(Translation begins) Mr. Chairman, when the special committee presented its June 16 report on the state of national constitutional reform negotiations, there was uncertainty at the time about ever achieving a "best efforts" package which all participants could support.
There was concern that the federal government may proceed with its own unilateral proposal which might have compromised the delicate balance and some of the hard fought achievements negotiated by each participant in the multilateral round.
Finally, there was concern that a unilateral federal approach would risk further alienating individual provinces and territories, regions, aboriginal first nations and others who had placed their faith in reaching a true consensus through the multilateral process.
However, ongoing negotiations over the summer months involving Ministers, first Ministers, and aboriginal leaders, eventually succeeded in convincing Quebec to formally join the constitutional talks which culminated on August 28 with the Charlottetown Consensus Report.
Mr. Chairman, when the special committee tabled its most recent report last week, the House was provided with a detailed accounting of the events of the last two months and recommendations from the Charlottetown Consensus Agreement. We do not propose to cover all of this material again.
Rather, the special committee suggests that our objectives for today's proceedings should be:
- To hear from our distinguished guests, who played such a crucial role in developing this historic reform package;
- To have Members debate and question the Consensus Report and the broader issue of national constitutional reform;
- To reflect upon recent criticism of the agreement, including those outstanding and unresolved issues that are not adequately addressed in reform package;
- To provide the special committee with further direction during this crucial period as Canadians prepare to vote on the consensus package in the national referendum; and
- To recommend that the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories consider a motion during this Session which formally expresses its support for the consensus agreement.
(Translation ends)
To set the context for part of this afternoon's debate, it is important that Members are reminded of the terms of reference, which this House approved on April 1, 1992, which guided the special committee's work and the participation of the Northwest Territories government and Legislature in the constitutional negotiations. Briefly, we were directed:
- To enshrine the inherent right to aboriginal self-government in the Canadian Constitution;
- To achieve full and meaningful participation for territories at all future national level meetings and conferences on economic, aboriginal and constitutional matters;
- To change the Constitution's amending formula to return the exclusive authority for creating new provinces to the government and Parliament of Canada;
- To protect territorial interests in constitutional amendments relating to the division of powers and the Canadian economic union; and
- To ensure territorial representation in a reformed Senate and the right to nominate of qualified Northwest Territories residents for vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the special committee's report and September 16 presentation to the house provides the substance on how the Charlottetown Consensus Report reflects each of the terms of reference.
While I will comment in a moment on outstanding and unresolved issues which remain of concern to the special committee, I want to simply state on behalf of my colleagues that the consensus agreement represents an achievement of historic significance for the Northwest Territories and for Canada.
From our perspective, first, the inherent right to aboriginal self-government will be entrenched. Political accords and constitutional amendments will guarantee territorial participation in future talks at the national level. The Constitution's amending formula will be changed so that parliament alone can create new provinces. The amending formula will also be changed to require the federal government to obtain the consent of our Legislative Assembly before making changes to the Northwest Territories.
New division of powers arrangements will allow protection of federal-territorial agreements from unilateral change by the federal government. Territories will be able to nominate qualified northern residents to sit as judges in Canada's Supreme Court, and representation for the Northwest Territories in a reformed Senate will be guaranteed.
Mr. Chairman, these achievements for the north are not just the result of hard work during the last six months by the Premier, special committee members, territorial officials and other northern and aboriginal leaders, like Mary Simon, Rosemarie Kuptana, Gary Bohnet, Roger Gruben, Ethel Blondin and Jack Anawak.
(Translation begins) These achievements represent the culmination of dedicated hard work over the past two decades by territorial aboriginal organizations and leaders like Georges Erasmus and John Amagoalik, who have consistently assumed a prominent and influential role at the national level.
They also reflect the determination of past and current Members of this House, including Mr. Braden, Mr. Nerysoo, Mr. Sibbeston, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Ballantyne, Premier Cournoyea, and others who have laid the groundwork for our success in this round through strong, persistent leadership, lobbying those who would listen, court challenges, and numerous appearances over the past decade before federal and provincial committees and task forces on national constitutional reform. (Translation ends)
The support for northern constitutional issues and encouragement, which our delegation received from Constitutional Affairs Minister Clark, the Premiers of the provinces, and the Ministers during the past six months, have also resulted in the achievements to date.
Mr. Chairman, while well deserved compliments are in order, the reality is that the constitutional reform package does not address a number of outstanding, and unresolved, constitutional issues to the satisfaction of some Canadians and the organizations which represent their interests. Furthermore, there are elements of the package which could have significant implications for the Northwest Territories.
For example, the Native Women's Association of Canada objects to their being excluded from the constitutional negotiation process and the provisions of the reform package which, they believe, do not sufficiently guarantee equality of aboriginal men and women, and protection for aboriginal women under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has come out against the reform package because they believe it does not adequately protect the rights of women and other equality seeking groups, and does not guarantee seats for women in the Senate. The Action Committee is also concerned about the erosion of government commitments to national social programs resulting from limitations on the federal spending power.
The One Voice Seniors Network is critical of the reform package because the provisions respecting social services, like housing, health care, and social services, are guiding principles that are not intended to be enforceable through the courts. Organizations representing the handicapped have made a credible argument to ensure that references be included in the Canada clause to protect their interests.
Environmentalists are concerned that the package does not take into account the need for constitutional measures to protect the environment, given recognition of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in mining, forestry, tourism, and urban affairs. Members of this House have questioned the impact, the commitment to future talks on the Canadian common market, which could affect our government's role in developing the Northwest Territories economy and business sector through preference policies and programs.
We must also examine the implications that federal restraint measures, such as the recent decision to reduce contributions for social housing programs, will have upon the new division of powers arrangements, and bilateral safeguard agreements to maintain federal spending in the Northwest Territories.
Any federal decisions to significantly reduce expenditures prior to the negotiation of bilateral safeguard agreements on spending in the Northwest Territories for housing, tourism, culture, recreation, labour market training, regional economic development, mining, and forestry, will obviously generate uncertainty about our ability to secure adequate federal funding through the intergovernmental agreement mechanism.
We are genuinely interested, and concerned, about a stampede amongst provincial and territorial governments to negotiate bilateral agreements as quickly as possible for declining federal expenditures in these areas. The Metis Nation Accord could mean a significant departure from our current approach to settlement of claims if adopted in the Northwest Territories. It could lead to separate Dene and Metis claims and self-government agreements which could end our tradition of joint settlement of these issues.
With regret, I would note that chiefs representing Six and Seven First Nations have concluded that the reform package represents an unacceptable compromise.
(Translation) I say to you that these and other outstanding, or unresolved, issues should be addressed in the course of our debate this afternoon, and during the remainder of this session. Directions from the House on these matters is crucial for the committee's ongoing participation in the reform process leading up to, and following, the national referendum.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee, along with all of the other participants in the process, which has taken place over the last six months, agree that the reform package is not perfect. (Translation ends)
Restructuring of our institutions of government, and the laws which further define how we relate to each other, will correct mistakes from the past and prepare Canada for the future. A "no" vote, or a "yes" vote, in the upcoming referendum will not immediately translate into constitutional peace and harmony for Canada or aboriginal First Nations in the Northwest Territories, nor will it resolve financial issues and help housing or resource control. It will surely provide the basis for all of us to work positively towards our greater goal of a united Canada, and a just society that we can all begin to feel a part of.
If the package is approved by Canadians, there will be further work required to implement the far reaching changes which an amended Constitution will require. Fortunately, this work will take place within a constitutional framework, which guides the change and reform. If the package is rejected it means more constitutional talks, either to improve upon the Charlottetown consensus or to prepare, we believe, for Quebec's separation from Canada.
My prediction is that it will be the latter. Party Quebec leader, Jacques Parizeau, has finally publicly stated that a "no" vote, is a vote for Quebec independence. A "no" vote will most definitely fragment this country, and cause further alienation. On the other hand, Preston Manning and the Reform Party, suggest a "no" vote in the upcoming referendum will mean a return to the constitutional status quo. This is, at best, I believe, wishful thinking, and Canadians must be very cautious about such interpretation of the consequences of a "no" vote.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents will be looking to us as they go to the poles in just 29 days. They will look to us and other leaders for information, advice, and direction, in deciding how they should vote on October 26. They will also want to know our position on the reform package. The special committee's position, and its recommendation to this Legislature is that we adopt a motion, in support of the reform package, during this session.
The Charlottetown Consensus Report builds upon the accomplishments of the 125 years of confederation, as well as correcting some of the mistakes, particularly as they affect aboriginal people. Whether, or not, northern residents support or reject the package, our first priority is to encourage them to vote. Our second priority, over the next four weeks, is to respond to their questions, provide information, and explain its implications for the Northwest Territories. Our third priority, is to encourage them to vote "yes" in the referendum. I believe that it is a good deal for aboriginal people, for the people of the north, and for the people of Canada. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, I would like to invite witnesses to appear before the committee? Thank you.