Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've scribbled a few notes because I'm aware that we're getting close to the end of this session, and people seem to always leave it to the last day before they say anything that they want to get off their chest. So I thought today I would make a brief reply to our Commissioner and his address.
I would like to thank, first of all, Mr. Norris for his service, Madam Speaker. He understood fully the new role that this position has emerged into, and I'm sure he was very proud to be our first aboriginal Commissioner and to become a very important part of our history because this, in fact, was a break from the past, the kind of role that he had to play. And we all want to thank him, I'm sure, for the dedicated service he gave us.
---Applause
Madam Speaker, this current territorial government has been a long process of evolution towards fully representative and responsible government. That, in my opinion, was achieved when Mr. Norris became Commissioner and we no longer had an Executive Commissioner with Executive powers. In fact, the new Commissioner filled a purely ceremonial role, and he did that with some quiet dignity and that's something we had expected and we hope will continue.
It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that as we became more responsible over the past few years, times have become more difficult economically for all Canadians. But in recognition of the emerging nature of our jurisdiction over the last 20 to 30 years, the territories were, on the whole, fairly well treated by the federal government in terms of the allocation of resources. It's unfortunate that when we began to sit as equals with our provinces in so many meetings with the federal government, this has suddenly changed. It's no longer quite the same way that it was.
The provinces have become more aware of the favoured status that we had over the years, and we began to feel the pinch. A good case is the allocation of social housing. At one time, we received almost one-third of the total allocation of the houses under the social housing program. Now this has been dismantled and, of course, we are the first to suffer.
Madam Speaker, because of the large federal deficit, this freeze on federal support to the north, in my opinion, has only just begun. Both Nunavut and the demand for political restructure in the west has already been criticized in the national press. We have a very small population and the cost of government per capital is very high compared to the provinces, while over the last few years our provincial colleagues have become very well aware of how well we have done during the time that we were under the patronage of the federal government.
Madam Speaker, if we had to respond to the demands for self-government in east and west, we must seek devolution of the necessary powers and resources from the federal government. I raised this issue on several occasions in the past, and I can't stress it enough today. We are reaching the period of time, in my opinion, where we will go beyond the time to really solve this problem. Many of us feel that when the time comes for us to divide and restructure, our budget will have shrunk so much that we just won't be able to deliver the goods to anybody and we will be against the wall for meeting those commitments we have made to the people we serve to devolve government where it belongs, in the hands of the people.
There is an understanding that the federal government has agreed to cover the extra costs associated with self-government in Nunavut and is prepared to negotiate with groups in the west. The powers to be divided, quite bluntly, are those held by this territorial government and those still remaining in federal hands that have still not been devolved. There is no agreement yet, Madam Speaker, on what extra costs the federal government will pay for division or for devolution from the territorial government. The fear is that the territorial government will be asked to pay for everything, leaving it a bankrupt, hollow shell that will inevitably collapse.
I ran for political office, Madam Speaker, on a platform of one public government for all people and have done everything I can to support it and help it survive. I respect those who want change. I should point out, though, that the changes in the past 30 years have been absolutely incredible. In fact, all I've seen is change. The task ahead now, Madam Speaker, is the management of change so that we don't get short-changed. That is the problem in a nutshell.
It should be the priority of this government to do two things. I've already established these twice in the Assembly, and it bears repeating because we must continue to hammer away at these issues. The federal government must devolve to this government, as a first priority, the remaining powers that Ottawa exercises on our behalf. Unfortunately, the federal bureaucracy seems to roll along, without diminishing. In fact, it seems to get bigger and stronger. Second, the federal Minister must indicate continued federal support for one public government in the north until the creation of Nunavut, at which time, there would be two public governments in the Northwest Territories.
The constitutional steering committee, establishing a coordinated restructuring of government in the west, has already agreed to the principle of one public government. But, in recent months however, Madam Speaker, the Inuvialuit, the Deh Cho and Treaty 8 people have pursued other possible, contradictory objectives. The Metis, a strong voice for constitutional reform, have recently, by resolution, supported the establishment of a territorial government for the Deh Cho, which contradicts the position they have taken with regard to the work on the constitutional committee.
I know that by making the points I am making, I can't avoid the criticism that my views are simply those of Yellowknife, Yellowknife's bureaucracy, Yellowknife business and so on. Madam Speaker, I know that that will be the view, that I'm expressing a very parochial, narrow point of view that won't be held up for close examination and come away unscathed.
I hope that Members will credit me with a wider vision than that. I personally believe that public government will survive. The issue for me is not the survival of public government, it is the fact that it will be a shell, with no real powers to do anything or accomplish anything that really matters. I would like to see government which is efficient, effective and affordable. In fact, the main theme in politics over the next decade, and I'm convinced of this, will be affordability. Everything has to stand that test, if it doesn't, it is not going to go anywhere.
Members will recall that I did not support the establishment of the Constitutional Development Steering Committee. This is not because I did not believe there was a need for change. I believed there were too many issues outstanding that needed to be clarified and sorted out before we got into the long, arduous process of constitutional development in the west. I didn't believe at that time that the time was right and I believe subsequent events have proven that to be a reasonable position for me to have taken.
Now, however, that the CDSC has been established, we should commit ourselves to keeping it going. Whatever the outcome of the conferences over the next year or two, we need a forum, outside of government, which is what this is, in order to continue talking to each other. We should commit ourselves, whatever happens over the next year or two, that what we have now we keep working with because we can't keep on chopping and changing and deciding this forum doesn't work or that one is a better one. We are not going to get anywhere unless we commit ourselves to a process and give it a chance, even if it takes longer than we want it to take.
Madam Speaker, a characteristic of this Assembly has been the domination of social issues on the public agenda. This contrasts with the previous Assembly which was dominated by concerns about environmental and, of course, economic issues. By contrast, the 11th Assembly was dominated by the political agenda of political development. My own view, Madam Speaker, is that many social problems will decline if people achieve a greater degree of economic self-sufficiency.
Government doesn't have to be the major role player, in my opinion, in economic development. It can help create the conditions for development and it can be supportive. The main responsibility, however, lies with the individual who can see economic opportunity and can use it. Government, in many cases, can help create those economic opportunities, but it boils down, in fact, to individuals and groups of individuals who have the will, the desire and the vision to take advantage of those opportunities and to run with them.
In the Northwest Territories we should recognize that oil, gas, mining and other major economic sectors will, in fact, not impact many of our small communities. They are highly significant in terms of any overall economic strategy of the various levels of government. These enterprises, however, are very large and they're subject to many fluctuations beyond the control of government. The cost of production and the price of the commodity drive the industry, and governments, I'm afraid, can't do very much about it.
To provide revenues for government, the primary industries such as mining, of course, will continue to be of paramount importance. In terms of economic development, however, small businesses are proving themselves over and over again as the main engines of economic growth. Just as an aside, Madam Speaker, I was listening to the radio about Bill Tait, who spent 10 years of his life to try to create an interest in Japan to get people to come and watch the aurora. A total of 10 years. That's the time that a little niche can be developed all over the territories in different areas in order to create industries.
So, although Yellowknife is a government town, it really also depends on those people who will dedicate themselves to a vision they will work at, even though they don't become very rich. They need to work at it over a period of time until they get some degree of success. There is no doubt in my mind, Madam Speaker, that the future development of the territories will depend heavily on the emergence of a private sector based on small business. To fully empower a population of only 60,000 should not be a huge, difficult challenge, if a commitment is made to the appropriate economic strategy.
I have said that mining will continue to have a major impact in Yellowknife. I believe this to be the case, whether there are diamonds or not. I think mining is going to be here for a long time to come. Yellowknife sits on one of the major gold caps in the world and the area will continue to produce gold and serve as a centre of the industry. Yellowknife gold mines have reported healthy earnings over the past five months, Madam Speaker, despite all the difficulties, and they are doing well.
Madam Speaker, I was an environmentalist when I was a very young man, long before the words environment and ecology were commonly used. Madam Speaker, I have found that my beliefs have not always served me well, politically. Industry automatically places all environmentalists among the lists of the enemy. For many environmental groups, no action by politicians to protect the environment ever goes anywhere near as far as it has to go. So, you end up being dammed by both sides, by the industry who figure that you should shut up and let the world proceed the way industry perceives it should, and you get dammed by the environmentalists who figure you are really being too wimpy and you should be much tougher on those engaged in industrial activity.
Madam Speaker, I am not a radical, since I really sincerely believe that Canadian technology can provide the key to sustainable development. I am committed to the idea of sustainable development and this government is committed to it. It is an official policy of this government, to support sustainable development. What I fear, Madam Speaker, is that northerners are not properly prepared for industrial development. If and when a decision is made to proceed with a major development, industry will be pushed, as it always is, into a defensive position. That is what happened with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
There is already evidence that the next major battle will be on the barrenlands in connection with the diamond mining industry. Any proposals for development will be presented as a major assault on the barrenland environment. Various groups, and it has already happened, especially the World Wildlife Federation, will be able to raise large amounts of money if, for example, the Barrenland Grizzly is publicized as the next victim of mining. It is a beautiful image which can, in fact, be used to promote the environmental cause.
It is for this reason that I have suggested the Premier establish a round table on the economy and environment. We should be ready for development when it comes and not moved by knee-jerk reactions because we always end up looking bad and the mining industry, by its own admission, are terrible communicators. They are good at what they do, but they don't understand politics or media. They just like to do the things that they have the expertise in and they do it well.
My fears were prompted by a letter recently sent by the World Wildlife Federation to the federal Minister of Environment in July. It raises many concerns and I will deal with them briefly, Madam Speaker. It gives you a hint of the kind of thing I am talking about.
In the letter from the president of the World Wildlife Federation, Madam Speaker, to the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Environment, Mr. Hummel points out that a road from Yellowknife to Coppermine would bisect the Northwest Territories. It would cut it in two. This is specious reasoning, Madam Speaker. A road does not mean that we have a Berlin wall, where you have to be a pole vaulter to jump over it. All it means is that you have a way, so that if you want to drive somewhere you have somewhere to go and you don't get stuck in the bush.
So the idea that this is suddenly going to destroy all the Northwest Territories because you are going to bisect it is a specious argument, but the kind of argument that has been used by Mr. Hammell to argue against any kind of development because it will bisect the territory. We know that to be nonsense because animals cross roads. I have seen dozens of animals and Mr. Gargan will attest that animals cross roads, all the time.