As I've stated, in regard to the termination of title, the crown is in breach of its own treaty obligations under Treaty No. 3 1/2 when they expect that the only way to resolve it is the termination of rights under title. The crown has an ongoing and continued obligation to respect that as a title to that land, and that's what the crown wants to avoid—the recognition of what the treaty means.
If you ask their negotiator or anybody sitting on the federal table, “How does Canada interpret its obligations under this treaty?”, they avoid the question. We're telling the crown today that there is an ongoing legal obligation to respect the title rights that are conveyed under that treaty. It cannot be overridden by policy or other legislation. The treaty is supposed to be the superior law of the land, to uphold and respect those treaty rights. The government has politically said they're going to do it. UNDRIP said they should be doing it. So why do we have these policies that are in total contravention to those obligations?
We are reasonable people. We will accommodate non-native people on our land under some other arrangement, but not under extinguishment of our title or our rights. There is plenty of room for other models to emerge, but Canada is not open-minded enough to look at something new. They have surrender on the brain, and that's what has to stop.