A/HRC/27/52/Add.2 question the utility of the process. For example, four indigenous nations in the Treaty 8 territory in British Columbia have been in treaty land entitlement negotiations for a decade, for “so long that there are almost no available lands left for the First Nations to select”.28 66. Even for those First Nations that achieve an agreement despite these challenges, implementation has proved to be difficult. The vast majority of the country’s territory was constituted through historical (pre-1975) treaties with First Nations, which for many First Nations form a core aspect of their identity and relationship with Canada. Given their constitutional implications, these treaties should have a similar significance for other Canadians, yet treaty litigation forms 25 to 30 per cent of the Department of Justice’s inventory of cases, according to information provided by the Government to the Special Rapporteur. There are similar problems with implementation of court judgements affirming aboriginal rights. Poor implementation of existing rights and treaties is hardly a strong motivator for concluding new ones. 67. Since the visit of the previous Special Rapporteur in 2004, both the federal and provincial/territorial governments have made efforts to improve the treaty negotiation and claims processes. In 2007, the Government developed the Specific Claims Action Plan to address the backlog of pending claims, including by establishing a three-year time frame for negotiating settlements, after which First Nations may opt to refer their case to a tribunal for a final settlement. Also, federal legislation in 2008 established the Specific Claims Tribunal through which First Nations can seek and obtain decisions and awards binding on Canada in relation to historical grievances. In 2013, the Government established a Senior Oversight Committee composed of high-level federal and indigenous officials to review and update the comprehensive land claim policy on the basis of the principles of recognition and reconciliation. 68. It bears mentioning that, in spite of recent judicial affirmation that the Métis had not been provided the lands they were owed under the letter and spirit of the constitutional agreement that created Manitoba,29 the Government does not appear to have a coherent process or policy in place to address the land and compensation claims of the Métis people. E. Indigenous participation in economic development 69. One of the most dramatic contradictions indigenous peoples in Canada face is that so many live in abysmal conditions on traditional territories that are full of valuable and plentiful natural resources. These resources are in many cases targeted for extraction and development by non-indigenous interests. While indigenous peoples potentially have much to gain from resource development within their territories, they also face the highest risks to their health, economy and cultural identity from any associated environmental degradation. Perhaps more importantly, indigenous nations’ efforts to protect their long-term interests in lands and resources often fit uneasily into the efforts of private non-indigenous companies, with the backing of the federal and provincial governments, to move forward with natural resource projects. 70. As negotiations under the treaty and claims processes reach a standstill in many cases, other kinds of negotiated agreements outside these contexts are taking place, especially in relation to natural resources development, a booming industry in Canada and a main driver of the Canadian economy. Indeed, there are a number of examples in which First Nations have enjoyed economic and social benefits from resource projects, either 28 29 Treaty 8 Tribal Association, briefing to the Special Rapporteur, 10 October 2013. Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (Supreme Court of Canada). 17