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.