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, 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.

... and we secured agreement that all aboriginal peoples, including non-status and off-reserve Indians, and Metis, would be able to access the process for negotiating self-government agreements. This means that no matter where they live, whether in Rainbow Valley, or downtown Toronto, we will be able to negotiate arrangement which will let us assume control of our lives.

In addition, we also secured an agreement to amend section 91.24, to make it clear that Ottawa's fiduciary obligations apply to all aboriginal peoples, not just status Indians living on reserves. This makes it clear that Metis are included under federal jurisdiction. The inclusion of these various equity of access clauses represents a break through for non-status and off-reserve peoples, as well as for Metis. In terms of historic significance, we think these provisions can be likened to the breaking down of the Berlin Wall, to the extent that they will mean the removal of artificial barriers that have stood in the way of peoples' right to self-determination.

If these proposed amendments are ratified by the Canadian public in the upcoming referendum, as well as by parliament, and the required Legislatures. We feel it will be the end of an era of Canadian history that has been marked by discrimination and dishonour. If the Charlottetown Accord passes, it will be the dawn of a new era for Canada, characterized by unity, and hope. In addition to the substantive gains that have been made, we think that important lessons have been learned from the process we have all just gone through. While public opinion helped to get our issues on the agenda for this round of talks, I do not think there is any question that one of the reasons we were able to conclude such an expansive agreement was because we were in the room to negotiate.

Our inclusion in the multilateral negotiations was unprecedented, and I do not think we left any doubt that we belong there. When we look back over the weeks of direct negotiations that took place, it is possible to recall literally hundreds of points where one government or another had some questions, concern, or problem with one or another of our positions. If we had not been in the room to hear these concerns, and address them as they arose, the entire aboriginal agenda could have run aground on any one of them, and ended up going nowhere. By being in the room, we were able to hear precisely what the problems were, explain ourselves more fully, and come up with some specific ways of dealing with the problem. Had we not been in the room, none of this could have happened, and no deal would have been reached. The lesson is that including people works. It does not interfere with the process, it improves it, and the end results are better.

Looking ahead, the Native Council will be developing tools which will help its constituents answer the question, "where do we go from here?"

I would like to table with you today one such document which the N.C.C. commissioned a few months ago. It is titled, "Self-Government for Aboriginal Peoples Living in Urban Areas." It was done by a couple of academics from the Institute of Intergovernmental Affairs at Queens University. Basically what it does is it tries to identify the questions that are going to have to be asked by anyone wanting to exercise self-government outside of a reserve situation. As much as possible, it also attempts to identify the options and response to each question, at least to the extent to which they can be known at this date. That is what the N.C.C. sees as its role in the future. We have done the political and legal work to have the rights of non-status and off-reserve peoples recognized. From now on, our job will be to provide support to those people, so they can exercise those rights on the ground in whatever way meets their particular needs.

Here in the Northwest Territories, we will continue to work with the Metis Nation, and anyone else who is interested in drawing upon us. We will do research that will help people identify the possibilities for themselves in various situations across the country. We will develop "How To" manuals to help them get started, and we will continue to reach out to non-aboriginal Canadians, so they feel they know what is happening around them, and remain supportive of it.

Thank you once again for your invitation, and I would be happy to answer any particular questions you may have about the N.C.C., and its position.

I would also like to table a copy of our Parallel Process Report that was conducted last spring, as well as a brief information sheet on the Native Council itself. Thank you.

---Applause

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