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.