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.