Thank you for your motion, Mr. Pollard. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Zoe.

To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, I believe an issue arose out of Mr. Antoine's problem. Has that been addressed?

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Mr. Pollard, this is your motion.

Mr. Chairman, it has been addressed, perhaps not to the satisfaction of some Members of the House, but it has been addressed, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Are you satisfied, Mr. Gargan? Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this boundary is for electoral districts only and it is not for land claims use. As all Members know, Treaty 8, especially Lutsel K'e had an issue about the eastern boundary of Nunavut and the western Arctic. I would like to encourage, and always encourage, that that be dealt with strictly between the chiefs and leaders of the people, and that it not be dealt with in this House. That is something they have to deal with with the federal government and I would like to encourage the chief of Lutsel K'e as well as the leaders of Baker Lake to get together and have a meeting to discuss usage on each side of the boundary. There was talk about that type of meeting, and I would like to encourage them to meet so they can eventually sign a peace treaty between the Baker Lake and Lutsel K'e people. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Morin. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. To the motion. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure there is no confusion about where this matter is of concern to those people I represent, and so people are clear that the Gwich'in leadership did in fact support the recommendations made in the electoral boundaries commission report, as had been proposed; mainly because it was the reflection of the agreement that had been reached between them and the federal government, and their agreement reached with the Sahtu. I think there was a respect for compromise and consideration for the use of land. But, even more than that, I think people should be aware that there is a jurisdictional issue related to those boundaries. In other words, there are a certain amount of law-making responsibilities there that would have made it much clearer in the eyes of the Gwich'in leadership and also in the case of the Sahtu, based on their land claims agreement; it would be very clear.

However, I don't want to create a situation where people feel compelled to argue about traditional lands. Mind you, as I said before, the debate about traditional lands is a debate between aboriginal people. It is not an issue that should be related to electoral boundaries because I think you must take into consideration factors other than simply voting. I listened to the debate that took place here the other day and, in my view, we were talking about matters that should be resolved between aboriginal peoples.

I'm of the same opinion, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Kakfwi has stated. I am prepared to respect the agreements and boundaries that have been reached between the federal government and the Inuit. I'm prepared to respect the boundaries that outline the Inuvialuit settlement region, the Gwich'in and the Sahtu.

I think the irony of this particular debate is that we're debating something that is passed by this Legislature while we should also recognize that a higher law, in many respects, is the basis on which claims have been made; that is, the constitution of this country. If we're unable to recognize that, I think we're in deep trouble, not so much trouble between the aboriginal people and the federal government but trouble because we, as the second level of government, are not prepared to recognize constitutional agreements. We are recognizing it with the Inuit in establishing division between Nunavut and the west. It would have been the same if we had done it for the Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit and the Sahtu.

I just wanted to make those comments, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nerysoo. To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, I have just have one final comment before question is called. I support the electoral boundary, but when you have a situation where aboriginal organizations are negotiating with the federal government, third-party interests are not an issue. I think that is what happened in Jim Antoine's area. Even though he has been impacted by Sahtu claims, there is no avenue for him to express his concerns. The territorial government is aware of that, too.

I suppose it was Mr. Antoine who brought up the whole issue of the mandate of the Electoral District Boundaries Commission. They only had the mandate to change the boundaries based on the political line, and nothing else. But, I think Mr. Antoine also brought up an issue that would never have been addressed if he hadn't, and that is even though he is being impacted by the Sahtu claim -- and I'm sure it is the same way with all the other claims -- it is a boundaries issue. The Deh Cho region is caught between the Dogrib claim and the Sahtu claim. We are not saying we are going to be pursuing claims, but we are certainly impacted by them and this is the only arena, I believe, where we have the opportunity to bring up that point.

But, I support the motion because the lines mean the same, and they don't go into areas.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. To Mr. Pollard's motion. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. To Mr. Pollard's motion. Mr. Arvaluk.

I just have a question, I'm not debating anything here.

---Laughter

I thought the motion was about electoral boundaries. Can the person who made the motion make it clear to me? I read it, I looked at it, and it is about electoral boundaries. Why are we talking about land claims? Can I have that clarification before I put my hand up? Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Pollard, once you are in your seat, there was a question from Mr. Arvaluk on your motion. Would you like to restate it please, Mr. Arvaluk?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion states the electoral boundary of the High Arctic, et cetera...There are two pages of it describing the proposed electoral boundaries and the existing electoral districts of the Northwest Territories. When people were talking to the motion, they seemed to be talking about where land claims are in the North Slave and Sahtu areas which, I feel, has nothing to do with the motion. These will be dealt with when the time comes. Electoral boundaries could be changed everyday if you want to. It has no bearing on anything that will be forthcoming in the future. I just want to know if we are talking about electoral boundaries or land claims?

I'm sorry, Mr. Arvaluk, we have had a motion and people are speaking for or against the motion now. You'll have to be guided by the motion that was presented to us by Mr. Pollard. Anybody else to the motion? All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Is the committee agreed then that Tabled Document 23-12(6), Report of the 1993-94 Electoral District Boundaries Commission Northwest Territories of the Boundaries Commission, has been dealt with and has been concluded?

Agreed.

---Agreed

We were given a list by Mr. Dent earlier on this afternoon, Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2 was next. I would like to ask the acting Premier, Mr. Pollard, if he has any opening comments on this act.