I think there are a couple of things: resourcing and leadership. I think the point you make about the fact that ministers are not in office particularly long—the average is two years—is important. Let's be realistic. The ministers we have dealt with for the most part, without any partisan consideration, have been people who have been largely wanting to make a change, wanting to do things. You might take issue with one or two, but it wouldn't be a partisan thing. There are ministers of various parties who have held office and have been relatively sympathetic in trying to get problems solved. So you could say, whose fault is it? Is it the bureaucracy? Well, not exactly.
That's part of the problem of accountability for decision-making at senior levels, when you have a minister who on average is in office two years—and the two years dates back to when Chrétien was minister for Indian Affairs, which is a long time ago. There were ministers there who some of us have probably never heard of because they came and went so quickly.
We have some 630-odd bands in Canada, first nations. We have three federal territories. We have scores of Inuit communities, and we have law that since 1982 has been evolving more rapidly, possibly, than any other area of law in Canada, which we need to keep up with. Also, contrary to the impression that the number of treaties might give, there are several hundred treaties in Canada for which the minister is responsible, and there are a couple of dozen land claims agreements in modern times. Then we have several thousand officials, a couple of hundred programs, yet the poor guy or lady in office has two years. Come on.
We've met with quite a few of the ministers—again, this is not a partisan comment—but one of them was Jane Stewart. She wanted us to sum up quickly our big issue at her level. We said, “Minister, you're impotent”. She sort of pulled herself up to her considerable height and said, “Well, I can't speak for my colleagues, but I certainly am not”. She tells that story all the time now apparently. But that was our point. You can have a minister who is really well-intentioned, or one that's not, but the fact of the matter is that in two years they're not going to get the problem by the throat and address it. They simply cannot.
I mean, I'm not telling the Prime Minister how to run his cabinet, but it would be real nice if some minister could stay in office long enough to get his hands on the throat of the problem. It really would.
The other thing is resourcing, and yes, that is an endless problem. We don't know what the answer is. The answer we think might be there is one that's being discussed, and I'm sure you've heard it a million times, about resource revenue sharing.
These first nations in Canada were operating as independent communities, looking after their own affairs, addressing their own needs thousands of years ago. The Crees were in James Bay looking after themselves before my ancestors, the Anglos and the Saxons, got to England. We weren't even in England when these guys were running societies here, and running them very effectively. So the answer, to me, is somewhere around resource revenue sharing, which brings in provincial jurisdiction, of course.
It seems to me that traditional territories supported first nations across this continent for thousands of years. They lived off their traditional territory. In some cases that's still possible, if they get a fair share of resource revenues and direct benefits from the exploitation of resources in their territory. That's not simply from hunting and fishing, because that's something they were doing to a greater extent than they are now, but all of the benefits from logging, mining, tourism, the benefits from all of those things.
You can say that's a nice answer for the Cree, but how does that solve Six Nations' problem and how can we be consistent?
Well, you might start looking at things like the sharing of land transfer tax.
What's the land producing right now for the crown and for local governments? It's land transfer tax. Every time you buy or sell your home, there's a land transfer tax. That's what's happening on the traditional territory of Six Nations. The crown use of that.... There are all kinds of rights-of-way for hydro, highways, pipelines, railways, and everything else across the traditional territory. Maybe there's something to be talked about there. Acquisition of increased land base on a willing seller basis. There are innocent third parties there that have nothing to do with any treaty violations or anything else. Some are willing to sell. That should occasionally be looked at.
But for the Cree, we're looking primarily at what Quebec would call crown land, and that's, I think, the long-term answer to the reserves thing. The government right now is demanding in negotiations that own-source revenues be there on the table. Okay, let's have a base for those own-source revenues. Bingo games aren't going to raise it all.
I could go on and on, as you can imagine.