Good afternoon. Before we proceed today, I am going to give my decision on the point of privilege made by Mrs. Marie-Jewell on Thursday, September 24, 1992. Where she asked the Minister of Health, the Honourable Dennis Patterson, a question relating to the process surrounding an inquiry, established pursuant to the Medical Profession Act. A board of inquiry has been duly constituted pursuant to the Act, however, the inquiry is in its early stages, and to the Chair's knowledge, no evidence has yet been given in the inquiry. As the issue of sub judice has been raised with increasing frequency in this Assembly, I, therefore, allowed debate on this issue, and advised Members that I would take some time to consider their comments, and review our rules and various parliamentary authorities, before rendering my ruling.

Rule 35(g) provides that a Member will be called to order if the Member refers to any matter that is before any quasi-judicial administrative, or investigative, body constituted by the Assembly, by or under the authority of an Act of the Assembly, or where any such person may be prejudiced in such a matter by the reference. This rule is a "codification" of the long-standing parliamentary convention prohibiting Members from commenting on matters before judicial bodies.

The purpose of the sub judice convention is twofold: to protect the interested parties from prejudice, and to maintain a separation and mutual respect between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The sub judice convention is straightforward as it applies to criminal matters. Parliamentary precedents are consistent in barring any reference to criminal matters pending before a court. Comments by Members of criminal matters being considered by a court may result in prejudice to the accused, and the development of a public perception that the Legislature is attempting to influence the judiciary. The independence of the judicial system, and the rights of the accused, are simply too important to allow this to happen.

The rule as it applies to civil matters, particularly those pending before a quasi-judicial tribunal, is less clear and, hence, the sub judice convention becomes more difficult to apply. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 507(1), notes "that no settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others". Thus, the application of this ill-defined convention, as it is applied to civil matters, is left to the relevant Speaker, and considerable discretion exists in determining when, and under what circumstances, a question will offend the convention.

The discretion allowed the Speaker is necessary, for it is not possible to devise a rule which would have a general and exact application to every factual scenario that Members may pose.

While it is not possible to define exactly when sub judice is applicable, discretion should not be exercised in a vacuum, and guidelines should be adopted which will govern the exercise of the Speaker's discretion. After reviewing the relevant authorities and principles, I feel that the following principles are applicable when determining whether a question violates Rule 35(g), and the general sub judice convention:

1. The freedom of speech accorded to Members in this House is vital to the Member's ability to perform their duties, and adequately represent the needs and interest of their constituents. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democratic system. The application of the sub judice rule is a fetter on a Member's freedom of speech and, hence, the convention should be restrictively interpreted. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do could be harmful to specific individuals. (Beauchesne's 511)

2. The rights of litigants to a fair trial, free from the possibility of prejudice occasioned by a public debate on the very issues before the trial judge, must also be protected. Generally, Speaker comments which seek to influence parties, witnesses, or decision-makers, will be inappropriate. In these circumstances, a Member's freedom of speech must give way to the importance of preserving the independence of the decision making process. It is not enough for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done.

3. Questions, or debate, relating to the content of a matter before a separate decision making party will, generally speaking, be inappropriate, and will be disallowed. This would include, for example, questions relating to evidence given at an inquiry, or questions designed to comment on, or influence, the very matter before a decision maker. Questions relating to procedure, or process, particularly at the pre-hearing stage, will, generally speaking, be allowed, given that they do not seek to substitute this Legislature's opinions for that of the outside tribunal.

4. While the Chair has the ultimate responsibility of determining when a matter is sub judice, all Members should share in the responsibility of protecting the independence of decision making bodies, established under Acts of this Legislature.

A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case, or inquiry, should refrain from raising the matter.

5. Where a real doubt exists in the mind of the Chair, as to whether a question would prejudice the litigants, or the independence, of the decision making process, the Chair should exercise its discretion in favour of allowing debate on the issue, and against the application of the sub judice convention.

In applying the above principles to the question asked by the Member for Thebacha, I have not been persuaded that prejudice would result, or be seen to result, if the Member is permitted to ask a question concerning the process of establishing the inquiry. The process of giving evidence is not yet under way. Further, the Member's question concerns a procedural, process oriented issue, and is not related to the actual subject matter of the inquiry. Accordingly, should the Member wish, I will permit her to raise her question as posed on Thursday, September 24, 1992.

As indicated, this a lengthy ruling, but I felt that Members should be aware of the principles that the Chair will apply in debate when deciding on the use of the sub judice convention. I would also hope that Members would exercise their responsibility when asking questions, and to also be guided by these principles.

Thank you.

Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Whitford.

Item 2, Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, before giving my Member's statement, I want to take the time to thank you for your ruling on the matter of privilege, I brought before this House last Thursday. I believe that your direction, Mr. Speaker, on this will be useful for all honourable Members, in this House, when dealing with sub judice convention.

I would like to make a few comments today, however, because I am still concerned about the process used by the Minister of Health with respect to a Board of Inquiry, established under the Medical Profession Act, to deal with certain matters at the Fort Smith Health Centre. The Minister of Health, on September 9, was asked about the development of standards for a board of inquiry, of a report prepared by two doctors from Saskatchewan.

The Minister responded, and I refer to page 3075 of our unedited transcripts, of that particular date, regarding the board of inquiry, and I quote the Minister's response: "The board of inquiry is an independent procedure which I would describe as a peer review, the same way that doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals discipline themselves."

It is not something that is geared by the government, the Minister, or the department? Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister can continue to take this position when the department's own lawyer is acting for the one who is issuing notices of summons, and acting for the board of inquiry. Who is giving her the instructions to do this? Clearly, it must be someone within the Department of Health, or the Department of Justice. I state that because, that is where the employee works.

Honourable Members should be as concerned as I am with this Minister, who may not be keeping an arms length distance from this, supposedly, independent process. Honourable Members should be concerned that the Department of Health may be attempting to steer this process in the same way it attempts to run health and hospital boards across the territories, and overriding the wishes of our communities and regions in favour of its headquarters's perspectives.

I do intend to further my questioning on this important issue today because, as you had said...

Mrs. Marie-Jewell, your allotted time has elapsed.

I seek unanimous consent to continue.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays, please continue Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I will continue to pursue this line of questioning today. As you had

stated, justice must not only be done, but it must also seem to be done. Thank you.

Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. As we all know, everything is going up in price, but I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation, in regards to airlines, I do not know if the airfares are going up in the west, but the airfares in the eastern Arctic are increasing. I am wondering if the Minister has ever been notified of the proposed increases in airfares, and if he knows anything about these proposed increases?

For those of us that have to travel back and forth on airlines in the eastern arctic, it has a significant impact on us. Airfare increases in the eastern Arctic are increasing every year practically. I am wondering if the Minister of Transportation has been notified of these proposed increases? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Whitford.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Question has been taken as notice. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, if I could only go back to my oral question? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be asking another question to the Minister of Transportation. I wish to have further clarification on his response. I think that we, as individuals, have to be informed as soon as possible as to when there are going to be increases proposed, particularly on the airlines, and we all know that prices are forever going up in the north.

We had just heard that the increase will be about $2.00 or more on airfares in the eastern Arctic. They just recently had increases on airfares. We all know that unemployment is extremely high in the north, and this is going to have a very big impact on individuals in the communities. I am asking if the Minister could be more informative on the proposed increases on airfares. I do not know what kind of procedures they have. When airlines are going to be increasing their airfares, I wish to ask the Minister if he can inform us, as soon as possible, when he hears of these increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

New question, Mr. Whitford.

Oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Personnel. Mr. Speaker, some time this month, I cannot recall the exact date, we asked the Minister if he would give his department direction to meet with the moving companies. I would like to ask him, in regards to the tariff that the G.N.W.T. is wanting to impose on moving companies, if this direction had been relayed to his department to meet with the moving companies? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Oral questions. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I would like to ask the Minister, what progress has been made on paving the road from

Providence to Yellowknife, as outlined in the government long-term plans for transportation?

Mr. Whitford.

Supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the last strip of this road will be the road that is built from Yellowknife back towards the Rae junction, which we all know is the most travelled road in the Northwest Territories. It includes not only traffic to and from the south, but also to and from Yellowknife to Fort Rae. Will you confirm that the last chunk of this road will be the road from Rae to Yellowknife?

Mr. Whitford.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

The Minister has concurred with me that it is the most travelled road, Mr. Speaker. My question is, is there a plan within this five year plan, to include paving the road from the Yellowknife airport as far as Fort Rae? Will he confirm that, in fact, is going to be done within five years?

Mr. Whitford.

Oral questions. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of W.C.B. Mr. Speaker, I have a question, on September 23, I asked the Minister whether he had met his earlier commitment to develop a new policy for defining who is eligible to receive workers' compensation as a traditional harvester. He did indicate that he had not met that commitment, and that the new policy has still not been developed. In the absence of a new policy in this area, can the Minister advise the House what definition the Workers' Compensation Board is using to decide who is, and is not, eligible for compensation if they are injured while in the course of traditional hunting, trapping or fishing?

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation Board is using the old definition of "principally engaged" for the purpose of defining who is eligible for W.C.B. coverage when a hunter is injured. That is quite a restrictive definition. That is the one that is in use, at the moment, in the absence of a new definition. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

Thank you. The Minister is using the old policy right now. I would like to the ask the Minister, he should be fully aware that the policy for defining who is "principally engaged" and hunting and trapping has been criticized by traditional harvesters across the Northwest Territories. That was criticized by the Standing Committee on Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Even the Workers' Compensation Board's own appeal committee has ruled that the policy is contrary to the spirit of the legislation. Recognizing those facts, can the Minister explain how he can possibly justify the continued use of this policy by the Workers' Compensation Board?

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Renewable Resources pays all the bills for a claim by a hunter under the Workers' Compensation Board and its policies. The W.C.B. is simply a device for assessing the claim, and deciding the extent of disability. Once that is done, unlike the other claims that come to the W.C.B., the Department of Renewable Resources pays the bills. The Member has asked for a broader definition to include more hunters. It has been recommended by the Standing Committee on Agencies, Boards and Commissions in its review of the W.C.B. It has been criticized by the W.C.B.'s own appeal committee, I acknowledge that. Mr. Speaker, until the Department of Renewable Resources can accept the financial commitment that a broader definition will require and identify the funds, and approve what is in effect new guidelines for paying these claims, there will be no money to pay under a more generous definition. So, I am waiting for the department, which is going to pay the bills, to accept the new definition, to budget the necessary monies, once that is done, and we are close to having that done, Mr. Speaker, then the board will be happy to apply the new policy. The board is not the problem. The problem is identifying the necessary funds. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Based on the definition under section 10-1 of the Workers' Compensation Board, can the Minister tell the House, if compensation has been denied since May of this year.

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, recently there have been few claims, and of those claims from hunters and trappers, there have been some that have been denied. So, if the Member is getting at the fact that claims are being held up by the process to redefine "principally engaged", then he is correct on that. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an oral question for the Minister of Justice. The question that I had posed on Thursday, I would like to repeat. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that it is not my intention to refer to the substance of any matter before the board. The question refers to the process.

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, the Minister assured the House that the board of inquiry was an independent procedure, and it is not something steered by the government, or the Minister of the department. I have been advised that certain documents have recently been served upon individuals by legal counsel for the Department of Justice.

I would like to ask the Minister, can the Minister advise the House who directed legal counsel to serve these documents? I am aware that Dr. Covert, the President of the board of inquiry, is presently unavailable on holidays up until today, and he has apparently been scheduled back to the territories, today, to address this board of inquiry. Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Question has been taken as notice. Oral questions. New question Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since that Minister could not answer, I will pose a new question to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 25, I posed a question to the Government Leader, since the Minister of Health was not available, and I asked the Government Leader, in regards to the decision on the motion that we posed, brought forth, and debated, in this House, successfully passed on September 14, regarding the public inquiry, which is separate from the board of inquiry that the Minister has established.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether, or not, they will proceed with this public inquiry, and when? Thank you.

That was two questions to the Minister, and we have dealt with one of them. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet has agreed to proceed with a public inquiry into the Public Inquiries Act, and I will be making a more detailed statement to, perhaps, answer the Member's further questions tomorrow in the House. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Item 6, written questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a written question to the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation. Would the Minister responsible for the N.W.T. Power Corporation table, in this House, the policy of moving power poles, including hook-up, that accommodates private homeowners. Mr. Speaker, exactly how many power poles were moved throughout the N.W.T. to accommodate homeowners would the Minister break this down into regions, and further into communities. Would the Minister provide the following detailed information for power poles that were moved: did the N.W.T. Power Corporation assume the costs associated to moving power poles, and the hooking up of private homeowners; further, did the Power Corporation assume the costs associated to add special anti-vibration systems to homes; and would the Minister indicate if the N.W.T. Power Corporation assumed the responsibility for all costs associated with moving power poles?

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the honourable Member if she could provide the information before Thursday. Thank you.

Written questions, Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a written question to the Minister of Social Services. I am aware that the Department sponsors employees, and some contract employees, for professional development and training. Will the Minister provide the following information:

a)What courses have staff, and contract employees, taken in the fiscal years 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92;

b)Where were these courses held;

c)Who attended the courses which were held outside of the Northwest Territories; and

d)What were the total costs of sponsoring these employees to take these courses in the N.W.T., and outside the N.W.T.?

Thank you.

Item 6, written questions. Item 7, returns to written questions. Item 8, replies to opening address. Item 9, petitions. Item 10, reports of standing and special committees. Item 11, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 12, tabling of documents, Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, Tabled Document 98-12(2), the Baffin Region Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Exploratory Fishing Plan, 1991-1996, in English and Inuktitut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 12, tabling of documents. Item 13, notices of motion. Item 14, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, September 30, 1992, I shall move that Bill 34, Supplementary Appropriation Act No. 2, 1992-93 be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 14, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 15, motions. Mr. Kakfwi.

Mr. Kakfwi, your seconder is not in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Your motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Kakfwi. Seconder, Mr. Whitford. To the motion. Mr. Kakfwi, you can conclude debate. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Tabled document 66-12(2), put into committee of the whole. 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 62-12(2), Report on Northwest Territories Operations at Expo '92 as at May 31, 1992; tabled document 70-12(2), "The Justice House" Report of the Special Advisor on Gender Equality; motion 6, Discussion on "Sobriety Clause in Contribution Agreements"; committee report 10-12(2), Special Committee on Constitutional Reform Report on the Multilateral Conferences on the Constitution; committee report 17-12(2), Report on the Review of the 1992-93 Main Estimates; committee report 18-12(2), Multilateral Meetings on the Constitution and First Ministers' - Aboriginal Leaders' Conferences on the Constitution; Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Insurance Act; Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act; Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Young Offenders Act, No. 2; Bill 33, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1992-93; Minister's statement 82-12(2), Update on the National Constitutional Reform Negotiations; and, tabled document 66-12(2), "Working Towards a Common Future", with Mr. Ningark in the Chair.

Thank you for your attention. The committee will now come to order. Yesterday when we concluded in the committee of the whole, we were discussing the Department of Justice. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should deal with committee report 18-12(2), committee report 10-12(2) and Minister's statement 82-12(2).

Thank you. Does the committee agree that we deal with these items?

Agreed.

Thank you. We are now dealing with committee report 18-12(2). Mr. Kakfwi, do you have any opening remarks that you would like to present to this committee?

Introductory Remarks, Committee Report 18-12(2)

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Proceed do we have the concurrence of the committee?

Agreed.

Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Kakfwi.

On behalf of the committee of the whole, of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly, I would like to welcome each and every one of you, first of all to Yellowknife, and secondly, to the committee of the whole. I would now like to ask the witness, Mr. Ovide Mercredi, the Grand National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, to make a presentation, please.

Presentation By Assembly Of First Nations

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to begin by acknowledging the Government Leader, Nellie Cournoyea, and thank her and the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi, for inviting us, the Assembly of First Nations, to appear before your Assembly.

Before I proceed, I want to convey, on behalf of the people I represent, our deepest sympathies to the family members of the miners who died in the unfortunate accident that occurred in your territory, to wish upon your government, and the people of this community, our best hopes that you will quickly find a resolution that will be respectful of the rights of the workers, and will be done in the spirit of eliminating the potential for conflict and confrontation.

I say those comments for this important reason, when it comes to First Nations, and the Government of Canada relations, the recent past has highlighted the strong potential for conflict and confrontation. When people's rights, such as your people's rights, are rejected, and routinely denied, they resort to acts of civil disobedience, as a means for drawing attention to the problems that need resolution in this country.

This is contrary to the values and the traditions of the people that I represent, that historically, in terms of white/Indian relations in Canada, the best efforts on both sides have been to try to find peaceful solutions to troubling problems. That is the context that we should look at when we assess the gains that were made at the constitutional table at this time. It offers a road to peace. It provides a path where two governments, two nations, two distinct peoples, can sit down to begin to harmonize their common experience in this part of North America.

For the First Nations, it means the end of dominance, the end of dominance of one society over another for too long, particularly since the formation of Canada as a nation state. Our people have been subjected to the political will of parliament without our involvement, and without our consent. The Indian Act, which is a law passed by parliament, is the political will of the dominant society, not the political will of the people I represent. That is not who they are, that is not how they choose to live, and that is not how they choose to govern themselves.

For some reason, parliament took it upon themselves shortly after its establishment, to create a department solely dedicated to eradicating from the Indian Nation what is uniquely Indian. The sole objective of these laws of dominance have been to assimilate the Indian people, so that they will abandon their own distinct identity, this part of North America.

Those days were never welcomed by our people 100 years ago, and they are not welcome in 1992. So, the constitutional amendments, if they survive the test of the people, will not only end dominance, but for people who have spent all their lives fighting for the recognition of their rights, it means that they can now concentrate on the future, not in fighting for recognition, but ensuring the implementation of these rights. There are many people, far too many Indian people in this room, who have spent their entire adult life in the struggle for the collective rights of the people that I represent. It would be far better for them, far better for our people, if they were free from that fight, so that they could concentrate on rebuilding our economies, on strengthening our cultures, on healing our people, in a recovery of our nations. It is far better that we get involved using our limited energies and resources in the healing of our people, than wasting our time like we do ad nauseam, fighting other governments, so they can recognize our rights.

The constitutional promise in the future is that we have the potential now to put that fight behind us, and to move into a new era where we jointly sit down to devise ways of ensuring that the rights of the people I represent are respected in Canada, and are implemented according the values and the priorities of the people that I represent. The inherent right, and its recognition in the Constitution, is very important for many reasons, including psychological reasons. For the Indian children who now go to school to learn about not their place in history, but the place of the colonials in history, they will in the future learn about something called the third order of government. They will know that the Constitution recognizes their inherent right to govern themselves, and that the whole purpose for those provisions is to ensure that our people can maintain a distinct way of life, that they are not forced to assimilate, that being different is not being inferior, and that our people have a right to be different. It will mean that the young children, when they open the books to study history, social studies, or political science, they will know that they are equals, that their collective rights are second to none in Canada.

They will see themselves in a different way. They will know that this country respects their people, respects their people's rights. For young people, this is extremely important for their self-esteem, for their self-respect. In relation to us as a collective, as First Nations, it is also very significant in our relations with Canada as a nation state, in our dealing with government, because the Constitution will require the federal, and the provincial governments to recognize that we have an inherent right to govern ourselves, that this right does not come from the Indian Act, that it does not come from an Act of Parliament, and that the source is not the Constitution. We are using the recognition in the Constitution as a way of ensuring that the rule of law, something that Canadians respect, is not, in the future, used against the interest of the people that we represent. So, the inherent right, by its recognition, will force governments to look upon other governments on an equal basis. This will bring about different relations.

Here, in this particular territory, the federal government pretends the First Nations do not exist, because the entire devolution program in relation to services, and public services for people, is from the federal government to this government. For some reason, Indian government has not managed to fit into that equation, and why is that?

There is no justifiable reason why the Indian people here, the First Nations in the Northwest Territories, cannot have access to the same public services that their brothers and sisters have south of the 60th parallel. That will change. With the constitutional amendments, that will change.

With respect to treaties, our people have waited too long for their treaties to be honoured by the Government of Canada, but if the Constitution survives the test of the people, there will be two provisions that treaty people can rely on to ensure that the federal Crown honours the treaties.

The first provision tells the courts and the governments, that in the future when they interpret treaty rights, such things like education, health, and economic assistance. They must give a just, broad and liberal interpretation, taking into consideration, into account, the spirit and intent of the treaties, and the context of negotiations. This is an extremely important provision for the treaty people, because it gives them an opportunity that they do not have right now to say to governments, "you are obligated to interpret the treaty consistent with the Indian perspective." More than that, they can also rely on another provision in the Constitution that will ensure that they have nation to nation bilateral discussions with the federal government, so that they can implement their treaties consistent with the spirit and intent of those treaties.

This means that after 125 years, what our people negotiated will have to be respected by the federal government. It means that what happened to our treaties must be remedied, and across this country, right now as I am talking, Indian people are still waiting for their treaty land entitlement, 100 years or more after the signing of the treaty. There is absolutely no justification for that delay in terms of the enjoyment of that right. None. No one can justify that, and yet it happened, not in South Africa, but in Canada.

The Constitution, if it survives the test of the people, will ensure that the treaties are respected, and that the honour of Canada is maintained in relation to those treaties. No one can say, no one can, that these are small achievements, these are major accomplishments. They are not, of course, an answer to all the demands, but we must not forget that this is only a step forward, and that we will have opportunities to build on this, to improve upon it, to make it even better for our people in the future, because part of the solution, if the Constitution is amended, is that our people will have at least four further First Ministers' conferences to look forward to, where they can deal with outstanding issues that might not have resulted to their satisfaction this time around.

It may be, and I hope it is true, that in 1996, when our people sit down with the governments again to talk about constitutional matters, that they will be dealing with a more enlightened leadership in Canada than there has been, although, you must admit, we made major progress, in that context, in the context of progress. We have many people to thank for the achievements that we have made. This government, the Northwest Territories government, under the leadership of Nellie Cournoyea and Stephen Kakfwi, have always been there to back the aboriginal leaders in their demands. They never wavered one moment, and we thank them for their commitment, to the people of this territory.

---Applause

I just want to conclude my remarks, sirs and madams, by making some references to the potential for the future, in terms of improving race relations in Canada. Indian people live under the limelight of stereotypes, stereotypes we did not create, and these stereotypes have been impediments to our humanity, they have been impediments to our human progress in North America.

The constitutional amendments will bring about a new thinking in Canada. A thinking based on respect for collective rights, respect for First Nations, and respect for others. The ultimate promise of the constitutional amendments, if they survive, is to improve racial attitudes in Canada, to make it easier for us to be accepted as equals, because after all, the supreme law, the Constitution of Canada will read, that treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized, the inherent right to self-government is recognized and protected, the treaty rights are recognized, and are to be honoured, and that the Indian people will have, not an inferior level of government, but a third order of government in Canada. Canadians across this country will be required by their own educational institutions, to re-examine the stereotypes of the Indian people, to begin to see us for what we are, as equal human beings who have collective rights, that need to be guaranteed by the nations state, and this is what we have achieved. For that, I am thankful.

---Applause

Thank you, the Grand National Chief Mercredi. On my order paper for the speakers, I have Ms. Rosemarie Kuptana, President of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, as the next speaker. Ms. Kuptana.

Presentation By Inuit Tapirisat Of Canada

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to recognize the Government Leader, Nellie Cournoyea, further I appreciate her invitation for us to come, and I want to thank the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Stephen Kakfwi. I am happy today to participate, however, I will have to speak in English from now on. (Translation ends)

On October 26, the people of Canada will participate in a national referendum, in which they will be asked to accept or reject the agreement for constitutional renewals, signed in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992.

Inuit have been involved in constitutional discussions for many years, and have not hesitated to reject government proposals that were not in the best interests of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples.

We decided to support the Charlottetown Accord because it includes features which recognize our rights as aboriginal people, and because it is a part of an overall package that is good for Canada and good for all Canadians.

Although there are aspects of the accord that are difficult for us to accept on balance, we believe that this is a good agreement. The proposed constitutional amendments entrench our inherent right to self-government, and constitutionally recognize our governments as one of three orders of government in Canada. These are historic breakthroughs.

In the Canada clause and the context clause, our right to protect and promote our languages, cultures and the integrity of our society is affirmed. This is an historic achievement for aboriginal peoples.

Inuit worked hard to ensure that the accord clearly recognized aboriginal governments as one of three orders of government. We are pleased that this statement is included, both in the Canada clause, and in a proposed amendment to part two of the Constitution.

Let me explain the importance of this amendment by referring to self-government developments within the government of the Northwest Territories. Inuit acknowledge the G.N.W.T.'s initiatives and policies on the transfer of government services and programs to local communities. However, these undertakings will be limited by the constitutional and legal status of the territorial and municipal governments.

At the present time, as described in section 91 and 92 of the Constitution, it is only the federal government and the provinces which have recognized powers and authorities. The G.N.W.T. does not have the constitutionally recognized jurisdictions, and has only those powers delegated to it by parliament. Therefore, no protection exists for agreements on program transfers to the local level. These can be unilaterally modified or changed by government at a later date.

If Inuit conclude self-government agreements, as contemplated by the Charlottetown Accord, then all aspects of these agreements will be constitutionally protected. Furthermore, as a third order government, our powers and authorities could not be unilaterally changed by either the federal or the territorial governments.

Within our jurisdiction, our laws would be paramount to and override laws of general application. Unlike the G.N.W.T., our governmental powers would be constitutionally based, and not delegated from a higher level of government. This is the meaning of the term third order of government.

Therefore, although Inuit encourage the G.N.W.T. to continue transferring greater control to the local levels, we must be prepared to adapt, so that opportunities created by these constitutional amendments, can be fully realized.

Inuit were also pleased that the Charlottetown Accord includes significant achievements for the territorial government. Inuit maintained a cooperative relationship with the G.N.W.T. throughout the multilateral process, and assisted the G.N.W.T. during discussions of very important issues, such as the creation of new provinces.

I will now turn to an issue that has gained considerable public attention, the effect of the accord on the rights of aboriginal women. First of all, let me emphasize the important role Inuit women played in developing the present package. As most of you know, Mary Simon, of northern Quebec, and I, represented Inuit throughout these negotiations along with another Inuk woman, Premier Cournoyea.

We were the only women at the table during the First Ministers' meetings. Furthermore, Inuit women through Pauktuutit, our national womens' organization, have participated in developing Inuit constitutional positions and retain a seat on the I.T.C. board, and on all our I.T.C. constitutional committees.

At the very beginning of these constitutional discussions, I.T.C. proposed a simple, direct, and explicit statement requiring aboriginal governments to recognize gender equality rights. To understand why this proposal did not get included in the accord, we must examine the Native Women's Association of Canada, or N.W.A.C.'s position during the constitutional discussions.

At one point during the negotiations, N.W.A.C. agreed to a gender equality clause unacceptable to Inuit, because it significantly qualified gender equality rights by making these rights subject to traditional aboriginal cultural practices. Inuit have always believed that gender equality is a basic human right, and should not be subject to modifications, whatsoever. Although N.W.A.C. later withdrew its support for the amendment, the Inuit position had been undermined.

After N.W.A.C. put forward these contradictory positions, we were not able to get the Inuit amendments back onto the table. Despite this, it is our view that womens' gender equality rights are not prejudiced by the accord. In particular, we believe that sections 28 and 35(4) of the 1982 Constitution Act continue to protect Inuit and other women. We are confident that the proposed constitutional amendments will not, in any way, diminish section 28 and 35(4) gender equality rights.

The significance of the accord for aboriginal peoples cannot be overstated. If passed, it will be the first time in our history that we are admitted into Canada as full and equal partners. Inuit have waited a long time for this opportunity; we have struggled for many years to be recognized as equals in Canada. We greatly appreciate the distances many governments have travelled on aboriginal issues during this process. As Inuit, we are encouraged, and we are revitalized.

However, nothing has been handed to us, we have fully participated. We have persuaded and we have argued, we have listened, we have exchanged views, we have drafted legal texts, and we have attended an exhausting series of ministerial and officials meetings. We have built on the hard work of the Inuit leadership over the years, and we have them to thank for the agreement that we have today.

The achievements of the last months seem so remarkable because we have waited so long. Equality and justice are just within our reach. With the October 26 vote on the horizon, our hopes have never been higher.

---Applause

Thank you, President Rosemarie Kuptana, for your presentation. I would now like to ask Mr. Philip Fraser, Vice-President of the Native Council of Canada. Mr. Fraser.

Presentation By Native Council Of Canada

Thank you. On behalf of my board, and President Ron George, I would like to thank the Members of the Legislative Assembly and Mr. Kakfwi, for inviting us here to share some our thoughts on the current constitutional document that we soon will be voting on, later in October.

I think that it is important that the people who played a part in this process get out and explain the package to, not only to our people, but to all Canadians and to Members, such as yourself, who will have to deal with this at some point in time. So, again, thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to possibly exchanging some views through this process.

We have all been part of an historic process. We have all played a role in its success. I would particularly like to compliment your leaders, especially your Premier Nellie Cournoyea, and your Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Stephen Kakfwi, for the constructive role they played in the process, which led to the Charlottetown Accord.

I am happy to report that we enjoyed a close and positive working relationship with them, and their officials, throughout. It was rare for us not to be in agreement with each other at the table or in the corridors. That was because many of our goals, going into the talks, were synonymous. In our presentation today we would like to call attention to some of the gains that we feel have been made in the Charlottetown Agreement, gains for aboriginal peoples in general, and gains for off-reserve, non-status and Metis peoples, in particular. In both cases, the impact of these gains will be felt directly in your part of the country.

We would also like to share some of what we feel are the important lessons that can be learned from the process. Before getting into this, however, I would like to clarify a bit about the Native Council, itself, so that everyone around the table will have a clear sense of where we fit in, and what our priorities have been in the current round of constitutional talks.

The Native Council of Canada was formed in 1971 to represent the interest of those thousands of aboriginal peoples in Canada who have been denied recognition under the Indian Act. The fact that so many people could be denied their basic identity must be seen as one of the greatest scandals of Canada's 125 year history. We all know that when Canada was formed in 1867, the federal government was given the jurisdictional responsibility for Indians and land reserved for Indians in Section 91(24) of the British North America Act.

In theory, this should have meant that it had responsibility for all aboriginal peoples. The courts certainly took this approach when they ruled in 1939 that, for purposes of the law, the term Indian could be presumed to include Inuit as well. In practice, the federal government never allowed it to work out that way. From the beginning, when treaties were being signed, the government imposed its own unilateral decisions about who was aboriginal.

Metis across the prairies, for example, were denied inclusion in treaties, and were either completely ignored, or were offered script, which in many cases, they lost soon after to swindlers and land speculators acting in collusion with government officials. It took 115 years before Metis were officially acknowledged in the Constitution as aboriginal people, and then came the Indian Act. Ever since it was introduced in the 1800s, it has been the principle tool by which Ottawa has denied aboriginal people their identity, either by rejecting it in the first place, or by inventing a litany of reasons for taking it away.

It is no mere coincidence that the Indian Act regime enabled Ottawa to reduce the scope of its own responsibilities, to the point where, today it claims to have legal obligations only for status Indians living on reserves. In 1992 our estimates suggest that this represents only about 23 percent of the aboriginal population in Canada. The Native Council of Canada was formed in 1971 precisely to fight artificial barriers imposed by the Indian Act, and to seek recognition and justice for the thousands upon thousands of people who have been arbitrarily separated from their lands, their communities, and their culture by a century of government discrimination.

There can be no question that these policies have also been enormously successful at dividing us amongst ourselves, by creating artificial categories, status, non-status, registered, treaty, both pre-Confederation and post-Confederation, C-31 etc., and imposing them upon us. The government has succeeded in distorting the relations we have historically had with one another, as individuals, as communities, and as nations. These artificial categories imposed by Ottawa under the Indian Act, have no relationship to our historical realities. There are those among us who have been willing to adopt a government system, and use it to exclude their aboriginal brothers and sisters, as proof we only have to look south to the words of the treaties Six and Seven chiefs. They just spent tens of thousand of dollars on an ad in the Globe and Mail last Thursday, September 24, to tell Canadians that the only true indigenous people are those who, in effect, have status, and live on reserves. In other words, those who have been acknowledged by the government as official Indians, under its colonial Indian Act regime. That is not the way it needs to be.

Coming here to the north, I do not need to tell you that, because it is here north of 60 that the government's artificial divisions have had less impact than anywhere else in the country. In Yukon, for example, we have perhaps the best example of people taking control of their identity. This has been the case for almost two decades now, since the Council of Yukon Indians was formed, and there were two organizations that have previously represented status and non-status people separately.

Despite opposition from the Department of Indian Affairs, C.Y.I. has demonstrated that Ottawa's categories are false categories, that they have no place in our politics, and our communities. We are in our aspirations for the future. Here in the Northwest Territories, the divisions between people have been more real in terms of culture and history. It has not prevented people from working together.

The Dene Nation has traditionally made itself open to all Indians, and Metis in the MacKenzie valley, who wish to join. The Metis, in turn, have continued to seek respect for their unique identity, but have nonetheless been willing to collaborate of shared importance, such as settlement of a comprehensive claim. While the relationship between the two has not been without its rough spots, you should know that it has nonetheless been an example to those of us in other parts of Canada who have been trying to build unity, in spite of Ottawa's continuing attempts to divide us.

In the recent round of constitutional negotiations, we shared many of the same goals as other aboriginal organizations, and of your government. One, to see the inherent right to self-government recognized and entrenched; to have it recognized as one of three orders of government in Canada; to become regular participants in future First Ministers' conferences; to secure guaranteed aboriginal representation in parliament; to protect gender equality between men and women without jeopardizing the position of women in traditional matrilineal systems; and to ensure that new provinces could enter confederation on the same terms that other provinces had before.

We are pleased, of course, that most, if not all, of these objectives have been met. Given the slow, incremental, pace at which constitutional change normally takes place, we think that the broad range of changes now being proposed represent a very significant achievement. Given the Native Council of Canada's historical mandate, however, it should come as no surprise that our greatest satisfaction comes from the inclusion of clauses that are designed to ensure equity of access for all aboriginal peoples.

Native Council of Canada went into this round of negotiations with the hopes of obtaining its own Triple E, not an equal elected and effective Senate, but rather three clauses that would ensure that officers, non-status, and Metis people, would no longer be discriminated against, and I am happy to say that we did it.

We secured agreement, for example, that all aboriginal peoples, including non-status and off-reserve Indians, as well as Metis, would be able to exercise their section 35, aboriginal and treaty rights. We secured agreement that all aboriginal peoples, including non-status and off-reserve Indians, will be able to participate in any ....

Mr. Fraser, I am told by the interpreters that you should slow down a bit with your presentation. We use about eight different languages in this House. Proceed, please.

Thank you, Vice-President Fraser. The next speaker that I have here is, Mr. Tony Belcourt, of the Metis National Council. Mr. Belcourt.

Presentation By Metis National Council

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, and I thank the Members of the Legislature, for inviting us to participate in this very important debate in your Legislature. I, too, on behalf of Yvon Dumont of the Metis National Council, want to express sympathies to the families who were involved in your most unfortunate mining accident. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the history of the support of the government of the Northwest Territories, to the Metis of the Northwest Territories.

My particular relationship with your government, and with the Metis in the Northwest Territories, spans some 22 years. I am pleased to see a Legislature like this. I think, that 22 years ago, when I first came to the north, to organize for the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories, I do not know if I would have envisaged a day when, people back then, who were organizing together, would one day be sitting in a Legislature in command of the government, and I would have the unique opportunity of appearing in this Legislature.

Outstanding community leaders like Nellie Cournoyea, James Arvaluk, and James Wah-Shee, were back in those days. Now, I see that your government is lead by people like this, that 22 years ago, it did not seem to me, that I would ever see that. I want to sincerely congratulate all of you who have been elected to this Legislature, we have made remarkable progress in Canada. We have come a long distance in this past year, it seems light years, in constitutional terms, and we have many distances that we can travel together in the future, hopefully once the current referendum is over.

I want to welcome the resolutions that have been proposed in support of the Charlottetown Agreement. I want to acknowledge the work of the Bourque Commission, that helped bring you to this conclusion. One thing that I would like to point out, is our observation that the Bourque Commission recognizes the commonality of the issues of the Metis Nation, throughout the Metis homeland, from Ontario right through to the Northwest Territories. The Bourque Commission called for the kinds of changes that we are now going to see in the Constitution, that will finally bring a level playing field to all of the aboriginal peoples in Canada, including the Metis people.

I share in many of the comments, and observations, that were made by Minister Kakfwi, with the exceptions of the comments concerning the Metis Nation Accord, which I would like to speak to a little later.

I have been asked by our national president to come here, and to make certain that you understand, from the Metis National Council's point of view, exactly where we are coming from. We are clear supporters of the Charlottetown Agreement. Today, we are registering the Metis Nation, "yes" Canada Committee with Elections Canada, and we will be working hard to try and sell this deal across the country. We hope that once your Legislature has dealt with your resolutions, that you, too, will be working hard in support of this referendum.

This campaign of ours is important because we have to explain the contents, and the benefits, of the package. It is a very complex package. We have to correct misinformation that is now being circulated by many people, primarily on the "no" side, and we have to create a better understanding of the process. The one that leads up to the Charlottetown Accord, and that is going to be going on into the future.

With regard to the process, I can assure you that your representatives at the table, Premier Cournoyea and Minister Kakfwi, not only were stalwart supporters of our objectives, at our end of the table, but they represented the interests of the Northwest Territories in, I think, the finest way and tradition that you would like to see it. There is no question in my mind, that the protection that you were seeking, when your representatives came to the multilateral talks, you are now going to get.

I think it would be helpful to remind some people about the historical relationship between the Metis and the Northwest Territories. We share a common history that goes back 122 years. When Canada was first formed, in 1867, Canada's borders only came to a little bit past Thunder Bay. None of the area, north and west of Thunder Bay, flowing into the Hudson's Bay, was part of Canada. It was all a company territory, the Hudson's Bay Company.

Three years after Canada was formed, the Hudson's Bay Company abandoned being the government of the territory, and left a vacancy. They thought that they would just be able to sell the territory to Canada, and that would be it. However, Louis Riel and the people of the Red River, including the French speaking non-aboriginal people, and the English speaking people there, formed a provisional government. They turned back Canada's army representatives. On December 8, they issued a declaration of the people of Rupert's land in the Northwest, they formed a provisional government, they said this territory would join Canada only on the basis of certain terms, and initially they had 20 of these demands.

Some of them, which you would find interesting, include that all the properties, rights and privileges of the people, who lived in the Northwest, would be respected. One of the demands was that treaties would be concluded between Canada and the different Indian tribes. Another is that the English and French languages would be common in the Legislature and in the courts. Finally, there was another that there would be an amnesty for all of the members of the provisional government.

The results of these negotiations was that the whole of the Northwest eventually joined into confederation with Canada in 1970. The aboriginal rights of the Metis were entrenched in the Manitoba Act, and later, in the Dominion Lands Act. All numbered treaties were negotiated. The Province of Manitoba was formed, and later the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Metis said, "yes", to Canada a 122 years ago, and they are prepared to say, "yes", to Canada again. Some people might ask why, considering the bitter disappointment of the Metis Nation, over the betrayal of Metis rights. We believe, despite all of that, Canada is still a better country than any other place in the world. Canada's faults do not have to be settled or corrected at the point of a gun. The conclusion of the Canada round has proven, to us anyway, that it is worth it to keep our faith in Canada.

The Charlottetown agreement is a masterpiece agreement. There are positive benefits for every region, and for all Canadians. People say it is not perfect, but it is a perfect compromise. The Charlottetown agreement demonstrates Canadian virtues, inherent virtues, of tolerance, sensitivity, understanding, compassion and good grace.

Let us look at just three of the key elements of the deal. Quebec will no longer be on the outside of the Constitution. This gives us constitutional peace and harmony, so that we will then be able to get on with other important pressing issues, including the issue of the economy. Senate reform will provide a more efficient institution of parliament. We will have a Senate that is elected, will be equal in representation, and it will also be effective.

The aboriginal amendments, finally a place for us in Confederation. Key parts of the aboriginal package include the recognition of the inherent right, proper respect, clarifying an important aboriginal right. The third order of government, which will lead to logical and mutually beneficial arrangements, will result in more efficient and appropriate government. The equity of access provision ensures that self-government agreements are open to all aboriginal peoples.

The delay of justiciability, gives us time to enter negotiations in an orderly way. The transition provisions will prevent chaos. The Metis Accord makes it possible for the federal government to assume its responsibility, with the protection it needs, to clarify that 91.24 applies to all aboriginal peoples.

The provisions of the Metis Nation Accord include a definition. Self-government negotiations will include issues of jurisdictions, economic and fiscal arrangements, and lands and resources. An important provision of the Metis Nation Accord is that there will be no reduction in services to the Metis by the provinces or Canada. Another one, critical to the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapirisat, is that there will be no reduction of funding, or services, by Canada to other aboriginal groups, as a result of the Metis Nation Accord.

The accord is to be legally binding, just and enforceable. I would like to say that we are very disappointed that the Government of the Northwest Territories has chosen not to be part of the accord. I would like to clarify that in the documents, there is reference to the Metis Nation Accord, including the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. It also includes the Metis Nation organizations in those provinces, and it includes the Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories.

It is important to understand that the Metis support for the Charlottetown agreement is not only because it is good for the Metis, but the Charlottetown Agreement is good for Canada, too. We think that no agreement will not be good for Canada. We also believe it is time to be on the offensive against the nay-sayers and the purveyors of false information.

We think it is time to examine the motives of those who would urge people to vote "no". We say do not be fooled. People who are leading the "no" campaign, in our view, are either people who are out to destroy Canada, or people who may be self-interested to the point they are misguided. Some important national facts to keep in mind, this relates to some of the misinformation that is going around.

Quebec will not get a veto over every future constitutional change, as some are falsely preaching. In the future, unanimity will be required on constitutional changes in only the areas related to national institutions: the offices of the Queen, the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors of the provinces, the make-up of the House of Commons and the Senate, and changes to the Supreme Court.

Equality rights will not be diminished. Aboriginal peoples will continue to enjoy the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 91.24 is a federal power, which existed long before the treaties, and always applied to all aboriginal peoples. The amendment will serve to clarify what has been there for 125 years.

We are at a crossroads. On October 26, Canadians will give direction for one of two paths, the breakup of Canada, or for entrenching amendments to the Constitution, which will serve as a foundation for this great country to continue to grow and to prosper. Approving the Charlottetown agreement does not close the books on any other amendments. In fact, more are to be specifically negotiated by virtue of that accord.

Our Constitution should continue to be an arrangement which provides for flexibility and potential change. If certain provisions which are needed are not in this package, we have every confidence that those who are seeking those changes will be successful in the future. Now is not the time to give into bigotry or narrow-mindedness. All Canadians have to put aside self- interest, in favour of our common good.

A strong Canada will always be able to have accommodation for our outstanding interests. A country which is weak will have no time to focus on those interests. We urge all citizens of the Northwest Territories to say "yes", again, to Canada. Thank you very much.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Tony Belcourt. It is my understanding that most of the distinguished witnesses will be leaving soon, and I do not have the precise time when they are leaving. I would like to go to the general comments, any Members of the committee, I would ask, please make it short, because we do not have much time this afternoon as most of the members are leaving. Any general comments, or questions? Mr. Arvaluk.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a brief statement toward the comments of our guests. When we first started, the Government of Canada stated that the Canadian Constitution would be brought to our homeland in Canada and back then, the government seems to have forgotten us, our aboriginal rights in Canada.

The supposed aboriginal rights were not the contents of this accord, whether they were toward the economy, our ability to inherent self-government, or to the protection of our traditions. Those kinds of things were not in there when they first started the debates, and the leaders tried their very best to try and get these contents into the Canadian Constitution. They worked very hard to achieve these goals. As Ms. Kuptana stated, we can recognize a lot of people, for their hard work, namely John Amagoalik, Charlie Watt, Zebedee Nungak, Nellie Cournoyea, and many others that took part in these multilateral meetings.

One of the main concerns when we started was that the 10 provinces had the right to extend their province to our homeland in the N.W.T. The main concern that we had, was also not in the contents, that if there were seven provinces that were against Nunavut, Nunavut would not go ahead. Even if it was only 50 percent, Nunavut would not go ahead, and we already knew at that point, that our dreams would never come because we knew that provinces would be against this. Especially when they had the power, extending their provinces land to the N.W.T.

I am proud to say, and very happy for our Inuit leaders who worked hard to achieve these goals and for them to be able to say, from the comments that we heard from our leaders here, which are our guests. (Translation ends)

Two paragraphs, my little corner of Canada, fittingly so, hopefully in the future will be a full participant of Canada. This is still not perfect, nobody got everything that they wanted. Everyone had to make compromises. This is the only game in town at this moment. No alternative is floating around. This is the best deal for the country at this moment in history. It will allow the people of Canada to forge a new relationship between themselves. For the Inuit, it will provide us with the constitutional tools to begin rebuilding our societies.

Mr. Chairman, I support what the leaders are expressing, hopefully the healing and rebuilding of our aboriginal societies will go hand in hand, so that we can, as a distinct society, say to our children, "we had to do this in order for you to get freedom to achieve or, at least, to work positively, because we did not have the opportunity in the past."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

---Applause

Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the aboriginal leaders for coming to the Northwest Territories, and coming to this committee. It was interesting to hear the comments that you had to make, and I have a few words to challenge some of those comments that you have made, not necessarily to question your responsibility, and your roles as leaders in this country, but on behalf of aboriginal people.

I do want to make a couple of comments. I have to say, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that I think the initial comments made by our National Chief Ovide Mercredi about the process, offering a road to peace, and hopefully prosperity for aboriginal people, is a prediction that will come true, hopefully sooner than later.

Our relationship, not only in this Assembly but our relationship across the country, and the success of whether or not we are able to sell this particular agreement, will achieve its success based on those comments you made earlier, and that is an ability to explain, to articulate and clearly ensure that people understand those issues, and those items that are in the Charlottetown Agreement.

I think that the problem that we are having right now, across the country, is the so called apocalyptic forecasts that are being made by those that are trying to sell the deal. Saying that it is, if you do not do it, then bad things are going to happen to you, as a people and as a country. I think that without really explaining to the people in this country, including aboriginal people, and you note the comments that were made earlier that treaty six and treaty seven have taken strong positions in opposition to the agreement.

My view is that if we continue to threaten people to vote one way or the other, then there is no advantage in the deal, because sooner or later people will say, well, the only reason I support it happens to be that I was threatened that if I did not do it, then things would happen to me or to my region, or to my area, that would normally happen anyhow.

I see as a situation, where people across the country, and in particular, I have read the most recent comments that have been made by the Honourable Joe Clarke and the Prime Minister, basically saying that if you do not vote for it, then your country is going to be in serious trouble. Well, why? Why is it going to be in serious trouble? Why is it important that the people across this country support the agreement?

I think all of your remarks, here today, gave us a better view of what is in the agreement. It is not with animosity and disrespect for your leadership, or for that matter, an unwillingness to try to understand what is actually in the agreement. What I see across the country, right now, is not a situation where the so-called peaceful dialogue is occurring. I know for a fact, that it probably will not. The one thing that I have not heard yet in the "yes" side of this whole process, is a clear explanation of those issues, until, for instance, in your case, you all came north. There has not been that consistent explanation. Now, I want to make a couple of comments about some of the statements that have been made, and I know how supportive you have been with our Leader, and with the Minister of Aboriginal Rights and Constitutional Development for the north. I want to make a couple of comments.

If we are truly, as an Assembly and as a committee, supportive of the idea of aboriginal peoples and aboriginal peoples having, what you might consider, a third order of government, then this government and this Assembly has to say that. As recent as February of this year, when we dealt with matters regarding a comprehensive approach to political and constitutional development, we, in this House, and in fact, the government, indicated that their view of self-government was the continuation of the transfer of responsibility to community level government, and the realization of aboriginal self-government in the context of public government at the community and territorial level.

That is very, very different from the remarks that you have made and very, very different from, what you might say, is the Charlottetown Accord. I think it is incumbent upon us, if we speak about an accord of this particular magnitude, then we have to apply the terms of that accord to our people, and we must adjust our policies and our views accordingly. We have not done that. We have not got up in front of the rest of the world, or in front of the rest of Canadians, and said, we support aboriginal self-government.

You look among this group here and we have nothing but, I guess, aboriginal people, and you are proud of that. Our responsibility, as a public, is to the people, all the people. My view is that aboriginal self-government is a very different thing, and we must, in fact, ensure that we do not, in our own decisions here, undermine or make decisions that contradict what we espouse to be our public position.

I make this point because it is the same issue with the Metis National Accord. I want to say this to those people here, I know that there are some, like my colleague Jeannie Marie-Jewell, who will probably raise that particular item, and I want to say this, that it is not for me, as an aboriginal person, to deny other aboriginal people the relationship they should have within our Constitution, or for that matter, to really define themselves.

If anything, it would be for me, as an aboriginal leader, to try to find ways of ensuring that aboriginal people are respected really for who they are. What is interesting is that I think the point that probably was made by Mr. Kakfwi, is that all aboriginal people should be recognized as being aboriginal people in the north. Some people have taken the view that, well, the north is a good example of that. The fact is, there is only one group that really should be complimented for not drawing divisions among their people, and that is the Inuit.

That is the only group, so far in this country, that have taken away the lines between their people. In fact, what is interesting is that the government of Canada has accepted that, in many respects. I want to say to you that maybe I have a different view about the Metis Accord. I have always taken the position that all aboriginal people in the north, have to be treated equally, whether or not you decide to call yourself a Metis, and whether or not you are Gwich'in. The simple fact is, you should be treated equally.

I think that the more divisions we draw among our own selves, the less likely those views will be applied, or those policies, or those ideas, will be applied to everyone. There will be divisions. We, ourselves, sometimes create those divisions as aboriginal people. We have to learn to bring together aboriginal people across this country, and I think that our own national leadership, everyone of you, those that are here now, and those that are not here, have tried to make an attempt to draw aboriginal people together with a common goal.

I think you have to be commended for that. There are a couple of other issues that I want to talk about. I think that Mr. Todd articulated the issues quite clearly to you in this Assembly, that there are concerns about the accord that affect the north. The economic issues, where we are considering a common market across Canada, what that does to our own policies, in terms of business support, and business development in the north.

It is a lot easier, and many people can argue that the intention is to treat all Canadians equally, and all Canadian businesses equally, but the simple fact is that it is a lot easier for a huge, multinational corporation to operate out of Toronto at reduced prices, than it is for a company in the Northwest Territories to operate.

If it is our intent to encourage northern businesses to move to the north or to develop in the north, and we have to find ways of encouraging that. I think that if you are going to get into a situation where you come to a common market arrangement, then you are going to have to accept that maybe we have to be insistent upon protecting our own people, and our own businesses. I think that it is crucial that we ensure that northern businesses, and the northern economy, develops.

I want to make one other point about the matter on the Senate. I know that a lot of other people here, and have accepted the arrangements that have been made in the Senate area. I do want to say one thing, and it is this, it is interesting to note that the total population north of 60 equals that of Prince Edward Island, about 90,000 people. Yet, we are told, through this deal, that we do not have the same kind of consideration in the Senate as those 90,000 people in Prince Edward Island.

I know the argument can be made that they are a province, but you simply cannot use that issue as an argument to deny representation in the Upper House for people in the Northwest Territories. That is not a good enough argument, and maybe it will change in future. I want to draw this matter to the attention of our leaders, because the aboriginal people are going to be dealing with the matter of representation in the Senate, and they are going to be dealing with representation in the House of Commons. I hope that you take note, and our Government Leader and Minister of Constitutional Development and Aboriginal Rights take note, that this has to be addressed.

I do not know how you deal with it, because I have not been at the meetings, but I do ask, is it purely on numbers, or is it purely because they are provinces? If it is not numbers, then I think that we have to be considered. There is still, obviously, Mr. Chairman, one important issue in this whole process, that has not really been made public to the people of Canada, and that is some of the legal text.

I know that, generally, people do not pay much attention to legal text, and maybe our own leaders feel that it really is none of our business. The fact is, that a lot of people do read those documents, they do pay attention, and that if you are intending to promote the Charlottetown Accord, that when it is necessary, you have to make those documents available, so that people can see what is in them. I would encourage our aboriginal leaders to insist our national leaders make those documents available as soon as possible, because it makes no sense for people to make a decision on constitutional vagueness. People are told that "because it is in legal terms you would not understand it." I mean, that is a real insult to the people of Canada, or any ordinary person who tries to read, and tries to understand what is going on. It is very insulting, and I think that our leaders underestimate the ability of our own people to read these kinds of documents.

I just wanted to say to you that there is a lot of effort on our part, in this Assembly, to try to be sensitive to aboriginal peoples, and to northern issues, no matter where they are, whether they are in Northern Manitoba, or Northern Saskatchewan, or in the Yukon. I believe that if we are going to continue to receive the accolades as being an assembly with a majority aboriginal people, sometimes seen almost as an aboriginal government, which is, in fact, not the case. We are a government with a majority aboriginal people, and I just wanted to make those particular comments. I did not want to be overly critical of the agreement, but at the same time, I do not want people to just walk into this assembly, or this committee, or our leaders here, to take the view that there is no responsibility in explaining this document to the people across the country, and for that matter, the people of the Northwest Territories. If we are going to lose in areas, then admit we are going to lose, and if we are going to gain, then admit that we are going to gain. If Mr. Belcourt's comments are that it is a fair compromise, then let us say it is a fair compromise, and let us say that each has something to gain. In compromise, like everything else, someone loses, or something is lost. That is the nature of this business, and I just do not like the idea of generalization when people say, it is good for you, and vote for it. Well, if it is good for me, then tell me what I have to gain from it. Tell me what I have to gain from it, as an aboriginal person, I can understand that I have a great deal to gain, but there are other people across this country that have to see for themselves what it is in the agreement for them. Right now, like I said, there is a great deal of debate right across the country, but no one is going to accept the agreement if they are threatened one way or the other, threatened to vote for, or threatened to vote against. In the end, you have no one who will support the agreement. In fact, if you recall, a few weeks ago, everyone was saying that things were going to be well, and 58 percent were supportive. One week later, we are tied, so the idea now is to settle. Settle the agreement for all the positive aspects that it has, and I think that is all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. There are some Members who would like to meet with our distinguished guests and national leaders, and I believe that some Members have a presentation that they would like to give to one of our national leaders. I would like to call a short break. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that before we take a break, I would like to do a short presentation just for the record, if I may?

Mr. Gargan, that is the break that I was mentioning. Okay, go ahead. Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just with regard to the Charlottetown Accord, Mr. Chairman, when the Meech Lake Accord was under consideration, there were concerns that it had been carried out in a closed room, and represented the interests of a very small sector of our Canadian society. The process from the Charlottetown agreement was very different. The months leading up to the Pearson Building Discussion saw several public commissions and hearings, all aimed at gathering input from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Not the least of this was the input received from the leaders of our national aboriginal organizations. I was very pleased that these leaders had joined us in this House today. I know the honourable Members are finding their comments very helpful as we work through the various issues related to disagreement, and our special committee's report. Mr. Chairman, I know that I do not have to remind our national leaders of the very unique, and special, circumstances of the Northwest Territories in which they find themselves today. The Northwest Territories, you might say, amplifies everything that is good about Canada. We are a jurisdiction which covers a huge territory, approximately one third the size of the entire country. Our population is comprised of several ethnic groupings, the Metis, Inuit, Dene and non-native.

I think, that in many ways, our life together here shows how people who are of diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds can live and work together successfully. In recognition of our way, our national leaders have assisted the process of ensuring that our unique interests are reflected in Canada's Constitution, the Dene and Metis Members of this House have asked me to present you with a token of our appreciation, and respect.

Mr. Chairman, the honourable Members of this House have heard me talk about the moose hair pictures produced by the Dene of my community before. These pieces have acquired a world wide reputation as an art form that is unique in Canada's north. They are more than that, however.

They are an expression of the long history of the Dene, and the Metis, people in the Deh Cho and South Slave region. They symbolize the way that women and men, in the Dene and Metis communities, have worked together for centuries to produce a culture that is truly beautiful, and admired by people around the world.

They also symbolize our close harmony with the natural forces that surround us, and in presenting them today, we hope that the Dene will represent the long tradition of hospitality and goodwill that has categorized our northern homeland for centuries.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Dene and Metis Members of this House, I would like your permission to make a presentation to our distinguished guests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. We will now recess for 15 minutes.

---SHORT BREAK

Thank you for your attention. The committee will now come to order. For the record, we are discussing in the committee of the whole, committee report 18-12(2), the Report of the Special Committee on Constitutional Reform on the Multilateral Meetings on the Constitution, and First Ministers-Aboriginal Leaders' Conference on the Constitution, committee report 10-12(2), and Minister's statement 82-12(2).

I would like to ask the Members to ask questions, rather than making long statements, but if you wish to make a statement, that will be entirely up to you. I would like to ask the witnesses, if you wish to respond to the statements that were made earlier, you have the floor. General comments? Mr. Belcourt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond briefly to a couple of comments that were raised by Mr. Nerysoo. He raised a very good point that it is critical that we get out, and explain what is in the package. In that sense, the Metis National Council, as I mentioned, has this "yes" committee, we are going to be travelling to communities, our

Member organizations are going to be travelling to communities, and they are going to be explaining the details of this package.

Also, all of the federal parties, the liberals, the conservatives, and the N.D.P. have joined together with a national "yes" committee, and they are putting together "yes" committees at local constituency levels. They are going to be doing the same thing as you would in any federal election campaign. They are going to get out and knock on doors, they are going to send information to peoples houses, precisely for that reason, it is so important that people get the information. He is quite right, that we have to have this information get out and not be threatening people.

My comments, related to the severe circumstance that we are in, are not meant to be threats, but I am very alarmed, as I hope all responsible people in Canada would be, at the polling results that are coming out. Clearly there are far too many Canadians, right now, who do not feel favourably about this package. Now, I do not think it is only up to us, to ensure that we provide the information about what is in the package and good for us, but I think it is also up to us, to be speaking clearly about the alarming consequences if this package does not get through.

I want to say, that we know, the Metis National Council knows full well, what happens when constitutional discussions come to a grinding halt. You are off of the agenda. So, for aboriginal people, all of our aspirations will come to a grinding halt in constitutional terms, if this package is not concluded. We are not going to have the recognition of self-government in our Constitution, we are not going to have an agreement that will provide for self-government agreements in the future, we are not going to have the impetus that we have built up so far, and we are going to have constitutional constipation. We are going to have a situation in Canada where people are going to be wondering what are we going to do. What are we going to do in a country, where we have said "no" to a package of constitutional amendments that are as Ovide Mercredi had said, a step forward. They are not a step backward. We know that, they are a step forward. If we do not seize the opportunity to step forward, then what, we certainly know that in one province in this country, the intention of the people in opposition there, who would then be very victorious, it is to not make any steps forward, but many, many steps backward. That will hurt us all, it will have consequences, grave, serious consequences for us all.

We think that the package has wonderful things in it for Canada, and that is why we think we ought to get out and sell it. Also, we have to stop and think, what happens if we say "yes". Think about the future, if we say "yes". On October 27, we can say to ourselves we have a lot here that we can build on and we can move forward, and that is what we want to do.

The other comment that I wanted to make was about all groups being treated equally. Many Members in this House will know, that the record of the Metis Nation, and the Metis National Council, is trying to ensure that all aboriginal peoples were treated equally. When the federal government first started providing core funds, the Native Council of Canada, which I was President of at that time, fought to ensure that there would be some funds set aside, so that Inuit Tapirisat of Canada would be able to get off the ground. I am sorry that Mr. Arvaluk is not here, because he would remember full well that we took, the Metis, that initiative.

We stood side by side with all aboriginal groups in 1987, when we said "no", because we did not feel that the constitutional amendments being proposed at that time were good enough. We stood with the Assembly of First Nations and the other aboriginal groups at that time. Since 1987, where have the Metis been, where they have been for more than 100 years, in the backwaters of everybody's mind and getting absolutely nowhere. We would like to see everybody being treated equally, that is why we have supported, and fought for, the changes that are in the Constitution, because they will then ensure that the Metis are going to be treated equally.

In the Northwest Territories, in terms of your negotiations that are going on, rather, in a couple of claims areas, I ask you this, is it possible for the Metis to say, well no, we are not going to negotiate a claim, we are going to go for treaty land entitlement.

You know full well that it is not possible for the Metis to go for treaty land entitlement. There is no equality, the Metis have to fight to get to the level of being equal, and that is what we are doing. The Metis Nation Accord helps us achieve that level of equality. It ensures that, in Canada's Constitution, there is a recognition that the federal government has an equal jurisdiction to legislate for Indians, Inuit and Metis.

That is what the Metis Nation Accord will do. It will give us a measure of equality on which we can then negotiate. I just wanted to add those comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, very much.

Thank you. Before the break, on the Speaker's list I have Mr. Bernhardt and Dennis Patterson. Before I do that, I would like to ask the panel of national leaders if you have any further response to the statement that was made earlier. Any further comments from the panel? Mr. Mercredi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to creating an understanding of what we did in Charlottetown, I think that is a shared responsibility that we have with the leadership around this forum, the Legislative Assembly. The people that I represent expect their leaders to advise them, one way or the other, on whether they are satisfied, or not satisfied, with the provisions in the agreement. I think this holds true for your Legislative Assembly as well.

After all, before the people get the information, we have it. We have read it, we have studied it, and we have understood it. So, the responsibility we share is to provide that information, but more than that, to express our personal preference. That is why we were chosen as leaders, not to sit on the fence.

That is why I welcome a debate, myself. I would rather see people get up and say "no", rather than say nothing. I think it is more important that we get the information out, so that people can make an intelligent decision. I know that, from past experience in constitutional matters, from 1982 to 1987, I have seen around this table many faces at those meetings in different capacities. Everyone that spoke here always supported the inherent right to self-government, and why they would not do that publicly now, I think would be kind of amazing in itself.

The responsibility is shared. I am not a member of the "yes" committee. We will not register as a "yes" committee, it is just not the way we do things. We consider ourselves a separate body from the Government of Canada. We will deal with them on that basis forever. That does not mean that I cannot express an opinion. I am obligated to, about the package itself, and to do that does not necessarily tie me with the other individuals who are advocating a "yes" vote, by using extreme arguments.

There are two problems, I think we have to avoid when we deal with this issue. One is, we should not overstate it, but equally, we should not understate it. If you believe, as I do, in the accomplishments we have made, we have to say so. For myself, as national Chief, my responsibilities lie to the chiefs across Canada. We will be meeting, in our own Assembly, on October 14, 15, 16 and possibly 17 to debate the merits of this proposal. There we will discuss the pros and the cons, but at the end of the day, we will decide, collectively, whether to go in favour of it, or to oppose it.

My own inclination, my own prediction, is that after much debate that the prevailing opinion of the Chiefs across this country will be to support the package. At that point in time, their responsibility is to explain it to the people. In the meantime, my job is to get the information to them, as a Chief, which I am doing.

At the same time, in order to make it easier for them to get the information to the people that we represent, we are doing what we can to provide a fact sheet, the pros and the cons of the agreement, for the people, themselves, so they can all have a copy of the assessments we have made. The political assessments and the legal assessments. I agree with the comments that were made earlier, the sky is not going to fall if the package does not survive.

I have stated on more than one occasion that if we do not succeed the test of the people, it just means that we have to do better. It is not the end of constitutional wrangling, quite to the contrary, it just simply means that we have to get together immediately to do better, if it does not satisfy the Canadian people.

On a final note, in response to what was said earlier, I think when you have people like Pierre Trudeau advocating dissent and "no" to the package, you have people as powerful as the National Action Committee of Canada advocating against the package, and you have other people like Preston Manning doing the same, for different reasons, we have to ask them what their opinion is about the aboriginal provisions.

This is our chance for constitutional justice, they should not deny us this chance because of their own causes. Their causes have existed, and their causes have surpassed ours for many, many generations. The issue that Trudeau raised, with respect to sovereignty in the province of Quebec, is a real one, his arguments are genuine. Can he use that, and should he use that, to encourage Canadians to say "no"? By doing that, he is saying "no" to the aboriginal people.

He has to assess, not just his cause, but he also has to assess the cause of the aboriginal people, the same applies to the Native Women's Association, and the National Action Committee on Women's Rights. They have to assess the aboriginal rights, the treaty rights, the inherent rights of the aboriginal people, and whether or not, at this time, people should position themselves as obstacles to constitutional justice. This is all I say.

They are entitled to their opinion, that is true. We all are. At the same time, we live in a country where the aboriginal people have been denied their rightful place, not just for 100 years, but longer. The issues facing our people in Canada are not going to disappear because the people in the "no" forces succeed. They will still be there. I believe myself that if someone, like Pierre Trudeau, is going to take the position that he did, then he has an obligation to explain to our people, what he believes, in relation to our rights, our place in Canada, and I challenge him, as one leader to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Mercredi. For your information, I am the Chairman of the committee, not the Speaker. Okay, any other response of the panel to the witnesses to the issues that were brought up earlier before the coffee break. If not, I will go with you, Mr. Bernhardt, you are the first on the list of speakers. Mr. Bernhardt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we are currently in the midst of a historic constitutional process in the Northwest Territories, that may very well achieve the division of the Northwest Territories, and the establishment of a new territory in the eastern Arctic. I am quite interested to know what implications this agreement has for the establishment of Nunavut, I would like the panel, the special committee, and the representative of I.T.C. to comment on the implications of this agreement for the eventual establishment of a new territory in the eastern Arctic. Can the new territory be established through an act in parliament, or will it require unanimous consent of the provinces?

Thank you. To the witnesses, any response? Ms. Kuptana.

I think on a general comment on the implications of the agreement for Nunavut, the present national amendments are consistent with the Nunavut Claims Agreement. If anything, the current amendments will allow the Inuit to strengthen Nunavut in the future, and invest in Nunavut territorial constitutional consensus, as a third order of government. Now, whether it will require a consensus of all of the provinces and the federal government, I think that this is an issue that we will have to still further determine.

Thank you. Mr. Bernhardt. Any further questions? Go ahead.

No, I will let someone else speak for awhile, and I will take a break.

Thank you. In the order of speakers from the committee, I have Mr. Patterson, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, and Mr. Dent. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to welcome the distinguished representatives of aboriginal organizations, and to make some comments. Just before I do so, I think we should try to clear up the question of the Nunavut Territory. As I understand the Charlottetown Accord, it will make it easier for provinces to be created in northern Canada by eliminating the seven and fifty, or the unanimity requirement under Meech Lake. The federal government is to make an agreement with a territory to create a province bilaterally. The accord provides for consultation with provinces on the creation of a new province, but really the deal will be as it always was, between the federal government, and the territory cum province. So, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the accord, really, will pose no barriers to the creation of a Nunavut Territory. That would simply be an act of parliament, it would be an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act to create two territories, and I do not think the Charlottetown Accord would in any way prevent that process from taking place. As Ms. Kuptana says, because of the recognition to the inherent right to self-government, we may well find that since the Nunavut Territory is contemplated in the Land Claim Agreement, we may also find that this becomes an entrenched order of government within the meaning of the inherent right. I think that is to be spelled out in the future in discussions, but I think there is that potential for actually strengthening the status of the new territory, as an entrenched form of the inherent right.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time, but I would like to try to put this discussion in a bit of a historical context, having had the privilege of being involved in constitutional discussions over the last ten years.

I think if we want to see where we are going, we have to understand where we have been, and it was really just about ten years ago that the Constitution was repatriated from Britain. There was a recognition of aboriginal rights in the first version of that package, then there was some kind of a secret deal in a kitchen cabinet in Quebec City late one night, after Rene Levesque went home. The constitutional package was altered by nine premiers, and the federal government. Aboriginal rights were removed, we had the invidious section 41 added, which allowed the provinces to extend their boundaries into the territories, and set up new rules to create provinces that had never been there before. I was privileged to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly in that period, and we went crazy when we heard about these provisions. We felt so strongly about this that we travelled en masse to Ottawa to lobby for change. The Minister of Indian Affairs of the day tried to stop us, but we chartered a plane, we flew to Ottawa, and lobbied vigorously to try and get the Constitution improved.

We did make a little progress, along with a lot of other efforts. Aboriginal rights were restored to the Constitution, but it was described as "existing aboriginal rights", and no one knew what "existing" meant. It was described as "existing aboriginal rights", but not defined. The invidious section 41 remained in the package, and is still there today.

The story since then has largely been one of frustration and failure. In an effort to define aboriginal rights, from 1982-1987, there were innumerable meetings, and First Ministers' Conferences, to try to define "aboriginal rights." The object of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and our government, which was one of the few that stood clear and firm, was to define "existing aboriginal rights" as the right of self-government, and to entrench it into the Constitution.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there were some 59 meetings, I think one of our people counted, of officials and Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs. We even had one in Yellowknife once. Over that five year period we got nowhere. We failed to reach agreement, and a lot of people were devastated after a massive amount of effort.

Then, to add insult to injury, a few months later, those same first Ministers who failed to reach agreement on aboriginal rights, hatched the Meech Lake Accord, behind closed doors, without any involvement of aboriginal people, or representatives of the territories and the barrier to provincehood became strengthened, there was no recognition or strengthening of aboriginal rights, and another massive struggle began. I think we tried to chip away at the Meech Lake Accord. The 10th Assembly got very involved, and I suppose the final draft did show some improvements. At the end of that process, section 41 was still there, the unanimity rule for provincehood was gone, but replaced by seven and 50, and at best we had a promise that the rules for provincehood would be reviewed at a future F.M.C.

The territories would have status at some of those meetings. There would be national consultation about recognizing aboriginal peoples in the Canada clause. There would be F.M.C.s on aboriginal issues, to which the native people would be invited. I guess those of us who were stuck in that process, at the time, felt that we had made some progress, but I remember Ethel Blondin saying no, it is not good enough, the aboriginal people have been sold out.

At the time, I was frankly not sure if we would have another chance, now I am glad that we did have another chance. I am glad to hear that Ethel Blondin will be a strong supporter of this accord, and our M.P. for Nunatsiaq as well, because really, at the end of Meech Lake, what did we have? We had no status for the aboriginal people of Canada, or the territories, and a very qualified status for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Aboriginal rights were still undefined. Barriers to provincehood were worse than ever before. The invidious provision allowing extension of boundaries was still there.

After massive efforts, money, time, we had achieved so little. So, I know there are good questions that have to be asked about this deal, and Mr. Nerysoo has raised some points that should be raised. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, when I look at this accord, and when I think of the struggles of the last 10 years, this thing is a miracle. It is an enormous accomplishment, and I believe that the people, some of the people in this room, particularly the northern leaders and the aboriginal leaders of Canada, deserve massive credit for having raised the consciousness of the country, and the Premiers, to finally deal with these issues we have been struggling with for so long.

We have equal status as a territory in ongoing constitutional discussions, no more begging for a lousy 10 minute audience, which I have had the humiliating experience of having to do. The unanimity barrier is removed. Provincehood will be decided between us and the federal government alone, and the big news is that this section 41 provision allowing provincial boundaries to be extended into the territories is to be repealed, it is gone, that terrible threat hanging over our heads, which the 9th Legislative Assembly fought against so valiantly, is to be gone, and I think that this is an enormous accomplishment.

For aboriginal people, what we could not do, in those five years, those 59 meetings, has been done. It is not just the entrenchment of aboriginal self-government, it is the entrenchment of the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. We have accomplished more than we even dreamed of accomplishing, in the 1982-87 process. Up here we are not afraid of the entrenched right of self-government. I think we could argue that we are already well on the way to achieving that goal. I believe that the T.F.N. claim, the Nunavut Constitution, and the relations we have between Inuit and non-Inuit in our eastern communities, will likely mean the public government model will prevail, but that will be up to the Inuit.

When I look back at the last 10 years or so, it is incredible to me that all the provinces and the government of Canada have agreed to these provisions, and have accepted a place, or equality, at the constitutional table for aboriginal people and the territorial governments. Let us not underestimate the significance of these accomplishments even as we admit that it is not perfect, that there are flaws, and that there are questions. It represents far more than I ever expected to see, and I think it is fragile. I think it happened because the chemistry was right, because of the strength of northern and aboriginal leaders in the process, and in my view, it will give us the tools to advance further than ever before, on a platform on which to stand.

Now, I know people will pick away at this deal, as there are issues like Senate composition, and the economic union. I think that we have the status now to confront those issues with strength, I think that we have to deal with those issues, and we can, and we will, deal with these issues, but we will not be outside the room. I have every confidence that our aboriginal leaders and our representatives of this Legislature, nationally, will do as well with those issues, as they have done with this accord.

We cannot fool our people. It is not going to solve our financial crisis with the federal government, our housing cuts, and the reduction of the spending on health care for aboriginal people. These are issues that are not going to go away if we vote "yes". Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the aboriginal leaders, Mr. Kakfwi, and Ms. Cournoyea, for the light years of progress that this accord represents, and I, for one, am going to be recommending to my constituents that they vote "yes". Qujannamiik.

---Applause

On the order of speakers, I have Mrs. Marie-Jewell, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Arngna'naaq, Mr. Allooloo, Ms. Mike, and Mr. Nerysoo. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to take the time to thank the leaders for accepting the invitation to attend, and to meet with us this afternoon. It crossed my mind, as they were speaking, that a month from now, we will have the answers to this debate, that we are deliberating on.

I would like to thank the leaders for their comments. Mr. Chairman, compared to Meech Lake, and so many times as an aboriginal person, I thank Elijah Harper, because yes, we did make significant progress, particularly for aboriginal people.

I know the proposed Charlottetown Accord does allow for collective rights to be achieved by aboriginal people. However, there are a few areas of concern, and that is probably what is causing some of the "yes" campaigns to be created, and some of the "no" campaigns to be created. I believe that we require clarification before we feel comfortable even to take a stand, and to go back to our constituents on this.

I think back to when we were younger and in school, one of the areas that non-native people used to encourage natives, was to get educated, get as much education as you can and assimilate into society. Today, I am thankful that I did not get a degree, or a lot of education, because I believe I probably would be a super bureaucrat, and even though our government is of aboriginal people, I sometimes do not believe they appreciate bureaucrats that are native.

I want to express one of the main concerns that I have with this accord. I too, am very concerned that there is, in regards to, the Metis Nation Accord, no participation and agreement from the Government of the Northwest Territories, that they are not a party to the accord. If this indication is anything like how the government at the time promised we would do the health transfer, that we would look after Metis' rights, I quite frankly and honestly, cannot believe this government.

I want to ask, before I make a couple of comments, particularly on the women's issues, and I know that we are only asked to make general comments. Further to that, Mr. Chairman, my questions are not particularly to the witnesses, but more so to our government who have been given accolades for giving support towards native people. I do not believe they have been giving full support, because of their reluctance to give full support to the Metis people.

Why is the Government of the N.W.T. not a party to the Metis Accord, and is it still possible for them to be a party to the Metis Accord? Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister had indicated because of the claims process, but at the same time, the claims process in our jurisdiction is not really fully acceptable, or should I not say acceptable, but it is not fully pushed by a couple of regions. I know that in my region, the south Slave region, where we have a predominantly native and Metis population, it is of significant concern.

I believe one of the major concerns, Mr. Chairman, is that we know that the Charlottetown Accord looks overall at aboriginal rights. I think that, until it is clear in the Metis population, to take another leap of faith in government, may be difficult. I do not blame them, taking into consideration the outline of events that one of our witnesses has outlined today.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask the Minister who made the decision not be a part to the accord? Thank you.

Thank you. I believe the honourable Member is asking the Minister to respond. Mr. Minister.