To the motion. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the mover and the seconder for providing an opportunity to debate this important point. With that said, Members of Cabinet will be voting against this motion and we take this position for a number of quite practical reasons.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, keeping with the spirit of intent of settled land claims and self-government agreements, as well as ongoing negotiations, the GNWT has chosen to work in partnership with aboriginal leaders to pursue expanded jurisdiction over land, water and resources in the Northwest Territories through devolution negotiations. We've worked hard to achieve consensus with our partners at the table and the recent signing of the devolution framework agreement is a signal of some significant progress being made in our negotiations. We believe that the current devolution negotiations provide the best opportunity for gaining greater control over land and resources in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, historical precedence demonstrates that attaining provincehood does not guarantee control over land resources or resource revenues. Manitoba became a province in 1870 and they didn't get control over their land resources until the 1930s. Saskatchewan and Manitoba were created in 1905. They didn't get control over land and resources until the 1930s, well after they were established. So going to provincehood doesn't automatically give you control over land resources and resource revenue.

Second, there is significant fiscal uncertainty in pursuing the provincehood option. As a province, we would be subject to existing equalization payments. Equalization payments are based not on population, but on revenue-raising capacity and do not take into account the cost of providing government services and programs. The

formula financing arrangements, as much as we don't like it and find weakness with it, does consider the higher cost of providing programs and services in the Northwest Territories and it provides an expenditure base that gives us more money on a per capita basis than we would likely receive through equalization. It gives us considerably more, probably three times as much as we would get if we were to become a province that would be on equalization.

Then, Mr. Speaker, as well, attaining provincial status for the Northwest Territories would require an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Under the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act of 1982, this would require the consent of Parliament and Senate, as well as two-thirds of the provinces that together have at least 50 percent of the population of all of the provinces. Securing the consent that would likely be necessary to create a new province of the Northwest Territories would probably prove to be impossible.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, Cabinet doesn't feel that this is the time to change courses and give up our working partnership with aboriginal governments and go on our own and start lobbying for provincehood. It doesn't give us what some people may think it would give us and, secondly, and most important in my view, is that we have set a course with the aboriginal governments and we want to continue to work that way until it's proven that seeking devolution and resource revenue sharing as a territory just is not getting us where we want to be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll be speaking in favour of the motion. I think what my honourable colleague, Mr. Allen, brought forward is an ambitious idea that probably has been dreamt about for many years, since the origin of the Northwest Territories, which goes back several hundreds of years. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe nothing ventured, nothing gained. I think this is an opportunity to fully get this discussion on the table. It may not be realized by Canada through fruition, yet if we don't ask the question they can't say no. So by moving forward with this motion, at least we can deal with the question openly and honestly.

So this is truly, as I see it, the first step towards us taking control, taking management of our territory, versus a bureaucracy or a department managing the Northwest Territories for us. Mr. Speaker, some may say the impacts of us stepping forward as a province would be detrimental. I have to say from my position of being very new to the concept of us stepping forward to become a province, I can't give you all the answers here today. What I can say is there are provinces out there like Newfoundland. Newfoundland moved forward, they created an Atlantic Accord, they can have control and work with other organizations over their resources. There are other organizations...Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty. If you could...

To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya bringing this topic to the floor of this Assembly. I think they've done a service for us in the 15th Assembly at this fairly early stage. There are some points that I would like to make, but I should preface first of all by saying that as much as I see this as a necessary and a fascinating part of our work here, I will not be speaking in favour of this particular motion. But I'm certainly interested in the topic and I'd like to address some parts of that.

Mr. Allen in his motion really hit the nail on the head when he indicated that we're just not getting anywhere in the devolution talks. In the 14th Assembly I was a Member here just starting out and I was very encouraged at the time to hear then Northern Affairs Minister Robert Nault say that we're going to engage in a process that would see a meaningful relationship through the aboriginal governments, as well as the territorial and federal government, to share in the wealth that we have in our resources. But equally, and, I think, more importantly, to share in the management and the pace and style of how resources are going to be developed.

Well, that was four years ago, a few million dollars out of the federal government's pocket and a substantial sum out of ours, too, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know that we really have any more on the table for a devolution deal other than I think a framework document that was released late last year. Not much traffic, Mr. Speaker, toward some kind of a program and progress for the Northwest Territories.

So this is a point that I've been looking at and wondering, that is not the only time that we've been sandbagged on this particular agenda. I guess I'm very resigned, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the federal government has now essentially found a way on about a four or five-year cycle to keep knocking the devolution agenda off the table. We're not going to get anywhere with Ottawa. I really have very little faith in it. We need to find a way, Mr. Speaker, of breaking that cycle of ignorance and avoidance on the part of Ottawa. Somehow I would really like to find a way to get a message into the highest political levels and policy levels -- not just to the government of the day, but all the political parties of Canada who make these kind of decisions -- that it really is time to end this colonialist approach to managing the part of Canada that's above the 60th parallel. It really is time to get away from what I call the benevolent tyranny of the Northern Affairs shop that is very good at sandbagging and keeping us off balance.

---Applause

Hear, hear. Now, the Premier indicated one of the barriers that's against us is in the 1982 deal that says two-thirds of the provinces representing half of the population of Canada have to approve of anything that would look like provincial-like powers for a territory. That in itself is going to be very, very difficult. I guess I see the Northwest Territories of the future, Mr. Speaker, as a place that has somehow achieved the balance and the accords between a public government in this institution and those of the self-governments that the First Nations want to achieve and, indeed, are making significant progress. I also see, Mr. Speaker, an equal place at this table of this federation or alliance, whatever it's going to be, for the communities, for the larger communities that aren't covered or captured in the self-government and land claim areas. That's part of what we're going to look like in the long-term future, Mr. Speaker, from my point of view.

Then we have to look at what this relationship is going to be like with Ottawa. I see it as one that is going to be more autonomous than we have now. It is one, though, that we have somehow wriggled out from under the rock

that Northern Affairs is keeping us under, and we have much more direct-line relationships with the departments in Ottawa. In other words, if we want to do something with our highways or our airports here, we don't have to see if the Minister of Northern Affairs will hold our hand and walk across the block to visit the Minister of Transportation for Canada. That's what's holding us back now. Then these two Ministers can say, well, it's your job, no, it's your job. They pat us on the head and send us home again. Nothing happens. We have to get around this, what I call, barrier that the Northern Affairs program has created and wants to continue for the Northwest Territories.

So I see a special relationship, not a provincial-type relationship. I think the Premier again has outlined some of the big hurdles that we would have to overcome there. Because of our size as a population and economic area, I think it would be in our best interests to maintain a particularly different relationship with Ottawa from the point of view of our financing, our assistance. But if we don't pursue or continue to press for something like that, we're never going to succeed, we're never going to really reach the levels of autonomy and self-destiny that we should be going for.

Right now, we have a big safety net there. The Government of Canada isn't going to let us fail, really. But with the environment that we have now we are not going to be able to succeed. I think that is what we should be trying to do.

I would concur, Mr. Speaker, with I think a couple of comments that have already been made here that this is such a big idea, it is a worthwhile idea, but it is one that needs to be tested very thoroughly with our other partners, with the bigger, broader population of the Northwest Territories. I guess this is principally why I cannot support this motion at this time. It is really something that I would like to see an assembly coming in with a very strong mandate from the electorate, from the leadership of the First Nations and communities, that says yes, go, get this done. Because without that kind of strong signal, we are not going to have a very strong support to take to Ottawa and to the rest of the country for the kind of support we're going to need.

I hope that this discussion can continue and will continue outside of this assembly. I hope that maybe we'll hear some of this kind of discussion at the First Nations assemblies that happen every summer, and around municipal tables and those kinds of places. That is really where the support and idea to get behind this will grow. Perhaps, just perhaps, we can see something placed in front of the entire electorate of the NWT in the way of a referendum. Perhaps even in time for the election of the 16th Assembly in another three and a half years or so. That may be one way of putting this question out there and seeing what the appetite is and getting a sense of the strength and the way we should be approaching this.

Again, I would like to compliment Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this forward. I hope it's not the last of this kind of discussion that we have here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. To the motion here is that my constituents didn't indicate any interest in supporting a motion like this and for me I'm not going to be supporting this motion. There are a couple things that are kind of leading me in this direction that are contrary right now to the aim of the claimant groups in my Nahendeh riding. As well, I believe that we are also asking the wrong question with this motion. It's kind of like what has been happening back home with the change of village to hamlet status. People are saying let's do this change, but the proper information is not available for the people to make an informed decision. I believe something of this nature is well worth reviewing. People should know about it and must know about it, because what's going to happen is we're going to have to waste a lot of time and resources and energy from our government to pursue this, much like a simple thing like the name change that happened at the last Assembly which used up lots of resources and money and it really didn't get anywhere.

I don't want to use the resources that our government has pursuing this right now because, as I said, I believe that we asked the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking if there is a better way to facilitate how our government has relations with the federal government. In that respect, it's 2004 right now and, yes, we have people in Ottawa who are still suffering from what I like to call colonial hang over. We're still subjects of the Crown and they're still treating us that way. Yes, it's time to change that.

Some of the ways are to look at that relationship. We're technically a department of the Department of Indian and Northern Development and that has to change. That's something that our government should be charged with.

I believe that this motion is not going to address that adequately. With that, I'd like to thank Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this motion. Mahsi cho.

To the motion. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly happy that this issue has hit the floor of the House and I want to thank Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing it forward. It's amazing to me when as soon as this topic came up how Members are defending the system that we have with Ottawa right now. For four years I've been hearing about how terrible the arrangement that we have with Ottawa right now as to bettering our financial position and being able to have some control over our resources. Now that we're bringing up a situation where there's the possibility or notion that we should press the federal government to get provincehood to address those very issues, now we're saying how great the situation that we have with Ottawa is and how much better off we are than we would be if we had provincehood.

I am more confused by that than I am afraid of this motion that's before the House. The exact reasons that are being given for not pursuing this are the exact reasons why I think I should support it now. I mean, when the Premier says that one of the biggest obstacles that we would face is that two-thirds of the provinces would have to agree before we could do anything with this, tells me that there must be something good in it if they would ever oppose it. That's an argument that totally defeats the argument of not pursuing it.

For me to think that we have chosen a path to deal with Ottawa through a devolution process rather than going through provincehood, when we first started talking about devolution that I was involved four years ago I thought it

was exactly for that, to get provincehood or very close to provincehood. It would give us a better deal. It would give us more power to go and talk to Ottawa and a better share of our resources.

Yes, I understand that we're a very small province and we may not get a better share of our resources. That's a negotiated deal. Every province has done that. As a matter of fact, the provinces all want to reopen that door with Ottawa and talk about their share of resources that they have. Newfoundland and all the provinces as far as I know; none of them are happy except for maybe Alberta with the deal they have with Ottawa. But they want to reopen those negotiations. I don't think that is something that we have to shy away from.

I think it's a very interesting circumstance and a very good topic for discussion. I don't think that passing this motion here is going to guarantee us provincehood, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I do believe that there's nothing wrong with going and pursuing it with Ottawa. I don't think, for one thing, our Premier is respected to the extent that he should be when he goes to Ottawa. I don't think that our Premier is even recognized as a Premier. He's recognized as a Government House Leader still. That argument can be made, but we hear it called a Government House Leader a lot yet.

I'll tell you, I am not happy with the arrangement that we have with Ottawa right now when we answer everything to one Minister: the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. That's totally ludicrous. If we're going to take our place in the Dominion of Canada, I think we should be a province. If it takes us 100 years to get something out of being a province, we'll have started the process. If we don't start the process we may never get it. We'll continue to be lead with our hand out all the time getting a little bit here, a little bit there, with absolutely no jurisdiction to do anything, no power to do anything.

I really welcome this debate and I'm going to support this motion because I think it is a very good topic to go to Ottawa with and I think it's a good thing to pursue for the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To follow up with my colleague from Hay River's remarks. I'd like to, as well, thank Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for putting this important motion forward today so we can at least have some discussion on it on the floor of this Assembly. I know the Premier in his remarks and Mr. Braden in his remarks later on, the more you listen to those two gentlemen speak the more you look at this motion and say there are a lot of good reasons in there why we should support this motion. I'd like to thank those two gentlemen for their comments.

The Premier also talked about obstacles. I've spoken about this before in this House, that I do believe the biggest obstacle for development in the Northwest Territories is DIAND itself. I know other Members here have talked about the colonial attitude Ottawa has to the Northwest Territories, and I think that has to change. I don't know whether the Premier wants to deliver that message; by the sounds of it he doesn't want to deliver that message. But things have to change, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past 17 years we haven't gotten anywhere -- anywhere -- with devolution, or resource revenue sharing. We're standing here today talking about the same things we were talking about 17 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago. It's the same thing, nothing has changed. As well, I've mentioned on the floor of this House the fact that there's been a Liberal government in place in Ottawa the past 11 years. I know they may laugh, but we haven't gotten anywhere with the Liberal Government in Ottawa. Nowhere. You want to talk about waste? The Liberal Government felt so kindly about Mr. Peterson's job at $750,000 a year that they had to give him $1 million a year to work on this file with the Northwest Territories. Every government department has a devolution specialist, devolution advisor. You want to talk about waste? There's the waste. Let's get some coordination here. If we are going to talk about devolution and resource revenue sharing, let's do like we're doing with the pipeline group. Let's try to bring everything together. Let's try to coordinate something. I think this government falls down in its coordination for devolution and resource revenue sharing.

Sure, we're not going to be a province any time soon, but I think unless we start talking about it -- and that's what we're doing today and that's why I'm going to support this motion -- I don't think we get anywhere. I think we stand still and we don't move forward. I think having a motion like this...Again, Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya put it here for us to debate and I think it's a healthy debate and one we should have. I do support it because I think we have to send a message to Ottawa. We've been just spinning our tires the last 17 years and not getting anywhere. I'm glad to see this is here and it has my support. Thank you.

To the Motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I seek unanimous consent to finish my comments? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hawkins, are you seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion?

I don't need to? Okay.

Are you seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion. Are there any nays? There are none. You have unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank all of my honourable colleagues in this House of consensus government to allow me to finish my earlier comments. Mr. Speaker, I again will continue to speak in favour of this motion. I haven't changed while I sat down here and thought about it some more. I just want to be quick in respecting the opportunity to speak the second time to finish my statements.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe this territory, if we become a province, won't be affected by equalization because other provinces still receive equalization formulas and, therefore, we will still financially be able to be in a position

that we are in today. The point I'm making is I don't think we'll be worse off.

Mr. Speaker, the concern sometimes is about population. Well, I don't know if that discussion came up during confederation about PEI's population. They are a very low populous province and nowadays, when you have provinces like Ontario and Quebec, you have them with gigantic populations and you still have very small provinces with populations. Therefore, if population was a basic necessity to the argument, they would be taking provincehood maybe from other provinces out there. I don't think population is a good argument. I don't think it's truly the key.

In my heart I've seen, in my short experience on this world, I've seen us do land claims in other provinces. Could that happen if we were a province? Absolutely. I think we could move forward on that. In my opinion, we just need to get that question out there and force them to either decide: are you going to allow us to be a province or not? If they choose not, well, let's find a new argument to try to convince them another way.

The reality is, I can appreciate the courage of the question and I think we have to ask ourselves why this question hasn't been put forward sooner. I think we need to see what their answer is now. It reminds me of the case of someone not asking a question because they're afraid they're going to say no. If I proceeded my whole life that way, you know, some of us would probably never ask any questions.

I think we need to step forward and stop hiding behind those little excuses. They may be the right answers, those excuses. They may be the facts that are presented for us, but I want to see them in writing and I want to hear Ottawa say that to me.

Some days I often think about the discussion of Quebec. They always talk about how distinct the society is. Today if we proceed forward with this motion this will truly outline the fact that the Northwest Territories is a distinct society. How many provinces have 11 official languages? Not a single one of them. We have only New Brunswick to credit with two official languages. We are a distinct society here in the Northwest Territories. It's time we pull our chair up to the provincial table and sit as an equal, not as somebody at the little kids' table on the side with the other two territories. I'd like to see us on an equal footing with the rest of Canada.

I'd also like to reaffirm, I'd like to see our Premier's voice echoed across Canada like the rest of the Premiers. I believe my Premier needs the strength from this assembly to reaffirm that we support him and we'd like his voice heard. So I want to see that opportunity happen.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but really at the end of the day I really see the way this assembly is being held back is that we're almost like an adolescent with a trust fund. We have all these resources and opportunities and I truly see us as a have-territory, as has been echoed by our very prestigious Premier of saying we are a have-place. Until we can unlock that trust fund, until we can open the doors of that reality, the question has to be asked and maybe that day we can face and stare Ottawa down and say we dare you to blink. So today, let's move forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, thank you, honourable colleagues.

To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Those abstaining? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Item 16, motions. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS amendments to the Northwest Territories Public Service Act received assent on June 13, 2003;

AND WHEREAS section 40.2. (1) of the amended Public Service Act provides that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, shall appoint an Equal Pay Commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the duties set out in this act;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management was tasked with recruiting an Equal Pay Commissioner and has recommended an individual to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make a recommendation;

NOW WHEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Ms. Nitya Iyer be appointed as the Equal Pay Commissioner, in accordance with the Northwest Territories Public Service Act, by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories as recommended by the Legislative Assembly;

AND FURTHER, that the Speaker be authorized to communicate the effective date of appointment to the Commissioner.