I seek unanimous consent to move, seconded by the honourable member for the High Arctic, tabled document 13-(4) entitled Amalgamation of Infrastructure Department be moved into Committee of the Whole for discussion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would recommend that the committee consider Minister's Statement 5-13(4), Minister's Statement 5-13(4), Tabled Document 4-13(4), Tabled Document 5-13(4) as one item, the next item for consideration.

I was not really, but I will speak, now that you have recognized me. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just have some brief comments from my western perspective and the first one is that, I, generally, support the work that was done on Footprints 2, although there are areas that in specific, in regards to the form of funding arrangements that we would have to ensure fairness and equity to both governments.

We would also have to make it very clear that it is the right of both the new territories and the people of the territories that define their respective structures. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that there is a strong need for western presence at the decision making tables on the following issues; formula financing, divisions of assets and liabilities, sharing of programs and services, including the WCB, and NWT Power Corporation and in the area of labour relations. As well, we have to have representation at the CCON table on issues which will relate or impact on the West. We also have to, as has been raised repeatedly by a number of people, make sure that the GNWT staff are treated fairly and equitably.

From my perspective, I think those MLAs from the west we want to make sure that provisions are in place to allow for the continuation of the 13th Assembly to November 1999, regardless of the timing of the first Nunavut election, so that neither side is affected by the decisions made by the other.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical that we keep to the high road on this whole process, it is not this Assembly's job to negotiate division, we have to ensure the processes are there, and that we represent the interests of the people we service, and that the most critical point to me is, that we get to division together in one piece, still working together, because we have relationships to maintain, resources to share, and even with a line there, we are still are going to have many, many common issues. So I look forward to moving on in this process, and I look forward to the west to be playing a much stronger and more active role in this process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have comments in regard to Footprints in New Snow 2, as well as, comments in regard to Partnerships for a New Beginning. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about this government working against the intended end results of Footprints 2. By that, I mean there are some programs or cuts to programs, cuts to staff, cuts to or establishment of regional levels of board that seem to be contradictory to what is suggested in Footprints 2. Personally, I would favour that we would somehow work towards making it easier for the Nunavut government to actually be established and in place by 1999, by perhaps following closer to what Footprints 2 suggests. I realize that we have made commitments towards balancing the budget, but I am not sure that I would favour balancing the budget as a priority over establishing and working towards Footprints 2. I appreciate that this is kind of contradictory to each other, these two items. But I think that we are going to have to try to work towards how we can address that issue.

I believe strongly that the Nunavut people have the right to determine their own style and form of government structure. I think that we should, if at all possible, work towards assisting them in this. I am not in favour of making expenditures that would, in the end, see the Nunavut government have to undo or redo what we, in fact, did for them. Sometimes, if you look at it, one document suggests that they need 580 positions down there in Nunavut. On the other hand, we see ourselves laying off staff. It almost looks like it is one working against the other. I would like to see that addressed by our government. I am not sure that we can do it, but possibly, at least we should get some indication from the government that they did try to accommodate Footprints 2 as much as possible, and still have a balanced budget.

My other concern in regards to Footprints 2, is that, I am hoping that the Finance Minister of this government would work towards some way of addressing the incremental and transition costs that are associated with this document. That way, we can cut down any possibility of animosity or east versus west in this House. Because, definitely it would happen if we do not have that particular funding identified.

In regards to Partnerships in a New Beginning, along with everybody else, I realize that this is not the end result of this effort. But at the same time, there must be some weight placed on what this document does reflect up to now. From my perspective, this document is a reflection of all the distrust between all the native groups and the non-aboriginals. It reflects the fact that the native groups see themselves as having to have this type of government in order to protect themselves from the non-aboriginals. I do not believe that this is related just to this era. It is related to how native people have been treated for a long time. It is going to take a major effort, not only on the part of this government, but on the part of the native groups and the federal government, to address this situation.

Because, like it or not, the federal government has to realize that they in fact, went a long ways towards instigating this whole process, and distrust amongst the people, by not having the proper safeguards there in the first place. As a matter of fact, this all leads to the native people establishing land claims to protect themselves. I believe that if the end result of this document or this effort is going to be long serving, and serve the territories for a long time, I come back to my same statement that I made last spring, that is, there can only be one type of document that could actually treat everybody equally, and that document would have to colour blind.

You cannot have special rights in order for everybody to feel equally represented, and equal opportunities. The federal government, I believe, is responsible for addressing the distrust between the two groups, and I believe that particular thing has to be addressed separately from a constitution. I do not believe it should be reflected in the constitution. It is a nice effort, and this would be a nice thought that if we could do this, but I think that by the time we have come up with that form of document, we will be somewhere in the year 2050 before we ever have a document that would reflect the trust that is needed.

My other comment is in regards to the process leading up to the development of this Partnership in New Beginnings. I must say that when we had the presentation last summer, or last fall, in the Great Hall here, I was very disappointed to see no reflection of the fact that the Inuvialuit were a partner to this group. The Inuvialuit do not live in teepees. There was no reflection at all of the Inuvialuit culture in the presentation last fall. None. Yet, we own one-fifth of this new territory. There was no reflection of that. More care should be taken in the future, because it could very well reflect on us, as to how we will be treated in the future, if you do not respect us enough to show a reflection of us at those presentations. We expect that is how we will be treated in the future. I think maybe it was just an oversight, but it is a serious oversight. I am also a little disappointed that Partnerships in a New Beginning was not translated into Inuktitut, to allow Nunavut people to make comments towards the thing, the same as we make comments towards Footprints 2. If it is not translated into Inuktitut, we cannot expect them to be able to read it. I am a little disappointed in that fact.

I have worked towards the eventual establishment of some form of constitution that, hopefully, we will input into making by the time our term is up, rather than the federal government doing it for us, but at the present time, I do not believe that with the present attitude of the present members, we are ever going to get towards that goal. I do not like hearing comments, whether they are in public or in private, that the quicker Nunavut is gone, the better. Because I believe that we are going to be the next one, the Inuvialuit will probably be the next ones. I do not like hearing those comments. They do not do anything towards making us work together. I think that with a more serious and more trustworthy approach to this whole thing, rather than poking a poke to the native groups, we could probably get somewhere. On the other hand, I believe also that the native groups have to realize that they do not own this territory any more in total. In the past, we did. But we cannot bring back the past, we have to deal in today's issues, and today's reality is that we are also populated by non-aboriginals. We have to take that into consideration if we are going to have a new constitution.

I am disappointed with the amount of money that is being spent on this document, knowing that it did not have much of a future. I would have hoped that the money would have been better spent. I hope I am not reflecting on any particular MLA or minister. I just feel that in the time frame, the amount of rushing that went on, we were put into a situation where we had to come up with something fast, and we, therefore, came up with a document that we knew the public could not support. I must say I am disappointed in that manner. But I am in favour of working towards an end result, and hopefully, this time the federal government will see fit to come in at an early stage, and actually work with us, not leave it us totally to draw up a constitution. I think they should be working with us to draw up a constitution that would serve all the people of the territories, including Nunakput. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments are to do with Footprints 2 to start with today. I had the privilege at one time of working with John Amagoalik and Peter Ernerk, today's commissioners of the Nunavut Implementation Commission. That was some years ago, and for a number of years. I admire what they and their fellow commissioners have produced, the documents called Footprints in New Snow, and Footprints 2. This particular report is addressed to the Honourable Ron Irwin, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and to our Premier Don Morin, and to the President of Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated, Jose Kusugak. It asks for a response from those agencies to its report. I would like to quote a couple of areas from that report.

"Their respective responsibilities and roles of the Government of Canada, the GNWT, and NTI, in relation to the creation of Nunavut, do not exist in isolation." The report further states "until April 1, 1999, the legislature and Government of the NWT, have broad-based legislative, financial and administrative responsibilities with respect to all residents of the N.W.T., of Nunavut, and the western region alike. In addition to its overall responsibilities, the GNWT has specific duties under the Nunavut Act."

One of the duties the Government of the Northwest Territories has is responding to Footprints 2. In that regard, Cabinet needs to have input from members of this Legislative Assembly. I am going to address that input, and also try, through questions a little later on, to seek what the position and viewpoints of this government is in certain areas. The creation of Nunavut, and the creation of a new territory here in the west, is a given. It is a done deal through the Nunavut Act, and thus will come about on April 1, 1999. The Nunavut Implementation Commission calls for an implementation period of April 1st, 1998 to April 1st, 2000, and I agree with that. There are a number of areas of concern.

Let me deal here now with the human resources area. I believe that the Government of the Northwest Territories has an obligation to protect the employment of existing staff. I would support the GNWT if it takes this stand. It is my belief that a strong civil service will be the key to the successful creation of Nunavut. New leaders have big jobs to do, and a short time to do it in, such as, electing a legislature, setting up priority policies, and laws, and they have day to day management that may detract from the priorities. It is in the interest of new governments to keep the civil service in tact as much as possible, so they do not get held up in details. Unfortunately, we are undertaking division at a time of uncertainty. Capable and qualified individuals fear their jobs will disappear through, either cuts or the insecurity of transfer or possible transfer to the new territorial government Nunavut. They have few incentives to remain in the jobs they now hold. Not many people are aware of the principles articulated in Footprints 2 that current employees should be given the opportunity to remain in their positions with the new government. We should acknowledge this section and show people the process in respecting their concerns. We should also form a statement to provide a level of assurance to people who feel their jobs are in jeopardy, to ensure their concerns are not being ignored. Further, Nunavut has ambitious long term targets for Inuit in its civil service, about 80 percent of jobs. Existing staff can play an important role in training those new staff especially in management positions. We have many precedents for developing such a statement:

A)The Working Toward 1999 report by the Territorial government noted that uncertainty could lead to loss of capable staff.

B)The 1992 plebiscite of boundary said that division would occur with respect to the employment status and job preferences of Territories government employees that was the 1992 plebiscite.

The need for consistency in staffing has been recognized throughout the process. We should not abandon it now. People need assurances about the future otherwise they may not stick around during important transition periods. Existing employees have a great deal to offer. They can be responsible in their future roles as trainers and, as experience has shown, experience is the best teacher. It is grass roots wisdom. Some government employees may be unwilling or unable to move. People who cannot or will not move to the new government should be treated with respect. Some may assume their resistance to change is based not on wanting to move to Nunavut. This is wrong. Perhaps many people will not want to move for economic or family reasons, such as mortgages, commitments here in the community that they presently live in, kids in school at critical years, health and family issues. It should be noted, for example, that for those people in Yellowknife, it is becoming extremely hard to sell houses, it is becoming much more difficult in our community. Further division is something that is being thrust on the employees. It has nothing to do with willingness or ability to work. It deals with matters beyond the control of the individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to end my statement there. I have further statements to make and later I would like to raise some questions in regard to the human resources side. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be responding to both documents. I look at both the western part of the territory and Nunavut and I see on a map a line drawn. But when you look at the people and the land itself there is no physical line. I hope when all this process is over, and at the end of the day, the people will still continue to work together, to cooperate, to visit and share their experiences as they have in the past. Although I find that it is important that governments have policies and procedures and a structure that will help them do business in the new territory, my concern goes to the people. When this is done and the snow settles, instead of dust I guess, that the programs and services available to the people of the territories would be equal or better to what we have today. I would be very disappointed to find out we have gone through a lot of time and effort and funding to find out at the end of the day that we have not changed anything. That we are still troubled by the way we do business. That we are not serving the people to the best of there needs and our abilities. I think as the days to 1999 shorten we should do all we can to make the realities happen of two territories in the best way possible.

What I said in the House before my concern goes to the people because it is the people that make our country our territory and our communities and the government is set up to serve those people. So, I think it is very important as the negotiation process begins and as we start dealing with matters that come before us as legislators that we take into consideration very seriously the impact our decisions will have on the people of the territories. I would wish best to both sides that the processes that they are developing will truly make lives and the quality of life better come 1999. I think it is very important that we do not focus on east west and what we will try and get out of it at the end of the day. That is important, mind you, but I think we need to focus as one territory to the federal government and state to them that it is very important to us a one territory that is being split into two that they accept the responsibility of the cost involved of creating two territories. That we do not get caught in a battle between east versus west and how one makes due with one thing and another makes due without.

There is definite concern in the communities, especially my community Inuvik, of what will happen come 1999. What service will be left, What will we be able to build as a government and those are important. But are they more important than what we have left at the end of the day, our ability to get on with our lives? We are at a very important crossroads. It is necessary to deal with these things. And some will be very difficult decisions to make. But I would encourage my colleagues that we work hard to achieve the best results for the people. Not necessarily for the governments. Sometimes what is best for a government is not so good for the people.

I look at the change that has happened from my parents in the early days of Inuvik. The changes that happened in the short period of time to where I am sitting today. That the government that made many changes, and it was the people that adapted. It was the people that made communities what they were. So I would encourage members here as we go through these number of days ahead of us towards division, to put the people first and foremost in front of things we set up. Thank you.