This is page numbers 91 - 116 of the Hansard for the 13th Assembly, 7th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Mr. Morin.

Don Morin Tu Nedhe

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a document, it is a document that every Member is familiar with in this House. It is the prayer that the Members of this House use prior to the start of the business of the day. Oh, God, may your spirit and guidance be in us as we work for the benefit of all our people, all our people, for peace and justice in our land and for the constant recognition of the dignity and aspirations of those whom we serve. Amen. Thank you.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. Just to remind the Members if you table a document to table it under the heading. That would be sufficient. Tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Mr. Henry.

Seamus Henry Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Friday March 26, 1999, I will move the following motion.

Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that the rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended by:

Striking out that portion of Rule 12(9) that follows, "When in the Assembly, every Member shall be attired..." and substituting "... in traditional aboriginal clothing or in a manner that does not offend the dignity of the Assembly.";

And Further that Rules 85 and 85.1 be rescinded and the following adopted:

85(1) At its first sitting after a general election, the Assembly shall appoint a Striking Committee of three Members to report and recommend, with all convenient speed, Members to comprise the following standing committees of the Assembly;

On Government Operations

On Resource Management and Infrastructure

On Rules and Procedures

On Social Programs

and any other standing and special committees as directed by the Assembly.

(2) The Standing Committee on Government Operations shall:

a) Review issues which have government wide implications;

b) Consider items and issues referred from other committees and the House;

c) Conduct the overview of the budget and the fiscal framework;

d) Consider the budgets and financial management of boards and agencies that are outside the responsibility of any standing committee, including the Office of the Legislative Assembly;

e) Examine the reports on the annual financial statements and public accounts of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Report of the Auditor General;

f) Allocate to any other standing committee its examination of any estimates and any review of departmental performance;

g) Examine and consider the overall issues that affect the operation of the Government of the Northwest Territories relating to division.

(3) The Standing Committee on Resource Management and Infrastructure shall consider the following matters with respect to the Departments of Executive, Aboriginal Affairs, Financial Management Board Secretariat, Finance, Public Works and Services, Municipal and Community Affairs, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development and Transportation:

a) Review legislation and policy proposals, multi-year business plans and budgets, bills, boards and agencies, and public accounts;

b) Review departmental performance; and,

c) Consider any other matter referred by the House.

(4) The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures shall inquire into such matters as may be referred to it by the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker, or the Management and Services Board.

(5) The Standing Committee on Social Programs shall consider the following matters with respect to the Departments of Health and Social Services, Education, Culture and Employment, Justice, and the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation:

a) Review legislative and policy proposals, multi-year business plans and budgets, bills, boards and agencies, and public accounts;

b) Review departmental performance; and,

c) Consider any other matter referred by the House.

And furthermore, that Rule 87(1) be amended by adding "... with the exception of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, which shall consist of seven Members" after "... not more than five Members..."

And furthermore that Rule 87(2) be amended by adding "... with the exception of the Standing Committee on Government Operations..." after "Each Standing Committee...";

And furthermore that Rule 90(3) be rescinded and the following adopted:

90(3) The quorum of a committee shall be a simple majority of committee Members.

And furthermore, that these amendments shall come into effect and be deemed to be Rules of the Legislative Assembly on April 1, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. Notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Motion 5-

13(7), Mr. Morin.

Don Morin Tu Nedhe

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of the NWT ruled on March 5, 1999, that the boundaries of three constituencies located in the western Arctic are unconstitutional;

AND WHEREAS there are compelling reasons for the Government of the NWT, as the respondent in this case, to appeal this decision, including:

-Concern for the constitutional future of the Western Territory and its place in the Canadian Federation;

-Safeguarding of the Western Territory in the context of treaty, land resources and governance negotiations and discussions;

-The fiduciary duty of the Government of the NWT as an agent of the Crown towards aboriginal peoples and aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories;

-The duty of the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure respect for the spirit and intent of Crown aboriginal treaties and Crown undertakings under those treaties;

-Important principles of constitutional interpretation, including the matter of the appropriate balance between individual rights as reflected in section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and collective rights as reflected in section 25 of the Charter and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

-The appropriate role of the courts in ensuring that nothing be allowed to transpire that would frustrate the ability of the Crown to honour its commitments towards aboriginal people, to negotiation in good faith with aboriginal governments and to honour its treaty commitments.

AND WHEREAS it is imperative that issues relating to electoral boundaries be determined within the political sphere and not be decided by the courts;

AND WHEREAS the western NWT Aboriginal Summit, a forum for aboriginal governments in the new Western Territory, a partner with the Western Caucus of MLAs in developing constitutional proposals for the west, has urged the Western Caucus and the Premier to support the Government of the Northwest Territories appealing this decision;

AND WHEREAS it is imperative that a political decision on this issue be reached in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the aboriginal governments of the western NWT;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Executive Council that they immediately file an appeal of the March 5, 1999, decision of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in the matter of Friends of Democracy et al, vs. the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories et al, and take all steps necessary to ensure that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories is stayed pending the hearing of an appeal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Morin.

Don Morin Tu Nedhe

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How did we get here today, Mr. Speaker? How did we end up in what some are calling a constitutional crisis. In the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to visit all the Chiefs in the Western Arctic at the Yellowknife Ski Club. The Yellowknife Ski Club brought back memories, sometimes even nightmares, because I know what happened there when the Western Caucus met. We had an agreement with aboriginal governments of the western Arctic, as western Members of this Legislative Assembly. We had an agreement that we would move ahead on April 1, 1999, to division of the Northwest Territories as it exists today.

We had agreement with the Nunavut people that they would go their way and govern themselves, which is rightfully so. We had an agreement with all the aboriginal governments in the west that we, as elected people and elected government, would sit down and come to an agreement of how a new western government would be formed. We had an agreement that we would stay with 14 Members in the Legislative Assembly. We would stay because we recognized it as a transitional government. We would be a transitional government till we formed a new government in the western Arctic that represents all people. It would take into consideration the diversity of the north, the communication problems we have in the north, the aboriginal governments' issues in the north and for sure it took into consideration the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves.

We had those agreements in place. I remember shaking hands on those. I remember saying to people, no problem, we are going to work it out. We are going to sit down as leaders in the western Arctic to work it out. Yes, we have been working for 20 some years on the same issue, governance, governance in the west. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am never going to give up on aboriginal governments and the people in the western Arctic to be able to come to consensus and the ability to agree on a new government structure for the west. I believe we can do that.

However, at the Ski Club in Yellowknife last spring, the decision was made to move ahead on a boundaries commission because somebody produced a document, somebody produced a document that said that we would be challenged in the courts if we went to an election with the 14 Members that we had. Everybody ran away and decided to form a boundaries commission. Did the aboriginal government ask for a boundaries commission? Did the Aboriginal Summit ask for a boundaries commission? No. They did not want a boundaries commission. They wanted to continue the dialogue to work out a new western government that would truly reflect all the people from Fitzgerald all the way up to Holman, Tuktoyaktuk, all the people in the western Arctic would be recognized under a new constitution, and no one's rights would be infringed on. So then we went on to establish a boundaries commission. There was no heart in establishing a boundaries commission, there was no want by the Northwest Territories residents to even speak to a boundaries commission.

They had a hard time to even get people out to talk to them when they came to our riding, because it was not of an interest to them. What was of an interest was how we were going to develop a new government. You cannot do it by doing a one-of approach, you have to do it by including the big picture; by including self-government, by including the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves, as well as the people's rights in the major centres of having representation. So we had our boundaries commission. The boundaries commission came back to the Legislative Assembly and they recommended two existing seats to our capital city, Yellowknife. The majority of the Members in this Legislative Assembly rejected that idea. The majority of Members voted against the boundaries commission.

Then what happened? I think it was five or six, I am not sure of the number, there were individuals in Yellowknife. They formed a group, they are now called, Friends of Democracy. They challenged this government, they challenged us in court, and the judge ruled in their favour. The judge came out, I believe it was on March 5, 1999, and said three seats in this House were unconstitutional.

Number one, the judge erred in his decision, but before I say that, I must say that I have the utmost respect for Justice de Weerdt, he is a very honourable person. He is an elder and a very honest man. That does not mean I, as an individual, an elected person, cannot disagree with his ruling. It is as simple as that. I have the right to disagree with anything, and I am doing that today. I believe that we should appeal this case because the judge erred in his ruling. When the judge came down on March 5, 1999, and made his ruling, he gave us 26 days, 26 days to settle an issue that has been negotiated for 20 years. We had 26 days of Legislature. Why did they not just cock the gun and put it to our head, that is the pressure they put on this Legislature. Twenty-six days.

Not only did they overstep their judiciary responsibility. There are three levels of government. There are three different functions that government carries out. We have the political function; that is this House, this is the Legislative Assembly. We are elected by the people to make laws, to make sure we treat people fairly, and move ahead. That is our job; making laws, government job, making policy. Then you have the administration of it, that is the government. They administer the government, they run the day-to-day affairs of the government. Then you have the justice system. They are supposed to deal with injustice, but I believe that the courts in this country, I believe that the judges in this country that are non-elected, are overstepping their boundaries. Not only overstepping their boundaries, but giving us unrealistic time frames. Twenty-six days, Mr. Speaker, we have to rectify three ridings that are unconstitutional.

The other day, Mr. Speaker, in this Assembly, I also tabled a document from a court case in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories by Chief Francois Paulette, and the court case was heard by Mr. Justice W.G. Morrow. This court case was held on April 3, 1973. The other one we are talking about today; March 5, 1999. Some people are saying there is an injustice. This Morrow case on land claims, on inherent right of aboriginal people in the western Arctic, April 3, 1973, when this man came out with his judgment, this judge, and in his conclusions, Mr. Speaker:

To sum up my conclusions under the reference:

(1) I am satisfied that those who signed the caveat are present-day descendants of those distinct Indian groups who, organized in societies and using the land as their forefathers had done for centuries, have since time immemorial used the land embraced by that caveat as theirs.

(2) I am satisfied that those same indigenous people as mentioned in (1) above are prima facie owners of the land covered by the caveat -- that they have what is known as aboriginal rights.

(3) That there exists a clear constitutional obligation on the part of the Canadian government to protect the legal rights of the indigenous peoples in the area covered by the caveat.

(4) That notwithstanding the language of the two treaties there is significant doubt on the facts that aboriginal title was extinguished that such claim for title should be permitted to be put forward by the caveators.

(5) That the above purported claim for aboriginal rights constitutes an interest in land which can be protected by caveat under the Land Titles Act.

This is a court decision from 1973. What has happened with this, if you compare the two, Mr. Speaker. There are moves now, immediately, to fix this injustice, but how about this injustice from the Morrow case? Where are the moves by this government to fix this injustice? The two go hand in hand. This one has been outstanding for 26 years. It is not addressed yet, it has not been addressed today. People I represent, the South Slave Metis, Treaty 8 Tribal Council, are still negotiating land claims today. They are still negotiating self-government today, but they are willing, they are very willing, to sit down and work with all people in the Northwest Territories to ensure that we as a people create a government that represents all the people and treats all the people fairly.

Also, in Justice de Weerdt's decision, he gives us 26 days to remedy the situation, but if you go to another document I tabled the other day in this Legislative Assembly, MacKinnon and Government of Prince Edward Island versus Charlottetown as the respondent, the judge goes on to say in here:

To establish a deadline beyond which the legislation will not be "in place" would be to require that the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly agree on a course of action. I consider it quite beyond the inherent power of the court to compel agreement. In any case, to do so would be to effectively legislate. That must also be beyond the remedial powers that are reposed in the court.

So I conclude that the establishment of a deadline would be in direct violation of the rights and obligations of the members of the Legislative Assembly, would threaten the violation of the right of the people of British Columbia to the existence of Legislative Assembly, and would threaten the violation of the right of citizens of Canada to vote for members of a Legislative Assembly, to say nothing of eradicating the right to vote, whether equal or not.

I think it must be left to the legislature to do what is right in its own time.

That is from another court case in this country. Mr. Speaker, we have tabled many documents in this Legislative Assembly. Some of them are quite interesting. Some of them are quite ridiculous. The other day I tabled one to the Territorial Minister of Justice from Friends of Democracy; it is from their lawyer, Brian J. Wallace:

Unless you can satisfy me that passage of Bill 15 before April 1st is a practical impossibility as we were previously advised, then I am instructed to withdraw our agreement to an extension of time for the suspension of Mr. Justice de Weerdt's decision.

Friends of Democracy: you have until April 1st, they are saying to us, to rectify this decision, to rectify this great injustice that is done to the City of Yellowknife. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this Legislative Assembly, this is the 12th year that I have come here. I have represented the smallest riding in the western Arctic for the past 12 years. I have worked in this government in many different capacities. I think I do understand a bit about constitutional development. I do understand a bit about political development.

I have said this story many times, but I will repeat it one more time. I can remember when I was in Fort Resolution, living in Fort Resolution, the clerk at the sawmill said to me, mad because we as aboriginal people wanted to take over our community council, we wanted to represent ourselves on our community council, and he is mad because he is a clerk, a transient in my community. That is who the council was run by, the Hudson Bay managers, the RCMP, the nurses, all transient, in and out every couple of years, and he said to me, and they used to call us all Indians in those days,"You Indians will never be able to run this town. You Indians are not capable of picking up the garbage, sewer or delivering the water." Well, he is no longer there. Our people are picking up the garbage, we are picking up the sewer, we are delivering the water, we are maintaining our own buildings, we are running our own governments at the community level. We are capable, able and willing to do that and it is better for the people that we represent.

Mr. Antoine today, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, in his Minister's statement, western boundary issue, fourth paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

Given the unique opportunities that we have, it is unfortunate that we have become sidetracked in the divisive debate over electoral boundaries. This debate has the potential of setting back everything we have been trying to build for the last 30 years, derailing the hard work of trying to frame joint priorities and to assert our independence from DIAND's rule. Not one northern group can win at this debate, but we can all lose.

Well, Mr. Antoine, Mr. Premier, I do agree with you 100 percent. There is no win for anyone in the Northwest Territories if we increase this Legislature to five more seats at this time. Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say:

We as elected representatives have a responsibility to find a solution to this very difficult divisive issue. I appeal to you, my honourable colleagues, and to all parties in this debate to reach out for a solution that will bring us together.

That I support 100 percent. We should be reaching out for solutions, increasing the Members in this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, will not be a solution. We are going to send a clear message to our aboriginal partners, the aboriginal governments that we have our hand out to them, to work in partnership, to work on an equal basis as long as we can do this behind their back. That is what it boils down to, Mr. Speaker. When you talk to aboriginal governments, or aboriginal people you should do it straight up. Everybody understands what increasing the number of seats in Yellowknife will mean. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You have to look in this House and count the numbers.

We are committed and I am committed, Mr. Speaker, to build a new constitution for the western Arctic. I am totally committed to working with the people in Yellowknife, Hay River and Inuvik and all of our communities on building a government for the western Arctic that will truly represent all of our people, but you do not do that by jamming down their throats an additional five seats. We have every right to appeal. If anybody goes to court in this land and you do not agree with the decision the judge makes, you have a right to appeal. You can line up 20 lawyers and every lawyer will give you a different view on the law. Guaranteed. Maybe we have not looked hard enough or long enough to find the right lawyers to represent this government. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have good compelling reasons to appeal this decision of Justice de Weerdt.

That is one thing it will do, it will give us time to come to a political solution. I for one, do not want to waste my money in court. I do not want to spend the public purse in court, but was it us who put us there? No it was not. It was Friends of Democracy that put us there. It was Friends of Democracy that initiated this issue. We were willing to come to a political solution. We were willing to sit down with the aboriginal governments and create a government in the new Western Territory that would work for all. That is what we should be committed to. That is what we should be going out and doing, but to side track it, shortcut it and increase the Members in the Legislative Assembly, we would be doing a disaster.

This morning I heard at the meeting of all of the chiefs, the Grand Chief, Mr. Bill Erasmus, and the common theme trust. Trust, trust, trust or a lack of trust. If you want trust you will appeal this case. If you want to build a new government for the western Arctic, a government that truly represents all the people. You will vote in favour of this motion. You will, if you want to keep the name ultimately of Northwest Territories, vote against the motion.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Mr. Morin, your time is up. Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.

David Krutko

David Krutko Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of this motion I feel that in time when we look at how many years it has taken us to get to where we are, I think people have to realize just going back four and a half years, before most of the Members ended up in this House, was the first time that all 34 communities in the western Northwest Territories had the opportunity to sit down in one room and talk about the constitution for the new Western Territory. I am talking about the first constitutional conference that was held here in Yellowknife, which a lot of Members here took part in. I think that out of that conference was the first time we had the opportunity to look at some events that happened in the new Western Territory regarding the Iqaluit agreement, the Bourque Commission report and through the discussions between the aboriginal communities, people from non-aboriginal communities and all people in general, we were able to have an opportunity to put the issues on the table and understand where each of us was coming from. Through that dialogue and through those discussions people were able to get a better understanding of where the aboriginal communities were coming from, and the people in the larger centres where their aspirations were also.

As part of that constitutional conference, there were 22 recommendations which came out of that conference that clearly identified how the groups were going to work together. This was only four and a half years ago. I think people do not realize that was the first opportunity for all the people in the Western Territory to talk about this issue. Since then, we have not had another constitutional conference, we are in the process of considering, discussing the possibility of having another conference and talk about where we are today with the new political aspirations that are happening in the west such as the self-government arrangements, consideration of the Northern Accord, the Political Accord, the aspirations of people in this territory.

I think because of the lack of time and the opportunity that we did not give the residents of the new Western Territories, it is where we find ourselves today. I think it is important as residents of the new Western Territory, that we do take the time. We need that time to sit down and discuss exactly where all 34 communities in the Western Territory see this government going after division. People say we had no interest in the constitutional process, it is dead, it will never come back again, but I think as members on the Constitutional Steering Committee, and people in the Western Territory we did not feel that the time was appropriate. We needed to seriously take the time regardless if it happened after April 1, 1999, or the year 2005, we will have that opportunity to discuss it and take our time and come to an arrangement that we can all live with.

Mr. Speaker, we did not allow ourselves to take that next step. I think it is important as Members of this House we allow ourselves that time. I also feel that 26 days is not appropriate for anyone, government or an individual Canadian citizen, to develop a case of an appeal of such magnitude in that short time frame. I strongly recommend to my colleagues to support this initiative to ensure that as a government we are able to sit down and have dialogue and resolve this issue by discussion. Not by force, not by decision by a court. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this issue is clearly far more than numbers. This is a very significant political issue. It is based, on a large part, on a perception of communities outside of Yellowknife. The perception that for the last 32 years have evolved, where we have all witnessed an almost constant growth in our capital while most of our communities have struggled to, in fact, maintain their levels of service and even to just exist. It is seen as a grab for more political power by the centre when after 100 years, the aboriginal people are still struggling for their rightful place in Canada and in the north. When you combine this history with some of the more symbolic, smaller but equally important things, it makes you wonder. The Friends of Democracy come out with a button. What is it? It is a great big white button with a little red flag on it. I am not sure what the message was but to the people I talked to, I think it was a very serious symbolic cause of concern. Combine that with references by at least one of the members of this group, to ethnic cleansing and add that fact that they are trying to block an extension of time, trying to force this Legislature to either make a decision or cease to function.

It seems to me the people outside of Yellowknife are worried. They are worried because of history, they are worried because of what has happened around this to this date. All parties say we need a political solution, but a political solution requires time. I agree with what my colleague from Tu Nedhe has said. It is not reasonable to expect something of this nature and complexity to be resolved in 26 days. My colleague from the Sahtu who normally flits in and out of meetings like a hummingbird, came up with a fine suggestion that we should lock ourselves away for three days or however many days it takes, the leadership here and the leadership of the Aboriginal Summit to talk this through, to come to a solution. I think that is the kind of step that is going to be required here.

I agree that the judgement, in my opinion, was fundamentally flawed. I do not think the court by requiring unreasonable, totally unreasonable time frames, and then say they are going to bring a government to its knees, can do that to a duly-elected Legislature of this land.

There is no reasonable amount of time, Mr. Speaker. This alone, to me is a basis for appeal. The appeal would also be a political investment. We have talked from day one about partnerships, working with the aboriginal governments, to deal with revenue-sharing, royalties, moving ahead on a constitution. Yet, on this particular issue, where they have tried to work with us, we have consistently ignored the position that they have taken. Not only have we consistently ignored it in this case, we are coming up not with a minimum that would be required to meet the judgement of Judge de Weerdt, but the maximum, 19 seats.

Mr. Speaker, it is understandable in my mind, of the concern and the frustration and the anger of the aboriginal leaders. What exactly is going on? How serious are we about moving ahead with them when on this particular fundamental issue, we have ignored them.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit here debating this motion and later the second reading for a bill for 19 seats, we have to keep in mind the need to resolve this issue. That requires time. In this Assembly we have talked the talk for a long time about wanting to work in partnership with the aboriginal governments. We have the opportunity to appeal, I believe there are grounds to appeal. Now, that we have talked the talk, I think we should walk the walk, appeal this, let the courts say if they are going to give us a stay or not, but in the very least, we will have had the courage of our convictions to say that we have tried to work this out.

If, in fact, a government of this land can be brought down on the basis of this judgement, then I would say as a Northwest Territories, we are in very big trouble. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

Vince Steen

Vince Steen Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to support this motion, I have also been asked to oppose the motion. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to make my decision based on a number of facts here that I feel are relevant to the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been under an impression for awhile, ever since the court case, that this government really does not have grounds for an appeal. Therefore, I could not support a motion to appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I look at who took part in the court case, the Friends of Democracy and the Aboriginal Summit. I note that the Aboriginal Summit did not consist at that time of any Inuvialuit group, namely the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to represent the Inuvialuit Corporation here, but I represent the 95 percent of my population in my riding that is Inuvialuit. Therefore, I must take into consideration what did the Inuvialuit do in this particular situation. What part did they take part in, if at all, in the issue? Since they did not take part as intervenors in the court case, it can be assumed that they will not take part in the appeal, so I do not feel pressured that my original group would be affected strongly by whether an appeal goes forward or not.

I have not been receiving any indication from my riding to either appeal or not to appeal, therefore I look at it that I do not have justification to prevent an appeal. I am under no pressure to prevent an appeal, if it will, in fact, benefit the aboriginal group to appeal, then it stands to reason that it will benefit my riding as well. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what I intend to do is let the votes decide the issue. If there is a number of votes in favour and the motion passes, then there is going to be an appeal. If the motion does not have the support, it is not going to be because I am not passing my support on. I intend to abstain, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

--Applause

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the motion. Mr. Erasmus.

Roy Erasmus Yellowknife North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I have had a very difficult time dealing with this issue. Last night we had a little gathering at my house to welcome my brother, George back to the north. It was a good time to have everybody around. Nobody talked about this issue. No pressure was put on me, but, Mr. Speaker, people say that things happen for a reason. I sat there and I looked at my family, at my brother who has been working for aboriginal rights for all of his adult life and I realized I had to do what was right and not what would probably be best for me.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is more than about seats for Yellowknife. It is more than about seats for Inuvik and Hay River. It is about how rights are interpreted, our aboriginal rights, treaty rights are interpreted. I am very disturbed that the Cabinet has decided not to discuss this issue, not to vote. This is a very, very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I am an MLA, I am also a northerner. I was born and raised in Yellowknife. At the same time I am still a lawyer, I pay my dues every year as a non-practicing lawyer. I have read this case. Justice de Weerdt has said he remains unpersuaded that section 3 of the Charter is in any sense to be understood as qualified by section 25 of the Charter or section 35 of the Constitution Act. It is entirely unacceptable that such a fundamental right of citizenship is not recognized and guaranteed in section 3 of the Charter, should be held in suspense and thus be withheld during government negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a 50 page document that I wrote, researched specifically on the Charter. There are many cases and professors' works that are cited here, Supreme Court cases, Court of Appeal cases. This was written in 1990. Case law has developed even further making those rights even stronger. What the law says is that section 25 shields aboriginal and community rights from guarantees in the Charter from section 3. Section 25 does not deprive anyone's rights, it simply shields collective rights from individual rights. Mr. Speaker, I know that some people will see this as a vote against Yellowknife, but this goes well beyond seats for Yellowknife. It is all about how aboriginal and treaty rights are interpreted.

The Supreme Court of Canada says that you have to read the Charter as a whole, not clause by clause. We cannot allow Justice de Weerdt's ruling that section 3 not be qualified by section 25 to stand. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada says that you must read section 3 in light of section 25. I cannot stand by to allow future issues to be resolved on the basis that section 3 rights are super rights that prevail over section 25. Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of getting a second opinion from a higher court on important legal issues. We need to know what the rights are in both instances. Both instances, we cannot deprive people of their right to vote, however, we also have to look at aboriginal rights properly; how they are interpreted. We do that by looking at section 3, section 25 and section 35 together. That is how you find out what those rights are. That is why we have to appeal, not because of who is going to get seats and who will not get seats, but to ensure that rights are interpreted properly.

Incidentally, if Friends of Democracy are so sure that their decision is right, they should welcome an appeal because it will simply verify that they are right and that the intervenors are wrong. If they are correct. Mr. Speaker, so what is the effect of the appeal? In my view, it will clarify the rights of both the aboriginal people as well as the individual right to vote. It will help to ensure that rights are properly interpreted in the future. The worst that will happen is a delay. I have been hearing here that we need more time. Any way you look at it we do need a delay. Things are too rushed. We cannot even split Yellowknife properly, Mr. Speaker. We are going to seven seats in Yellowknife. We cannot split it properly because of the way Elections Canada enumerated it. Yellowknife North would now include a new area in the downtown of Yellowknife. Yellowknife North cannot be kept as a whole even though we have enough people in there for two constituencies almost. That is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, additionally this government has a duty to consult with the people in the NWT when they are redrawing boundaries. With the aboriginal people, they have an aboriginal right that is constitutionally protected that says they must be consulted. The April 1st deadline does not allow that. It does not allow time for public hearings. Once this bill goes into committee, the committee cannot deal with it properly in such a short time frame. I would submit that even this short time frame alone suggests a need to appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I will be running again in the next election and I am sure some people who intend to run against me will be happy because of the way I am voting. They will think it will hurt my chances of re-election. It probably will hurt me. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected on November 17, 1995, I swore an Oath of Office - I, Roy Erasmus, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trust reposed in me as a Member of the Northwest Territories council.

Trust reposed in me, Mr. Speaker, that means my constituents trust me to do what is right, all of my constituents. That means I have to put my personal ambitions aside to do what is right for my constituents. I have a great deal of aboriginal people in Yellowknife North and, in the western NWT about half of them are aboriginal and in the current NWT there is even more. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that all of those peoples' rights are interpreted properly. Just as it is important for other non-aboriginal peoples' rights to be interpreted properly. I cannot, in good conscience allow this decision to stand. If it means that people will hold it against me, if it means that people vote me out, so be it.

A little over three years ago when I was campaigning I said when a difficult issue came up, I would look at both sides of the issue and I would do what I think is right. I did not say I would do what is good for Roy Erasmus. Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this issue, I have reread my 50 page document that I wrote several years ago. I have looked at my oath and I have to vote in favour of this motion. I have to vote to ensure that the rights of the people, all of the people of the Northwest Territories are interpreted properly. Thank you.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the motion. Mr. Antoine.

Jim Antoine Nahendeh

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise Members that Cabinet will abstain from voting on the honourable Member from Tu Nedhe, Mr. Morin's motion. I would like, however, to raise a couple of points for information of Members. Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen not to appeal the court's decision because the government has no basis to appeal on the merit of the judgement. However, we have concerns over the time frames.

We do not believe that the Northwest Territories benefits, that the courts should be deciding our constitutional future. We need to find a political solution involving all our leaders and hope to have a strong, unified territory shared by residents of the Northwest Territories. The debate has taken place over the last few months. It is not only about electoral boundaries. We believe the time that would be required for an appeal would be better spent trying to resolve the larger issues of shaping a new, strong Western Territory that reflects all our interests. Mr. Speaker, this is not to say that we would not support the rights of other parties to appeal the merits of the court decision. Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we would support the right of parties to appeal the decision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the course of action that we are proposing does not preclude a future appeal by the parties if in the end that is considered necessary or appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my statement earlier today, we believe the limited time frame set out in a court decision is an impediment in finding a western solution to the constitutional issue. The government is taking the necessary step to ask the courts to extend the April 1st deadline. We are committed to using the extension, if it is granted, to work with the western leaders to find a solution. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very difficult situation we find ourselves in. There are some decisions that we are called upon to make, as leaders, which, as Mr. Erasmus said, supersede and surpass any personal community or regional ambition. Each one of us, I hope, will do what they truly believe is the right thing. A motion has been introduced to ask the government to appeal the decision of Justice de Weerdt regarding the representation of northerners in our public government. The judge has ruled, and a court order has resulted, making it incumbent upon us to address an issue of fair representation of constituents in some ridings. This ruling, as it has already been mentioned, was made by a very learned northern justice with many years of experience and knowledge of the north and its people.

Fair representation in our public government is a constitutional right of every citizen in this country under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike my colleague from Yellowknife North, I am not a lawyer and I do not claim to understand all of the issues with regard to that Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As leaders, we are confronted with the proposition that by upholding the right of fair representation to one area, that we will be infringing on the rights of another community of northerners. That this ruling negatively impacts treaty and the inherent right of self-government by aboriginal First Nations is the argument that is made. It is an argument that was put forward to the courts before this decision was made.

This government, to my understanding, in fact, has little effect on the treaties which are currently being negotiated. These are treaties with the federal government, and apart from acting in a support role, it has always been my understanding that this government has little say in the outcome of these negotiations. Thankfully, as of late, there has been some significant progress in a number of these tables over the recent months, and this is very encouraging to everyone. The motion before us today is asking this government to appeal the ruling of the court. I am not sure what new arguments could be brought to the table, but if there are any, I am hopeful and believe that they can be very capably brought forward by the aboriginal intervenors and their legal counsel. This government has rightly offered to support that process, and I also support that move by our government.

In the meantime, we have been advised that we, as a government, do not have any grounds to appeal this ruling. For that reason, it is important to act, what I consider to be responsibly, and to somehow respond to this court's ruling. To that end, legislation has been drafted and has received first reading in this House that would address the issues of representation in the ridings deemed to be unconstitutional because of under-representation.

Mr. Speaker, personally the status quo worked for me. As I already said, this is not about me, it is not about my riding. It is about the rights of constituents to be fairly represented. I supported the stand that 14 Members were sufficient after the boundaries commission, and when it was a political decision, that was the decision of this House. But now, it has become a legal question and yes, as Mr. Morin said, we do have a gun to our heads because it is a legal question. In some ways, I feel that we are partly responsible for that pressure because myself, along with other members of this House, voted against essentially, the recommendation of the boundaries commission and stayed with 14 Members even though we knew, at the time, from our legal advice, that this decision would probably not withstand a court challenge. A court challenge came and, in fact, it would appear that, for now it was successful.

I also want to say that Friends of Democracy had the right to appeal to the courts as any citizen in this country has. The court agreed with them and now we, as a government, are forced to respond to that ruling. The real solution to this question could and should have been addressed through political and constitutional channels. In spite of 20 years of dialogue on constitutional development in the west, the process was stalled mostly, I feel, by the lack of progress, of self-government and land claim discussions between aboriginal groups and Ottawa. I think we do have to put some responsibility on the federal government for that lack of progress. Now, as I said, we are seeing progress on that front and this will hopefully assist in arriving at things in the west such as political and economic accords. In the meantime, I feel confident that these representation issues could be addressed for now by complying with the judge's ruling and the subsequent appeal by the aboriginal summit.

When you look at the history of the electoral boundaries, there is really nothing sacred about the existing boundaries. Since the eighth council, which started in March, 1975, the only two assemblies which shared the same electoral boundaries during that whole period of time in 24 years were the 12th and 13th Assemblies. All the rest, there were variations in the boundaries and in the name of the ridings and so on. I try to look at the fibre of people, what they stand for, what virtues they possess such as integrity and fairness. When I look at our northern leaders in and outside of this House, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, for the most part, I am very reassured by what I see. As indicated by Premier Antoine today, let us not throw away the trust and respect that we have achieved by falling prey to the temptation to substitute rhetoric for reason.

What makes us different from each other is so little compared to what we share in common as northerners. I truly believe that all the Members of this House effectively and honourably represent their constituencies with fairness. Those constituencies, including mine, are made up of aboriginal and non-aboriginal constituents. We are all here for the long haul, so it behooves us to live well together, rural and urban, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. Although, I cannot support the appeal of the court's ruling, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I do support the appeal by the Aboriginal Summit, and I will continue to support the ongoing dialogue on all issues facing our territory and will do so in the spirit of, as our prayer says, bringing peace and justice to our land. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Henry.

Seamus Henry Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will also add a little history to this particular topic. Mr. Speaker, Members of this House ordered the formation of an electoral boundaries commission. This commission was made up by Ms. Schuler, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Ms. Kuptana, an active community leader from Tuktoyaktuk, and Mr. Nick Sibbeston, a former government leader of this House, Mr. Speaker. The report presented to this House recommended that two new seats be added to this Legislature, and it happened that they were in Yellowknife. That report was rejected by this House. A result of our inability to deal with this report fairly spurred the creation of a group calling themselves Friends of Democracy. Mr. Speaker, this group launched an appeal of the decision of this Legislative Assembly in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The result of that appeal in the Supreme Court had Mr. Justice Mark de Weerdt render his decision that three seats of this Legislature do not have adequate representation. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the motion of the Member from Tu Nedhe as I firmly believe that one of the basic principals of democracy, which is guaranteed to each and every person living in Canada, has a right to be represented fairly in their Legislature. The passage of Bill 15 will ensure that. It has been pointed out that some aboriginal leaders are opposed to this report.

At this time, I would like to recognize those aboriginal leaders who, I believe, have had the foresight and the ability to look at the big picture and have been able to embrace the democratic right of equal representation to all citizens of the Northwest Territories. Those leaders, for example, Mr. Speaker, are a former leader of this government, Mr. Richard Nerysoo, the chief of the Yellowknife Band, Mr. Jonas Sangris, my colleague, Mr. Steen, my colleague Mr. Kakfwi. These are some of the leaders who I listen to. They are not scared of democracy. They are not scared of all people in the NWT having an equal voice in their legislature.

We are asked to vote on fairness. As an example, Mr. Speaker, when the Member from Tu Nedhe takes the position for the people he represents in this Legislature, he votes accordingly. Each of his constituents represents approximately nine to one of my constituency. Is that fair representation? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. What has been proposed to correct this fairness? The introduction of Bill 15 has been the response of this government to correct the unfairness. When Bill 15 passes, the residents of Tu Nedhe will still be well represented in this House, as will the residents of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and indeed all residents of the Northwest Territories. Residents of our new territory will then be receiving fair representation as entitled and due under the constitution of our country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

To the motion. Mr. Ootes.

Jake Ootes

Jake Ootes Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments will be brief. I think the subject has been discussed thoroughly in this chamber, as well as outside this chamber in our committee meetings. It is an issue that is difficult. It is very, very difficult for many Members to address because it does affect the territories in many ways. I had the opportunity to sit through the court case, Mr. Speaker, and to listen to many of the presentations and the arguments in respect to the charter.

First of all, in regard to the court case, I would like to state that we had a judge who was very, very knowledgeable with regard to northern issues. He has served in the Northwest Territories for many years, some 20,30 years. I do believe he understands the issues here in the north. I do believe in the court case he did hear about all the issues, and he asked those representing the territorial government and the Aboriginal Summit for more information so that he could make a just ruling. He continually impressed upon those representatives to bring that forward. He dealt with extensive submissions by the lawyers, both the NWT and the intervenors, and he reviewed piles and piles of documents.

Now coming to my situation, Mr. Speaker, I have had and been part of the review and the submissions and comments whereby we ask the government's lawyers about a possibility of an appeal. My interpretation was that there is no basis for an appeal by this government. For that reason, I will be voting against the motion. I hope, Mr. Speaker, whichever way this goes and I am sure of all our Members' good intent here, that we will continue our dialogue between all of us so that we move on after this matter is settled, in whatever way it is settled, for the future of all our people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Samuel Gargan

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Rabesca.