General comments. The chair recognizes Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Minister Kakfwi.

The Member asks a question that I think probably addresses, as well, the questions and

concerns expressed by Mr. Lewis. The reason that the Dene Declaration came out in 1975, which Mr. Lewis referred to and suggested that it appears that we may be revisiting old issues that may or may not have been addressed at that time, that is, the meaning of treaties, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, and in relation to devolution and the kind of power and responsibilities that people in the Northwest Territories will have, is a timely question. It was never addressed back then.

It was certainly brought to our attention that the Dene, at that time anyway, did not accept that this government was legitimate and that it was, at best, an interim government, that it was not a government that had been created and blessed by the Dene, and that was the reason the Dene Declaration said the Government of the Northwest Territories is not the government of the Dene. It went even further and said that the federal government was not the government of the Dene, as well, which the federal Minister of that time took to mean that we are all separatists. In fact, it came to mean that the Constitution of Canada did not adequately reflect the relationship that aboriginal people thought they had with the Crown.

So when we talk about getting more power and responsibilities in this government, we cannot really get into that unless we first address a clear understanding with the aboriginal people. So with the Dene, at least, first of all, they need to settle outstanding claims regarding their traditional lands and resources, whether it is done through claims, comprehensive claims, specific claims or treaty land entitlement. Those are the processes available right now. Somehow they have to have formal title to some of their lands. I don't think they are talking about 100 per cent of the lands. They need ownership and management over some of their traditional resources, as well.

Again, I don't think they are talking about all of it. But once that happens and once there is a clear understanding of what they want in the area of self-government, that is, what is the jurisdiction of the governments or government that they want to set up and what kind of power and responsibility it is going to have, then it becomes easier for us as a public government to address whether we can take over land and resources, for instance, or minerals or oil and gas, and what the terms and conditions for support will be from the aboriginal groups. My role as a Minister, basically, is to ensure that these options are made available to all the groups and all the aboriginal peoples, and that there is some certainty through some process for them to arrive at an agreement with the federal government and ourselves regarding land and resources and provisions for self-government. Once we get certainty there, then we will know how we can pursue further powers and responsibilities for this government.

Once we get the Constitutional Development Steering Committee rolling and we explore all the options that are available to the non-aboriginal people and the aboriginal people together, about the kind of nature and character that a public government could take, or even to go beyond that and take up the notion which was suggested most recently by Mr. Gary Bohnet that an aboriginal government can, by definition, also mean a public government. That is, an aboriginal government can be a creature that would allow for participation by the general public.

So these are the different options and processes that we have for us. I think that as long as we work fully to ensure that the aboriginal groups have some real practical processes to achieve results themselves, we can expect much more of a positive relationship and a willingness to move in the areas that the territorial government, as a public government, wants to move, as well. So that is my view of how we get this job done.

When Treaty 8 says they want to look at ways to take over programs and services from this government through a tripartite agreement, I support it, one reason being simply because, on a practical level, it is not for us to object. It is the prerogative of treaty peoples, specifically, but all aboriginal people as well, that if they want to govern themselves -- and that is what supporting the inherent right means -- that, in principle, at least, we should be fully in support of aboriginal people exploring ways in which they can govern themselves. Whether that is specifically through running programs and services exclusively for themselves or through an arrangement through a public government, we have to support a process that explores all these options to the fullest, so in the end it is their members who make the decision.

I believe that a debate, as Mr. Lewis says, to see if all agree on what is the best position this legislature and this government should take, may be a good suggestion, because it is a huge undertaking and everything regarding division, western constitutional political development, the community transfer initiative, self-government, all the big processes that we have under way are almost contingent on all of us having a good appreciation for, I think, as Mr. Lewis says, some of the historical background to it. I would suggest that there is a very simple way to explain why Treaty 8 and 11 were negotiated. Perhaps there were some people who were afraid of chaos and the wild west taking hold up here, but I know people came up this way with a very clear idea of what they wanted and that was to have some peace and order and they got that, but I would say, much, much more than that, and that is what is at the crux of the difference between the written version and the oral version of Treaty 8 and 11. This government is of the view that there is a need to support the aboriginal people in their view that their version of the treaties is right. It certainly makes common sense and would be difficult for this government to suggest that the written versions of Treaty 8 or 11 are the true versions simply because it goes way beyond what a good person with common sense would say makes sense. It does not make sense, so there is a need to get it clear. We support Treaty 8, for instance, going to the federal government to say, let's clarify the terms and conditions that we are going to live under together. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Kakfwi. General comments. Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. Minister Kakfwi.

One of the messages that has been very consistent over the years came from -- not so much the younger leaders -- but from the older leaders, the elders, the more senior chiefs and those elected by the Metis and the Dene Nation with regard to treaties and the fact that the relationship between the federal government and this government has moved toward being more neighbourly. There is less indication of a hard line approach to resolving issues. I think you would find that even through the testimony given to the Berger inquiry and any records of statements given by elders.

The preoccupation is one of trying to reach an agreement to treat each other well and to make sure that people are not denied those things that they need. First of all, we have to recognize that many of these people have been, in many ways, denied some basic recognition. I think we have to make a big effort. We have been very positive that way.

I think this government has been taking the lead for years in supporting the major initiatives and positions taken by aboriginal leaders across this country. At First Ministers' conferences taking place in the early 1980s, it was this government that was almost first to take positions in support of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the other groups at the constitutional table. There is some appreciation for the progressive moves we have made in that area.

I would say that it is almost premature to put forward to groups like Treaty 8 whether they would support initiatives like mining development and other initiatives at this time. I think we have to make sure that we support them in every way we can to make sure that they are able to deliver some basic things to their people, such as the recognition of the provisions of treaties, whether or not we can help them find a way to deliver their own programs and services, whether or not we can make sure that they have some role to play in the co-management of some of the land and resources in their traditional territory, whether we can find ways to get them involved in those issues that they have felt, historically, they have been ignored in.

I think the goodwill is starting to develop. Once they feel like they have their feet under them, they have some sense of control and confidence that they can venture into development and that they will be able to sustain themselves in the wake of things like this, then it should follow quite naturally that they will

be interested in taking part in development that they can participate in and benefit from. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The federal government, in the last year, suggested that we should take a large framework approach to further devolution talks. So, we have been working on that. They have been insisting on it. They, I think, feel that, in view of division and what is going to take place in the creation of a Nunavut government, in the wake of land and water regimes being impacted by the regional claims, the prospects for oil and gas taking place again in the future and the many little issues that can prop up in these kinds of talks, they want the broad umbrella under which to capture all of these elements. So, they want a framework agreement.

We have always felt that it is fine to talk about that, but the most productive way to do things right now is just by dealing with specific issues. For instance, let us do land and water, or let's do oil and gas. Members will know that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, personally signed an agreement saying that they would work on a northern accord and would have thrown his support behind it, a political accord that would have seen this government taking over oil and gas management. But for all his political weight, that never got finished. So, it is my view that we can continue. If the federal government says that is a precondition to specific talks going on, then that is the way we have to do it, since they are the other party. But, I'm also of the view that we should specifically move on individual transfer agreements if we can do it and if there is sufficient support of the aboriginal organizations to do so. I think between the two, we can get some things done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. General comments, Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Minister Kakfwi.

I would just like to thank the Member for his good comments. I think there has been good work done by a great many people over the years. Certainly, there have been a great number of aboriginal leaders who have found the capacity to work well with each other, whether we are Metis, Dene or Inuvialuit. All of us have made a great effort to understand one another and to support the goals and objectives that each of us set out for ourselves.

I know that there are some difficulties, as always, with boundaries. The Member made reference to that in his comments. I can say that I've been involved with the settling of the Inuvialuit settlement area boundary and with the efforts that were made prior to it being finalized. I was aware of and directly involved in the talks between the Gwich'in and the Sahtu in settling their boundary. Certainly the big one, of course, is the boundary, one of the longest boundaries in the world I think, that Mr. Ningark refers to, the Nunavut boundary. It still needs to be revisited by the Inuit and the southern Dene who will come to some sort of agreement. In some cases, it left some hard feelings and feeling unresolved.

But, as the Member says, I think we've done remarkably well in the settling of boundaries considering the intense feeling all of us have for traditional lands. Where lands overlap and where contemporary and historical use overlap, the feeling intensifies tremendously and takes a long time to go away. We still have boundary talks pending between the Sahtu and the Dogrib, though that's been largely settled between the Sahtu and the Deh Cho, the Dogrib and the Deh Cho as well as the Treaty 8 people and their neighbours. The job with regard to settling boundaries, you might say is only half done. But, considering the implications and the difficulties, we've done remarkably well. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Kakfwi. General comments. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be making a number of general comments. The first one I will make is with regard to constitutional development. Mr. Chairman, one of the objectives of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs is to develop a process for assessing the political and constitutional implications of the Nunavut Implementation Commission's recommendation for a Nunavut administration. We know, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government has a six-person secretariat devoted to Nunavut in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister if we have anybody from our government devoted to the implementation of Nunavut? I want to know if we have anyone doing the same thing that the feds are doing. Are we set up to do something like that on our end, too?

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Minister Kakfwi.

Mr. Chairman, the ministry is presently planning to fill three positions to work on implementing the TFN claim. We hope by the end of next month that these positions will be fully staffed to help us do the planning and coordinating work for the implementation of the claim.

Thank you, Minister Kakfwi. General comments. Mr. Ng.

Thank you, Mr. Ng. Minister Kakfwi.

Mr. Chairman, this government is a member of a group called the Constitutional Development Steering Committee, which is made up of all the aboriginal groups of the western territory plus all of the MLAs from the western part of the territory. We have taken the last year to put together a draft work plan. We have agreed to work on a process that would see us coming up with a draft constitution for consideration by all of the people in the western territory in the next three years. We put together a budget and a work plan and submitted it to Minister Irwin in December. The budget is a few million dollars. It is a very well thought out plan for how to go about the work we want to do.

We should make a note that it is a different approach trying to pacify those people who get very squeamish about feeling left behind by Nunavut people. While Nunavut is an establishment of a public government, like the territorial government as it is now, the Constitutional Development Steering Committee is planning to set up a public government that will very likely be a very different character. So it is not just a territorial government as it is now for the west. We are hoping to come up with something that is very different, possibly with elements of an aboriginal nature, perhaps a marriage of aboriginal and public government. We hope that the federal government will respond to us in the next few weeks. We had anticipated a response by now. But perhaps with the development of a position by Treaty 8, which says they want to set up their own aboriginal self-government, the federal government will see the need to respond very quickly to a group that wants to explore a greater option and not just leave us frustrated by individual groups trying to vie for their own regime without any group trying to put a large overall scope to political and constitutional issues.