Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill S-216, providing for the Crown's recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada, met this day at 6:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I am from British Columbia. Before we begin, I want to introduce briefly some of the members of the committee. On my immediate right is Senator Watt from Quebec; beside him is Senator Campbell from British Columbia; on my left is Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island; and beside her is Senator Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Today, the committee begins its study of Bill S-216, providing for the Crown's recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada.
For the benefit of those viewing this hearing, it is helpful to state what Bill S-216 hopes to accomplish. The bill is enabling legislation. It will not be thrust upon our First Nations people.
This committee has heard time and again that the Indian Act does not empower First Nations to develop their economies and way of life as it should. First Nations communities and their members have been calling for this kind of legal empowerment for decades. In fact, First Nations people have been the architects, to a great degree, of this legislative initiative.
With respect to First Nations that have a land base, their members will be able to govern themselves and in an accountable and efficient manner for the benefit of all band members.
This evening, appearing before us is the Regional Chief from the province of Alberta for the Assembly of First Nations, Chief Wilton Littlechild.
Welcome to the committee. We understand you have a statement that you wish to make. Once you have concluded your presentation, senators will ask you a few questions.
Wilton Littlechild, Regional Chief, Alberta, Assembly of First Nations: Good evening to everyone. It is an honour to be here again. As I appeared in front of the committee on a different occasion wearing somewhat of a different headdress, if I may put it that way, I was honoured to make a presentation from an international perspective. Honourable members of the standing committee, thank you for your invitation to appear today on this important matter. I will approach the bill from a domestic perspective.
I begin by expressing the gratitude of the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, for the interest that this committee is taking in this issue and to you, Senator St. Germain, for raising the profile again.
The charter of the Assembly of First Nations supports the right of every First Nation to seek the recognition and implementation of its rights in its own way, including the right to self-government. In keeping with this position, the AFN supports the intention of the legislation as a reflection of a community-driven initiative.
The recognition of First Nations government is long overdue. Perhaps, I should say the reality of First Nations governments having been recognized must be accommodated, and this accommodation is long overdue. I make this distinction because our governments have been recognized many times since first contact. Our governments were recognized in treaties between nations. They were recognized in royal proclamations, constitutions and domestic laws. They were recognized by all the European and Canadian governments that have come and gone over the intervening 500 years.
Internationally, the United Nations Declaration on rights of Indigenous Peoples also recognizes the right to self- government. As I stated previously, I have been involved in this declaration and have presented to you from that perspective.
I would like to provide a copy of a paper that I have written on this subject to the committee. Unfortunately, it is only in English. Once I have a French copy, I will submit both as a written submission. I apologize for that.
The reality of our governments was not accommodated. Instead, we had colonial relationships and then, with the advent of the new Government of Canada, we had the Indian Act. The Constitution Act of 1982 confirms the reality that our governments and the courts have repeatedly affirmed and recognized our rights. However, still an accurate reflection or accommodation of this reality has not been made in legislation or policy.
A commitment is required to reconciliation. Reconciling the reality of our governments is imperative of the Constitution and rule of law in the country.
Unfortunately, we continue to see evidence to the contrary as the federal government continues to act in ways to undermine and ignore the reality of our governments. The most recent examples include Bill C-2, where one clause treated all municipal, provincial and foreign governments with the respect they deserve, but First Nations governments were treated as agents of the Crown. We fought that and had it amended before Bill C-2 became law.
Since then, we have seen, rather than supporting the positive expression and capacity required for First Nations to address critical issues, attempts to impose regulations. Examples include regulations relating to drinking water, proposed legislation relating to the division of property, and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
On this latter point, the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself recognizes the fundamental need to balance collective and individual human rights and to support the evolution of First Nation institutional and other capacity to foster protection of human rights. This action of Canada to unilaterally impose legislation again is particularly ironic and deeply troubling, as it is being carried on at the same time as denying our rights as indigenous peoples on the international stage.
The status of our governments as governments is a reality, but that reality remains threatened due to the unwillingness of the federal government to provide legal recognition, in addition to their policy-based recognition. We agree with the framers of Bill S-216 that there must be a reaffirmation by the Government of Canada as to the reality of First Nations in this country — a confirmation that our governments are governments and that our nations are nations and our peoples have the right to demand the respect and accommodation that any other people would receive. First Nations have the right to implement their governments.
First Nations have developed such plans. You have in front of you, in Bill S-216, the reflection of one such effort. The Assembly of First Nations has also developed a plan for the recognition and implementation of First Nations governments. We believe our plan is strong as it is born from within our traditions. It respects our ways of dealing with each other and respects all those who have an interest and perspective to share. This work stems from many sources, including the approach suggested by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The RCAP report spoke at length of this issue. It reviewed prior studies such as the Penner report. It reviewed the available data and, significantly, it repeated the testimony of many First Nations individuals. In that report, among its more than 400 recommendations was discussion of how to achieve recognition of First Nations governments.
Since then, the Assembly of First Nations has persisted in its pursuit of this objective. We travelled the country and spoke to people from every region to obtain input for our own study on this issue. We were given a mandate from the chiefs and assembly, and convened a panel of experts to oversee the process and produce recommendations. Those recommendations led to a framework for real action to implement First Nations government. We brought that report back to chiefs and the assembly for their approval. I have tabled this document with the committee as background to this discussion.
I believe this document has been circulated to you.
We also brought ideas to the Government of Canada. For over a year we participated in the Canada-Aboriginal People's round table process and heard from even more people, including representatives of the federal government.
In May of 2005, we signed the First Nations — Canada political accord on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nations Government, the RIFNG accord. I have also tabled this document with the committee as well.
This accord sets out a relationship and a methodology to be pursued by both First Nations and the Government of Canada. This approach to realizing self-government is cooperative, constructive and principled. It is consistent with the First Nations' view of self-government and with Canada's Constitution.
Since signing the RIFNG accord, we have been working on the means to implement it. It begins with a vision "To enable the political, social, economic and cultural development of First Nations peoples to exist, continue and prosper, consistent with Treaties and Aboriginal rights.''
It continues with the principles for recognition and implementation of First Nations government. Again, I quote the exact principles:
First Nations hold a "nation-to-nation'' relationship with the Crown.
First Nations have an inherent (not delegated) right to self-government and they are a distinct order of government as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution.
The Crown has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the inherent rights of First Nations and to uphold the spirit and intent of the treaties.
First Nations have the right, through the treaties and the Constitution, to share, manage and benefit from the lands and resources in their traditional territories.
Lands and resources are essential to foster self-dependent, self-governing First Nations. Each of these elements is essential to appropriate recognition, but we also need implementation of First Nations governments. For that, the RIFNG process has developed a plan. This involves three critical steps.
The first step is community processes and capacity building leading to capable First Nations governments. Elements essential to that step include our First Nations wanting to make the transition to self-government effectively and involving First Nations citizens in rebuilding their governments. Governments and the institutions of government will be legitimate only if they are seen to be legitimate by the people being governed. Like everyone else, First Nations want capable governments.
Training and capacity building is required to ensure strong administrative and technical skills within First Nations, including a skilled and professional First Nations public service. Capable governments also imply that First Nations governments obtain adequate resources so their governments are sustainable. New financial arrangements will be required that are fair and balanced.
Ultimately First Nations want sustainable economies. This state involves resource revenue sharing, claims settlements, access to resources in traditional territories, investing on and off reserves and long-term economic planning. First Nations want to be participants in a national and international economy, but are severely hampered by current policies. It is in everyone's best interest to foster First Nations economic development.
The second step is policy reforms to advance First Nations government including protocol, legal instruments and other arrangements to address comprehensive claims, Aboriginal rights and title. The current policy has not kept pace with existing and evolving case law. It needs to be updated. I am sure you all know that from your study.
In respect of treaty implementation, First Nations and the federal government must develop a new approach that reconciles both the Crown's perspective of the treaties and the First Nation's perspective.
The current policy and approach does not legally recognize the inherent rights of self-government. A new recognition policy is needed that recognizes this right. This instrument could replace the Indian Act.
The role of the government as judge and jury in the process of specific claims is unjust and unfair. A new process is needed that is fair and efficient. This process will provide certainty for Canada and First Nations.
First Nations and the federal Crown should develop jointly a code of conduct for the honour of the Crown so that both parties can monitor discussions and identify violations.
The third step is that the structure and machinery of the government changes would include a diminished role for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, restricted program delivery, a new ministry for First Nations and Crown relations, an office of treaty commissioner, an office of fiscal relations, a First Nations auditor general, a First Nations ombudsperson and an Aboriginal and treaty rights tribunal.
The accord commits both parties to work cooperatively through a joint steering committee. This committee oversees joint action and cooperation on policy change, including the establishment of frameworks to promote the recognition and reconciliation of rights in section 35 of the Constitution, including the implementation of First Nations governments.
Recognizing and implementing First Nations governments will enable First Nations to chart their own path to progress and prosperity. It will ensure that Canada remains a productive and competitive country for all its citizens, and it will lead to the long-needed reconciliation between First Nations and Canada.
Recognizing and implementing First Nations governments is not only a challenge to Canada, it is a tremendous opportunity as well. It will fulfill our shared vision of a strong, just and united country for all Canadians.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to work with us to recognize First Nations governments; and to do so in a way that respects not only the aspirations of our peoples, but of our paths to those goals.
The Chairman: I followed your delivery carefully and, toward the end, you spoke of specific claims. I am sure you know that this committee has reported recently on the specific claims and treaty land entitlement.
I saw an AFN report that commented favourably on the committee's report. Possibly you could comment on this, if you are in a position to do so, because you have mentioned it here. I think it is an integral part of dealing fairly with our Aboriginal peoples, in that if we do not deal with the injustices that have been wrought upon our Aboriginal peoples, we will go nowhere. I think it is a major first step.
In regard to Bill S-216, I will ask the first question. I know that you have gone through this bill carefully, Chief. How would the bill mitigate costs? As you know, any self-government arrangements that have been negotiated to date have been extremely costly to the taxpayer — and to our Aboriginal peoples as well. By way of enabling legislation, do you see this bill as mitigating the costs to this process considerably?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes: perhaps I will respond in two ways. One is in relation to human cost. By that, I mean we are aware of the negative statistics we always hear about for our communities in terms of youth suicide, as an example. The problem is not only youth suicide, but a disastrous rate of suicide in general.
A recent study has been conducted that concludes that the more self-governing a community is, the lower the rate of suicide. From a human cost factor, that consideration is important.
The second one is more in terms of a financial perspective. It gives me an opportunity to make a comment that may lead to a recommendation. We hear about the amount of $9 billion being allocated to First Nations. You and I, as colleagues, know that at some point we had a different figure; at that time, at least, it was a lesser amount. It seems to be increasing. The cost of delivering the industry is escalating.
I want to analyze it from the perspective of how much of that allocation of $9 billion reaches the First Nations community. We have numerous figures and scenarios of that financial allocation. Let us take only administrative costs for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, $600 million. If $600 million were made available to First Nations to govern themselves better, over the long term, certainly there will be a cost reduction. When you ask about mitigating costs, I think that there are not only financial costs to be mitigated, but human costs as well: enabling First Nations to govern themselves in a better way, and recognizing that self-government is a way to do it.
The Chairman: All the evidence that we have heard, whether it be from Harvard University or any of the studies, is that there is leadership, education and governance — and not necessarily in that order.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Chief Littlechild, for your presentation this evening. Professor Patrick Macklem told the committee in May 2005 that, in his view.
Bill S-16 codifies, in a modest and realistic way, most of the best practices on Aboriginal self-government that have emerged as a result of litigation, negotiation and legislation. . . . It operates within the demands of the Constitution and the Charter. . . . It offers real democratic participation to Aboriginal people to alter the way they are currently governed for the better. . . . It offers real self-government to First Nations across the country. It is a very good bill. . . .
I wonder if you might comment on Professor Macklem's assessment of Bill S-216. Would you like to add anything to that, or do you agree or disagree?
Mr. Littlechild: I agree. I think I would also refer to my previous intervention to the committee, when I stated that there are self-governing First Nations doing well right now in terms of traditional laws. What is missing is the recognition. I think this bill goes a long way to providing that recognition.
Much in line with Professor Macklem's previous testimony, I agree that within the existing structure we have, that would work. However, I think we need also to pay respect to traditional forms of government that need recognition, not just under federal legislation but under traditional laws. I think this bill could lead to that option as well by way of recognizing the proposals under the judicial part of the bill, where they recognize the establishment of courts. We need a mechanism, through that process, to recognize traditional laws.
Senator Campbell: My question has to do with step 3 — structural and machinery of government. I agree with you about the administrative costs and pushing that money down to the ground, where we need it.
Is a diminished role for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs restricted to program delivery? Why even have them deliver the program? If we move toward self-government, why can the First Nations, as a self-governing organization, not deliver programs and have a new ministry for First Nations and Crown relations? I do not know what I would call that ministry, but would it not make sense? Nobody disagrees that we need to move to self- government. Would not it make sense that the First Nations deliver the programs, and ensure that those programs serve the communities and the money goes to those communities?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes, I agree, definitely. However, the observation I would make in terms of that suggestion is that there must be a transitional period. Within that transitional period, as the First Nations build the capacity to deliver their own programs and services, that can happen.
There is a concern that if they were to have it immediately, there would be no transitional opportunity to take that delivery of programs and services from the department over to the First Nations governments.
I agree with you, in terms of the end result being much better. The best solution is First Nations governments doing it themselves.
Senator Campbell: I was not suggesting that we wake up one morning and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is gone. I agree with the transition.
Then I look at office of treaty commissioner, office of fiscal relations, First Nations auditor general, First Nations ombudsman and an Aboriginal treaty rights tribunal. This is not something that we should decide: you should decide who these people will be. Otherwise, we keep going in the same top-down direction. Through that transition, perhaps then we have ongoing training. However, right now we have none of that. We have, "this is our program, and we will deliver it.'' That worries me.
In 1986, the Sechelt in British Columbia became self-governing. I think that is working well. Coming from British Columbia, I think that whole process is excellent. Within Bill S-216, there are similar provisions.
In your view, does Bill S-216 adopt the same approach to self-government generally as the Sechelt legislation? In what ways, if any, does Bill S-216 differ in purpose, context and effect? What are the implications of any differences? I do not know if you can answer that. The area is complicated.
Mr. Littlechild: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to that question in a more detailed way later. Models have been compared, including the Sechelt and Nisga'a models, to this particular bill. An analysis was done on that. I do not have it with me now. However, I would like to provide it to you to indicate the analysis that has been conducted with the various models including the Sechelt.
To answer your question, it identifies the differences with this bill. It gives a better option for others, not in the same circumstance as Sechelt, but it certainly provides an option.
Senator Campbell: My last question is: Do you believe there is one model?
Mr. Littlechild: No.
Senator Campbell: I have difficulty imagining that there is one model. Democracy is continually changing. Do you agree that there is not one model: it may be an amalgam of many, it may be one or it may be the other? Each First Nation must make a decision on what model best fits their situation.
Mr. Littlechild: Yes, I agree. I think one of the advantagesof this bill is that it provides that framework for which First Nations can choose a model that best reflects their community.
The framework is there in the bill. It offers the First Nations the opportunity. You are right, there is no one model. The benefit of this bill is that the framework is there to choose a more relevant model for a particular community. Providing the options, for example, of amalgamating communities or regionalizing: one approach or model may be better or more suitable than another. That is why I think the framework is there for that opportunity.
Again, I agree with you that there is no one model.
Senator Dyck: Thank you, Chief Littlechild for the presentation and the updated information. The question I have for you is with regard to the RIFNG accord.
In your presentation you noted that the AFN supports the intention of legislation as the reflection of a community- driven initiative. The simplest part of the question would be: Do you think that Bill S-216 is a good reflection of the needs of the Aboriginal communities, the First Nations communities?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes: When I say "a community-driven initiative,'' we have two approaches on how we could do this. One approach has been to go ahead and draft legislation and then consult communities on that legislation. This bill started from the community and, from there, became draft legislation. As you know, there has been a lot of support for that process to happen. As a model, in terms of one way of doing it, I am not saying that is the only way but the community-based initiative is a good option. Counter to some of the previous proposals that have been resisted, it was because they were the other way around.
The last time I was here, I felt we needed an opportunity like this one for First Nations to draft their own legislation that is recognized by the federal government, and not always a process that works the other way around. I think the bill is a good community reflection. It is a good basis for building on.
Senator Dyck: To follow along that vein of thought, how do you envision the implementation of Bill S-216 with respect to the federal-AFN political accord such as in the RIFNG document? What do you see as the further role of this RIFNG accord?
Mr. Littlechild: Let me phrase it this way, because I have thought about that and I have come to my own conclusion: We are climbing the same mountain but we are using different paths. This path is one way to the goal of recognizing First Nations government. The RIFNG process is complementary. It is another path. If you said, "We are taking this path in terms of the RIFNG process''; then you could say, "This is one way to do it.'' I do not think it counters the RIFNG process. The RIFNG process is complementary.
Senator Watt: Nice to meet you again, Chief. I think the sense of what you brought to this committee is new, at least to me anyway: The way you phrase the issue and the way you would like to find the solutions to — I guess the word that you use is "reconciliation.'' Saying that, we both know there are two ways to interpret section 35. Some people call it the "full-box theory''; some people call it the "empty-box theory.'' It depends on what angle you come from to call upon inherent rights to self-government; current policy does not recognize legally the inherent right to self-government. A new recognition policy is needed to recognize these rights. This instrument could replace the Indian Act.
If you look at it from the empty-pocket theory concept, inherent rights are not part of section 35. I want to be clear so I know where you are coming from.
The other part of it is that if we want the Government of Canada to recognize the inherent right to self-government, our right to self-government, we governed ourselves before anybody stepped into this country.
Would you like this matter to be recognized in this new piece of legislation, either by way of creating a new act or by way of replacing the Indian Act?
Are you saying that until our inherent rights are entrenched and recognized by government, the rest will not work? We want recognition of our rights but, unless they are recognized, self-government will not materialize. Am I understanding you correctly?
Mr. Littlechild: I think so, yes.
Senator Watt: Bill S-216 does not cover the particular issue you are talking about. Are you saying that the bill is good, but that we need more, that we want our inherent right to self-government to be recognized in Bill S-216? If that is the case, we must revisit this matter to take it into account, because that is not included in this legislation.
Mr. Littlechild: If it is not there, there is more work to be done. Maybe there is another way of approaching this. Perhaps a legislative committee could deal with it.
I am not sure that I fully understand what you are asking me.
Senator Watt: It is the same argument I have put to you before with regard to general laws of application regardless of what new rights might have been negotiated and implemented. What I have gained through negotiations has been quashed by the general laws of application. It is always a question of what applies and what does not apply.
I do not want you to believe that this will be resolved. I support this initiative, because I believe it is the beginning. However, we must be precise and clear in order not to give a false impression to the people we are dealing with. I have lived through this issue for a number of years, and I do not want to be part of something that is not real. I do not like to deal with make-believe.
People talk about self-government. The Nunavut government is not a self-government; it is an extension of the federal government. Labrador's new settlement is not a self-government; it is a simple municipality. My area is another simple municipality.
The only areas that I know of that come close to self-government are Nisga'a and Sechelt. My only problem with those areas is that their land base is narrow and does not take into account traditional activities outside of their reserves.
Mr. Littlechild: The bill attempts to provide a solution to general laws of application. For example, it provides for what happens when there is a general application of federal law or a general application of provincial law. For example, within an indigenous territory, indigenous law is paramount. The bill attempts to address the issue of paramountcy, and hopefully it addresses it adequately.
The Chairman: You spoke about regionalizing and amalgamation. That issue logically has to be a question because, due to the size of some of our First Nations, they would not have the capacity or the human resources base on which to operate.
How many First Nations do you believe would be able to take advantage of Bill S-216? I know that your experience is vast and that you have studied at the international, national and regional levels.
Mr. Littlechild: I will address that from two perspectives. First, it is available to all First Nations because it is opt-in legislation. Another perspective is a language-based approach. Under a language-based approach, for example, combining all Cree-speaking First Nations, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples indicated that there may be 56 to 58 such possibilities. The main point is that option is available to everyone. Whether the approach is geographic or linguistic is another aspect.
Senator Dyck: My question is about land. You said that the First Nations have the right to share, manage and benefit from the lands and resources within their traditional territories. Bill C-216 does not stipulate that Aboriginal lands governed by First Nations communities would remain lands reserved for the Indians within the meaning of section 91.24 of the Constitution Act of 1867.
Do you think this section is significant? What would be the significance of not maintaining section 91.24 status for Aboriginal lands covered by the bill? Do you think this will create difficulties, or is it okay as it stands?
Mr. Littlechild: I think it creates more opportunities. The question may also be from a jurisdictional perspective, that is, the government having jurisdiction over reserve lands, treaty territories or traditionally owned lands. Various options are possible under the legislation, so I believe the bill makes it better from that perspective.
Land is critical to all of this. Land and resources are equally important from an economic and human resource perspective. The attention given to land in a definition section gives numerous possibilities. Clause 2 of the bill defines Aboriginal land and gives a number of possibilities in defining what that land base is.
Senator Dyck: Are you saying that if this bill were to be implemented, self-governing First Nations would have more opportunities?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes.
Senator Dyck: Can you give us an example?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes: If a self-governing First Nation were economically viable and could access revenues, they could purchase additional lands. That is an opportunity, with a solid economic foundation, to increase their land base, not only from an economic perspective but also to house their members.
For example, in my community, our reserve boundaries have stayed the same, but our population has multiplied. We have not been able to increase that land base except by buying land. The bill offers that opportunity as well.
Senator Dyck: You do not sense any danger of there being loss of traditional land?
Mr. Littlechild: No.
Senator Hubley: My question concerns membership or citizenship in First Nations communities.
Bill S-216 provides that for communities whose membership list is maintained by the government, persons on that list must be confirmed as members by the First Nations community to vote in the referendum to determine participation in the Bill S-216 regime.
Do you find that this issue might be contentious? Perhaps you might comment on the requirement for membership confirmation by communities for persons on government-maintained membership lists.
Mr. Littlechild: It is a contentious issue. It is so contentious that in this last week a substantial court case started on that particular issue. We need to wait for the court to reach a decision on that question. Whatever I may say might be inappropriate to what the court might say, except to say that the issue is so contentious that it had to go to court.
A court process right now is dealing with that issue, and we must wait for the decision. The fact to consider in the backdrop is that First Nations need the right to control their own membership. That principle underlies that part of the bill.
Senator Dyck: Thank you. I do respect that answer.
The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Littlechild. There is no doubt that this process originated from the grassroots of our Aboriginal communities. This process is not top-down. I happen to be sponsoring this bill, but it was not my brainchild. Someone else at the ground level decided that this bill was a necessity for our Aboriginal peoples.
Hopefully, if Bill S-216 is enacted into law and the government accepts this legislation, it will be an affordable option. There is support for this bill, honourable senators. We held a four-day conference in the province of Manitoba that was put on by the Ojibway band. Several bands in Manitoba came together to discuss the merits and to add to the building of this particular piece of legislation. I have always said that I do not care whose name is on it — it does not need anyone's name on it — as long as it serves the constituency that we are trying to serve as a community, our Aboriginal peoples, who have paid a horrific price since the arrival of the non-Aboriginals in Canada in a lot of ways.
With that, Chief Littlechild, do you have a document that you want to table with this committee? Is this document the one that you referred to, which was not translated?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes, it is only in English.
The Chairman: We can accept it in one language only. We will have it translated. If you want to table it as an exhibit with the committee, I would like to have agreement from the committee.
This document will be accepted as an exhibit and filed with the clerk of the committee. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
I thank you again, Chief. Is there anything else you want to say before we adjourn this hearing?
Mr. Littlechild: I want to thank you all of you again for your continued interest. I sincerely think we are doing the right thing.
The committee continued in camera.