Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to proceed with my motion regarding extended adjournment of the House.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to proceed with his motion. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Proceed, Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Keewatin Central, that when the House adjourns on April 3, 1992, it shall stand adjourned until June 16, 1992;

AND FURTHER, that at any time prior to June 16, 1992, the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.

Thank you. Your motion is in order.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Motions.

Item 16, first reading of bills.

Item 17, second reading of bills. Item 18, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels; Tabled Document 10-12(2), Reshaping Northern Government; Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction; Motion 6-12(2), Discussion on Sobriety Clause in Contribution Agreements, with Mr. Nerysoo in the chair.

The committee will come to order. We were dealing with Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction. Is it the wish of the House that we conclude Tabled Document 12-12(2)? Agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction

Mr. Pudluk.

Before we conclude the tabled document, I would like to make a few comments regarding the statement made by Mr. Arngna'naaq and Mr. Bernhardt. The issue of a boundary line, if you understand it -- it is not too difficult to understand why we want a boundary line. A lot of people misunderstood; the boundary line means division of Canadians. It is not so. It seems the Keewatin and Central Arctic does not seem to trust the Baffin area. I doubt they will not be treated equal because Baffin is a bigger area. It is not so.

I would like to go far back when the Yukon separated from the Northwest Territories. Since I have been in the North, I have never heard any complaints about that boundary line. Mr. Arngna'naaq indicated yesterday that aboriginal people have never lived by boundaries before. If we look at the Yukon, the boundary line is not affecting the aboriginal people in the North. The boundary line is only for the government proposal; it does not separate native people. The Yukon people still hunt in the NWT and the NWT people still hunt in the Yukon. They do not really worry about the boundary line. The boundary line is just for the government; it does not separate aboriginal people.

On having the Keewatin and Kitikmeot treated equally, they want something written to be assured they will be treated equally. I think today those people should write a letter and make sure it does not happen, All you have to do is get some good representative from that area to deal with issues that may come up between those regions. I would like to say that those people are really concerned because they are close to the boundary line. I do not blame those people who are concerned, but I think they need more explanation.

Mr. Chairman, if I could sit down with those people again, I am willing to explain more about what the boundary line is all about. Even in my communities there was confusion about what the boundary line means. It took me more than a month to explain what the boundary line means. A lot of people thought we were separating from Ottawa, separating from Canada, but it is not so. Even when I would say it was not that way, the same question still arose, that they did not want to be separated from other native people. We are not trying to separate native people in Canada. The boundary line only means that we want to have our own government.

Sometime in 1904 and 1906 and 1913 there was a big issue on the Yukon and Alaska boundary lines, and they have their own boundary line now. We have never heard any complaints on the boundary. Let us go along with it, and we can start working together.

Mr. Bernhardt.

Language Difference In Kitikmeot

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What my colleague, Mr. Pudluk, from the High Arctic has expressed, my interpretation is different. The people in the Kitikmeot, which is the constituency I represent and includes Coppermine, Bathurst Inlet and Bay Chimo, have a slight difference in the way we do our day-to-day living, including our language, which is already different. We use Roman orthography. We write in ABCs. We value this, but when I returned from Arctic College in Fort Smith and sat down as a hamlet councillor, I was appalled to see Kugluktuk spelled wrong. Instead of the "k"s which we commonly use, we are seeing "q"s. This disturbs our elders. It is altogether a different pronunciation. Even though I do not speak the language, people in my region are very much concerned about why the government or someone has decided to make us try to conform to a different way of writing.

The Copper Inuit people are different, yet we are all Inuit people. These are the things that people or new organizations should not bother to try to disturb. I have complaints that parents are pulling their children out of Inuvialuktun language classes because the way of saying words long ago is changing. This disturbs the parents. It is one issue that is very important to the people that I represent. No one in their right mind should try to change the way we write in our own native language.

Another matter my colleague from the High Arctic expressed was about the boundary. The boundary in the Kitikmeot Region is beside Sahtu, North Slave, Nunakput and Natilikmiot. We have people born in the Sahtu region and the Great Slave Lake many, many years ago. Even my mother-in-law was born over there in Great Slave Lake. That is how nomadic we were. A lot of people were born south of Contwoyto Lake. A lot of people were born in other places a way inland. They still want the right to hunt, trap and fish in .the area where they were born. We do not want to see a mine field to say you are entering a new territory. We want to have the inherent right to go wherever we wish and please but to live within our own region.

Cost To Kitikmeot Of Joining Nunavut

Historically, in the Kitikmeot Region as far as Cambridge Bay and Coppermine, Bathurst and Bay Chimo, we have always relied on Yellowknife and Hay River for essential services including barge systems, air transportation, health and social services, et cetera. All these things are so precious to what we want to hang on to. I am wondering if this new government can still guarantee our right to hang on to our own culture, our own written language and to be able to speak our own language in our own way, and our privilege to come to high school or the hospital in Yellowknife. Could we, at some point in time, have our own hospital and high school in the Kitikmeot Region, and not rely on other regions to provide services to us? We might be a small region, but geographically we are pretty huge, and we are very rich in mineral wealth.

But I think it is more than that that the plebiscite should be looking at; it is how unique we will be if we are to join Nunavut. We would like to be part of it, but at what cost? At what cost to the federal government? Can the new government provide these services? And I do not mean lip service; I mean concrete guaranteed services that we would not be hindered by dilution of services.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

I think a number of people have what I call the "pre-vote jitters." We have to remember that this has been going on for a long period of time, and there have been intense discussions at the community level and ongoing debate over the last 10 or 15 years. The fact of the matter is the Nunavut government will bring central government closer to people, in my opinion. I would suggest to my good friend from the Kitikmeot if he is content with the way the civil service is handled in the Kitikmeot, in Yellowknife over the last 10 years, then he would be more content if it was handled by a Nunavut government that understands the aspirations, understands the feelings of the people, and, I hope, cares about the level of service that his community and his riding requires.

To me, what we are doing with the plebiscite and the ultimate change in government to the Nunavut government is that we are bringing government closer to the people. We are going to ensure that there is a fair distribution of the dollars. There is not going to be -- I hope there is not going to be -- $700 million controlled by a small group of people, as it is currently done in the O and M budget, out of Yellowknife. We have a unique opportunity to change the style of government and make it more accountable and more responsible. And I think we equally have a unique opportunity to ensure that a maximum number of Northerners are involved in the system.

As far as I am concerned, the current way in which government is run, really, no matter how well-intentioned some people are and there are a lot of people who are well-intentioned there is no comprehension by the bureaucracy, or little comprehension by the bureaucracy, of the problems and issues that affect the communities outside of the centre. I have fought this argument for 20 years. I will continue to fight it.

I hope that people will vote "Yes" to the boundary, because it will bring about government with more accountability and a better and fairer distribution of the dollars. Let me remind everybody, over 30 per cent of the O and M budget is currently being spent on civil servant salaries and benefits -- $300 million plus. And let me remind everybody that it is the majority of civil servants who are reaping the benefits of this, Rightly so, they do not sit in Whale Cove, do not sit in Chesterfield Inlet, do not sit in Grise Fiord; they sit here. In my simple world, we can only improve the situation by supporting the plebiscite, provided -- and I have said on a number of occasions -- that in the final analysis there are adequate financial resources to do the job. And that is not to take away from anybody else, as has been suggested. It is clear that when we vote "Yes," as I am confident we will, that

everybody recognizes there will be a requirement for financial resources above and beyond the current financing that is in place. Nobody wants to take away anything. What we want is a more equitable distribution of the resources and to bring government closer to the people and, as my friend Al Woodhouse says in the Navigator Inn, "The crew that cares." You need a caring government, a caring bureaucracy and an understanding one. One that understands the issues in the Eastern Arctic, that understands what it is like to live in Bay Chimo and Grise Fiord and Whale Cove. Half the people here do not even know where the hell these places are - excuse me.

So I would hope, despite some of our apprehensions, that people would get out and vote overwhelmingly for the boundary issue. Thank you.

Mr. Allooloo.

Governmental System New And Foreign

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Member for Keewatin Central stated, this issue is not new to the NWT. This has been talked about for at least 15 years in the NWT, concerning a need to create a Nunavut territory.

I believe that we are unique within Canada, as we are a government represented with a majority of people who were born here, born of aboriginal descent, and also the long-time Northerners who are representing their communities.

Even though we are an aboriginal majority government in the NWT, this system is still, to some of us, foreign; we did not create the procedures and the way we operate. This was brought to us from Ottawa. Not too long ago the Dene from the West did not want to be involved in the Northwest Territories government, until very recently, because they did not recognize the NWT government. Even today I believe that some of the Dene still do not recognize the territorial government.

But we, the people from the East, are new to this government. We only started to be involved 20 years ago. We are fortunate, I think, that we could be here and be legislators to this land, but it is still foreign.

The creation of the Nunavut territory is a dream of the eastern people. As the Member for High Arctic said, it is the aspiration of the Nunavut people. When Nunavut government is created, it is going to be a public government. The seats will be open to the public, no matter who they are, but I believe because of the make-up of the population that we are going to have a government that is more representative of the Inuit who live there. It is going to be a government, as my friend for Keewatin Centre said, that is more sensitive to the eastern needs, because it is going to be in the Nunavut territory.

Yellowknife is very far away from Baffin, very far away from the Keewatin. For me to go home is like going across the country, from Vancouver to Montreal or Ottawa. It takes 16 hours altogether and eight hours' flying time. My people in the North Baffin, although they would like to be involved in the government process, have very little understanding of what happens here, because they do not get a chance to come here, It is very, very costly for my people to come here. The ticket is more than $2600.

My friend from Kitikmeot mentioned that his people are concerned because they want to continue hunting where they were born in Great Bear Lake and other areas. I believe the agreement, in terms of renewable resource harvesting, is going to be open to both sides. The people from the West will be able to hunt freely in the Nunavut region, and the East will be able to hunt in the divisional area in the West.

As far as non-renewable resources are concerned, there is going to be an agreement between Nunavut and the western government with respect to sharing those resources in particular areas close to the boundary.

I do not believe the people in the Kitikmeot are going to be hampered by going into Yellowknife or Inuvik for their essential services, or even to Hay River.

I do not think transportation is going to change. People in the Northwest Territories, especially in the Fort McPherson and Arctic Red River areas, are able to harvest natural resources from the Yukon. People from Old Crow, Yukon are able to harvest natural re sources in the Northwest Territories without any restriction. I think we could continue to do this.

Regarding hospital needs of the Nunavut region, they will still continue to use hospitals in Quebec, Ontario and Yellowknife. I would encourage everyone to make sure that the people of the Northwest Territories understand resource harvesting and using essential services such as hospitals and schools so that we will be able to make an agreement between the two governments. For those people in Kitikmeot, Baffin or the Keewatin, they will be able to use centres outside of the Nunavut area for hospital needs as well as their schooling needs. I do not think this is going to change as far as transportation is concerned.

I encourage everyone to turn out for the plebiscite and vote "Yes" on May 4th; people from the East and people from the West. Keep in mind that this is not going to go away. The Nunavut region will always try to get a government that is more equitable and closer to the people, as my friend from the Kivallivik Region said, so that the government will be more sensitized to the needs of the Nunavut people. Yellowknife is far away from the Baffin and Keewatin areas. Qujannamiik.

Thank you. General comments. Member for Baffin Central.

History Of Northwest Territories Boundaries

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the issue of the boundary, I want to remind all the residents of the Northwest Territories just how large the NWT used to be from 1895. The boundary of the NWT in 1895 included part of Labrador, which is northern Labrador, Quebec, the northern part of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Yukon. Ungava, Mackenzie, Yukon and Franklin were established in 1895 as districts in the NWT. The creation of the district of Franklin acknowledged the inclusion of the Arctic Islands in Canada. The districts of Athabasca and Keewatin were enlarged. Then in 1898 the boundaries were changed in the district of Mackenzie, Keewatin, Ungava, Franklin and Yukon. In 1898 the district of Yukon became a territory separate from the NWT. The Quebec boundaries were extended north. In 1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan were created as provinces, to make a total of nine provinces in the Dominion of Canada. The district of Keewatin was transferred back to the NWT. Due to changes in adjoining areas, the boundaries of the NWT were redefined in 1906. In 1912, Ontario and Manitoba attained their present boundaries. Quebec was extended northward to Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait, thereby absorbing mainland Ungava. Labrador boundary remained unsettled. In 1927 Canada's boundaries were extended northward pursuant to provisions of international law. The Imperial Privy Council provided the settlement of the Quebec, Labrador boundary question. In 1949, at its own request after a plebiscite, Newfoundland entered Confederation as the loth and most recent province of the Dominion of Canada. This

has been the progress that Canada has made.

What we want now is to progress further in having this boundary that has been put forward that we are going to vote on, on May 4th. I encourage all residents of the NWT to vote "Yes" or "No." It is up to the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Member for Mackenzie Delta.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clarify a couple of matters that seem to be misinterpreted about boundaries and the perceived opportunities that aboriginal people have to pursue their traditional and their aboriginal right in the areas that they traditionally used. I want to first make a couple of comments on the matter of the plebiscite.

Firstly, I want to indicate to people here that my own personal position has been to support the creation of Nunavut ever since I became a Member of this House, since 1979, and even before then. But I want to say to you that it has always been with a view that the Dene and the Metis would see their dream of their right to self-government protected as well. I know that other Members and the Government Leader, who has worked hard on behalf of the Inuvialuit, have always wanted their dream of having their right to govern themselves included in any constitution. I do not think that there is anyone here that could argue a case against the Inuit to obtain their right to government, to control their communities and decisions that are made about them.

Uncertainty A Cause For Concern In The West

I do want to say that this is not necessarily certain about the Dene and Metis in the West at this particular time, nor, for that matter, the Inuvialuit. I think that much of the concern that exists is that uncertainty, because the boundary itself creates a much clearer certainty for the Inuit. Their land claim stipulates the basis on which we are going to establish our relationship in the East. This is not necessarily the case for the Dene, Metis and Inuvialuit in the West. I think that because of this uncertainty, people are not sure whether or not it is time for them to vote in support of the boundary. That certainty has to be created even in the views that are expressed by the Inuit leaders that they are going to be diligent and supportive of the aspirations of the Dene/Metis and Inuvialuit. I think this is very fundamental.

As well, I want to say that I think even in the West, when we talk about this idea of a government for the West, the rights of the non-aboriginal people are going to have to be clear, and they are going to have to be protected. I know that while we have established a commission to deal with this particular issue and even today they are holding hearings here, there is still that uncertainty even in the non-aboriginal communities with the relationship with government in the West. I think this in itself causes a great deal of concern.

I want to say that I want to be able to say, as an aboriginal person, that any new western government has my confidence because they are going to be established to protect my interests. Whether or not it is protecting the right of aboriginal self-government, or whether or not it is protecting our role within a public structure, needs to be clear. It may not happen on May 4th, but it should happen before the actual conclusions are made to divide.

Decision-Making Power Lost Re Laws Affecting Rights In Another Jurisdiction

I want to bring to your attention -- just for clarification because there seems to be some confusion about the issue of the Yukon boundary, the BC boundary or the other boundaries that we have -- that it has not always been that simple. Yes, we have the right to continue harvesting. The problem we have is that we are not part of the decision-making regarding laws which affect those rights. Yes, we can travel back and forth with no serious legal problems, but the issue is, who makes the decisions that, in the end, affect your communities?

Like many other areas in Canada, we are subject to decisions in and out of our jurisdiction, even on matters relating to issues such as water management. I know my colleagues, Mr. Allooloo and Mr. Ningark, who have been close to this issue and are involved with this issue, and the Government Leader, who has been intimately involved in terms of negotiations previously with the Yukon Government, know that it is not that simple. Dealing with another government is not that simple.

I hope that when we address the matter of the particular boundary that divides Nunavut and the West, that it is based on some agreement prior to making final decisions of moving your own way. It has only been because of Treaty 11 that we have really been able to maintain a legal basis in the Yukon, and the Inuvialuit have been able to argue their case because of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement that gave them and protected their interest. It is only those kinds of arrangements that seem to commit governments to protecting your interest. Otherwise it seems that if they had a way out -- they would try to find a way out of applying those traditional rights you have had all along.

So I would ask my colleagues, when you are addressing this matter in future, even as you leave today, that it is with a view that we try to resolve some of these particular issues before the final conclusion that we are going our separate ways. Because I think they are important, and they are certainties to rights that people have. Whether or not it is the Inuit in the western area or the Dene in the Nunavut area, those long-term certainties should be there. They are very, very crucial.

So I just wanted to point those issues out to you so that we do not get mixed information about this idea that we have the right to continue. Because there are restrictions. I can indicate to the Members here, for instance, that in the Yukon the non-status Metis, non-status Indians in our communities, until we signed the Gwich'in final agreement, did not have the right to harvest in the Yukon. It has only been because we put them in the final agreement for the Gwich'in that they now have the right to harvest legally in the Yukon.

So these are some of the things that I wanted to make you aware of, so that if we come to our final decisions after the May 4th plebiscite vote, you will respect and ensure that these are things that do not happen in future.

Member for Natilikmiot.

Native People Survive By Working Together

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like most of my colleagues from the East and the West, I believe in unity. Although I believe in unity, I also believe in the right to self-government and self-determination for aboriginal people. A number of times people ask why the people of the Eastern Arctic want to divide. What do we hope to gain from division? I think we want to be able to determine our future. We want to be able to control and operate, in our own land, the renewable resources, non-renewable resources, wildlife management. We have inhabited the land for many thousands of years, before anyone else. I think we have that right to be able to determine our own future.

I also believe that eastern people support the Dene in their endeavour to have their own land claim settlement. Like my colleague, Mr. Nerysoo, I support the Dene people as he supported Inuit people in their determination to have their own future, especially in running their own land.

Mr. Chairman, it is important and significant to retain our language and our culture. I am proud to be a native person, aboriginal person. I am proud to be an Inuk.

We, the native people, the Inuit people as well as the Dene people, have survived by working together. I am not saying that Dene and Inuit work together, but I know Dene people have survived by working together. The same goes for the Inuit people. We have survived maybe 30,000 years by working together in Nunavut. Nunavut means, literally translated into English, "our land." We have always worked together in order to survive. We are very much a community people. That is what we would like to see May 4th when we go to vote on the plebiscite to determine the boundary.

I am very confident that, as usual the Eastern Arctic people will stick together and have the yes vote. This is my opinion, but I am not able to foresee the results of the future. Most of the Members of this House are probably in the same situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to prolong discussing this. I support the plebiscite to determine the boundary. I support division. Mr. Chairman, I support Nunavut. I wanted to express this as the representative of Natilikmiot and Kitikmeot regions. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Member for Thebacha.

Opposition To Boundary In Fort Smith Constituency

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to be very brief on the boundary and the plebiscite issues. I want to indicate, for the record, that as an MLA I have always supported the concept of Nunavut, and that I support Nunavut. However, I do want to advise this Assembly that I do know that the concern of the chief in Fort Smith is to encourage his members to vote against the boundary, and for the native people in Fort Smith to vote against the boundary. They feel that it imposes upon some of their traditional lands where they have hunted and harvested, particularly in support of the residents of Snowdrift and the South Slave area of the lake. I want Members to be aware of the type of opposition that I am up against in our community.

I also want Members to be aware that the chief also believes that non-natives should not be able to vote on the plebiscite. He feels that because of the fact that they do not use the land, and they have never used the land, that they should not be able to vote. Unfortunately, I do not agree with his stand. I believe that is a very radical stand, and I do not believe it is in fairness to residents that are non-natives and have lived in our communities for a number of years and should not be treated in this manner.

--- Applause

Therefore, I do want to advise Members that I will make every effort in our community, even though our community in 1982 voted against division, to encourage them to at least go out and exercise their democratic right as citizens of the Territories to vote on the plebiscite. It is my hope, in fairness, that my constituents will take an open viewpoint and recognize the aspirations of the Inuit to achieve Nunavut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--- Applause