Yes, definitely. That's something that's part of economic reconciliation, not to have those handcuffs on.
In a larger context, doctrines of superiority are woven into the fabric of legislation and federal policy. Nobody alive today was responsible for those, but those were definitely based on 1400s racism, all the way back to papal bulls. We have to start to decolonize that relationship, and economic reconciliation is a big part of that, as well as recognizing the old treaties that are still in effect that Canada relies on for its holdings of the land.
Again, we never had those conversations about how first nations' interpretations of the treaties were different from what's written on paper. We saw that with the “medicine chest” clause a few years back. I think it was Treaty 8 where it was found that elders' cultural knowledge was used to argue for that medicine chest. It just goes to show that oral traditions are also invaluable when it comes to finding out what treaties are valid, whether they're post-Confederation or pre-Confederation treaties.
That's the basis. We want to have as much first nations jurisdiction and sovereignty as we initially had. We reject the notion that it should be a father-and-child relationship. Our original relationship is more born along the lines of the Two Row Wampum treaty or the Silver Covenant Chain treaty. Once that relationship becomes tarnished, one party shakes the end of the chain. The other person who is holding the other end feels it, and then they get together and polish the chain, so to speak, to renew that relationship.
As you know, silver becomes tarnished if you don't take care of that relationship. Part of what we're doing here is addressing those kinds of things.