Thank you, Chief Jules.
I'm interested in the approach, but I want to look at the larger picture. I'm going to read you something written by Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer. She says:
Similarly, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is a significant promise to aboriginal peoples to both recognize and protect their aboriginal and treaty rights. Perhaps most importantly, section 35 is a constitutional promise to aboriginal peoples to protect their distinctive cultures and identities for future generations. Since land is critical to the identity of First Nations as well as to the maintenance of their cultures and communities, it seems illogical to suggest that First Nations are best served by dividing up their reserves into individually owned parcels of land available for sale to non-aboriginal people in the name of economic development.
Is that a harsh judgment by her?