First nations often experience this notion that first nations are being sought to deliver certainty somehow to somebody else, whether it's the market or whether it's process, etc. Really, I think if we dig deeper to certainty, we're looking for clarity of process, first of all, so comments around what consultation and accommodation are. How do you give effective implementation of the spirit and intent of the treaty right, of the constitutionally protected right?
I think the UN declaration offers an excellent framework for defining a way forward that could forge a path towards certainty. I said earlier that first nations aren't opposed to development; they're just not supportive of development at any cost. We have excellent examples, perhaps not perfect: the James Bay Agreement forged with the Cree; Minister Penashue, in a former iteration, forging agreements in Labrador; and the leaders in Haida Gwaii forging agreements in their respective territories.
First nations being involved from the very beginning and working in full partnership, as our rights suggest, must occur. To have a shift from before, under previous processes, where our traditional knowledge was included, to the proposed changes that they may be included sends a very strong signal that we're moving away from, not towards, the notion of mutual respect and recognition of aboriginal title and rights. There is enhanced uncertainty, and in fact perhaps greater conflict.
The Prosperity Mine example in British Columbia stands as an example of what we need to be learning from. What I see occurring here is that rather than working together to achieve a shared sense of what certainty means going forward, this is creating a great uncertainty for first nations. As I said, and I have to really emphasize this, the economic uncertainty and potential conflict remains, I think, a very real outcome of an effort we're seeing here.