Mr. Chairman, I thought that the President of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada spoke to it very clearly yesterday, in her own remarks in regard to the way that the constitutional process tried to deal with it, in her own differences with the particular dissenting groups at this time. The fact is, in our view, there is nothing in the agreed to package that takes away from the rights of women. In fact, if you take the overall amount of rights gained by Metis women across the country, it is significant. You can put it on any equation you want. In my view, I think the aboriginal people, in particular have made significant gains. Aboriginal women, as in this case, women that are Metis, have made tremendous gains because, for instance, you do not have to try to find some way to become a legal Indian to feel that you have equal access to those programs that are in existence. It helps, but there are provisions that provide for equity of access.
There are activists and representatives of womens' groups on the one hand that say they fear for social programs, they believe that there is not enough guarantees for aboriginal women in the agreement as it is. You have very prominent northern women, like our Member of Parliament, Ethel Blondin, that takes a view that it is a good deal. It enhances, and does not necessarily take away anything from native women.
There is the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Audrey McLaughlin from the Yukon, has stated in her view, and she has looked at it quite carefully. She has had the resources of a federal party to advise her on it, and her view the package does not take away from the rights of women. In fact, it adds additional comfort to them. You have the President of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, plus another prominent Inuit leader, Mary Simon, who is saying that in their view it is a good deal, and it does not take away from the rights of the aboriginal women. So, this is our view as well. The deal is a significant deal. We have noted some of the shortcomings that it has.
For instance, the Member raised yesterday her concerns that her questions implied that the Government of the Northwest Territories would not sign the Metis Accord, and I mean if you just take the rhetoric and the politics out of the situation, the Member realized the Metis Accord is not necessary in the territories.
The reason the Metis Accord was necessary, was for the people in the provinces, for the federal government to be able to include Metis in section 91.24, and also to have some assurance that the provinces are going to continue to spend some of the money that they already spent on Metis, to make sure that they do not whip that away from the Metis people. The provinces, who own virtually all the land in the provinces, will make some lands available in the course of negotiations.
In the Northwest Territories the federal government, in their eyes anyway, own all the land. All the programs and services are available for negotiations through self-government agreements. The rights that the Metis have acquired are not contained in the Metis Accord, they are contained in the main body of the Constitution, if the amendments go through. It is my view that the significance of an accord should not be overblown. The fact is, if we had jumped on board the Metis Accord at the beginning it is very probable that Members of the A.F.N., and most notably, the Dene Nation, would have had very serious objections to the accord even being developed in the first place.
It is all hypothetical now, because it is after the fact, but it is possible that some of the provinces would have developed second thoughts about agreeing to the accord. So, the moves that we make in the course of negotiations has to be appreciated in that context, that everything we did was to ensure that the accord, which was specifically designed for the Metis of the provinces in the first instance, was not unduly impeded by regional discrepancies, and regional interests that arose here in the Northwest Territories.
So, those are the comment that I had. Thank you.