Thanks very much.
As you can understand, it's difficult for parliamentarians to understand their role when we're presented with something that was, to all effects, negotiated in good faith, was approved by the BC Treaty Commission, and is being sent here. I guess we want to have faith that what's happening at the high-level table between the Prime Minister and first nations leadership is going to fix some of these issues.
I understand that in terms of comprehensive claims, the Department of Justice, up till now, just looks at the strength of the individual claim in that analysis and hasn't really had the wherewithal to deal with the overlapping shared territory or—I think what you're describing—hasn't somehow exercised it, even if it maybe could have, should have, or ought to have. I guess what we're trying to determine, in terms of how you end up ensuring there is some reconciliation or the kinds of things you're talking about.... What we're hearing here this morning is very serious, in terms of a tinderbox, in terms of tensions that are worrying.
I'm pleased that you've brought these amendments forward, because I think you are describing to us the danger of exclusive access, and the idea that there has been, in many other previous negotiations, shared rights territory. Indeed, I think at the Eeyou it was actually on the map: it said “shared”. Even in the B.C legislature, they did talk about the present system being a sort of first past the post system: whoever gets there first gets what they asked for. Now we have to actually figure out that this process needs to change.
I would like my colleagues to understand whether you're comfortable that these rules are going to change as the negotiations go on, in terms of the Prime Minister and the leadership and how this negotiation process and the BC Treaty Commission process will change over this time. Therefore, without your amendments, this bill almost puts a problem in cement.