Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the honourable Member touched on some very important key areas here in regards to the constitutional development here in the western Arctic. I just want to say that in regards to process and who will make up a consultation team, we do not know right now who is going to make up the consultation team except that the Constitutional Working Group just at the beginning of the week at their meetings directed our executive director, Fred Koe, to put notice out that we are looking for facilitators. We think that the best approach would be to get people who are skilled in facilitating workshop type of arrangements so that we could get maximum use out of any meetings that we have in the community so that we give out the information that we have and the information will include the Partners in a New Beginning package. The one area that is red flagged the most is the one model that is highlighted in the document. We have asked our staff to develop further the other two models that were put in the appendix of that document, so, yes, the contents will be different models. But we would like to look at the principles of the document. I think that up to this point it is safe to say there is a general support for the guiding principles that are in there. A lot of the guiding principles are things that we have worked out throughout the years so it is acceptable for now.
I think that the majority of the package is acceptable. I think that the only problem that we had was that the one model that we illustrated as a possible model on how aboriginal self-government, inherent right of self-government could be integrated or working along with a public government system. I think that was our example of how it could happen. As the honourable Member indicated that was a big target for a lot of people that saw it as something that they do not support. The reactions that we have heard from public meetings here in Yellowknife and perhaps, in Hay River, and from articles that we have seen in the Globe and Mail and other publications like the Western Report, different commentaries, and so forth that we have seen. It is part of the process. I see it as part of the process. I do not see it as a negative response to what we are doing. I see it as very important to the whole process. Those of us who worked four months last summer in putting this together came to a lot of compromises among ourselves to come out of the package. We understood and realized all along that a package such as that would not be acceptable to everybody. Therefore, there is going to be some reactions. We expected the reactions and they are there. Personally, I was hoping that along with the negative reaction, that there would be suggestions on how we could work. We have seen very little of that. But, hopefully, and we were not prepared to do a very good consultation at that time because of lack of money and resources, but now, we have been able to secure some funding so that we could put a team together to go into the communities.
Just getting back to who will go into the communities along with facilitators, we are hoping that the facilitators would come from the regions or the communities. We know that there are people out there that are familiar with a certain region or are familiar with a community that could do this type of facilitating, so that we could get more out of this tour when we are getting together. So, the formulation of the team is still being worked on. The Constitutional Working Group, we meet whenever it is necessary and we will probably be meeting here fairly shortly and probably next week or so to carry on with the work because we gave instruction to our executive director to maybe beef up and formulate some of the plans more. Once we got that we will notify the Members on the progress of that initiative.
Just something aside, before this meeting today, I had a couple of calls from elders and their suggestion that whenever there is a tour like this going into the communities, their suggestion is that elders be involved, key elders be involved to give some guidance and some direction into this process. This is just an example of different suggestions that are coming out from people who are very interested in making sure that this constitution is done in the good and proper way.
Yes, we will after consultation into the communities, and feedback that we get from the people, we will then compile a report and revise the document and review the document and the Constitutional Working Group is in partnership with the aboriginal summit leaders. The practice has always been that these meetings are there and Members, MLAs that are not part of the working group, have come in on their own and sat in. That practice is still going be there. This is in reply to your question about how will it be reviewed, how it will be revised. There is opportunity for participation in that, and it will go to the western Caucus because the western Caucus is one of the partners in this whole initiative.
In regards to ratification, that is going to be in the form of a public plebiscite. Exactly how that is going to be done, we are still developing that and we are seeking suggestions on that as well. I think our main focus right now is the consultation process. We are focusing on that. We still in the back of our minds, have the ratification process that is also formulating at the same time. It is not too clear exactly when and how it is going to happen, but it is going to happen.
In regards to the federal concerns, yes, when our officials were meeting with the federal officials there was give and take, back and forth, different meetings and the federal government's reaction to that was that yes, they would like to see a product that is made-in-the-north. Their concerns are both on policy issues and legal issues as well. The good positive thing about it is that the federal officials will be available throughout the development of the constitutional process so that federal concerns will be clearly understood whenever they arise. I think the federal government's initial reaction was focused on that one model that is in the Partners for New Beginning. The specifics of that is that they regard the voting of aboriginal and non-aboriginal as a serious policy concern. The feds deemed it to be foreign to Canadian values and tradition. In an aboriginal person coming from the north, there is difference of opinion on that issue because I do not think they took into consideration the other two models that were in the document. Their suggestion is that it may contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore it needs clarification. I think that since this concern first came out, I think that there has been a lot of clarification in this area as more explanation has been provided to the federal officials on this one. We will further clarify this issue as well.
Another concern, also in regards to the contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the voting. There again it is based on the one model, which again I said that their analysis is incomplete since they did not really take into consideration the other two models, specifically the voting and assemblies of that one model in the Partners which gives veto to aboriginal over all public government legislation. There again is a need for clarification in there. That also could be dealt with by getting more information out with the two other models that are in the appendix.
The other concern that you have asked is that the negotiation for the negotiating the self-government companion agreement. They are requesting that it be ratified and in place at the same time as the new legislation. With this arrangement, it is an arrangement between the aboriginal leaders and the federal government. On this particular issue here, the GNWT, we are more or less an observer status on that. It is really up to the aboriginal leaders to come up with this self-government companion arrangement. The feds put it as part of the condition. It puts us in an awkward position, but we have let the aboriginal leaders know about this particular condition. They feel that they are in a position where they are dealing with it, and I think it could be resolved.
In regards to this other concern, which is the authority of the territorial government beyond the province, it does not restrict these matters within the territorial governments, and it is hard to. So, this is an area of more a legal issue than anything else and I think that this area here could be dealt with as we go through this whole process.
So, these are some of the concerns that were raised by the federal government and, of course, in our document we talk about the MPs and the Senate, and they are saying that it is not for the NWT Act to decide on these areas. This was their first reaction to our document. I think that when we look at it, we expected some reactions, so we think we can deal with all these different issues as we go along through this process. So, thank you, Madam Chair.