Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  To take Okanagan as an example, the claim was filed two decades ago. It was accepted for negotiation five years ago and was rejected, or Canada withdrew, two months ago. So we would be, in the transition provisions, under clause 43. Actually, Okanagan would have to re-file its claim and wait for three years.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If you simply removed one cap of $150 million and you didn't remove the cap of $250 million, you'd have a potential problem with delay of settlement of the claims, because one significant claim could deal with a lot of the money. If you opted for our second suggestion, then that problem wouldn't emerge at all.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  From one Winnipegger to an ex-Winnipegger, that sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, let's say I took your house and told you I wouldn't give it back, but I'd let it be decided by someone that you could have input into appointing how much I owed you. But I'm only going to pay you a quarter of what it's worth, because I have some fiscal problems paying the full value of your house.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It could, Ms. Crowder. The difficulty I have with the suggestion, and I haven't read their brief, so I don't know exactly what they're saying, is how to tell whether a specific claim is simple or complex. These are judges who will be determining the answer, and I would think that they would be fully qualified to deal with any specific claim on the merits, whether it's simple or not.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Either the cap should be dropped or there should be some mechanism, at the very least, so the tribunal can direct Canada to negotiate, even if the amount is over the cap.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If I had one recommendation, I would say addressing the $150-million cap through removing it or through establishing a process; and Chief Alexis would say fix up clause 14.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No, it's clear to me what paragraph 15(1)(g) is getting at. They're saying there are certain treaty rights that the government would see as specific claims if they breach them, and others, if they breach them, they would say aren't specific claims. In our submission for the Semiahmoo First Nation, we said that this distinction wasn't, in our view, a proper one, because if you breach a treaty right, you breach a treaty right, and you should act accordingly and compensate.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  We focused on the two issues we focused on because those are the most important ones to the Okanagan. The question you posed, sir, is highly important, and it could go both ways. The difficulty in having an appeal to the courts is that Canada could then run a financially exhausted first nation through the court system.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The political agreement does have assurances. The question is whether those assurances will be complied with. In a sense, it seems like a gentlemen's agreement, which has been described as something that is not an agreement and is not made between gentlemen. The plain fact is that political agreements in the past have been broken.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Essentially, up until very recently we could have done exactly what Chief Alexis suggested by going to the Indian Claims Commission and getting a non-binding ruling. That avenue had its drawbacks, but it was better than nothing. Canada eliminated that access to the Indian Claims Commission and then, following quickly after that, withdrew from negotiations of the $750 million claim.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you very much, Chief Alexis. Thank you, committee. Having tagged off, I will just turn quickly to the two issues that Chief Alexis has brought forward and comment on them briefly. The first issue is the wording of paragraph 14(1)(c). The minister says in his comfort letter that this section is meant to deal with claims relating to the reserve creation process, like the Supreme Court of Canada said in Wewaykum.