Mr. Chairman, are we having a break, or having a meeting? No, just kidding. Mr. Chairman, I was on this committee since it started. In June, the aboriginal issues started being addressed by the first Ministers. At that time, I was requested by the chairman, Mr. Kakfwi, to start attending those meetings. A lot of compromises were made, distinct societies were eliminated, treaty lands and aboriginal lands were eliminated. We did a lot of elimination, and came up with what we thought was the best that we could do, under the present circumstances.
Naturally, even to the last day in that Lester B. Pearson building, Quebec and Newfoundland were having problems accepting the deal. One of the difficulties is in recognizing aboriginal rights for Metis people, does that also mean new lands allocated to those people? Basically, because of that fear, if we recognize all those new rights for aboriginal people, that would mean a whole new land allocation for aboriginal people. I think a new section was also involved to the effect that it is the understanding that inherent right to self-government does not mean lands and resources, or something to that effect.
The other thing is that all during the process, it was a six month process, the Charlottetown Agreement was only, is only, about two weeks old. During the six month process, we had lawyers, and ourselves from the territories. We had at least three lawyers present all the time. We also had several resource people there all the time, and they were working on what they term "rolling grass."
When we talk about rolling grass, is that people, the Ministers, who would come up with an agreement, or general consensus on an agreement, of what was really said, and whether it is Senate reform, or any other discussions. Once there was general consensus, then it went to the resource people, and the legal people, so there was a rolling grass continuously. Once an agenda was not completed, but was discussed, and then there was the general consensus, things went to the lawyer, and it kept going like that for six months. Even at that point in time, with regard to the legal text, I believe that the final analysis is that basically what is written in the Charlottetown Agreement, would not change that much as far as legal wording would go, I would think. It took a long process, even for the lawyers to come up with what they thought was being said.
The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I have, as an aboriginal person, aboriginal values. One of them is that many years ago, Mr. Chairman, I think we got into a lot of trouble because of this, that was that word of mouth was good enough at one time, but that is not the case any more. Everything has got to be so defined that we lose the intent, and maybe our own values.
My position was that based on the aboriginal section of this agreement, I would lobby in support of it. Mr. Chairman, one of the things is that, the failure of Meech Lake Accord was a result of what we got for the aboriginal package. We had nothing before the aboriginal package, except section 35. We have made a lot of gains and the section, with regard to the treaties, would be interpreted in a wide liberal manner.
I think that the Treaties 8 and 11 have already been interpreted by the courts. It was based on those interpretations that a movement towards land claims had started, back in 1967, 1968, and 1969. That was the opinion of the court, that what was in the treaties was not what was said at that time of the treaties. You have two versions, but it was based on a judge travelling into the communities. Even at that time, the judge respected the words of those aboriginal people, it was not written documents, it was not a legal text that they referred to. Judge Moore based it on the aboriginal values, that their word is truth.
I would think that what was negotiated by this government, and the aboriginal leaders, is that because we are an aboriginal government, not an aboriginal government, but a public government with an aboriginal majority, that what we are telling the people out there, is the truth, regardless of whether we have a legal text or not.
I would like to think that, Mr. Chairman, the hard work that we have put into it, I realize that not all the Members were there, but the Members did give us the mandate to be in Ottawa and try to go for the best possible deal. I think that is what we have done. If we do not support it, then we do not know what the results would mean.
My own personal observation, is that in my region, we do not have land claims. We have a lot more to lose, if something like this is not in place. I think Mr. Nerysoo mentioned it yesterday, is that we will have self-government in a public government forum. That is where people have already ratified claims, and that are ratifying claims. For the people who do not, I think they have a lot more to lose, by not going to that process, at least this would give them the opportunity to negotiate inherent right to self-government, as opposed to extinguishment.