(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Kakfwi, our Premier and our invited guests for briefing us on their views. As we know, the aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, not too long ago, were not able to vote, and we were not able to be part of people who are being voted on.

Only in 1960 did we get the right to vote. We have to remember and acknowledge our folks for their hard work for the aboriginal people. This Constitutional Accord, which will be voted on in October, is not the best we have, but it is the best we can get. (Translation ends)

Also, the people who have been working on this document, have been trying to convince the federal government that there are aboriginal people living in Canada. Yourself, could very well remember, Mr. Chairman, that your people were told by white people to move away from Pond Inlet to go into another area, and you had to move. You had no choice, you had no right to say no. You moved to another area, it was foreign to your people, your father, your parents, and you had no rights.

My parents were living in our own camp, we had our own government, and of course that was not recognized by the national government. We had our own justice system, in our community, we had laws governing the resources that we used, like wildlife, wildlife management was in place. Wildlife management was probably one of the most stringent laws adhered to by my people, because we were living off them. We were moved. I remember the day that we were moved, because the authority told us to move into a community, from our traditional community where my brothers and sisters were born, in a sod house, and we were moved. One day, my father came back to get some supplies, and when he came back he said that we have to move because the R.C.M.P., and the administrators, told us we had to move, we had no choice. We had no say. I remember the day that we moved, that my mother cried, just about all the way, going into Pond Inlet, because she did not want to move. My father did not want to move, but we could not stay.

I am very glad today that the accord that is put to the people of Canada, says that inherent right to aboriginal self-government will be entrenched. I am very glad to hear that. Finally we will have something that, as aboriginal people, we will have something that to protect us, protect aboriginal inherent right to self-government.

When I came back from school, back in the early 1970s, the first thing I heard was that we would like to govern ourselves. We would like to say what happens in our community. We would like to say what happens to wildlife management. We would like to take part in the growth of our community. We would like to be part of the resource management that is taking place in terms of mineral management, oil and gas development in our community.

Our people are saying that we would like to be part of that decision making body, and we were not. The authorities were in Ottawa, and we did not have the right. As a result of that, I started to get involved in municipal politics, and I was the youngest one in the Baffin, I believe, as a Mayor, back in 1973. As soon as I could vote, I got in there, because I was concerned that our people were saying we would like to govern ourselves. I though that I could use my education to get them there.

In a large part, I have not been successful, in a lot of cases, but to some degree, being involved in this Legislative Assembly, shows that we are making laws that governs our people, and I would like to see that continue.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the day that Nunavut could be created. At this moment, in the thoughts of our people, aboriginal self-government is not big, because of our population. If we create the Nunavut government, we will have aboriginal self-government, but in the future this clause is going to be very important when the time comes, when our people will be the minority, this is going to be very important, but that is down the road. I am glad to see that happen. Also, guaranteeing the territorial government, and the Yukon government, be part of the national talks, that is very important to us.

I remember, our previous Premier, camping on the doorsteps of the First Ministers, waiting to get in. He was not allowed in, he did not have the right, the Northwest Territories did not have the right to partake in those very important discussions. We did not have that, no wonder the Premier was saying this is a milestone, this is a miracle, it is a miracle.

I am going to tell my constituents to vote for this, like the witnesses were saying, there is room for improvement, and those things will take place some point in the future when the time is right. I think we have something here that we cannot afford to let go, although it is not perfect, like a lot of people are saying. It is something that is the best that could be done right at this moment. There will be future constitutional talks nationally which we will be able to take part and our Premier, because of this agreement will be there at the same level as Premiers.

Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman, Mahsi Cho.

Thank you. Would any of the panel care to respond. General comments? Ms. Mike.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Translation ends)

...(inaudible)...the Legislative Assembly and gives us their statements on this important piece of paper. Also, I would like to thank Elijah Harper for killing the Meech Lake Accord, because that gave another chance on different times, for aboriginals to start negotiating with the federal government on constitutional matters. We do live in a democratic country, I will neither promote, nor tell my constituents, not to vote for this, because it is a right of every individual to vote the way they want in this country.

I do have concerns, Mr. Chairman, I could find no specific references to Senate representation for new territories within this agreement. So, I will ask this question of the Chairman of the Special Committee, if Nunavut becomes a reality, what guarantee do we have that it be entitled the same level of Senate representation as other territories.

Thank you. Madam Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I would assume, and I believe, that right now the way the Senate is made up, one of the representatives is from the eastern Arctic and there would be one from the western Arctic, so it is not presumed that we would have two members from any other area. The reason why we did request an extra Senator, was to make sure a new territory would have the ability to have the same number as ours, because we could not split one in half, -- that was a joke -- but that was the argument that we made, that at least for Nunavut there should be one, and for the west there should be one.

Thank you. General comments, Ms. Mike.

Mr. Chairman, I also have a question relating to representation currently in joint with the Northwest Territories in the Senate. If division occurs, the existing territory will be smaller in both population and size. Perhaps the Chairman of the special committee can tell me what guarantees we have, that the existing territory will retain its one Senate seat.

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi. Madam Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if that is the same question. Right now, the Senator comes from the Nunavut area, from the eastern territory. When there was a discussion in terms of population and what we could get in the interim, the way it had worked up when they went to clear population, it would mean that we would get one, and Yukon would get zero, so there were some provisions to leave some of the smaller jurisdictions the same, even though they maybe should have had less. The reason that we were not able to gain two is because when we made the argument that right now we have a Senator that comes from the eastern part of the territory, and there is a division of the territories being anticipated, there should be one extra one for the west, so that is how we attempted to increase the one Senator to two in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you. General comments, Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to commend and recognize the people who have worked in putting this constitutional shell and court together. The two leaders who have left, Mr. Mercredi and Ms. Kuptana, as well as Phil Fraser, and Mr. Belcourt, also recognizing the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi, and the Honourable Nellie Cournoyea as well, I know it has been a long hard road getting to this period in time, in the history of this House, because I am a former Chief of my people back in Fort Simpson. I was involved in constitutional discussions about ten years ago, and I know how hard things were at that time, and to have come to these stages is a great achievement, as far as I am concerned.

From my part of the world, I represent a majority of aboriginal people in the southwestern portion of the Northwest Territories. Six communities. I have six band councils, one Metis local, plus village municipality, and a hamlet, so I represent a diverse group of people, and a couple of concerns that I have are, most of the presentations that were made here today, I acknowledge, and I support some of the positions, but one of my concerns is that lack of information about this important referendum that is going to occur here on October 26.

I understand there are some sections of this Charlottetown Accord that are incomplete in terms of legal text, and in terms of some negotiations, so it is very difficult to tell people exactly what is in this accord at this present time. So, I am wondering how the people who are advocating a "yes" vote here today will sit to make sure that everybody is voting on a very well informed basis.

The second concern that I have is there was a discussion about the Metis Nation Accord, and according to the consensus, the document "Consensus Report on the Constitution", it does make a civic note way in the back, and it says that this accord is still being developed. It is difficult to know exactly what this Metis Nation Accord is, especially because some of the communities I represent have very few Metis people in them, and if they are there, they are all our relatives anyway, so how could we do this? If this package is going to be voted on by everybody, then we should have a clear understanding of every aspect of it, and this one here is a very important one. If you are advocating "yes" for people to vote on it, I was wondering if you could explain to me how this is going to work in terms of the Dene people who are living in these communities. What does it mean for Dene who are treaty living in these small communities with this Metis Accord? How could you make me feel comfortable with this particular accord, so that I could explain to the people back home what it means to them.

Thank you. Would the national leaders like to respond to Mr. Antoine? Mr. Belcourt.

Thank you, very much. I would like to thank Mr. Antoine for his questions, because I think they are very reasonable, and important ones. I hope that my answers will make him feel comfortable, and if not, maybe we can work further to clarify things.

I think it is important, Mr. Antoine, to understand the purpose of the Metis Nation Accord. We have been after the federal government for a long time to recognize its responsibilities to the Metis. Just as an example, in the Manitoba Act, which is part of Canada's Constitution, the land of the Metis were to have been given recognition. That was of all of the families that were there. Their lands were to be recognized. In addition, in this little area of the Red River, 1.4 million acres of land was to have been set aside for the Metis, and this was in recognition of the Indian title. That was what was specified, after the Manitoba Act was passed, and after the Canadian government brought in a huge influx of people to far outnumber the Metis. They then passed a series of constitutional acts that were designed specifically to deny the Metis of their lands.

That was fraud at its highest level. Here was a government, or governments, that was supposed to be fulfilling their fiduciary obligations, and their trust responsibility to the Metis. Instead, they were passing laws that were designed to connive and to deprive the Metis of ever having their lands. As a result, our people throughout the Metis Nation have been reduced to being road allowance people, not accepted on the reserves, and not accepted in the white community.

Our way of life was outlawed. At one time our people used to be able to hunt, so they could look after their families. Governments came along and said, no, we are going to pass laws to say you cannot. We used to be able to trap and they took away our trap lines. These are trust responsibilities the government has had, the federal government, the Government of Canada.

When we first went to Ottawa as a new national group in 1970, we then started to press the federal government to realize its trust responsibilities, its legal responsibilities to deal with Metis issues, and to be able to legislate for the Metis. The federal government has conveniently said, we do not have the responsibility to legislate for you, that now is the provinces.

We go to the provinces and say, look, we are landless. You have the responsibility to provide our people land, we are an aboriginal people without land. They say "no, no, no, that is the federal responsibility." So, we have been a political football.

In the meantime, our people do not have access to education, financing, and we have the same problems as Indian people when it comes to Child and Family Services coming in and splitting up our families. We have the same problems of incarceration of our people, and so on and so forth, but no recognition of a responsibility anywhere.

During this round of constitutional talks, before it started, we had asked the government in Ottawa to do something to clarify this. They said, in these federal proposals, you will remember when this was put out about a year ago, September of last year, the federal government said: "The Metis have often been characterized as Canada's forgotten people. The Government of Canada is committed to addressing the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the governments, as they relate to the Metis."

So we said, "Hallelujah." When the constitutional talks began, the multilateral talks began, we said, how do we address this, how do we come up with a way that will settle this issue, so that the federal government will be able to accept its responsibility? They put together a special task force which took place during the multilateral talks. The federal government, during those meetings, said, look, if we accept our responsibility as a federal government, our federal fiduciary responsibility, we do not want the provinces and the territories to turn around and say, "now we are going to off-load all of our provincial expenditures on Metis for things like education, and child welfare", and so on. "We are now going to send the bill to Ottawa."

The federal government said if we go along with this, we have to have an assurance from the provinces that they are not going to do this. The Assembly of First Nations, and some provincial governments said, "look, if will you accept your role and responsibility for the Metis, we do not want to see you reduce funds for programs, and services, to the aboriginal groups that the federal government is already funding."

This is the kind of negotiation that went on, to sort out the roles and the responsibilities, of the governments. Now, we have put that all in a draft, that was in the Metis Nation Accord, which was approved by the Ministers on September 28. Technically, there were some parts of the draft that were incomplete, because we had to await the legal language, but all of the elements of the Metis Nation Accord were agreed to last summer. In fact, the Metis Nation Accord was circulated, and provided to Metis communities here in the Northwest Territories, during the annual assembly last year.

Now, we have an agreement that sorts out the role and responsibilities of the governments. The federal government, and the provinces, are prepared to make an amendment to section 91.24 to clarify that the federal area of jurisdiction also applies to the Metis, by saying something to the effect of, "this clarifies that the words Indians and lands reserved for Indians in section 91.24 applies equally to all aboriginal peoples."

That, then, means that the Metis will no longer be political footballs. The federal government will be able to negotiate because it recognizes that it has a jurisdiction to negotiate. We sought further assurances in terms of self-government negotiations. Part of the Metis Nation Accord provides for transfer payments to be made to self-government institutions in the future, that there will be transfer payments, that there will be a devolution of programs to Metis institutions and so on.

There are these various aspects of the Metis Nation Accord that serve, more or less, as a framework agreement for the negotiation of self-government agreements. Such a framework agreement, I guess, for the Metis Nation, is a bit ahead of other people who have not been in the position of negotiating a framework agreement. In fact, that is part of the constitutional package, there will be framework agreements entered into with all aboriginal groups who will be entering into self-government negotiations. It is not just us that will have an accord like this, all groups will have an accord.

Since we were in those negotiations, we went ahead and produced this accord, because we are so far behind, and this accord now brings us up to a level playing field with the other aboriginal peoples of Canada. I hope I have explained the purpose of the accord, Mr. Antoine, and I hope that we can have a chance to discuss with you, in more detail, the contents of the Metis Nation Accord. I know that the Metis Nation of the Northwest Territories intends to go into great detail in all the Metis communities and, obviously, in areas such as yours and everywhere really, where the Metis and the Indian people live side by side. There will be a need to make sure that everybody understands what is in the Metis Nation Accord.

Thank you. When Mr. Antoine is finished with his comments, I still have five Members' names on here. However, there are two Members who have not spoken yet, Mr. Pudlat, and Mr. Koe. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The explanation that Mr. Belcourt gave me is quite useful, but his presentation was more or less on a general nature, and background, of this whole situation. The people in the communities are the ones that are going to make the final choice on October 26, depending on how they understand this whole package, and all the different aspects of this package will determine, ultimately, their decisions. That is why I am concerned about some portions of this, especially in the smaller communities, most of the things, like Senate reform, which is important, will be very hard to explain because people do not deal with it on a day to day basis. The people in the communities who live on the land, provide their living off the land, in the smaller communities, would know that they are dealing with their land and resources on it, so in that way, I am trying to have it comfortable in my mind, about this Metis Accord. How is it going to apply in the communities in the north?

I think Mr. Belcourt, and Mr. Fraser, who come from communities down south, are probably aware of the situation up here in the north. Some of the communities are integrated, we do not have reserves up here, and the Metis, the Dene, and non-aboriginal people, all live together side by side in the smaller communities. In the accord you have the negotiation of aboriginal self-government, and that goes for treaty Indians. You have two groups that perhaps, according to this, could have their own self-government regimes in the communities, as well as a public government. It is going to be very difficult to deal with that sort of scenario up here.

Whereas in the south, it is pretty distinct, because you have reserves, and then you have off- reserve aboriginal people in the cities, and so forth. You have Metis' settlements and you have cities in the communities, and it is easier to deal with the situation. Up here it is going to be very difficult in the smaller communities to apply something like this. Especially in some areas, in my area we are dealing with land claims, and it is more or less, in my particular area, in Deh Cho region, we are looking at different options on how to deal with it. Everything is not ruled out yet. I will question extinguishment is a hold back right there, and the federal government policy on extinguishment and the treaty rights, is what we are dealing with at this time. It does not rule out completely, our relatives who are Metis people, in settling some claims. If this thing goes ahead and agreed upon, in Ottawa, it is going to be imposing something from the federal level back into the community again. It is not coming from the community up. The people in the communities have to agree first, on how they are going to deal with the situation.

If you have two different groups opposing because of this accord, it is going to be very difficult to work with. I am wondering since you have negotiated this package, I am wondering how you envisage something like this working in the north, and some of the smaller communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Belcourt.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, by approving constitutional amendments, based on this agreement in Charlottetown, does not mean that on October 27, the Constitution is amended. You still have to come back, and your Legislature still has to deal with legal text. You still have to deal with the Metis Nation Accord, and having that finalized, before it can be signed.

Just as there will not automatically be constitutional change on October 27, even when the amendments are approved, and the Metis Nation Accord is signed, it does not mean that self- government agreements exist. The self-government agreements have to be negotiated by the people and the governments.

Now obviously, in a place where people have decided they want to have one common self-government agreement, for their area, if that is so, and it is based on settlement of a claim, that is the way the negotiations will go. That is the way that the people will decide. Nothing is imposed. What we are talking about is putting something in place that will permit self-government negotiations to take place.

Even though, people are living side by side in the north, you know, there is a very simple fact that they may be living side by side, but they are certainly treated differently by Ottawa. Some people are Status Indian people, and receive certain benefits and services, and entitlements, that their relatives sitting next door do not enjoy. We want to tear that barrier down. We want the measure of equality to apply equally to all aboriginal people. We do not want to be treated, any longer, like second class aboriginal people, and third class Canadians.

The only way to do that, to guarantee that we will not, is to have a constitutional amendment that will provide, clearly, that the federal government has obligations to the Metis as well, and that is the fundamental objective of the Metis Nation Accord.

I do not think any of us, Chief Antoine, are interested in seeing divisions carry on further in our communities. None of us wants to set up any kind of false divisions. We certainly have had enough of it. We have been victims of it, and we are sick and tired of it. If people in our communities want to go a certain way in self-government negotiations, that is their decision, but what we do want to guarantee is that they have the option to enter into self-government negotiations if they want to.

Thank you, Mr. Belcourt. Mr. Fraser.

Just a short answer to Mr. Antoine's question, and I tend to agree with him, it will be people at the community level that will make that final decision irrespective of what we negotiate in Ottawa, or whatever part of the country that we may arrive at.

I agree with Tony's comments, that is what we are trying to do, to create an opportunity so that all aboriginal people, if they want to enter into self-government negotiations, have that opportunity to do that. It should not be myself, or anybody else, that makes that decision on their behalf. I think that is part of our reason for being involved in this process, because it was a process of inclusion, not an exclusion of people. We have situations where people have decided to co-exist together, irrespective of whatever designation they have, and I think that should be encouraged, the cooperation and development.

We also recognize that there are other parts of this country, in which that is not going to work. You alluded to it earlier, when you talked about those people, the designation of those people living on, and living off-reserves. In particular in the Maritimes, where I come from, because we changed our wording in our Constitution, it says nice things about aboriginal people being treated equally and fairly. We make those changes in the Constitution, or put those words forward, it is not going to change 400 years of attitudes in my part of the country. Our nations have been basically destroyed. It is going to take generations to overcome divisions, our people have had to face since confederation, and even before. We talked about the treaties. We waited 267 years for our first treaty to be honoured, and we are still waiting, so a lot of it is attitude.

We can change our worlds, but it is not going to change over night. I regret to say at this point that I have got to go, because I am due to catch a plane out of here, but I would like to thank Members of the Legislature here for giving us the opportunity to speak to you. I know every time I come north, the hospitality of northerners is second to nobody, and I know I have enjoyed that when I have come up to meet with the Metis Nation. I sort of felt a great sense of hospitality by the Members here today, and I thanked them for their kind words throughout the day. I also thanked them for the gift that has been given to us.

On that note, I hope that we can have the opportunity of returning some day, or at least talking to each other more on this issue and others, because I think it is very important that we work together through this process. We have a long way to go, and I think a lot of people have recognized that we have come a long way in this process, but we have a long way to go together to ensure that the aboriginal people in this country take their rightful place in confederation. We hope that we can realize that together, and make a better way of life for our children coming up, and our grandchildren, and those yet to be born. Thank you.

---Applause

Mr. Fraser, on behalf of the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly, from each and every Member, I would like to thank you for coming to meet with us, no doubt from a very busy schedule. We hope to see you again in the near future. Thank you.

---Applause

The next speaker, I believe I have Mr. Pudlat, and Becky.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Belcourt.

I realize that your committee Members, and the Members of this Legislature, will have many things they want to debate and say to each other about the accord. I was wondering, in view of the fact that I am the only person here of the four aboriginal groups, if there were any questions that would be specific that I might be able to answer on behalf of the Metis National Council, perhaps I could take those questions, and then I will say my good-byes.

Mr. Nerysoo.