I think on the bigger issue, Mr. Ritz, in section 35 of Canada's Constitution, existing aboriginal treaty rights are recognized and affirmed. That's part of Canada's Constitution, but there are also a lot of key things that are addendums to Canada's Constitution, like the Royal Proclamation of 1763, like subsection 91(24), like the 1870 order in council. All of those are part of addendums, but existing aboriginal treaty rights....
We have an inherent right, section 35. It's the definition of the inherent right to self-determination. We still have unextinguished aboriginal title to lands and resources, so that's contained therein.
Indigenous peoples haven't been involved with the TPP. We have never been involved with NAFTA. We haven't been involved with FIPA, all these international agreements.
From an indigenous person's perspective, what is Canada doing going out there and selling all these natural resources to the world, when we've never given them up as indigenous peoples? That's where we come from. Again, the example of peaceful coexistence and mutually benefiting from sharing the land and resources, we can get into that.
In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta, there's a whole other thing called the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, which is something else we have to get into, because we say we share this much, the depth of a plow, nothing underneath. All these things come into play.
The basic bottom line is, when Canada is going out from a first nations perspective there is this title thing or this idea of assumed crown sovereignty, assumed crown jurisdiction. That's what we're going to start getting into, because the doctrine of discovery and the concept of terra nullius are starting to be viewed as illegal and racist doctrines. That's where we're coming from, so when Canada is going out, we're saying indigenous peoples have to be involved, free and prior informed consent, duty to consult and accommodate, but recognition of jurisdiction.