David Similiak is an adviser on Nunavut issues to the Government of the North west Territories.

David Similiak: I appreciate the opportunity to be on this panel this afternoon to talk about three issues which are key to the creation of Nunavut: timing, financing, and boundaries. The joint letter signed by Dennis Patterson and Paul Quassa just reconfirmed the longstanding commitment of the GNWT to Nunavut. By setting a target date for its creation we have also committed ourselves to a lot of work to make it happen. Although I am addressing these issues separately for the sake of the panel discussion, I must stress that they all are related and cannot bc looked at alone. Each has an effect on thc olher. We have agreed to target the introduction of federal legislation to create Nunavut into Parliament no later than thc introduction of legislation to approve the eastern Arctic claim settlement.

While a date has not been identified in real terms, this gives us about two years to complete the following work: reach agreement on what Nunavut legislation will look like and the costs of creating a new territory; seek federal Cabinet approval to proceed with legislation (Cabinet approval may be subject to the successful conclusion of other activities, including a demonstration of public support for division.); reach agreement on political boundaries for the territories; reach agreement on financial arrangements for both territories; plan and conduct a plebiscite on boundaries; gain support for division and Nunavut from the northern public as well as federal and provincial politicians (this will require a well-thought-out communications and information strategy); finally, draft legislation and conduct the consultation necessary to get the bill introduced into Parliament. And all of this in two years.

Looking ahead, the Nunavut Territory Act should provide for the essential elements of government in the eastern territory. For example, it would provide for a new, elected council. Would there be a commissioner? How would the judicial branch be defined? What happens in the five-year period? One possibility is that there will be a government put in place that will participate in the administration of the new territory, the development of the authorities and infrastructure required to attain full administrative responsibilities, and the implementation of the land claims settlement. At the end of the five-year period, a new government would have full authority over all territorial programs and be responsible for their delivery. It is essential that the residents of the eastern Arctic be full participants in all levels of the new government, as well as private-sector business opportunities. In the interim period, co-operation between the eastern and western governments for the delivery of programs in Nunavut and transitional arrangements will be essential. Of course, ongoing agreements and co-operation between the two territorial governments will be necessary to deal with inter-jurisdictional issues such as wildlife management of migratory species. Indeed, it is expected that the co-operation between the two governments would extend beyond joint management issues into a good working relationship in many areas of common interest.

Turning now to financing, the GNWT pays for its activities and programs mainly through transfer payments from DIAND. The levels of funding are outlined in a formula funding agreement. We expect that the Nunavut territory will be funded through similar arrangements. Northern residents of both the East and West do not want division at the expense of existing programs or levels of service provided by the federal and territorial governments; for example, houses for new bureaucrats should not be built instead of new hospitals and schools.

We have talked about the new one-time costs of building a new government. Federal funding assistance will be necessary to pay for these expenses. From a territorial government point of view, the federal government's commitment with respect to ongoing financial funding arrangements for both the East and West are even more important. Studies have shown that division of the Territories might provide more responsible governments but would cost more in the short term. Inadequate or eroded resources resulting from higher costs without new resources to balance these costs will make it impossible to run either government and will be unfair to all territorial residents. For these reasons the GNWT feels that agreement on financial matters must be reached early in the process before the plebiscite or the introduction of legislation.

On boundary issues, there is no agreement re the land claims agreement or the division of the territories. A plebiscite must be held to ratify a political boundary before Nunavut legislation can be introduced into Parliament. The timing of the plebiscite is important to both the land claims settlement ratification and the Nunavut legislation. To date, boundary discussions have focused on the western boundary, but similar questions have remained unanswered in the East. Provincial governments have expressed interest in Hudson Strait and the offshore islands. These areas may become an issue if the Northwest Territories Act is reopened to create Nunavut and redefine geographic boundaries. As you can see, there is a lot of work to be done and a schedule of activities which must be completed before Nunavut legislation can be a reality. The timing of these activities, the certainty of financial arrangements, and the support of the people of the N.W.T. are the key elements to our success. In addition, we must meet the challenge to ensure that the residents of the eastern Arctic are prepared to fully participate in the government and economic life of Nunavut.

Carol Baker is Director of Constitutional Development and Aboriginal Affairs with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Carol Baker: Since the letter has gone to the Prime Minister, I've been asked by several people about the dates: Is it feasible? I think 1997 is very do-able if everything fits into place, if there's political will, public will, and bureaucratic will. The answer seems to be 'Yes' on all three fronts. However, going back to the 1992 date, I start to have a few queries as to whether that type of deadline is in fact feasible-certain y do-able, but I don't know if it's feasible. I feel that we've been handed a ticking time-bomb here by the other two parties saying, "Okay, here we've come up with the process-1992 is your date, so go to it." As you've heard, there are a lot of questions out there concerning what has to be in place to meet the 1992 legislative deadline. Certainly, it will cause a lot of extra work and extra hours, but it will be worthwhile to see what can be done to put that into place. The items which have to be considered in order to meet any such deadline have been well discussed already. The boundary issue would have to be settled and agreed to by northerners. Constitutional arrangements, or at least a broad concept of what they are going to be for both new territories, should be known, and by all means the funding implications for both territories should be known.

How is it going to meet public approval? I would assume that it would have to be reviewed by the N.W.T. Legislative assembly, and I would assume that they would call a plebiscite on the proposed boundary, and then, finally, the plebiscite itself territorial legislation calls for a minimum of two months before a plebiscite, so we're probably looking at late spring or early summer. So, backing up from 1992, what has to be done is a lot of fine-tuning, even on very basic elements. I guess along those same lines, and it was touched on earlier, is there going to be a public information campaign after the boundary is determined and before the plebiscite is held? That in itself could delay things a bit further and make our side of the development of legislation a little more crucial from a timing standpoint. I suppose the other question that goes with that is: Who is going to pay for that public information campaign? The federal government has already contributed about $4.5 million to the process that was mentioned earlier- the former Nunavut Constitutional Forum and Western Constitutional Forum. So it would be very difficult to add any more to that package without going back to Cabinet, and anybody who has had anything to do with Cabinet papers knows that they don't happen overnight.

Funding implications...I am sort of surprised to see in the letter that the formula funding process has been called for. I guess this would mean that the formula funding arrangements which have now been in place since 1985 in the territories have been generally well accepted in spite of some of the things that might have been said about us during the negotiation of the last one. The formula funding process is the appropriate way to go to fund a new territory. I suppose it would have to be looked at pretty carefully. The existing formula was based on well known expenditure and revenue patterns, so we weren't just starting from nothing. Whether those type of arrangements would suit a new, divided territory with two new, unknown expenditure and revenue bases is a matter of speculation and one which I guess would have to be examined pretty carefully and at a very early stage. Certainly we would have to have some idea whether the formula process could in fact be used to fund the two new territories in time for that legislation.

The current N.W.T. government depends on thc federal grant for about 75 per cent of its expenditures. In the post division stage, we imagine that the East will be far higher- maybe about 95 per cent. The western N.W.T. will certainly be lower, perhaps in the 65-per-cent range. I don't know- these are guesses, so don't quote me. As a result, there are certainly a lot of these type of patterns that would have to be examined carefully to see if in fact the formula funding process is appropriate. It will give both new territories the opportunity to show what they can do and maintain control of expenditures. The formula process, if it is applied as it is now, is given with unconditional strings attached. Ottawa does not review what it is used for, so it would certainly meet those criteria, and if the basic ones which I mentioned earlier could be answered, then that's a fine way to proceed. Some of the existing debt structure which the N.W.T. has would also have to be examined to see how it's shared out.

The costs of division-we've had several studies since 1983-84. All of these studies were deficient in one way or more-too many assumptions. For example, we don't even know where the capital is, so then the assumptions about the cost of providing the capital facilities would have to be a shoestring estimate. Gordon Robertson mentioned this morning that the dollars needed to implement Nunavut are only a small part of the national budget. This is true, but, to put the lie to a lot of people who feel that bureaucrats are dull, unimaginative, out of step with the times when it comes to spending money, I find they are very imaginative, have a lot of different client groups to serve, and can come up with some terrific arguments. So there's the battle across the centre to get that money.

How are we going to go about it? One of the first steps we have taken here is to form an ad hoc group of kcy departments and central agencies to get in on the ground floor and start working on this immediately. Hopefully, within the next two to three weeks, we'll be able to hear a presentation from TFN and the GNWT to find out exactly what has been done, and what has been going on behind the scenes on costs, constitutional development, and other issues.

Panel Discussion and Question Period

Terry Fenge [Tungavik Federation of Nunavut]: I'd like to direct a question to Mr. Baker, and I invite anyone else from the federal government to chip in with the answer. For most of the day we have been projecting ahead to 1992 and 1997. I'd like you to project ahead to the beginning of next week instead and to perhaps deal with the most immediate issue that faces us, and that's the one of the boundary to separate the TFN and Dene-Métis land claims settlement areas. Because it strikes me that how this issue is handled-literally, in the next few days and next few weeks-is going to tell us a great deal about the seriousness with which the question o f Nunavut is going to be dealt with by governments. It's no secret that there have been significant disagreements between TFN and the Dene-Métis over a period of years regarding the boundary. The federal government recently appointed a fact-finder to enquire as to the positions of both groups. That report is now in, or is just about to be submitted. I'd like, having said that, to connect back to some comments that Mr. Robertson made this morning. If there remains a disagreement between the two aboriginal parties, what will the federal government do by way of process to try and have this issue resolved so that the land selection negotiations on the TFN side can continue early in the new year, and also to maintain the momentum that we are generating here and through other meetings on political development and division?

Carol Baker: I guess the answer is that it's a political decision how the government would see fit to proceed on that basis. To my knowledge, the fact-finder's report is not in as yet. I suppose this report may provide some clues as to how government may choose to proceed, depending on what the recommendations are. I think it was mentioned earlier that the recommendations in that report may give some clues as to how best to forge those boundaries. I guess I could turn the question back and say, "Why don't we have an arbitrary settlement?" I guess I would turn the question back and say, "What are the implications of having a decision of that type?" I don't think that in history there have been too many cases of a boundary that's been drawn unilaterally being very acceptable.

 Murray Coolican: My question is addressed to all panel members. What level of detail would be required in terms of the financial arrangements before the next step is taken? It seems that TFN and the GNWT, from theirletter, indicate that a commitment from the federal government to maintain the current level of services and the current and equitable arrangement on capital expenditures in both territories after division would be enough to go to the next stage-which I assume would be to continue the process and move to legislation. Is that a correct interpretation of the GNWT and TFN position? Is the federal government prepared to respond to that request in the very near future?

Carol Baker: I guess from the federal standpoint I've already touched on some of the things that we would like to see. We've got the various studies that have been carried out. I think perhaps the first thing that has to be done is to look at those, update them, see what elements are still usable, and project to current figures. Going to the northern side of it, let the N.W.T. speak to this to some greater extent, but my understanding is that the operational side is pretty well broken out already, and the costs of operating in the Nunavut regions would be fairly well known. Where the problem becomes somewhat more hazy is what happens at headquarters. You can't just simply break out departments of education, for instance, and say "Half goes there and half goes there", or whatever the pro ratio would be. I would be interested in learning from the N.W.T. side to what extent that type of background work has been done

David Similiak: In terms of the level of funding, our position has always been that the level of services would have to remain the same or else be improved. Somebody mentioned earlier that they haven't even decided where the capital would be. So, as a result, we don't know what the capital expenditures would be in terms of establishing a new territory, in terms of building up the necessary infrastructure for some type of headquarters, if there is going to be one. But in terms of delivering programs and services, one would naturally assume that people would expect the delivery to be at the level it is now or improved.

Paul Quassa: First of all, I just want to point out that the other perspective on this issue of Nunavut is to see it as a Canadian tradition. For the last 100 years and more, new provinces and new territories have been created. This is just part of the Canadian tradition. It's nothing new. If we look at the present situation, we already have facilities in Nunavut, we already have the services in operation in terms of capital. The territorial government has a lot of agencies already in operation in Nunavut. If we look at it in that sense, the costs should not be looked at as a major issue. In terms of the boundary, as everyone knows, we've been dealing with this issue over the last seven years. There are other options that we can certainly look at in dealing with this boundary issue. The boundary is very important to the issue of Nunavut. We're pretty optimistic that we will be getting a boundary one way or the other. But I wanted to point out that the creation of a Nunavut territory and government is following the Canadian tradition...it's nothing new.

Gordon Robertson: Well, again, mine is rather a comment than a question. I listened with great interest to the excellent analysis given by David Similiak and the comments by the other panelists. It's clear that, in one sense, there is so much to do and so much to be approved that a two-year schedule is too short. But, in another sense, a two-year schedule is too long. As we were discussing this, I couldn't help thinking that the federal government will almost certainly call an election sometime in 1992. The last election was in November 1988, and governments go beyond the four-year term only at risk, and they don't do it if they can possibly avoid it. So I think one has to do the planning on the assumption that there is likely going to be a federal election in the summer or autumn of 1992.

In thinking about this, I was put in mind of the fact that in the summer of 1960 the council of the Northwest Territories recommended the division of the N.W.T., and the formal resolution was passed by the council of the N.W.T. and was sent forward to the federal government-Mr. Diefenbaker's government. The government approved it, and legislation was prepared for the establishment of a territory of Nunatsiaq, which is the present Nunavut with a slightly different boundary. The western territory, if my memory is correct, was going to be called the territory of Mackenzie. Those bills were approved by the Cabinet, they were introduced in Parliament, they had first reading, second reading, and they got caught by the election. The election defeated the government, and the bills never got passed.

It seems to me that, in light of that, and in light of the fact that there is going to be an election in the summer of 1992, that should be a part of the planning and scheduling. So thinking of it in those terms, it seemed to me that three different dates should probably be kept in mind. One is the Speech from the Throne to open the parliamentary session in 1992, which will probably be January or February, then the date for the introduction of the legislation in time to get it passed for that session. It seemed to me that it probably wouldn't be safe to go beyond March of 1992 for the introduction of legislation if one wants to be reasonably sure that there will be passage at the session of 1992, and then passage, if possible, by a summer adjournment in June of 1992. If that is realistic, it tightens up the schedule. I don't think that legislation has to be ready to be put in the Speech from the Throne in, say, January of 1992. But there has to be enough detail, enough known that the government can say firmly that there is going to be legislation at that session of Parliament. In order to do that they have to have (not in legal draft but in substance) the content of either a bill or two bills, depending on what it is. Therefore, it seems to me that if we want to be safer, some scheduling of that kind should be built into it, and that means that, instead of a 24-month schedule for the early part of it, you've got, say, a 15-month schedule, and for an introduction, you've got something like an 18-month schedule, but no more.

Now, what do you have to have for this legislation? Most of the things have been commented on and analysed, and I don't really have much to add. Clearly, there has to be adequate evidence of acceptance in the Territories. Whether one has to have or should have a plebiscite is something for the people of the Territories to judge. Plebiscites can turn around and bite you-they are risky beasts. Once you launch them, they're out of control, and you don't know what answer you are going to get. But it would be thc shortest way of demonstrating acceptance (if it can be done) within the time-frame. I don't know whether it would be adequate to have the legislative assembly in the N.W.T. give approval if there was no significant objection in either territory; I don't imagine that would be challenged, but this is the kind of question that has to be raised.

As far as the boundary is concerned, it seems to me that that is the one thing that has to be absolutely down to the last detail for the legislation, because there would have to be a schedule to the bill (or bills) that would set out the boundaries of the new territories. So, the schedule would have to be there, with precision. If it isn't clear and precise, it's an invitation to trouble. There was some mention of the fact that there could be provincial interest in the boundaries. And, of course, there could be, because the offshore islands in Hudson Bay on both sides of the bay are territorial, not provincial. The last thing that should be done is to touch any of the external boundaries, because if one inch of the external boundary is touched, it is an invitation to trouble. I would think that, purely and simply, the legislation ought to be dealing with the territory as now defined and then simply designate what the boundary is for division. As far as the Nunavut bill is concerned, it would seem to me that the bill should have a pretty fair detail of the governing arrangements. That shouldn't be too complex...the western bill would be far more complex. Perhaps there it would not be possible to have the detail set forth-I don't know what would be the best way to handle that kind of thing. There could be in the legislation a power vested in the governor-in-council by regulation. That's not a very desirable way to do it, I think, but these are the thoughts that I thought worth putting to the group, especially the point that the parliamentary session and the political timetable must bc taken into account or all these plans can go completely awry.

Gurston Dacks: This is a question for Mr. Similiak. I wonder if you can give us any detail as to what lhc GNWT is doing to develop a process to answer some of these questions, both at the executive and at thc official level? Is it the case that special sums of money have been put aside, that you'll be setting up a special office with regard to interdepartmental planning? How is the GNWT going to implement its commitment to move Nunavut forward?

David Similiak: I guess all I could say at this point is that we have been thinking about this sort of stuff and doing some in-house planning, and things will start moving within the territorial government.

George Braden [GNWT]: Just on that particular question, we are obviously in contact with federal agencies. There are some key ones here, and I think we all know what they are. At the political level in the N.W.T., we have our political and constitutional development committee of cabinet which deals with the division issue and a number of other political and constitutional issues. As David mentioned in his statement, we'll be meeting with TFN representatives tomorrow. We've already had some initial discussions with them, because there's an incredible range of issues which we are going to have to work out co-operatively and directly. As far as the legislative assembly is concerned, I can't speak for the executive council right now or the legislature, but I would assume that between the Nunavut caucus and our government they will be trying to determine what role the legislature would play over thc next few months on this issue.

Jack Anawak [MP, Nunatsiaq]: I would like to know where TFN stands on the N.W.T. Legislature's plan to build a legislative assembly in Yellowknife. It may not necessarily seem like an important question, but I think it should be discussed. In terms of whether there is acceptance of Nunavut in the N.W.T., thc point has to be made that it is the Inuit in the eastern Arctic who want Nunavut, not necessarily the N.W.T., because we always felt that we did not have enough control over our government situated in Yellowknife. And that, regardless of thc communications system today, is still the case. Yellowknife is a totally different world from the eastern Arctic. So, I think that has to bc understood. The boundary, I think, is not necessarily that big a problem if the desire, the commitment, and the will is there by the eastern Arctic people. When thc eastern Arctic feels it is ready to have Nunavut on their own terms, I don't think the boundary will be a problem.

I think there is another thing that is fairly important that was just recently announced-thc Prime Minister's Citizens' Forum. If thc people of the N.W.T. are going to be involved in creating Nunavut and all these other things, I think it's very important that people representing Inuit should tell either the Prime Minister or thc chairman of the Citizens' Forum how important it is to have thc involvement of northerners. We are in a unique territory, different from anywhere else in Canada. I think that the powers that we need to understand how crucial it is for a northerner to be on that Citizens' Forum.

The last thing I would like to say is that if we want Nunavut for us, our children, and grandchildren, whether it's a territory or a province, I think that it would be a grave mistake to say that we have to have Nunavut by a certain date. More important has to be the fact that, if and when we get Nunavut, it is ours. Nunavut puts control in the hands of the people of Nunavut.

David Hawkes: Mr. Baker made the point that, after division, the Nunavut territorial government would get 90 per cent of its funds from federal transfer payments. And in the West around 65 per cent would be from federal transfer payments. I guess I don't understand the implications of that in your thinking. Could you draw those out a bit?

Carol Baker: I was speaking about the amount of the grant, although I'm not a funding expert, as you may have already guessed. What I'm told is that the formula is largely based on a certain tax effort, and, at the present time, what is being produced in a conglomerate amount in the North, the self-generated revenue, amounts to about 25 per cent overall, and the rest is 75 per cent from our grant. Now, when this changes and the division line comes in, then the amount of revenue that can be generated in the East is not as great as that in the West, and the amount goes up. The dependency on the grant could be as high as 95 per cent. I have no figures to prove this one way or the other; likewise I have no figures to prove that it could be as low as 65 per cent in the West-they are real ballpark estimates and are always a danger in a forum like this. I think it's a possibility that those figures are not too far out of line.

So then we go to the age-old question of dependency on the federal purse. If Nunavut is 95 per cent dependent, then it's virtually getting everything from the North, and how independent can it be? I'm not saying that implies we arc going to jump in and manage it, because we are not. That is not the scheme of things at all. But it does cast a different light on the dependency of any jurisdiction on thc Canadian purse. I'm just talking about the grant that comes through the formula funding process. I'm not talking about all the other revenues that come from other departments of the Government of Canada. I'm only talking about the Department of Canada. Finance, DIAND's formula funding grant.

Ron Doering: If what we are talking about here is a weighing of the costs of getting it versus the costs of not getting it, what are the costs of having Nunavut? It seems to me that it would actually be cheaper to administer those programs close to where the people live. Apart from the one-time capital costs of setting up a territorial infrastructure, why would it cost a cent more to operate Nunavut and deliver those programs from the East as opposed to the West? Even the territorial government seems to assume that Nunavut is going to be expensive. It seems to me that it would be cheaper to deliver education to Baffm from Baffin, which is already done. It seems to me that it would be cheaper to administer health and other costs from the eastern Arctic as opposed to the western Arctic. Why would it cost anything? But the assumption is that it would cost a lot. Surely after eight years, the Northern Program is able to say, "Here are the incremental net extra costs of delivering the programs we now deliver in the eastern Arctic from the East rather than from the West."

Carol Baker: We don't deliver any programs there to start with. Historically, I suppose you make a lot of sense and make a good point...why should it cost more? I think I heard similar arguments at the time when, as one speaker said this morning, we flew the government in from Ottawa to Yellowknife. The cost of administering government in the North by northerners out of Yellowknife was going to be a lot cheaper than it was out of Ottawa. That did not occur. I think we've also heard at various stages in pre-devolution times about how much cheaper it would be to deliver federal programs that have been delivered on behalf of the territorial government by various federal departments. Lo and behold, those programs were devolved, and the costs have not gone down. In fact, they have leaped dramatically. I don't know if this is an answer to your question or not. All I can say is that, historically, everything that I've been aware of leads to higher dollars once it's delivered in those types of circumstances.

Ron Doering: As a matter of practice, you say they leaped immeasurably. How much did they leap because of inflation, because of more people there, because of the extra cost of delivery? It costs the territorial government more to deliver education today than it did 20 years ago per capita, too. It seems to me not even sensible to suggest that because it now costs more money in thc North-or you think it does-than it used to that therefore it must cost more to devolve. Why wouldn't it be cheaper? For example, right now in Baffin, Baffin education is essentially delivered by the Baffin Regional School Board. Wouldn't it be more expensive to deliver that same program from Yellowknife? If that's true, it seems to me that Nunavut would be a savings, and the federal government should be here today rejoicing in the fact that Nunavut is moving along and is going to be a net saving to this federal government, because you're going to have to pay, after all, a considerable percentage of the cost.

Carol Baker: I don't suppose the operation of the school per se is not going to change at all. You mentioned education. I imagine after the establishment of a new jurisdiction that there will have to be a new department of education headquarters, there would have to such things as curriculum development. My experience in education in the past years indicates that curriculum development is not a cheap thing to carry out and that those costs would certainly be new and additional. I presume that it would be the same with other headquarters costs. You can't just simply split out what is there now in Yellowknife and take half of it to the Nunavut territory and expect it to continue at the same price. It's going to be new and additional.

Stephen Hazell [Canadian Arctic Resources Committee]: When we were thinking about the agenda for this afternoon's session, we chose these three issues: timing, financing, and boundary. But the discussion today leads me to the view that perhaps we missed one, and that's marketing or communications-communicating the concept of Nunavut to a number of different constituencies. We have to ensure that the idea has support in the North, but also today we have to convince a number of mandarins in Ottawa that it's very important. In order to do that, we have to demonstrate that Nunavut is a further example of nation building in Canada. To do that it seems to mc that we have to get Canadians for the concept and push that forward. Once we get that into place, I think maybe a lot of these other things will fall into place, whether it is legislation or boundary agreement or whatever.

John Pierce [Tungavik Federation of Nunavat]: Mr. Robertson said in his last comments that he thought for legislation to be successfully introduced or even introduced to Parliament, it was of utmost importance that there be a single-line boundary established, one that could be clearly demarcated for division. Frankly, at this point I see no process in sight that is going to help to come up with that boundary. It has been left to land claims negotiations between TFN and the Dene-Métis to come up with this line. It's safe to say that those negotiations are not going anywhere, and I think it's questionable whether there's even going to be one of the parties around to negotiate with very much longer. I think at this point that it is relatively important that both governments intervene. It's not just up to TFN and the Inuit, who may not have anybody to talk to, to try and establish that boundary. I think that many of the other issues that go toward establishing Nunavut can be dealt with-the questions of timing, financing, political will, etc. This seems to me to be one outstanding roadblock that is current and before us and could really prevent everything else happening. It's also within the control (as much as it can be) of the people in this room, unlike what happens in Cabinet, what happens nationally with constitutional talks.

David Similiak: Yes, definitely, we are going to have to develop a communications strategy. I believe that's one of the things we are going to be working on with TFN in terms of informing the people of the N.W.T. about these issues and how all of that is going to work. On that one question I would like to ask (not to belittle the work that CARC has done) why this workshop is being held down here in Ottawa and not somewhere up in Nunavut. Those are the people that nccd information if they are going to be asked to make decisions on all of these issues. I would think that from now on it's more important to have these types of workshops up in the N.W.T., be it in Nunavut or in the West, rather than somewhere down in the South.

Murray Coolican: First of all, CARC has a long tradition of being pretty much a bunch of meddlesome southern busybodies who believe that Canada does have a national interest in how the North is governed and how the North is developed. At the same time, CARC has always backed the process of devolution of power and increasing self-government and self-determination by people in thc North within the context of Canada. I think it would have been presumptuous of CARC at this point to have been the sponsor of a workshop in Nunavut about Nunavut, but we felt that it was absolutely essential because the federal government, as we have seen today, is going to be a part of the decision making about Nunavut. The legislation will have to be passed in the Parliament of Canada, and for that reason it was important that we take some steps to try and raise this issue in the South. Decision makers in Ottawa and in the Parliament of Canada are going to have to be convinced that this is an idea whose time has come. It's up to the people of Nunavut to decide whether they need more information or more workshops, and to invite CARC to participate. But we felt, as southern meddlesome busybodies, that there were more people who needed to bc informed about this issue in the South at the moment, and that was our role.

Judy Rowell [Labrador Inuit Association]: I am particularly interested in the discussion over the costs with respect to implementing and getting Nunavut on track. The Labrador Inuit claim is now paralysed over the issue of costs, more paralysed than before we started. The federal government has insisted that before we can even begin substantive negotiations there must be an agreement on cost-sharing arrangements between Newfoundland and Canada, to the exclusion of the Labrador Inuit, and before knowing any of the proposals. I've been listening to the discussions here, and what's not clear to me is whether or not there is a process that's anticipated for thc discussion of how the costs will be calculated between thc federal and territorial governments. I don't think it's just an issue of what the costs will be, but how and when they arc determined and whether or not there is going to be a level playing field when it comes to determining these costs.

Bob Kadlun: We just got this Nunavut thing kicked off again. It's been kick-started so many times, and now we just got it going again with the letter to the Prime Minister, and there is commitment from the territorial government to work very closely with TFN. We still have to work out a very clear role for TFN, especially when we're negotiating. I've already made the assumption that the federal voice is going to say, "Yeah, it's a good idea-let's fund it. Let's go for broke." So if that happens next week, we would want to be directly involved in discussing start-up costs and all other costs. The federal government has said that there was no way you can talk about Nunavut in land claims negotiations. We finally accepted that and said, "Okay, we'll do it in another forum." So we still have to clearly define what our role is going to be when Nunavut (especially the financing) is going to bc dealt with. So, hopefully, the territorial voice is going to say, "Yeah, you'll be right in there with us."

David Similiak: Before I get to the specific response, I just want to say something about thc financing issue which may shed a bit of light on our concerns. It should be fairly easy to put into place some of those key administrative functions that do not exist in the eastern Arctic, and over the last three days in preparing for this meeting, we talked amongst ourselves in a GNWT workshop about doing that kind of thing. There are a lot of areas where it is fairly easy to develop some kind of rough model and put some person years and some dollars in, depending on what the people in the eastern Arctic want to do with that model when they are developing their own administrative institutions. They should have the resources available. Where it does get complicated, and this is where our finance people educated us, is things like power rates. Now we have a great rationalization system where power rates in the eastern Arctic are somewhat offset by revenues generated in the western Arctic. If in the eastern Arctic they were to pay the real costs of power, the rates would be significantly higher than they are now. So that is the kind of thing where we've got to sit down, not only with the federal government but with our colleagues from TFN, and identify those areas where it's fairly easy to determine what resources should bc transferred over and then where there are going to be some problems.

 With respect to the questions from the representative from thc Labrador Inuit Association, I can appreciate some of the problems that the organization faces in its dealings with the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, I would say that even though there may only be 11 members in the Nunavut caucus in the legislative assembly and only four ministers in the cabinet, they are very effective men and women who represent their constituency and the issue of creating Nunavut. I don't know if LIA has those kinds of numbers in the Newfoundland cabinet and Newfoundland legislature, but there are advocates in our government and legislature. So there's a fairly level playing field as it is right now.

  Dan Smith [Toronto Star]: I am a journalist for the Toronto Star which is renowned for the depth of its concern with northern issues. I am here today as a book researcher, so I can do this. I want to ask you one tough but simple question, Bob. If the boundary is so pivotal to solving the deal, to be rude, why don't you just kiss off the dispute over the boundary, take your losses, and cut a deal?

 Bob Kadlun: Yeah, it is a pivotal issue that has to be dealt with, and after listening to Mr. Robertson this afternoon I am convinced that we are going to have to solve this problem. We've had two agreements that have totally unraveled on us. I think it's important that when we were dealing with this boundary, TFN attempted to address all the issues that were on the table-we addressed them through the boundary and overlap agreement. Apparently, that wasn't enough. So TFN gave the Dene-Métis their final offer on October 17, 1989, and we informed the Dene-Métis at the time that we expected a full response to our final offer before we would even consider renegotiating or going back to the table to negotiate a boundary. The other point that is important is that, as the boundary is now, we've continued to make concessions-11,000 square miles was conceded by the time we got to October 17 along the North-South boundary, and an additional 550 square miles around the Thelon Game Sanctuary. So, despite all the concessions we've made, there's still no agreement to date. If we were to move the boundary any closer to the Inuit homeland, even one-tenth of an inch-no land claims deal.

Dan Smith: Following up on what John Pierce said a little more directly, but a whole lot of people hinted at today, and that's, "Will the feds step in and do the nasty deed for us on the boundary question?", I wonder in that eventuality if that's one of the only solutions to get the issue out of the way. Does that not cripple you in terms of your ability to turn around with the people in the West who are going to have a) a golden issue and b) yet another excuse to do their best, following a plebiscite, to kill any political chances of salesmanship? This whole boundary thing turns into a very difficult horn if the feds jump in and issue some proclamation or whatever about doing the deal. I mean, how do you get around the resulting problem of trying to campaign in a plebiscite and winning some support in the West given the political ammunition that you would then hand to even the broader group of opponents in the western Arctic?

Bob Kadlun: We have attempted to solve this problem with the Dene-Métis. It is a very emotional issue, especially when people like the elders are directly involved in the negotiations. Unlike the federal TFN negotiations, where occasionally we get outnumbered 20 to 6, generally there are an even number of people, six to eight people. When we get into negotiations on the boundary, there would be about 20 people on each side easily. For TFN and the Dene-Métis to try to get an agreement on a single line becomes very complicated because of the level of emotion on both sides with respect to a single-line boundary. So I'm not sure how we're going to deal with it. I hope that we will deal with it very quickly, because it's not only critical for advancing Nunavut, it's also critical for land selection in the Kitikmeot region and the Keewatin. Without agreement on a boundary, it's going to be difficult to select land anywhere near the boundary, because somebody is going to object as soon as we get close to the boundary. And we will get very close to the boundary.