I have one closing comment, and it's about the question you posed to the minister about the solution to this impasse we face.
We've been waiting for two years. It's a drain on the community, which was poised to implement this right away. The courts have given us two major cases which, in the context of preserving aboriginal rights when third parties are developing their lands, work fine. Those were the Haida and Taku cases at the Supreme Court level. Unfortunately, first nations that are in the initial stages of negotiations are using those cases to prevent closing tables from completing their treaties. That is the main impediment to doing treaties as other first nations at this point in time.
What I've found at this table and at other tables in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is that something more than an assertion of a right or interest in an overlap area has to be provided. That would be some sort of proof of claim, at least on a balance of probabilities, in advance of triggering a very long and detailed mediation or arbitration, which is what we're faced with in every one of these treaties that are coming before you now. Sliammon will be next; they'll go through the same process.
A mere assertion of aboriginal title or rights doesn't provide a knock-down argument that a court decision would. None of these are supported by court decisions. The mere assertion is undermining the process. There has to be some validation of those rights before you trigger the process of detailed and costly arbitration or mediation on these overlaps.
Thank you.