Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When treaties are signed, there are different interpretations of treaties obviously. There is the federal government version where they say for $5 a year and for some free medical and education, you give up all your lands and resources to this whole Territory. The aboriginal side is saying the peace and friendship treaty where we agreed to let you come and live amongst us. You do not impose taxes on us, you do not develop resources, you do not take anything out of this land. You leave things the way they are supposed to be.
Through nickel and diming different aboriginal groups, making them fight with one another, creating this government, giving them the responsibility of delivering programs and responsibilities on behalf of the federal government, a lot of that is aboriginal dollars designated for aboriginal people. He's asking for some specific area. A lot of times the territorial negotiators go to the table without a specific mandate. When a decision needs to be made, they do not have the mandate to say yes or no. So they stall, we have to go back to get a mandate to go back and say yes or no. That is one example.
When you are negotiating a specific program or service, this government tries to hang onto that. It slows things down. There is another specific area. I would like to know when we can expect this legal opinion. Thank you very much.