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.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though it appears that there is no harm done in regards to not being party to the accord, I believe at the same time the Minister, and the government, is sending out a fairly critical signal in respect to lack of commitment, as a government, to address Metis concerns. That was one of the main reasons for myself pushing forth in this House, commission for constitutional development paper, in regards to "Working Towards a Common Future", because of the fact that there are some significant recommendations in there that are somewhat similar to the overall Charlottetown Accord. In order to do one, one has to know what they think of in order to progress.

The Minister indicated, that because of the Dene Nation, and because of his political assessment, he felt there would be dissention in the valley. He also, at the same time, made cause for further dissention, and concern, among the Metis people for the fact that there may not be the commitment by the government that there should be, whether, or not, it is still possible to become a party to the Metis Accord.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into long debates with the Minister, but I totally differ with his opinion. I want to, for the record, go to page 20 of 22 of our document that the Minister had eloquently read to us last week, before we put this document into committee of the whole.

In there, he indicates with one paragraph on page 20, "recognition of the inherent right to aboriginal self-government will provide the Dene, the Metis, and Inuit, with the means to develop their own institutions of government, create public institutions which better reflect aboriginal interests and objectives, or both."

I ask myself, how can this be? Particularly, when there is no commitment from the G.N.W.T., and them not being a signatory to the Metis Accord. What particular areas within this document can you unequivocally state that the Metis can develop their own institutions of government, and create public institution that reflect their interests? There is not any particular area, and that is one of our concerns. I mean, it is my concern as a Member. I have a large constituency with a large Metis population.

When we talk about this document, I have not fully convinced myself, even though the native organizations, and many of our witnesses here have indicated that yes, this is a good time to go out, and encourage our constituents to vote "yes" on the accord. There are some areas that cause concern to my constituents, and I do not want to be telling them yes, vote "yes", and your inherent rights will be looked after when this government cannot even convince me that they will look after the Metis rights.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue later on, as you want to go down the list, and I will speak in regards to constitutional concerns of women's groups. I will let my other colleagues go first. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, I will go to the Premier first, and then to the witnesses. Madam Premier.