Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak on affirmative action. I would like to join my colleague from Yellowknife South who, unfortunately, is not here today. I too denounce the Affirmative Action Policy. Not because I want to do away with it, as my colleague would denounce it, first because it was deliberately structured to fail by setting levels too high and by not targeting employment views such as middle management and senior management for specific improvement. Secondly, because affirmative action is not being properly implemented, some people do not know how to do it properly. Others simply do not want to. I denounce it because people who get into the system are not trained to get into middle management, then to senior management. My

colleague did make a good point when he said that the only way to increase aboriginal employment beyond the current 36 percent and maintain competency within the public service is to increase education levels among aboriginal people.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that he was going to make a motion. I though that he was going to increase the money in adult education. I would have gladly seconded the motion to get people off of social assistance so people can take advantage of jobs, government jobs, jobs in mining from impact benefit agreements. Unfortunately, he did not make such a motion. A few days later, I thought he would surely support a motion to increase money in adult basic education, if we have extra money, but he did not support that either. The Member indicated that by building houses for people we are subliminally saying it is okay for people to have lots of babies, particularly teens to have kids. By not voting for this motion for more money for education, the Member is subliminally saying it is okay for every third aboriginal person to have an education less than grade nine, that it is okay for one-third of the aboriginal population to live on an annual income of $13,500 or less. I do agree that the problem is not that the hiring system works against aboriginal people, it is the people doing the hiring. It is the people who hire friends, hire manager's friends or relatives, the people that tailor qualifications to a person's resume, people that are simply racist, who do not believe that aboriginal people can do a good job and will not hire them, or who put qualifications really high because they know that aboriginal people will not have the qualifications. When I hear that affirmative action is an insult to aboriginal people that is an insult to my intelligence because I know that we would never even have a chance without affirmative action. The current rate of unemployment and the current rate of 30 percent employment of aboriginal people in this government would be worse without affirmative action.

Mr. Speaker, there are affirmative action people out there walking the streets with degrees. I am talking about aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. It is simply too easy for interviewers to find a weakness. Mr. Speaker, on affirmative action, an applicant should get a job unless an interviewer indicates that he or she cannot handle the job, not because they see a few weaknesses. I know of many injustices but most people simply do not appeal. Mr. Speaker, the Member said that affirmative action puts aboriginal people down. Actually, affirmative action puts aboriginal people on a better footing. Right now, people get interviewed because of it, then are dismissed through the interview. I intend to address that not simply by asking questions in this House. Asking questions has resulted in nothing, zero, zilch. We need to work on changes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe my colleague from Yellowknife South. I would like to think that people operate on an equal footing when they apply for jobs, I really would. The simple fact is that aboriginal people do not. In the Edmonton Journal on January 19th, there is an article and in it Professor Carroll Taylor who is in anthropology at York University, she specializes in anti-racism studies, she says that research shows minorities in Canada face discrimination on the job from hiring to promotions. She is quoted as saying, "there is a large body of knowledge that says if your skin is black or brown as opposed to white, you experience a whole set of discriminatory barriers." The same article went on to cite a study which showed south Asians earn 20 percent less than white people and blacks earn 16 percent less than white people across Canada. And it cannot be said it is because of difference in education or ability, because the people who did the study considered age, occupation, education, experience and language ability.

Mr. Speaker, last year there were 400 complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission of Canada for employment discrimination based on race, colour or national and ethnic origin. Forty-three percent of those were settled, which means that the complainant and the employer came to an agreement on their own or through the works of the Commission or through decision by the tribunal. The Human Rights Commission indicates these complaints are just the tip of the iceberg because most people do not file complaints. Mr. Speaker, people do not complain to the Human Rights Commission regarding figments of their imagination. The reason they do is nearly 16 percent of Canadians admit to extreme intolerance or racism and 33 percent of others are somewhat racist. That is a total of 49 percent. One out of every two people, Mr. Speaker, are racist, admit to being racist in this country.

So how does this racism or discrimination affect the workplace? One Toronto study found that white job applicants got three job offers to every job offer made to blacks and blacks were treated differently during the hiring process. Another in-depth survey showed 80 percent of corporate headhunters and all job agency recruiters received requests to discriminate by race. Ninety-four percent of them said that they rejected job seekers on the basis of colour. Mr. Speaker, I am sure their prejudicialness did not stop at blacks and Asians and it extends to aboriginal people.

Mr. Speaker, one of our main problems is the media. A survey of 20 English language newspapers showed that less than 2 percent employees in the media are visible minorities, natives or disabled and major TV advertisers produce commercials that essentially paint an all white Canada. This has prompted one person to say, "if we are not accurately seen on the mirror the media holds up to society, then clearly we are somehow not part of that society."

Mr. Speaker, schools contribute to the problem as well. Studies show that Canadian textbooks contain biases and stereotype minority groups. It also shows that teaching materials do not reflect history and literature of visible minorities or aboriginal people. It also shows visible minorities are more likely to be sent to special education classes and basic level courses. I will give you an example. An aboriginal student I know wanted to be a doctor. That person's average was over 80 percent in grade 11 but he had to take grade 12 all over again because he had been told to take level 33 subjects by the counsellor, meaning English 33, Math 33, that type of thing. In the meantime to get into university, you need level 30 courses, English 30, Math 30, Social Studies 30. Anyway, this person wasted a whole year going back to school. During that year he got into alcohol and drugs, partially because he was going school with younger kids. Unfortunately, this alcoholic and drug induced haze lasted for four or five years so the person actually wasted five or six years. Luckily, he came out of it and took a two-year program at Aurora College and is at the top of his class and he is going on for a degree.

Mr. Speaker, a study of 14 police forces showed a minority participation from zero percent to three percent. The Manitoba and Nova Scotia provincial governments established commissions of inquiry to look into accusations of racial injustices in their provincial justice system. A quick one month snapshot of the NWT inmates show that 87 percent of the inmates are aboriginal people. Of course, we cannot determine why, but that is one of the facts that are there.

Mr. Speaker, racism or discrimination also affects your ability to find a place to live. In 1988, the Quebec Human Rights Commission reported that 30 percent of blacks were turned down three or more times for rental accommodation compared to 12 percent of whites. A 1986 Toronto study showed that 31 of 73 landlords or 44 percent indicated they discriminated on the basis of race when choosing tenants. I will give you an example of this. When we were going to school in Saskatoon, my aunt was replying to ads in the paper for a place to stay. She had made an appointment a day earlier. Five minutes before she was going to leave, she phoned to make sure that the apartment was still open. She was assured it was. It took her about five minutes to get to the point where she was to have her interview and to look at the place. As soon as the landlord saw her, she told her, "I just rented the place out," yet five minutes ago on the phone, the place was still open. There had been no time to show the place to anyone or to make a deal. My sisters told me they ran across similar problems in Saskatoon. My son recently told me of similar occurrences in Lethbridge. Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people experience racism from the day they are born to the day they die. No white person can know what it is like. Some can imagine, but that is all. They cannot know what it is like to be ignored, treated with disdain, treated like a non-person simply for having dark skins. They cannot know what it is like getting called names, getting into fights, being served last in a restaurant or at a store. You cannot know what it is like to go into the bush for a spring hunt and have the city flatten your house while you are gone, have all your worldly possessions except the clothes on your back destroyed. Mr. Speaker, this is not a figment of my imagination. This has happened here in Yellowknife. It did not happen recently, but it did happen. The people did not receive a penny of compensation. My grandfather's house was flattened too when he died. There was no opportunity for family members to move in or even to remove valued items. The house was flattened without anyone being told. There was a son and a daughter living in Yellowknife. Nobody received a penny of compensation for that, either. A few years ago, the City even admitted to flattening that house.

Mr. Speaker, I have lived here all my life except when I have been going to school or working some place else, which is not that long. I remember fighting as a child because I was Indian. I still see kids fighting today because of racism, whether they are Indian, black, or Asian. I see racism every day. It is important to point out that not everybody is racist, but it does exist here and in the south. If we go to restaurants or stores, others are served first or they are served faster. By that, I mean I might have to wait 10 minutes. Maybe not me, because I am a highly visible person now, but another aboriginal person might have to wait for 10 minutes while a non-aboriginal person, Caucasian, comes in, and they are served immediately. Just last weekend, my wife and mother went into a restaurant while I parked the car. When I went in, I found them seated in the furthest corner by the kitchen door. There were about 50 tables in that place, Mr. Speaker. The place was virtually empty. We sat there for an hour, eating and talking, and hardly anyone came in. Yet, my wife and mother were put into the darkest corner. They almost had to use a vehicle to get to the buffet. They were even put at another level so they could not be seen by the majority of the customers.

Mr. Speaker, any one of us can go into a bathroom, a public washroom downtown and are likely to see written on the walls, "effing Indians, effing blacks." Last summer, I saw a fight downtown at night. People were watching. Some of the people, who were not even involved in the fight, they were standing there yelling at an aboriginal person, "You effing Indian." Last summer, behind the Bank of Commerce, I stopped some kids who were teasing an old man. They too were calling him an effing Indian. Mr. Speaker, my son is 10 years old and he almost quit hockey last summer because of racist remarks by kids at the hockey school. I had to talk him out of it. It took me a long time. He has also told us about racist remarks at school by kids of prominent Yellowknife citizens. Mr. Speaker, young girls in this city, aboriginal girls, are being turned into prostitutes to get drugs like cocaine. In the south, people have aboriginal girls as prostitutes, not only on the streets but, worse, they have them in apartments where they cannot leave all day. Men are brought in at a steady stream, sometimes they see 40 to 50 clients a day. Mr. Speaker, further examples of racism are easy to find. Protests were underway in BC last month because 200 women had been killed in the province. The vast majority of them were aboriginal women. In the Somalia Affair, the first person charged was an aboriginal person. I believe he was the only person who went to jail. Luckily, the media made a big hullabaloo about the situation or others probably would not have even been charged. Some years ago, an aboriginal girl was killed in northern Manitoba. Virtually, nothing was done to find the killers for 15 years or so. In Saskatchewan, a white supremacist, shot an Indian through the door as he was leaving the store. The killer, who owned the store, was not charged until there were marches, petitions, and everything started by aboriginal organizations. This is not only in the south, Mr. Speaker. A few years back, here in Yellowknife, an aboriginal woman was killed and cut up. Eventually they found that it was done by a non-aboriginal cab driver. In the last few years, we have heard of several young aboriginal girls that are missing. You never hear of similar things about non-aboriginal girls. That tells you something. You can go into virtually any government office, you will see a brown face at the front, the secretary/receptionist. Go into the back rooms, where the power is, you do not see any brown faces back there or very few.

Mr. Speaker, racism has a long history in Canada. In the 1400s, after the Europeans had finished raping their countries of their resources, they started travelling. They would land somewhere, then plant a stick in the ground with a dirty old rag on top. They would say, "This country belongs to the King of England/King of France/King of Holland." They did not do this for patriotism. They did it for whoever happened to be paying them at the time. The pay was so good that people were actually fighting to get sponsored by royalty. Slaves were also a hot item for white folks. They took black people from Africa and transported them across the ocean to the Americas, where they bred them like animals then sold them on a trading block to the highest bidder. That was not good enough. They enslaved Indians, as well, in their homeland. The church is not left out of it. In fact, the Catholic church seems to still be rewarding slavery. I say this because the catholic church recently canonized a woman as a saint, who had had African and Indian slaves. The church rationalized this by saying they would have been treated worse if they were owned by other slave owners. There is some sense there, I suppose.

Mr. Speaker, 500 years ago, aboriginal people found Cabot on their shores. He was probably half dead from scurvy and thirst. The aboriginal people dragged him ashore and saved his life. Once he was strong enough, he staggered up and planted a stick in the ground with a dirty old rag on top and said, "This country belongs to the King of England." At the time, there were over a 100 million aboriginal people in the Americas, over a 100 million people. That did not matter to the Europeans, because the aboriginals were not Christians. They said they could claim it anyways. Mr. Speaker, there is not a shred of international law to support the proposition that one country can claim another country or land that is already inhabited by aboriginal people. In the Western Sahara case, which was decided in the International Court of Justice sponsored by the United Nations, the court said that you can only claim land classified as terra-nulius, and land inhabited by tribes or aboriginal people is not classified as terra-nulius. It is not classified as terra-nulius, which means that another country cannot legally claim it.

Mr. Speaker, in an America case, Justice Marshall invented the Doctrine of Discovery. He said that countries could claim tribal lands because aboriginal people were not Christian. He knew international law, because international law was presented to him in the case. The Doctrine of Discovery was refuted by the fathers of international law, such as Francisco de Vitorio, Samuel Pufendorf, and the great Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius. Grotius said, "the Spaniards acquired no greater right over the American Indians land in consequence of that defect of faith, than the Indians possessed over the Spaniards if any of the former had been the first foreigners to come and see Spain." Mr. Speaker, Justice Marshall ignored the fathers of international law. He ignored the fact there were a 100 million Indian people in the Americas. Some of those First Nations had cities as large as the largest European cities. A few of those nations even had written languages. Some of them built pyramids and people still do not know how they were built with such precision. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America took half of its constitution from the great law of the Iroquois almost word for word. Justice Marshall ignored all of this and said aboriginal people have something called aboriginal title. What is aboriginal title? Mr. Speaker, aboriginal title is the lowest form of land ownership known to man. You do not really own the land, you cannot rent it out, you cannot lease it, you cannot sell it, you cannot use it for collateral, you cannot leave it to someone when you die. But someone else can come and put a stick in your land, same principle as the old dirty rag on the stick a few years back where people used to get paid to claim land for kings. Today people are paid to stake claims for developers. Some people stake for themselves, not too many. Once that land is staked, people can sell it, or use it for collateral. People can develop mines and sell all your resources and you do not get one penny from it. All the while, you still have aboriginal title. You do not gain from the development on your lands.

A good example is the Yellowknives Dene First Nation. Giant Mine and Con Mine are virtually right underneath us. There are other mines in the area, like Ptarmigan Mines, they have taken hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars out of the ground. Yellowknives Dene First Nation has not received one penny. Not one lousy penny out of all this development. They have received something, they have received lung problems from the emissions from Giant. The water is now unsafe to drink. They have to buy water. BHP is even worse than that. They are into negotiations with the government negotiators. Government negotiators agreed the Yellowknives Dene First Nation could claim the Lac De Gras area or the BHP area. For two years, the negotiators led them to believe this, that they could claim this area. I know because I was one of the negotiators for a year. After two years, they suddenly said, "you cannot claim it because of advanced exploration." Nobody I know had ever heard of advanced exploration up until that time. At any rate, Justice Marshall said aboriginal people could not own the land because they are not Christian. Mr. Speaker, many people in this world are not Christian. Many are Atheists, millions of people are Muslims, millions of others are other non-Christian religions. Can you imagine the uproar if the governments suddenly said these people could not own land because they are not Christians? The 1776 Royal Proclamation said all the land in the Commonwealth was reserved for Indians. The King sent treaty commissioners around to extinguish aboriginal title because only the King and Queen could buy the land. Treaty commissioners had authority to negotiate. Sometimes they negotiated for days. But many of the terms the Indians agreed to were not put into the treaties. In Manitoba, in Treaty 1, the commissioner's report indicates that, "Indians wanted two-thirds of the province for a reserve. They had been led to suppose that large tracts of land were to be reserved for hunting and timber. That is absurd." The commissioner also ensured them there would not be any interference with their religion. Their culture will not be altered. The Treaty 8, which includes Yellowknife, Lutselk'e, Fort Smith, Hay River and Fort Resolution, the commissioner's report indicated that the commissioner promised the aboriginal people they would never have to pay taxes. To this day, they pay every tax the non-aboriginal people pay. The only Indians who do not pay taxes are on the reserves. That is not because the government is honouring treaty promises, it is because of the Indian Act. The Indian Act, section 87, which says that you do not have to pay taxes for things on reserves.

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people were promised one square mile of land for a family of five. It is bad enough the government lied about treaty rights, but when the Indians went to choose their reserved lands, they were only allowed to choose the worst land available. Sometimes, it was hard to grow a potato on that land. Mr. Picco will tell you it is pretty hard to find land that bad.

At the same time, the government was enticing the Europeans to come to Canada with a promise of free land. People came from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Holland to claim this land. Remember, the government had promised one square mile of land to the Indians in the treaties. To this day, some bands do not have reserve lands. Others have some of their land, but not all.

Of course, the settlers received all of their land right away. In many cases, they received more land than the Indians, the original land owners. The settlers also received cattle and supplies from the government. Pretty soon, they had enticed so many settlers here that all of the good land was given away to the settlers. They started taking land back from the Indians. My professor, who is a non-aboriginal person at the University of Saskatchewan, told our class about fraud and the use of high-pressure tactics by the government. The federal government passed laws to facilitate the fleecing of the reserve lands from the Indians.

One act immediately distributed up to 50 percent of the purchase price of reserved lands to band members. My professor told us of an Indian agent who came into a room, after he had called a meeting, and threw a huge bag of money on the table. He said, "who wants some money?" Needless to say, the land was surrendered.

Another act allowed companies or municipalities to take reserve land. They did not need the consent of the Indians, only of the Governor-in-Counsel. Another act said that Indians could be removed from any reserve next to a town of 80 people or more. Indian agents took advantage of this. They sold land to their friends and families quite cheaply. The result is over 500 reserves illegally lost land through transactions like this.

Today, the government is in specific claims, which is an attempt to rectify all of this lost land. There are 600 specific claims. Last week, I heard on the radio about the Tarmanastic Indians, where the government used pressure tactics, probably those described above. That is what it said on the radio, pressure tactics. To defraud the Indians out of 30,000 acres of prime farm land. The Indians were left with bush and rocky country.

Mr. Speaker, the government could not take reserve land back fast enough. They had to get Indians off of the reserve lands, because they wanted to get more settlers. The next plan was to assimilate Indians. If they could assimilate them, they would not need any reserves. They started something called enfranchisement to get Indians off reserves. Many took a test and passed English and math. They were no longer an Indian. But there were not many takers, because if a person passed this test, they had to move off of the reserve. The government sent people around and these people arbitrarily chose people for tests. If they passed, they were white and had to move off the reserve.

This did not work very well either. People were failing on purpose. The government decided to use bribery, to entice people to give up their treaty status. They made laws that said you had to give up your treaty status to join the army, if you wanted to go to university or if you wanted to drink, if you wanted to own a gun, to vote, to have a lawyer. You could not do these things if you were an Indian. You could not own land either. Not until the 1950's.

They paid people to sell their status. Many people sold their treaty status for a few dollars, because they wanted to do these things. Assimilation was still not working fast enough. They used residential schools to attack the most precious resource of the aboriginal people, their children. They began to take kids away at the age of six or seven. The parents did not see them for years. Many of the kids were never seen again. They died or simply did not return.

One book indicates that, by the turn of the 19th century, about 50 percent of the children who went to residential school, died there. Once they got there, they had their hair cut off, which was contrary to spiritual beliefs. Most aboriginal nations kept their hair long, unless there was a death in the family. They were also punished if they spoke their language. They were punished, both mentally and physically, if they did things wrong. We now know that many were sexually abused.

The next thing they did was they started something called a pass system. This was originated to keep non-aboriginal people off of reserves. But the Indian agents illegally extended it to aboriginal people. They told the aboriginal people they could not leave the reserves without a pass. They used this to prevent adults from getting kids out of residential schools, because of the horror stories the parents were hearing. They also used this to keep people from meeting, because they were getting angry the government was not keeping its treaty promises.

To give this deception an air of legitimacy, they began to charge people with vagrancy if they saw them off the reserves. Indian people had virtually no knowledge of the law. They thought they were being prosecuted for not having a pass. Often, the Indian agent himself was the JP, so this was easily done.

Kids that were lucky enough, or perhaps un-lucky enough, to survive, could not relate to their parents when they got home. They could not raise their own families because they were not raised at home. They had no parenting skills. They were taught to hate being Indian. Taught to be ashamed of being Indian. One friend told me the school he went to had pictures on the wall. The pictures had white people walking to heaven, and Indians walking to hell. Why would a kid want to be proud of being an Indian when he sees pictures like that?

To make it easier to assimilate and conquer the aboriginal people, the government began to use divide and conquer tactics. A tactic that is still used to this day. For instance, the regional claims. The government, to divide and conquer, invented something called Metis people, Non-status Indians, and Status Indians. This is the only country in the world that has this. Nowhere else will you find this. You go to Mexico, South America, the United States, and Africa, if you are one iota Indian, you are Indian. If you are one iota African, you are African. Even the Inuit, if you have one drop of Inuit blood, you are considered Inuit.

Mr. Speaker, before the Europeans arrived, America's aboriginal people were totally self-reliant and self-sufficient, there was no such thing as welfare because people shared things. They looked after the poor, the sick and the weak. There were no alcohol or drug problems. There was no unemployment. What do we find today?

In the western NWT today, 33 percent of aboriginal people have less than grade nine, 43 percent of aboriginal people have less than grade 10. If you look at enrolment at the universities, non-aboriginal Canadians are in universities and enrolled at a rate of 6.8 percent and aboriginal people at 3.7. The non-aboriginal rate is twice as high as aboriginal people. The 1996 grade 12 graduates in the NWT were 166 non-aboriginal graduates and 97 aboriginal graduates. Mr. Speaker, the non-aboriginal population is only two-thirds of that of the aboriginal people, yet, the graduates are two times that of the aboriginal people.

Looking at the post-secondary levels of schooling and once you know that the aboriginal people, 43 percent of them have less than grade 10, then you look at the levels of schooling, 36 percent of Metis, 26 percent of Dene, and 25 percent of Inuit have some post-secondary schooling. This shows that aboriginal people are going back to school as adults even though they have not made it through high school. This shows why we need to put money to adult basic education into increasing the success rates in post-secondary institutions. Mr. Speaker, remembering that aboriginal people have less than grade 10, 43 percent of them, there is a direct link between low levels of education and dependence on social assistance. In the NWT in November 1988, which is the last year that I could get statistics on, the grade levels for social assistance recipients, people with more than grade 10 was only 5.6 percent. All the rest were grade 10 and less, 94 percent of them, Mr. Speaker.

In the Aurora College corporate plan, it shows a clear link between education, employment opportunity, and pay levels. As indicated earlier, 43 percent of aboriginal people have not completed grade 10, but it shows that if you have grade 11 or less, you will have to live on an average pay of $21,000. If you have grade 8 or less, you will have to live on $13,000, Mr. Speaker.

Remembering the link between income and education and the poor levels of education of aboriginal people and remembering that education and income are directly linked to poverty. Canadian facts on poverty show that high school dropout rates for children from poor families is more than two times the rate for children from non-poor families. It shows that up to 75 percent of all children in care come from low income families. It shows that child mortality is twice as high at the lowest end of the income scale as opposed to the highest end. It shows that drowning is more than three times more common for boys of low income families than for other boys. It shows that children from low income families are almost two times more likely to have a psychiatric disorder, two times more likely to do poorly in school, and over two times more likely to develop a conduct disorder or to behave destructively than children from other families.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples highlights a loss of dollars in the current state of affairs. The Royal Commission indicates that $5 billion a year in lost spending on financial assistance programs of limited success and lost revenue due to aboriginal people not contributing to the economy. It also indicates that aboriginal people lose $3 billion a year in income mostly because they are not adequately educated.

Mr. Speaker, other studies show that all Canadians in the labour force of 15 or over, are making between $2,000 and $10,000. They have a rate for up to $10,000 and there are 35 percent of Canadians at that level. This was in 1990. For aboriginal people the rate is 54 percent making $10,000 or less.

Let us look at health and TB rates across Canada. The rates per thousand are seven cases per thousand. In the NWT, the 1990s average is almost 61 cases per thousand people. Total cases in the NWT from 1990 to 1996, the Dene people had 52 percent, the Inuit had 39 percent, the Metis less than one percent, and non-aboriginal nine percent. Life expectancy of aboriginal people from eight to 10 years was less than non-aboriginal people across Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to affirmative action. I would like to give some examples of circumvention of affirmative action. One person told me she had appealed because she did not get an interview. She won the appeal because she was qualified for the job. Appeal said she should have been interviewed. The government had to rerun the competition and the same qualifications for the job were in the ad. She applied again and again she did not get an interview. She appealed again. Before this could go any further, the job was deleted because of cutbacks. We do not know how many more times she would have had to appeal. Mr. Speaker, another person actually worked in a position and they got a job without an interview, another person in a lower position with much less education than that affirmative action candidate. The non-aboriginal candidate was a friend of the manager. This person had her job description changed. The job description was management with more money. The affirmative action employee's job was eliminated. This was done without competition for the other job, so she could not appeal. She did file a grievance but the union missed some dates and it went on and on until finally her term was over. This same person applied for another job, had all of the qualifications, interviewed, and no job. This person was told she had answered wrong, but she knew that she had not said whatever the interviewer claimed because what the interviewer said was simply, to put it bluntly, stupid. She did not appeal because she felt this was another racist situation. This same person applied on a secretarial position, which she was well qualified for, but she was not hired because another applicant had less opportunity to get the job because the first person had a university degree with years and years of secretarial experience. She was told that she could not get the job because the other person had less opportunity. The successful applicant had received a buyout and is still getting money to this day. Again, no appeal. Mr. Speaker, this person is a fighter. If she did not appeal, how many more people out there do not appeal?

I know another person who is going to appeal because she did not get a job that she was qualified for. This was when Personnel Secretariat still had some staff. The staffing person told them not to, told them it is very difficult to get a job with the government if you appeal because you are labelled a bad egg. This person also did not appeal. Another person had an interview. This person did not get a job. He was told it was because he had a few weak answers in the interview. When he asked about affirmative action, he was told he got the interview because of affirmative action, but that he could not appeal because it was a management position. Yet, we were told in this House a few days ago, that affirmative action works the same for management. What good is affirmative action in a management position if you cannot appeal? Another person I know applied for a job in a mail room, P1. This person is a third year university student and very intelligent. He indicates that all you have to know is how to read and know your colours because everything is colour coded, but the daughter of a manager got the job. This person had no priority whatsoever. I told this young fellow to appeal, but he did not because he indicated that he would be blackballed and would not be able to get a job in the government.

Mr. Speaker, I have some statistics here that show the dismal failure of affirmative action in senior management of this government. As of February 11, 1997, this includes moving up from superintendents, regional superintendents, directors, assistant deputy ministers, and deputy ministers. This was done by looking at phone books and verifying that people were actually in these positions. There is a total of 165, 120 of them have no priority whatsoever, 15 of them are P1s, and 8 are P2s. That is approximately 73 percent which have no priority whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, looking at this, I see that 13.8 percent of these employees are P1s and P2s and another 13.5 percent are women with no priority. Mr. Speaker, what are we coming to when people who were born and raised in this country do not have the same priority status and cannot get a job as well as people who are newcomers to this land? I have another document which indicates that Cabinet is concerned that not enough aboriginal people are being hired. They are saying not to put qualifications too high. I assume this means they are worried about it, otherwise why would they bring it up. Mr. Speaker, I know the problem exists because working in government, people have told me they have been present where qualifications were tailored for a specific person. Yet, Cabinet recently dismantled the Personnel Secretariat. This means that there is no central hiring agency. This means that the people wandering the streets here in Yellowknife have to go to about ten different places looking for jobs and writing off tons of resumes. Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of another organization with a $1 billion budget that does not have a central hiring agency. To make matters worse, we were told in the House a few weeks ago, that almost one out of every three employment appeals were upheld in 1995. From the examples I have given you today and this is just the people that I know personally, we know that many people do not appeal.

We also have a situation where there is no independent agency in interviews. This leaves open a situation where there is a lack of consistency, where policies are open to different interpretations. For instance, one department might say something is weak, another department might say it is okay, there is nothing with it. It could mean different qualifications for the same job. This is probably an extreme example but someone might say a clerk typist needs a degree. There is also no way for an applicant to prove what was said in an interview. There is no objective person there, taking notes. The Minister indicated that interviews are not taped. We do not know how much weight is placed on the interview, either. Even worse, we do not know if each of the departments place a different weight on interviews. It is also not fair to managers to not have an independent person as an interviewer. It is very easy to claim nepotism or favouritism and it is very difficult to disprove. We already know there is a case where a person hired was related to a manager. This may have been perfectly legitimate. We do not know. We probably will never know because there was no independent person there. Mr. Speaker, having a watch dog present at interviews brings consistency. It brings fairness and parity. Mr. Speaker, if Cabinet proposed doing away with the Personnel Secretariat today, I would fight it tooth and nail and I will be trying to get independent people at interviews in the future.

In the area of casual employment, Mr. Speaker, usually there is not even an interview. From what the Minister told us, there is also no advertising. I know some people who have been in the same job for years as a casual. It is not fair to the person or to the people looking for work. Those particular jobs that go on for years, casual after casual, should be term positions or they should be made indeterminate. For one thing, the person in that job does not get all the benefits they should. Also, if nobody knows the job is available, people cannot apply and people cannot appeal. Additionally, this is really open to nepotism and favouritism. I know people who ask, "Do you know anyone who can do this?" Then they go on to hire people without going to the casual employee pool. They are very smart about it. They want you to stay quiet so they ask you too. Occasionally, you might get a friend hired to get a job. When you fall into that trap, you give a name and a person is hired, you cannot say anything either. Mr. Speaker, when I hear about the best person being hired for the job, this reminds me of that. Mr. Speaker, today there are avenues for free advertising. First, at HP Desk. Secondly, at Manpower, today known as Human Resources Canada. There is no reason why we cannot have all casual jobs put into these systems.

Mr. Speaker, we spend millions of dollars every year on our young people. We need to increase the loan fund to over $20 million this year. I am talking about people born and raised here, both long-term northerners and aboriginal people. We need to ensure these people get into the system. Call it a return on investment. Mr. Speaker, this government cannot continue to say no job if you have no experience, while at the same time not providing opportunities to get jobs, so those young people can get experience. Our kids, our graduates, are knocking on the door, but nobody is answering. We need to answer the door. Open it up, so our graduates, our kids, can get in.

First of all, we have to try to make affirmative action work. We can do this by changing it, making it more relevant. Then, we need to ensure the policy is properly implemented. This should not cost much because once the government policy is there, it should be followed. That is what they are there for, to be followed for consistency. Then we should be holding workshops for managers, for human resource personnel, so they all have a proper knowledge of affirmative action. This will increase the likelihood of proper implementation. We should also put independent people back into interviews. Mr. Speaker, I have received many positive comments and questions about affirmative action. People out there are starting to feel that affirmative action is still alive, that it actually means something to be an affirmative action candidate. I am not only talking about aboriginal people. I am talking about long-term northerners also. People have stopped and told me that they are glad the profile is being raised again. We need to ensure the profile stays at the forefront. Mr. Speaker, what do I say to those who want to do away with affirmative action? Mr. Speaker, I believe I have taken a pretty comprehensive look at things. Until someone can show me how things have changed, I will support affirmative action.

I said there were two things. The second thing we need to do is to pour money into adult education. Yes, Mr. Speaker, pour. I did not run for election to leave behind, as my legacy, the atrocious education, health, and living conditions I have described. To close a blind eye to accept that aboriginal people have to have a life expectancy rate 10 years less than non-aboriginal people, that 33 percent of aboriginal people in the western NWT have to have less than a grade 9 education, that 43 percent of aboriginal people have to have less than a grade 10 education, while only 3 percent of non-aboriginal people have less than grade 9, while 40 percent of aboriginal people remain unemployed as compared to 90 to 95 percent for non-aboriginal people who are employed. Not when it can be so easily fixed, simply by money. Why do we refuse to put more money into adult basic education while we are building arenas in communities that cannot afford to run them and letting out contracts through the business incentive program worth millions of dollars to grandfathered companies like airlines, banks, national construction companies, who really do not need our money to stay alive. I cannot help but wonder, what would the situation be if it was 33 percent of the non-aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories who had an education of less than grade 9, with incomes at the poverty level or less. Would there be millions being poured into adult basic education? Mr. Speaker, we will never know this because the situation will not come to that. But I do know we can do something about the current education levels in the Northwest Territories. I believe we should do so.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to leave people with a parting thought. Racism often has little to do with social or economic status. It has to do with the colour of your skin and it effects highly educated and wealthy people too, like Professor Francis Henry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Replies to opening address. Item 10, petitions. Mr. Evaloarjuk.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I have Petition No. 20-13(4), 121 names from Pond Inlet, another petition requesting that Billy Merkosak be released early. He is the only helper of his mother, Leah Merkosak, who is 78 years old and requires assistance in her house as well as in other areas. We will keep reminding Billy Merkosak to behave himself when he is on his first release. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two documents I would like to table. The Public Service Annual Report for 1995, Mr. Speaker. A list of the funds transferred exceeding $250,000 for the period May 16, 1996 to January 1, 1997 pursuant to section 32(1), subsection 2 of the Financial Administration Act. Thank you.

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, the 1995/96 GNWT Annual Report on Official Languages. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act has been passed by this Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS Part II of the Act establishes a commission called the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission;

AND WHEREAS Section 14(2) of the Act requires that there be a Commission composed of a Chairperson and two persons appointed by the Commissioner on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable to appoint the members of the Nunavut Boundaries Commission so the necessary work can be undertaken; and,

NOW THEREFORE, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for High Arctic, that the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner that the Honourable Mr. Justice J.E. Richard be appointed chairperson and Mrs. Sandy Kusugak and Mr. Titus Allooloo be appointed members of the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Your motion is in order. To the motion. A question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried. Motions. Mr. Barnabas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to forward a motion stating,

WHEREAS section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act provides that the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission shall prepare a report containing recommendations respecting the area, boundaries, name and representation of new electoral districts proposed for Nunavut by the Commission;

AND WHEREAS section 23 of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act provides that the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission shall, in preparing its report, consider any guidelines or criteria proposed for its consideration by resolution of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly is committed to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to provide for the first election of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut;

AND WHEREAS the Nunavut leaders, at their meeting held in Cambridge Bay on February 16 and 17, 1997, recommended that Nunavut should have no fewer than 20 and no more than 22 members;

NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Natilikmiot, that the Legislative Assembly proposes, pursuant to section 23 of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act, that the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission ensure that its report contains options for both 10 or 11 dual member electoral districts and 20 to 22 single member electoral districts;

AND FURTHER, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act, the Legislative Assembly requests that the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission complete its report on or before June 30, 1997. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Agreed.

Thank you. Mr. Barnabas, your motion is in order. To the motion. A question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Motions. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. The Member for Inuvik is seeking unanimous consent to deal with motion 15-13(4). Do we have any nays? There are no nays, Mr. Roland. You have unanimous consent.

Thank you. Reminding the Members we do have translation. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried. Motions. Mr. Barnabas.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to go to Members' statements.

No, we still have Members doing motions, I believe. Motions, Mr. Ootes.

The Member for Yellowknife Centre is seeking unanimous consent to deal with Motion 14-13(4). Do we have any nays? You do not have unanimous consent, Mr. Ootes. Motions. Mr. Barnabas.

I seek unanimous consent to go back to item 3, Members' statements.

The Member for High Arctic is seeking unanimous consent to go back to item 3, Members' statements. Do we have any nays? There are no nays. You have unanimous consent, Mr. Barnabas but you have already made your statement. Mr. Barnabas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 36(3) to give a second Member's statement concerning the tragic deaths in my constituency.