There's a whole range of them. The addition to reserve discussion paper that was made available to the committee is a fairly lengthy paper, as you can see.
As an example, one simple thing that most people respect, and I know first nations do, is just saying no. Letting something languish in a bureaucratic process for 10, 15, or 20 years, which is not going anywhere, where there are major difficulties from a federal perspective.... Why hide behind the process? Just say no and why.
We found out in the analysis we were doing with the working group that there are three categories of ATR in the policy. There are legal obligations from the claims settlements, or court rulings or whatever, say a return of railway land or something like that; there is the normal community growth; and then there's something called “new reserves/other policy”. That's actually a category for which in the period we covered in the study there was only one ever passed. That's the category of “no”. If that's the category you're in, you're not getting anywhere.
We had a member of the committee, when I was working on it, a first nations representative at the committee, who was actually in the process with first nations in Quebec and had been for 10 or 15 years. It wasn't until we had the discussion around the committee that he understood he was in the wrong process. These were landless bands looking for reserves. That's a political financial decision that has nothing to do with the ATR process. Major relocations of communities and these things that cost major money...major political decisions normally have to go to cabinet. Just clarifying that category would remove the frustration among a number of first nations who are wasting a lot of time and resources on it.
I could go on.