Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Sir, if you could wrap it up quickly, I would appreciate it.

[Jim Big Plume]

I've been very reliant on my elders to be part of the process of getting claims validated. It's our experience as first nation people that our elders are included in everything we do. We would not appreciate our elders not being included in something like this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much. I apologize for interrupting.

Last, from the Conservative Party, we have Mr. Bruinooge for seven minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the Alberta delegation for a really great presentation that I'm sure you pulled together on short notice. I know that this committee process doesn't allow for a lot of time to come up with a presentation, so I want to thank you for a very well thought-out presentation. Congratulations, Chief Big Plume, to your delegation.

I'd like to ask you about some of the statements you made on how the bill is a strong improvement over Bill C-6. There seems to be some agreement, between what you said and what the government's position is, that massive systemic reform is required in this area. If there's anything our government appreciates doing, it's fixing the system.

Could you give a bit more testimony, Chief Big Plume, on the difference between what we're proposing and the previous broken system?

[Jim Big Plume]

Thank you.

Again, I will need to mention, for the record, that I am not the chief. In fact, my cousin, Chief Sandford Big Plume, might be offended if I came into Parliament announcing myself as the chief.

But thank you for the question.

The improvements we see include things such as this. In Bill C-6, there was a cap allowed of only, I believe, $7 million to $10 million. We, as first nations in Alberta, recognize that Alberta is one of the wealthiest provinces in all of this country. For that particular piece of legislation, Bill C-6, to be passed and that particular issue of compensation to be capped at $7 million to $10 million would not have worked for any of the first nations. In fact, we may have found, quite nationally, that a lot of the cases would have been in Federal Court by now, clogging up that system. That was the vast improvement we saw in the current bill being promoted today, Bill C-30, where the cap has now been raised to $150 million.

Now, it has been suggested in our presentation, in certain areas, that we're still unsatisfied with the fact that there has been a cap put on the claims of Treaties 6, 7, and 8, in consideration of the economic status of Alberta at this point in time, in consideration of the losses that the first nations have experienced since the time of the signing of treaties. But we also recognize that there needs to be a cooperative effort by all parties in order to bring resolution to these issues that, I suppose, we both have an appreciation for.

As a good example, as my legal counsel pointed out, we ourselves have a claim on a reservoir of water that supplies Calgary with 80% of its water needs. We have been working vigorously with the City of Calgary to try to bring a resolution together that is beneficial for both parties. Through the current process there's too much uncertainty that the claim, as it has been put forward, would not gain or have the recognition we hoped it might have.

My colleagues Chief Lagrelle and chief executive officer Ron Lameman can attest too that there are a number of outstanding claims and issues in northern Alberta. We have the oil sands, the tar sands. We have all kinds of water problems that are being forecast in the forecast that's been done by our elders, and these forecasts are very, very concerning.

As for the cap of $150 million being placed here, although we look at it as an improvement from Bill C-6, we still do not feel it is adequate. But then again, we still feel there's a definite need to assist in bringing this current legislation being promoted to fruition, on the basis that we all live in this land, we all need to share this land, and we all need to recognize that we need to move on.

I've been working as director for land claims for Tsuu T'ina for almost 20 years. When I started I had black hair. And yes, it's been exhausting; it's been frustrating. It's been an exercise, to say the least, that has caused a lot of wear and tear on our people, especially our elders. I mentioned in my opening comments that we have lost a lot of elders, unfortunately. I wish I was exaggerating, but we have lost approximately 50% of our elders on Tsuu T'ina in the past five years. There were very informed elders who were...in fact, one was with the people involved with treaty discussions. He was 107 years old. So we've lost that.

I guess to capsulize, the Tsuu T'ina First Nation first took the opportunity to bring this presentation and concern to you so that we might be able to voice our opinions on this. When this was brought to the other tribes in Alberta, they readily adopted the presentation before you and concurred with everything that has been said in the document. Unfortunately some of those people who were part of the informal committee, if you will, could not make it here today from the other treaty areas and therefore their opinions, which are also valid, have been contained and held in the document.

The other area for improvement that we see is, of course, that issue of consultation. Again, I realize that we all have our respective jobs. We have a life outside of this building, and circumstances at times do not permit proper consultation. We have done our utmost as technicians to bring the concerns that we see to the attention of our chief and councils respectively, and to our elders.

Basically we support the legislation, but we still say there's room for improvement. But that's a general comment to anything in life, and nothing will ever be perfect. If we lived in a perfect world.... As my grandfather used to say, if everybody thought the same way they'd all have married my grandmother.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

[Jim Big Plume]

Is that good enough for you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That seems an appropriate end point.

I appreciate your being here today. I apologize for hurrying things a little bit, but since we have a hard deadline at 5:15, every extra minute we spend here is a minute less we have with our territorial group. Thank you very much.

I would ask members not to wander off too far, as we're going to turn the table over as quickly as possible.

We will suspend for one minute.

We will get going, if I can get my colleagues to come back to their seats. I'm rushing everyone a little bit today, but when the bells start ringing at 5:15, we will be adjourning. So I would like to get going so that we have a good questioning round.

For our second panel today, I'd like to welcome Chief Mark Wedge and David Joe, who is a technical adviser, from the Council of Yukon First Nations. Gentlemen, if you'd like to make a presentation, I would appreciate it if you could keep it to 10 minutes, and then we will have one abbreviated round of questioning.

Chief Wedge, you may proceed.

[Chief Mark Wedge, Carcross / Tagish First Nation, Council of Yukon First Nations]

Good afternoon, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen.

It's an honour to come to present on behalf of the Council of Yukon First Nations. I'd like to ensure that you have a basic understanding of our constitutional circumstances with respect to comprehensive claims and the specific claims policy in Canada.

In 1973 the Yukon first nations successfully petitioned the Government of Canada to commence modern-day treaty negotiations, and on August 8, 1973, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Jean Chrétien, announced the first comprehensive claims policy immediately following our petition to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Calder case. Really, it was the foresight of the elders that moved us forward to anchor those claims. Currently in the Yukon we have 14 first nations; 11 of those 14 first nations have self-government and modern day treaties, and three of them do not.

I will touch on some brief components that are important to bring forward regarding the Yukon in relation to the specific claims policy. In 1973 when the Yukon first nations proceeded to negotiate the claims that started the specific claims policy, they did it under what's referred to as the Umbrella Final Agreement. The UFA is often the way it's referred to. After that, each of the first nations negotiated treaties, so we have 11 of those first nations negotiated treaties.

There weren't a lot of reserves in the Yukon. There were summer reserves, because some of our areas overlap the Yukon borders; they go into B.C. So those are areas where we still have ongoing negotiations for treaties. Some of our self-governing first nations have reserves in B.C., such as the Teslin Tlingit Council. Some of them have reserves in B.C. that aren't yet finalized, such as the Kaska.

So when we look at this, it's not just the Yukon, it's also some of the B.C. things. We look at the proposed legislation and we see there are ways we can deal with that in terms of B.C. participating.

I think people understand that the treaty part of the agreements is protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Our self-government agreements don't enjoy that same constitutional protection. Under our self-government agreements we've reserved some of our reserve lands, our lands set aside that are under self-government; they give us certain self-governing powers to assert in those areas. So it's a complication that I think people need to understand.

One of the things that are important about this--and actually I'll leave it, and Dave can maybe touch on it a little later with some questions--is that the current specific claims policy does not simply limit the crown's obligation to wrongful surrender of reserve lands within the meaning of the Indian Act. Recently we went through some reviews of the implementation of these agreements, and we're finding some technical differences. We don't fall under the same Indian Act policies and we're moving outside that box. So we find ourselves in this area where section 91(24) lands and these types of lands become a more complicated issue, because we have referred to a certain amount of land.

So in this brief you'll see a section that talks about how those lands are set up. In the interests of time, I'm not going to get too involved in that.

I would like to talk about how the Bill C-30 issues relate to the Yukon.

In our past submissions we supported the adjudicated powers and independent tribunal. We think that's very good: participation in and representation on the tribunal, increasing the monetary cap for compensation, consideration of time-limited opportunities to file specific claims, more enlightened specific claims policy to reflect evolving common law principles such as honour of the crown, and consideration of exemption of monetary rewards from tax and own-source revenue offsets.

Generally, the Council of Yukon First Nations supports the idea of the approach adopted in Bill C-30 in setting up a tribunal. Our first nation has three specific claims, and in the past it's been hard to get those claims moving forward. So we think it's very important to move to that quasi-judicial tribunal, and we think that's a big step forward.

One of the things that are important, and I know it's been touched on before, is first nations adjudication. In the Yukon we're beginning to look at administration-of-justice agreements. We're starting to set up tribunals. We're starting to look at how our administration-of-justice agreements will be integrated with judicial matters in Canada and the Yukon.

We want to look at how to integrate the adjudicators, especially, as we gain experience. For example, we have somebody here who has over 35 or 40 years of judicial experience and has done a number of things. These are the people who should be considered to sit in these areas. You need to look at that. That's an important thing we looked at.

The bill also defines the term “first nation”. A first nation can only be a claimant for filing a claim at the tribunal. In the Yukon there are three Yukon first nations that are still bands under the meaning of the Indian Act, as I talked about earlier. They've not entered into land claims agreements. There are 11 first nations that fit the term “a group of persons that was a band within the meaning of paragraph (a), that is no longer a band by virtue of an Act or agreement mentioned in the schedule, and has not released its right to bring a specific claim”.

Under the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Final Agreement, for example, there are seven reserves that are not released but that must have been accepted for negotiation prior to March 31, 1994, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Three of the seven specific claims have been accepted. However, granting the authority to the minister to determine the validity of the other specific claims within a limited time release is problematic.

Even if the first nation is successful in maintaining that the release was not effective, the issue becomes whether the compensation is land, as visualized under the final agreement, or monetary compensation, as stated in Bill C-30. Clause 4 ensures that Bill C-30 is the paramount legislation in the event of a conflict or inconsistency. In more recent Yukon final agreements, land is considered part of any settlement. However, I suspect that all first nations with land claims agreements would have similar definitional issues.

I want to spend a bit of time on this. One of the areas that are important for us is that first nations are a growing citizen base, one of the fastest growing in Canada. In the past there may have been infringements and things like that, and often it was the taking away of lands. Land is an important part that should be considered in terms of compensation or settlement, because land bases, especially around these areas, are important for our citizen bases to grow.

We've had some successes in advancing some of these issues, but I think this is an important part when we start talking about the legislation. Looking at land is a possible way to start accommodating these specific claims.

Clause 14 sets out the grounds for a specific claim. Paragraph 14(1)(a) contemplates claims for “a failure to fulfill a legal obligation of the Crown to provide lands or other assets under a treaty or another agreement between the First Nation and the Crown”.

Clearly, this only applies to historic treaties, as a first nation cannot file a specific claim for a land claim agreement entered into after December 31, 1973. Canada announced this comprehensive claim policy in August 1973. To my knowledge, it's virtually impossible to negotiate a treaty within four months, and therefore, subclause 14(1) appears to apply only to historic treaties and not to modern land claim agreements. That's important, especially for those three first nations in the Yukon that don't have modern-day treaties.

Paragraphs 14(1)(c) to 14(1)(f) refer only to reserve lands, and although the term is undefined under Bill C-30, it becomes clear that aboriginal title lands under Delgamuukw are excluded, as paragraph 15(1)(f) ensures that such a claim cannot be filed as it would be “based on, or alleges, aboriginal rights or title”.

This is an important consideration for all Yukon first nations, as our form of land tenure retains aboriginal title to our settlement lands. It is especially important for those first nations without final agreements, as aboriginal title is still retained on any claimed reserve lands. I think this is very important in terms of the aboriginal title, as we've pointed out.

The monetary cap is set at $150 million per specific claim, and we support the limit placed upon the award under clause 20 of the bill. That's an important thing. We think it's an improvement, as has been pointed out.

Finally, Bill C-30 does not exempt any monetary compensation from taxation. However, Indian Act bands are generally exempt under the terms of the Indian Act. If first nations with modern treaties are able to avoid the legislative bars and are successful in obtaining monetary compensation, then the compensation received may be treated as own-source revenue and therefore can be used as a component of offsets for the purpose of its financial transfer agreements. As these are legacy and/or heritage funds, if paid, these funds should not be taxed as principal payments or on interest, and should not be used as offsets in financial transfer agreements.

Basically what this amounts to is that with our agreement, because our citizens are now taxable and we share taxes, we have offsets. What we're saying about these specific claims is that because they're for these past areas, consideration should be given that these are not taxable or used as offsets against the expenditure bases we're using. I think that's an important consideration that we want to put forward.

In conclusion, I have tried to briefly set out the unique constitutional status of the Yukon first nations that may relate to the specific claims. I've also set out some general concerns and suggested potential solutions to remedy these concerns.

Again, I want to thank the standing committee for hearing us. What we're saying overall is that we need to move ahead, because what's happening is that we're depending on specific claims and some of these past things to build our early childhood education centres. We don't have enough compensation or infrastructure, and we're depending on some of these things to build some of the infrastructure we need to get there. We'd like to have other means to do that.

So we do have some specific claims, a number of them in the Yukon. We support the process to move it ahead and try to get it passed. We know there are going to be improvements generally. We're in support of it, and want it to somehow get to the top of the list. But how do you do that? Can you apply here and get that done?

Thank you. That's all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

We have a little less than half an hour. We have time for one seven-minute round of questions. I'm going to give you a warning when there's a minute left, and I'm going to cut people off at seven minutes. I encourage my colleagues not to use up five or six minutes of the time creating a long list of questions, because I will restrict it to seven minutes.

For the Liberal Party, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. We could go a few minutes after the bells, since it's right next door.

Thank you for that point about own-source revenues. That's good; I haven't heard that before. We'll be making sure the minister and the department clarify that they wouldn't deduct that.

Mostly I want to use my time just to give you more time to finish, and to thank you for coming from the riding farthest away from Ottawa. I'll give you about five questions, but you can answer whatever you want.

First, is there anything you want to add, David Joe or Chief Wedge?

Second, you're supporting a tribunal. A tribunal always sounds like three people. I wonder if you have any concerns that it's only one person, and that one person has a binding decision with no appeal. What if the one person doesn't like you?

Third, do you want to comment on the implementation of justice in your comprehensive claims? As you know, we signed a deal saying you can have this, and now.... In your particular first nation, is it going well with your child welfare legislation and, even more importantly, with the Teslin Tlingit Council? I think they may have been waiting over a decade, and it must be awfully frustrating. We signed a deal, and they're still trying to get it through.

Four, I think the cross-border claims with B.C. may be problematic. Is that a problem? Are we not making any progress because it's cross-border?

Last, I think the biggest issue you have in the Yukon is the nine-year review and the implementation of that. You may want to make some comments on that.

You can use the rest of the seven minutes for whatever you want.

[David Joe, As an Individual]

Well, perhaps I can speak to two of your questions, Mr. Bagnell.

The first one deals with the issue of superior courts.

The administration of justice agreements that we have currently do not anticipate the appointment of the adjudicators that we have as superior court judge appointees. This is certainly an outstanding concern that we have with Canada. But simply put, many of our law-making capacities fall into the area of superior courts, like wills and estates, so that if Chief Wedge and his people, for example, decided to pass a law in respect of wills and estates, then the adjudication of those laws still would have to go to the superior court. Our hope and desire was that our appointees, through our administration of justice systems and processes, would certainly enable the appointment of first nation peacemakers or judges who would have superior-like law-making capacities. We didn't think that there should be a necessary bar to that type of appointment, notwithstanding all of the issues with respect to section 96 superior court judge appointees by Canada, etc. We think there are ways around that, given the paramountcy of the entrenchment of the agreements under our treaties in that regard. So that was one concern.

In terms of the cross-border issues, the release clauses that the chief spoke to are applicable in the Yukon territory only. Notwithstanding the fact that for the Indian bands that used to exist before...all of the rights and titles of those Indian bands are now vested in a first nation that is created by virtue of the treaties and the agreements that exist. So what happens is that to the extent that the Teslin Tlingit Indian Band used to own reserve lands in B.C., all of the rights, titles, and interests that used to vest in the Teslin Tlingit Indian Band now vest in the Teslin Tlingit Council. So they've adopted all of the powers that currently exist, and there's nothing within the Yukon final agreements or the Yukon treaties that would vitiate any of their claims into B.C., either a specific claim or a comprehensive claim.

[Chief Mark Wedge]

One of the comments was about the tribunal being one person. I mean, obviously it would be great if there were more.

What I think is important is that what's being proposed is better than the way it was before. Do you know what I mean? It's not the best. We use circles, we use consensus, we use restorative justice models. We're building these processes into our administration of justice agreements. So of course that's what we would like to see reflected in some of the things, that these kinds of processes are there. However, that being said, a tribunal of one person is better than what was there.

I think it's important, and I want to touch on it because, really, we're moving ahead. We want to work with Canada, with the legislation. We've spent 30 years negotiating. We know that where we start from is not where we intend to end up. There are reviews that are built into these things. We would like to think that the community would look at these things and start having confidence as we build our judicial structures. We're using family councils and some of our self-governing legislation to move forward. We think that as we build this capacity and experience, this legislation will start taking that into account and start looking at how we would draw these into it. So it is a very important area.

Regarding the cross-border issue, just to touch on it, we are in the B.C. summit--our first nation is, Teslin is, a number of us are--so we're still negotiating treaty processes. It's very difficult, because what we're tending to do is to try to negotiate treaties on one hand and implement these other agreements on the other hand. But what's happening is that there's no movement. It would be great if Canada somehow could get some movement, because these are important areas that we need to work on. We're not even to the point of saying, how do we identify what those specific claims are that are related there?

The last point I'll just touch on is that we've recently gone through this nine-year review. I met many of you, actually, when we came down to do it, and I really appreciate your taking the time to receive us. What I think is important is that this legislation starts helping us, as first nations, to move forward better, because we seem to be moving forward at different levels, talking about administration of justice, doing these types of things. I think the nine-year review says that as governments, we need to be looked at differently and we need to start implementing the agreements adequately. And looking at resources is important, right? Gradually what we would like to see is that these flow into the Bill C-30 amendments and the review that will come about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much, Chief Wedge.

Monsieur Lévesque, sept minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for having travelled to us to give your point of view.

As you are no doubt aware, the tribunal's decisions will not allow land claims to be settled, but it will be able to award sums of money. Prior consultation is always relevant when legislative provisions involving aboriginal groups are evaluated. In his speech at second reading, on December 4, 2007, the minister described the bill as an example of the spirit of cooperation that must be shown in order to guarantee the success of a new way of dispute resolution. This new way of resolving disputes will affect hundreds of First Nations communities whose claims have not yet been settled.

Last February 6, at this committee, the minister told us that it was his impression that the bill would find significant support among First Nations. I do not know if the consultation happens just when the bill is being tabled or whether you were consulted as it was being developed.

To what extent was your working group consulted and were your regional member groups involved? Can you also tell me if your organization or the communities it represents were asked to contribute to those consultations?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

I'll start with the second question.

We are involved. AFN did come to the Yukon to present some of the things. As leaders, we did go in and review what was done. We did participate in the Assembly of First Nations. So to that degree, we have had consultation. I know our technical people have also had input into some of the processes, and they have both followed and participated in the AFN process, to get that into the current legislation. So I think that was important.

In terms of no land and what not, we understand that. When we first started in 1969 and the white paper came forward, they really wanted to do away with the Indian Act. We said it wouldn't be fair. It went to the Supreme Court, which said there were rights that needed to be addressed. We very much see that, and we keep evolving.

If you look at the injustice, these were lands that were traditionally occupied by our peoples, and through the building of a series of self-governments, a lot of those lands were lost. Gradually we're starting to negotiate them back. In our Yukon agreements we fought very hard to get a non-extinguishment clause, meaning our rights are not extinguished. Somewhere Canada and our first nations...these rights are up here. Every municipality, every government in Canada, has the ability to expand their lands. As it currently sits, we don't. And it's not fair; it's not just.

We know that at some point, in our coming and speaking here, fairness and justice will be seen. We will have the opportunity to say that it does make sense to expand these lands, especially if we're a fast-growing population base. It's not in this legislation, but with good governance and proper leadership, we believe we will get to those places where it will be viewed in that manner.

That's why we keep coming. It's important. We know it's not perfect, but every little step is important. We are people. We are nations. We will build land bases. We will do this in a good way. We recognize that it's not in there, but maybe in the future it will be.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I am going to share a part of my time with my colleague Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

At this committee, we have received representatives of First Nations communities in provinces, but this is the first time that we have had representatives from a territory, the Yukon, of course, being a territory rather than a province.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I would like to know how things are with the Yukon government. Do you have agreements and discussions? How can Bill C-30 fit with your land claims and with the discussions with the Yukon government and your communities?

[David Joe]

If I could, I would very quickly add to that.

In the Yukon, it's true that we have a territory. The Yukon Territory is a delegate of Canada. Canada has created the Yukon Territory by passage of a federal statute to give the territory law-making capacities and control of our land and resources.

Now, the assumption we make is that for the purpose of Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts when they use the word “province”...under the Interpretation Act a province includes territories for the purposes of making the bill apply to them. So in that respect, we assume Yukon is caught by the terms of the Interpretation Act. Even if it isn't, certainly given the fact that Yukon is a delegate of Canada, Canada could instruct it under the terms of the Yukon Act to comply with the wishes of the federal crown.

So we assume that's how there is that degree of consistency in that process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Crowder, seven minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you very much to our witnesses for making the trip.

I have a couple of brief questions and then I've a more expanded one.

I just want to be clear about my understanding that when we're talking about the tribunal makeup, you are suggesting that the definition needs to be expanded to include people from the Yukon who have that kind of experience. I heard you say peacemakers. So that's one kind of brief question.

The second piece of it is this. When you were talking about the first nations claimant definition under clause 2, were you suggesting there are some nations in the Yukon that would be specifically excluded from using the specific claims process under this bill? I wasn't clear from what you were saying.

Maybe you could start with those two, and if I have enough time I'll ask another one.

[David Joe]

I'll answer your second question first. It's obvious that before you become a claimant you have to fit within the defined term, and part of the defined term is the extent that you have not released your rights within any land claims. So every claimant would have to demonstrate that they have not surrendered or released their rights to file a specific claim.

The example Chief Wedge gave is exactly that point. For Champagne and Aishihik—that is where I am from—we have exempted seven specific claims, three of which have been accepted. So those claims are ongoing. We assume that, if they are not settled, these claims can be contemplated within the construct of Bill C-30. For the other four claims, the question becomes whether or not those claims are released under the way in which we define a claimant. It's unclear to us if indeed that is the case. We would like to assume indeed that it is not the case, that it is indeed pursuable or advanceable to allow first nations to continue to file those particular claims. I think that's a question of debate in the future, because it's obvious you're going to have to jump through that hoop to prove you are an eligible claimant.

With respect to your first question—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Joe, is there a specific amendment, then, that could be suggested? I'm not suggesting you propose it now, but is there an amendment that needs to happen in clause 2 then?

[David Joe]

Yes, I think if it's the intention of the crown or Canada to include those claims that may have been released because the period of time has passed, and if we have access to that, then the question becomes, which act is paramount? Are the treaty relief sections paramount, or are the provisions of access under Bill C-30? We'd like to think that's an open question at this point in time.

In terms of the makeup of the tribunal, it is our hope and desire that.... What we basically have is a tribunal that is made up of superior court judge appointees. As our brief submits, I dare say that if you were look across Canada, there may be one or two first nations citizens who are indeed superior court judge appointees, and none are from the Yukon Territory. For us to get some degree of credence or acceptability when we file these claims on the issue that we just spoke about—whether or not you are indeed a claimant—and given the fact that, hopefully, our appointees can be just as impartial in reviewing the administration of Bill C-30, as currently defined, as other appointees, we want to have that ability as well.

Therefore, there should be no bars with respect to our appointments, given that we meet certain minimum standards that are acceptable. We think that is a fair approach.