from the aboriginal standpoint, there has to be a compromise made. So we have now been informing our constituents in Nunavut that this is the boundary that is the most fair, although we informed the communities closest to the boundary, i.e. Arviat, Baker Lake, Coppermine and other places, that the boundary itself will not necessarily represent their traditional interests.

However, in the TFN land claims agreement, the traditional hunting and camping areas and also the landmarks will not be jeopardized by this boundary. In fact, if we can remember, the jurisdictional boundary lines between Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the NWT have never stopped any Saskatchewan or Manitoba people from hunting and trapping in their traditional areas within Nunavut, inside the proposed Nunavut boundary. We strongly feel that will not change, because we, too, as Nunavut members, also have interests that will be inside the western side of the boundary. We hope, too, very strongly, that we will not be jeopardized from going in that area pursuing our traditional hunting, trapping and other aboriginal practices.

So with that, we have been consulting with our communities, and we are active in trying to make our communities understand the pros and cons of the situation and give them absolute freedom to vote on the May 4th plebiscite.

Thank you. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make some comments on the plebiscite direction, particularly the public campaign that should be going on in the western communities. We are all aware that currently eastern MLAs are actively travelling to their communities, meeting with constituents and discussing the upcoming plebiscite.

In the West, as far as I know, very few of the western MLAs have had an opportunity to visit their constituencies and talk to the various groups in their communities regarding this plebiscite.

My concern is that the territorial government has provided funding to TFN to carry on the plebiscite and do a community information campaign, and a secretariat has been established to do a numeration process and do an information campaign for the whole territory. However, as a western MLA I feet that I may not have the same opportunity as eastern Members or receive the same type of information that they have in doing the work that they are doing.

We are about 32 days away from a vote, and many people in the West are just recently getting public information on what we are to vote about, but no public meetings or public discussions on what the issues are. I feel as a western MLA that I am in a very difficult position to provide information or advice to my constituents on which way to vote. As a person I am going to vote the way I feel best, but as a public figure and a leader -- people have a tendency to ask, and I really am in no position today to sway them one way or another. That is a real concern.

I raised some of these issues during question period, and I am just not sure as a western MLA how we provide adequate factual information to people in the Western Arctic on how to vote on the upcoming plebiscite.

Mr. Bernhardt.

Constituents' Concerns Relative To Boundary

I had an opportunity to talk to some of the people I represent in Coppermine before we reconvened, and I was not too amazed that some of the elders who I spoke to did not agree to going with Nunavut. They told me, "How can Nunavut provide the services that we already have provided by the government? How can they better our services?' I never questioned them; I just sat there and had more tea and let them do all the talking.

When I talked to hunters and trappers that use the region that I represent that is supposed to be divided, they said that many of the Coppermine people still go close to Great Bear Lake to hunt for wolverines, wolves or whatever, or just go to places where their forefathers have gone. They do not want to lose that opportunity to continue going there.

In my opinion, before this division thing or plebiscite thing came up, we were always in the Central Arctic, and now all of a sudden we are going to be moved into a new direction which is the Eastern Arctic. History indicates that we have always been part of the Western Arctic, and the government gave us disk numbers that we still use. I know my disk number is W3668, because I am from the West. People in Coppermine and Cambridge are "W" too, so that is an indication that the government gave them a number saying they are from the Western Arctic. But now that we have something that we are going to have to live by, I really do not know what kind of direction our younger people want to take on this matter.

We have to look at our resources. What can we offer them? What can division offer our young people? What can division offer our elderly people? What kind of security can we be guaranteed, that we already have, that we may lose? Land claims, in my opinion, is not a solution. Land claims money can take you only so far. Once your investments are bad, what are you left with?

I may sound as though I am against division, but I have to speak for the people I represent. I am Inuvialuit. I might not speak my language, but, son of a gun, it is hard being brought up in a convent and losing what you were born with. But what costs will people pay in the Kitikmeot? Will we really be happy? Will we have decent representation? Will we have equal representation as the people who are living in the Baffin? We would like to see these written down so we have no more fear or uncertainties. The Territories is already unique enough.

We look at this side of the House. There are whole bunch of us who were born and raised in the Territories, and went to residential schools. Some of them are traditional people. They still uphold their values, but the world is changing. The Ministers across there are in the same boat. But why are we spoiling something we already try to make better'? We want to create something that some people might not like.

Money can take people only so far, but it is the resources we have, if we do not have renewable resources, things that you can grow and reproduce -- why are we going after the gold and silver'? That is non-renewable. I understand where the Baffin people are coming from. They have renewable resources, because they are so close to the ocean. They have shrimp. I have tasted their beautiful shrimp. But what we people in the Kitikmeot have, gold and silver, is not renewable. These are the things we have to tell our people about.

So I do not know if I can be a super salesman, but I will sure try. I do not work for Simpson Sears or Eatons. We all go to the Hudson's Bay store -- I do not call it Northern, I just call it The Bay. But I guess we will find out fairly shortly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lewis.

History Of Division Issue

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to have this document, which included the plebiscite question and the preamble to the question, brought into the House for discussion. If you recall, we did have the opportunity some weeks ago to suspend the rules of the House so that people could come in from various places, and for some reason chose not to come, but there was an opportunity to discuss the whole plebiscite issue, and it was televised. So people are aware that we are on the threshold -- just a month away -- of making one of the big decisions that has been on hold for 25 years now, as to what we are going to do.

In those early days what happened was that the decision was made that although the West wanted to go its own way and accept the straight up and down boundary from the Man itoba/Saskatchewan boundary, along the line of longitude, the decision was made that it was a bit soon and it could wait because there was so much work that had to be done.

Anyway, the feeling was at that time that it was a bit early to begin talking about all this stuff, "but we know you guys in the West want to go your own way, but it is a bit early. We should take our time and make sure that there is a decent level of government on the ground, that we do have people in the NWT that really want to take over control of their business and a manner has to be found to express that. So let us wait a while, and do not worry about it."

But it seems that for the last 10 years the momentum has been gathering to do what people wanted to do in the early 1960s, which was to divide and get on with it. But, of course, since that time, people are changing their minds and wonder why we have to do it any more, and that certainly is the case in my own community. The people I represent feel very strongly, many of them, that there is no need to divide, that we have a long way to go yet, that we do not have any kind of economy, it is all government. We do not have a real economy where you can say we create wealth. All we do is spend money. So many people say we are just not ready to make this big move toward dividing and going our own way and weakening our position.

However, my problem as an individual, and it is a problem that every MLA has to face, is to do what they think is best. Sometimes you are in conflict with your constituents and sometimes you are very much supported by them. But I know that in 1965 1 felt very strongly that even then we should be dividing, because I did not live here then; I lived in the East. And the feeling was very strong to divide very soon; it could happen tomorrow. But in the wisdom of the people who made decisions at that time, then was not the time, there was so much that had to be done. But we are at the stage now when this major decision just cannot be put off any more.

Boundary Will Divide Political Jurisdictions

The issue simply is this, that we are talking now about a line-which is not only a claim line which divides people's claims areas -- we are just talking about aboriginal people's claims areas -- but we are also talking about a political line which could divide political jurisdictions. So though non-native people have not expressed themselves that vocally over the last 10 years on this issue, because they always saw it as simply a land claims business among the various aboriginal organizations, some now are beginning to realize that we are talking about a constitutional issue of two political jurisdictions in which they could either be in the East or the West, or whatever jurisdictions are created. That is where the emotion will begin to come in, because things have changed an awful lot over the last 25 years.

I have thought a lot about this issue of where we should go, and I know if you look at cases all over the world - and I will not bore Members with examples of it - but there have been some boundary arguments that have gone on for the last few hundred years, and they are still arguing about a boundary. It could go on and on and on, about where a boundary should be, and until you get a boundary nothing much can happen. Everybody knows that Unless you have got a definite boundary that people can agree on, and you are going to proceed from there, then you are going to really jeopardize any further development.

I think we should simply take it as that, as a boundary, that we are talking about a boundary and not confuse it with anything else. The plebiscite preamble questions, in my opinion, confuse the issue. It is a simple matter of *Do you agree or not with this boundary?' Try to forget all that preamble stuff. That is what we are trying to do, because without that boundary there is no claim for the Inuit, and they would like to get on with it, and God bless the people that really want to push that.

So the position that I am taking with anybody that asks me is that we are talking about a boundary. We would have had a different boundary, perhaps, if we had done it a long time ago, and there would have been more of it, I suppose, in the West. But that is history now. The boundary that seems to be the one that will find greatest support among the greatest number of people is the boundary that was the compromise boundary which was proposed by Mr. Parker and seems to have been accepted as the one that we will use.

I have in front of me a map which was drawn in 1717. I have taken a tremendous interest in the Barren Lands and what went on in the Barren Lands from 1717 until the end of the 18th century. There are an incredible number of names, all the way through that area of lakes and different geographical features, which are Chipewyan names. I have taken an interest in it and begun to develop some ideas as to how all this happened. I was impressed when I was listening at our presentation here some weeks ago by the people from Snowdrift. Their issue was that; they were really looking at that line.

As an individual I have no great problem with the line myself, But I could understand the people who have lived in that area and who have a sense of history that is passed down from generation to generation about the land they have always occupied. I was impressed by that. I thought, "Well, yes, that group of people, I can see, have got some argument to vote in a certain way." But for the people I represent, that is not an issue for them, and that should not be an issue for them. The issue is really whether you can live with this line or not.

I know that as far as I am concerned I will personally support the line. I am not going to go out and push and tell people what they should do, but as an individual, I am prepared to vote, even though it is a secret ballot, "Yes, that is a line that I can live with," even though I know it is no longer a land claim line, it is a political line. And when everything is said and done, I will be living in the western territory or whatever you want to call it, and I am prepared to accept that because we could, in fact, have this process dragged on forever, simply because you cannot agree on a line. I think it is a sad thing that all over the world we find people impeding progress simply because of a line, although I do sympathize with the Chipewyan people, who have a point to make and will have an opportunity to express their opinion when there is a plebiscite. But I shall not be going out among people in Yellowknife to tell them what I think should happen. They have to make up their own minds on the basis of the information that they get; and I share Mr. Koe's concern that they are not getting the information the same way in the West that they are in the East.

Mr. Gargan.

Communities Affected By Boundary Line Must Be Satisified

One of the things that happened as a result of this plebiscite was a 1982 vote in which there was a "Yes" vote for division, but also I believe the Dene population barely supported the division issue. But one of the principles with regard to the support of the division issue at that time was to make it clear, based on the principle that the Inuit would have a homeland and the Dene would have a homeland. That was a dream that both the Inuit and the Dens people have wanted for a long time.

But this time around again, it is a boundary line the plebiscite is going to be on, and I think the people in my constituency are not going to be affected by the boundary. But the people of Deh Cho also will not support the line if the communities affected by the line are not satisfied. So that is the position the Deh Cho Regional Council has taken with regard to the boundary issue. We are going to be supporting the way they want to vote with regard to the line.

Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not really thought of anything to say, but just hearing the comments that are being made, and because I am affected, as a representative of people who are close to the boundary line, and realizing the history that Mr. Lewis has just given us, that there is general support for division, Whether the boundary is here or there is a question that will affect the native people more than it will affect any other people. And again, because this is a political boundary line, I had tried to say in the discussions we had a couple of weeks ago that the only reason why there is a boundary being created is because governments that do exist live by boundaries. Aboriginal people have never really lived by boundaries before, and now they are being forced to decide on a boundary line which they cannot agree on. Because it is a boundary line that the government has to live by.

I do not know what the solution would be to this, because we are in general agreement that there should be division of the Territories. Maybe there could be a sub-agreement the aboriginal people could live by, indicating to each other that this boundary is a boundary set by the government but that it is not necessarily a boundary that we, as aboriginal people, will live by. Whether that is a solution, I do not know. Because whether we divide or not and use this boundary or another boundary, it is still a boundary that is set by the federal government and is followed by political groups. But I believe for native people, I do not think they have to live by a boundary. They could live traditionally with their inherent right to live as they have lived before, within a public government system, with their own agreement.

There are various comments being made on how Nunavut Members are doing their constituency work in regard to the plebiscite. I think it was an agreement because we were able to work together on what we would be doing as far as our constituents are concerned. Basically, for me it is just an information process. My stance on this will be to inform the people that basically the plebiscite is on the boundary, and whether you vote "Yes" or "No" to that is entirely up to you. How Members, as Ernie just stated, will be affected by the boundary and on which side they will be going on -- I think we could say that you are only going to be as strong or as good as the people who are elected.

It was also stated that we still have a long way to go. I think the people in the East are beginning to realize that we do have a long way to go, but what we want to do is to be able to decide which direction we in the East are going to take without having to think about the West. The West can decide on the direction they would like to go, without the interference of the people from the East.

I do not know how we could solve the problem of the boundary. I think the way around that is for the aboriginal groups who live close to the boundary line to agree to say that they will not live by the boundary line, that they will live their traditional lives the way they always have; and the line that has been created is merely a line which the two governments of the East and the West will live by. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other general comments? Is it the wish of the committee that this particular item is concluded? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

I wanted to make a general comment, but I will let it pass. I will move that we report progress.

The motion is not debatable. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

I will now rise and report progress.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 12-12(2) and wishes to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the chairman of the committee of the whole be concurred with.

Seconder to the motion? Mr. Koe. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Item 20, third reading of bills. Item 21, Mr. Clerk, orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting of the ordinary Members' caucus immediately after adjournment and again at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Orders of the day for Friday, April 3, 1992.

1. Prayer

2. Ministers' Statements

3. Members' Statements

4. Returns to Oral Questions

5. Oral Questions

6. Written Questions

7. Returns to Written Questions

8. Replies to Opening Address

9. Petitions

10. Reports of Standing and Special Committees

11. Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

12. Tabling of Documents

13. Notices of Motions

14. Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills

15. Motions

16. First Reading of Bills

17. Second Reading of Bills

18. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and

Other Matters: Tabled Documents 9-12(2), 10-12(2) and

12-12(2); Motion 6-12(2)

19. Report of Committee of the Whole

20. Third Reading of Bills

21. Orders of the Day

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 3, 1992.