Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the commission, including our staff, Mr. Ben Hubert, Andy Swiderski and Norma who has left the north. I am sure you would all agree that between August, 1991, and April, 1992, that we developed a good working relationship, although sometimes under some very stressful kind of situations where you are sitting in a community and listening to people with testimony who are actually crying.

I would also like to thank the political leaders and the committee for their support. I know it is not easy for politicians to temporarily turn over a file which is as important as development of a constitution, to an arm's length organization. We think that over the period of August, 1991, to April, 1992, we developed a productive working relationship.

Finally, and most important, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the individuals who came out and made presentations. Individuals did not receive any funding. They took time out of their busy schedules to come and talk to us about their concerns, aspirations and desires. I think they should get proper recognition. I would also like to acknowledge the role of the northern media. They played an important role to get this process widely communicated across the north. At some periods of our public consultation trips, the media were all sitting cramped up in a van and no one complained and it was sort of a happy time. People were prepared to do their part.

Finally, I would like to say that our work is finished. We had a meeting yesterday in which we passed an extraordinary resolution to dissolve the society. The society will be dissolved by the end of March.

Mr. Chairman, we are now available to try to answer any questions which honourable Members may have. We hope you will forgive us if we are a little slow in answering, if we cannot answer a question immediately. Our memories may have faded a bit since last April, but we will do the best we can.

I want to again thank the Assembly and the political leaders for giving me the opportunity to chair this important task, giving me an opportunity to go back to the communities and talk to many friends and people and listen to their concerns. I hope that the work that was done will be taken seriously by this Assembly, or by the new committee of political leaders who are going to work on the next phase. Information is there and you can check it if you like against the report which was presented. I am sure you will find that we covered all the common themes in these documents. We could not report word for word for every person who came up, but we were sure to include all the common themes and all the themes which were important to people in the communities in these documents. With that, I want to thank you very much.

---Applause

Thank you. The floor is now open for general comments and questions. Mr. Gargan.

General Comments

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presentation by the members and the kinds of problems that the treaty people are having. I think much of it has been clarified by Mr. Paulette.

I wanted to say that when this commission first started I thought it was a bad idea. In my written submission to you I stated the reasons why. Before the interim report I made a submission to you in which I stated the commission travelled into communities and engaged in brief interchange with residents to reminisce as a group of lords. I use that terminology which calls together their subjects to issue and explain a proclamation. I went on to say that commissions were used by the British colonial masters in India and in the Orient to create an illusion of collective decision-making. I then went on to talk about the aboriginal people themselves, their collective rights and the process itself.

After your interim report came out, I also went on to say that the interim report seemed to be based on the model of the status quo, by proposing that there is a central legislation built largely by the same constitutional authorities and principles that presently exist. I went on to say, why do they need to point that out? Since the creation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories there has never been any substantial support for the political and economic traditions of Dene, Metis and Inuvialuit people. I know that because I am a Member. We operate on concepts which are foreign to our people. Our parliamentary process draws from Westminster in England. It is a system imposed on us by a cultural force that has neither concrete or treaty with native people.

I went on to say that you can change the representative system within the Legislative Assembly, but it is still the same institution, a European institution.

Mr. Hardy said this concept of turning the whole thing and putting it down on its head, the reporting system draws from the community level back up to the head government. However, I would presume that when you say the head government that we are looking at this Legislative Assembly as being the authority where it would go to. We recognize community government which may include the band councils, then onto the regional level and onto the territorial level. We still have one concept of government, that is the difficulty I have with regard to the Assembly.

With regard to what Francois said, we put treaties in there. Why are we putting treaties in there, recognizing treaties? They are not the authority which is going to be doing that. By virtue of it being in here we are consenting to this government that we want to be a part of it and I have some concerns over that. The Deh Cho region has never had any intentions to extinguish their aboriginal or treaty rights. I think by virtue of it being in here we sort of draw ourself into being part of that European concept of government. Most of the laws under the Canadian Constitution are drawn up by provincial governments. The concepts are all the same with regard to their own constitutions. I think having the treaties being recognized implies that the supreme law would be the NWT or this government and that we will recognize the treaty. In my opinion, that is wrong, it should be the other way around.

Those are basically my general comments, Mr. Chairman. It is a good report, I like it. However, Francois touched on it, we are developing around the status quo.

Thank you. General comments or questions. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to express my appreciation and just say thank you to the commission for the good work they have done and the good report they have prepared. There are many good recommendations in it. You have done extensive consultation across the north of all of our citizens, all the communities, all of the groups who are involved, and I think it is reflected in the report. I think we are now going to take this report and, hopefully, use it as a starting point from which to do the work that is going to be required. You refer to it as phase II, and perhaps phase III, to continue the process of developing a constitution and structures of government for a new western territory.

History will show that since your commission was mandated many events have happened over the last year and a half that have led up to this moment in time when a new order is going to take over. Hopefully, this new order or new group is going to continue the work you have done. I would have to wish the new group as much success as you have had over the year and a half that you have done your job. The constitutional development group would have to do a great deal of work, we have five to six years to do it, and try to do the type of work that you have had a year and a half to do. That is a big effort and I have to commend you for it.

I have one question I would like to ask. Once the report was done, one of the tasks which you were supposed to undertake was to take the report and visit tribal, regional or national assemblies to get some feedback from these assemblies. Was that done? Did you take this report to the Dene, Metis, Inuvialuit and Gwich'in assemblies? If you did, what kind of feedback or support did you get from these groups?

Thank you. Mr. Bourque.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable Member, we travelled, or at least I did, to three assemblies. The first assembly was in Fort Wrigley where Mr. Paulette and I went to the Dene assembly and made a report. I do not believe there was a resolution passed either to reject it or to support the report. When we were there, there was some sort of complication of a quorum. We did attend the Dene assembly.

I went to the Metis assembly. I believe Mr. Hardy was there also. We presented a brief report. The Metis assembly passed a resolution in support of the report.

I travelled to the Gwich'in assembly in Fort McPherson. There was some discussion but I do not believe there was a resolution passed in support or in rejection of the report.

Mr. Hardy has informed me that the Sahtu Tribal Council met in October and passed a resolution in support of the report.

Thank you. Are there any general comments or questions? Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the discussions were taking place regarding the establishment of our own commission, I was one of those people who was very concerned at that time. In fact, I thought perhaps the timing was wrong because there were so many things going on in the national scene. I felt that until we knew where things were going to go nationally it was going to be very difficult for us to know exactly what our limitations were going to be. However, having watched the work and how it was conducted, the kind of attendance at meetings and the quality of the submission, it seems to me that what we have now is something unique. As the chairman has pointed out, this really is a document which comes directly from community meetings and it is very clear in the way it is written.

As far as the content of it, I wanted to raise the issue of rights. We have very often been told, in our Assembly, that it was going to be almost impossible for us to live together because of the way in which we look at things, we are so different in the way we look at things. One example which has been given to us very often is the fact that for aboriginal people, collective rights matter so much. Yet, the traditions which some of us come from, the individual is so important, the state is artificial and it is the individual person who matters.

I noticed in your list of rights, I counted them and there are 12 all together. I will not go through them. However, there are 12 groups of rights which you have identified. What I found interesting, and probably the most interesting in the whole report, in the context of the comments I have just made, is that the commission recommended, on page 15, that the Government of the Northwest Territories in consultation with other leaders consider the development and enactment of a human rights code, prior to coming into force with a new western territory constitution. There has been a great deal of debate about that, as to whether we should have our own human rights code. If that is something which has always been a dividing thing among us, that it is impossible because you look at life in a different way, it is very refreshing to find that you see that this could be the beginning, and at least we can see what things we have in common, including the values that we have. There is a recommendation that perhaps we could go ahead with that as an experiment. We could then decide, once we have worked with it for a little while, whether that is something that we could have as a basis in our constitution. Do you see this as something perhaps that our Assembly could get on with right away, even though we have all kinds of work that has been set out by your commission?

Mr. Bourque.

Yes.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Dent.

Thank you. General comments. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments with regard to the report of the commission for constitutional development, Working Toward A Common Future. First of all I would like to add my thanks and compliments to those expressed by other honourable Members this afternoon. I certainly know the constitutional commission members devoted many hours to the task they were given by the previous Legislative Assembly. I particularly appreciate the conscientious approach that they took towards reaching out to different communities and different people across the Northwest Territories.

I think it is especially significant to note that they made a genuine effort, Mr. Chairman, to hear from the youth in our territory. I know the youth have really appreciated that and I, as a Member, have appreciated that. I commend you for that. Mr. Chairman, too often I believe our young people are overlooked and treated as though they have little or nothing to contribute to the development of our territory.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Bourque commission set a new precedent for future territorial tasks by making that special effort to hear from the young people across the territories. They spent many hours travelling as a group and the careful attention that they paid during the hearings and public consultation certainly reflects a commitment to constitutional development. I certainly hope we can build on that commitment in this House.

I would like to acknowledge this special work and thank Mr. Bourque, who chaired the commission, Ms. Allen, who represented the women, Mr. Paulette, who was also on the commission along with Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Braden and Mr. Hardy.

Getting into the report, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on certain sections of the commission's report. First of all, I would like to comment on the section entitled "special rights", which begins on page 12 of the report.

Mr. Chairman, I generally support the comments of the commission of this section, but I would be interested in learning more about whether the commission feels strongly about the re-affirmation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other recommendations regarding the entrenchment of rights. Now that we recognize the Charlottetown accord has passed into history, perhaps they can comment on whether the results of that referendum have coloured any of the recommendations that were developed within that particular context.

Special Rights

I would also like to comment on the area of special rights. I would like to express a bit of caution, like the commission does, that certain areas with respect to rights would be much better dealt with at the national level, than in a territorial constitution, particularly when you look at the entrenchment of women's rights to reproductive freedom, of individual rights to refuse medical treatment to prolong life, and of the rights of workers to bargain collectively and to strike. These certainly are all issues that are going to be impacted by ruling in the federal courts and with constitutional initiatives at the national level. It will be important to ensure that any territorial steps toward the entrenchment of special rights are made with a clear understanding of the national framework. Mr. Chairman, it may even be questionable as to whether these are things that are desirable for inclusion in a territorial constitution.

Social Rights

Further, I would like to comment briefly on the section entitled "social rights" which begins on page 16 of the report. This particular section refers to the concept of the social charter which states "that governments have responsibilities to make sure residents have access to health and social services, education and training opportunities, child care, adequate shelter, a safe work place, a safe home and community, economic equality, affirmative action programs to eliminate barriers to education and employment for disadvantaged groups, along with positive programs to eliminate drug and alcohol abuse, physical and sexual abuse and family violence. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that these are good statements and they are particularly fine statements to establish in a charter. However, we should be cautious that these not be entrenched in such a way as to limit the ability of the government to make decisions in the area of these key social areas that are vitally important to residents of the north.

The commission itself identified that the fundamental risk that occurs whenever a social charter attempts to establish a threat of basic social rights. I guess that is when the courts may be asked to determine whether government programs do, in fact, meet the so-called obligations for service delivery as set out in the social charter. I believe strongly that this should not be left to the courts. I recognize that the commission indicates that the issue of enforceability should be revisited in phase II of the constitutional development phase, but I would like to ask them

if they have any ideas as to how the enforcement framework of this particularly important issue could be developed.

Rights Of Treaty And Metis First Nations

As we go further into the report, Mr. Chairman, to page 21 with respect to the areas of rights of section 35 of the Constitution, the rights of the treaty First Nation and the rights of the Metis First Nation. There is certainly concern expressed that the treaty should be continued with the federal government, but there is also the support from the commission with respect to the recommendations of the treaties being upheld and protected. I certainly agree with that, but at the same time, I think it is critical and I cannot emphasize it enough, I strongly feel that the new western territory's constitution should also include commitments to the Metis First Nations. As stated on page 21, the Metis had a commitment on the new western territory, established when the Athabasca district half breed commission was established in 1899 and the Mackenzie River half- breed was established in 1921. It was further recognized by the acceptance of the claim in the Dene/Metis comprehensive claim.

I said earlier today, it is very important that the Metis, in order to be able to work collectively to ensure that the western constitution for the territories is accepted, be recognized. We can no longer deny aboriginal people, within our territory, fundamental rights which are taken for granted by the treaty First Nations and by the Inuit. The Metis also have to be recognized and given equal opportunity.

Right To Vote And Stand For Office

In addition to that, I just have a couple of further comments to make, Mr. Chairman, in regard to page 38 of the report. The right to vote and stand for office, in regard to particularly guaranteed representation. I want to say that I have always been on the record to opposing the concept of guaranteed representation. As I look into the future for the western territory, there is no doubt that we know out of the 13,000 people that aboriginal people will not be the majority in the western territory. We have to ensure that their homeland is protected and their rights are guaranteed. It is very critical that we somehow address that issue. In order to able to work towards a common future, we have to be on equal footing because of past injustices.

If you look at Treaty 8 and the different treaties, you know that many of the commitments in the treaties are not fulfilled today. As a native person, this is our homeland, and people are here to visit us, they want to share our homeland. We, as native people, have always been sharing. We have no problem with that, we have grown up with that concept. It is always a fundamental principle that we have grown up with, probably because we all --- I know I come from a big family but you always learn to share and to be able to work together. I certainly feel it is critically important that if this Legislative Assembly is going to develop a constitution which is going to work towards a common future, one of the elements to be able to make it successful is to share the land that we are working towards developing.

Types Of Government

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise a couple of other comments in regard to the approach to the types of government. I do not believe there has been enough clarification in respect to clear definitions on district government, regional government and central government. I certainly feel that the public is probably thinking in their mind, what are these types of governments? With that, I would also like to suggest that to avoid another Charlottetown accord, to avoid another Meech Lake type of process, it is fundamentally important that we look at a form of constitutional development for the territories by the people of the territories, not by only the politicians in this room, in order to make sure we have a constitution that I can live with, that my children can live with and my grandchildren can live with. It is critically important this development is not from the top down. Those are basically my comments in regard to some of the comments that I have made note of in respect to this commission's report. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the commissioners for developing such a workable document for us to be able to use as we develop our territorial constitution for the western Arctic. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just make a few comments on this document, Working Toward A Common Future. This process started before I got involved so I was not involved in the creation of this body. I think this is a good document. This is the beginning of a process that will be completed in 1999. It is a good starting point. Even though your commission, Mr. Bourque, is finished as of the end of March, the commission members will always be known as, perhaps, the founders of the constitution of this western territory. With that, I would like to thank you for the work you have done.

As I said, this is a document we will be using until we develop our own constitution. It is a good document, I have gone through it and there are new innovative ideas that have come from the people and you have been able to capture the ideas from the people, from aboriginal groups as well as non-aboriginal groups, and were able to put them together in this document. There are some areas that are going to be controversial, however, it is a starting point. With that, I would just like to thank you. Mahsi.

Thank you. General comments, Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. General comments, Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I had not planned to speak because I was under the assumption that Mr. Kakfwi would make the introductory remarks on behalf of the government. However, seeing as we are allowed to speak personally, I want to take the opportunity to first of all thank the commission members, as all other Members have indicated, for work that has been very difficult to complete in many respects, mainly because I think of the differences of opinion which have arisen with regard to how we would deal with the development of a constitution for the western Arctic. I have to add to the remarks that have made that shows clearly to me that with willingness and ability to set aside some of what might be some personal views, to at least find some solutions to issues which are very difficult at times, even to a point of setting aside what has been the traditional view of how government should be established in the normal context. That, in my view, is extremely helpful, particularly since our experience in this country, and most recently the constitutional development processes which have been used in this country have not been very helpful in terms of trying to get people together on some very fundamental issues, mainly because they have not been involved in the process of developing the positions on those issues. I think we should take heed of that experience and utilize it and those situations to our benefit. I do not believe that if we put forward a constitution which does not have the participation of the people of the Northwest Territories, and particularly in the western Arctic in this particular case, their influence and their advice, we are doomed to fail. I think the cultural differences, people may think that is the big issue but the simple fact is that people will support a constitution when, in their view, they can see a willingness on the part of the developers to listen to their ideas and thoughts in the development of that constitution.

There were a couple of issues and perhaps I might make mention of them. There is an effort on the part of commission members to deal with the matters regarding individual rights and in some respect collective rights. What I do not think is really clear to me, and I think we have to assume that responsibility from this day onward, is the ability of trying to marry what is normally collective rights and individual rights. That has been a very difficult task for a large number of constitutional experts in this world, and yet it is a task which we must deal with and requires a great deal of cooperation on the part of all those who are going to be involved in the development of a constitution. It is one area that could, in my view, make or break the constitution in the western Arctic.

It is very easy to put into place individual rights and I think it is important to do that. At the same time, there are very few constitutions in the world that have collective rights that have the same weight as individual rights. In that respect, I think we need to address this.

I also wanted to say something with regard to the matter on treaty issues. One of our very difficult situations which has occurred probably not at the fault of aboriginal people and those people who have treaties, is our willingness to speak, and as a result of our own cultural circumstances, to speak about what the laws were, and what the historical laws were, what the historical governments were. We really have a responsibility now of going further than just speaking about them. I think we have the responsibility to now put pen to paper to try to articulate clearly to people what those rules were. Because if we do not do that, we run the risk of not including them in the constitution for the western Arctic. It is very simple to speak to Francois and myself, we can talk about all of the historical information which has been given to us from our elders, through meetings of the Dene Nation, as far back as 1974, and Jim, Richard and Bertha have been a part of those processes. We have talked about what it was we believed was part of our governments and part of our historical laws. The problem is that we never put them down on paper. We have to start working on developing them. I think the most important thing is for us to make sure that when we can sit before those who like to argue with us in terms of what those laws might be, or how we might use those laws to improve our constitution, I think it is best that we can at least show those people the laws as they were or are. I think it will be helpful.

I also wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, one other element which was important to me in terms of some of the remarks which were made was with regard to treaties, not only section 91.24 but also section 25, and I believe 35. I assume the other changes have occurred or will occur in future with regard to aboriginal rights. It is interesting to note that, I do not believe, even from the information that is before us, how the Canadian constitution will have a bearing on our new constitution. It is not clear to me whether there was a need for us, not only to recognize the rights that we had but to make sure that there was no intention on the part of a new constitution to take away what was normally the obligation of the Government of Canada for aboriginal peoples generally in Canada. I make mention of this because I think there have been some very significant court cases which could be helpful in the manner in which the Government of Canada deals with aboriginal people in the future.

I guess the most recent decision which was made is in Alberta, where a Metis has been given certain rights to harvest on Crown lands which previously there was a suggestion that he did not have the same rights. I think that as a result of that court case, it has a significant bearing on what we can protect in the constitution. If Members do not know what it was, it was that a Metis man now has the right to harvest for food like a status Indian. That is basically what the decision was. I think this is a very important decision. I wanted you to be aware of this very crucial decision. It changes how we view aboriginal people generally across the country.

To the members of the commission, thank you for work well done. I think you have laid the groundwork for our ability to work together. I only hope that we view you as models in terms of trying to work out our differences rather than to view you as setting some new difficult problems for us. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Koe.