Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses. This is proving to be a very interesting meeting.
My questions will focus on two areas. My first question is for Mr. D'Eça. The second will be for the Vice-President of the Atlantic Salmon Federation.
If we go by what the scientists told us yesterday or the day before that, there seems to be a problem with species. The problem is mainly biological in nature. The scientists who testified were fairly clear about that.
We are not going to get very far with applying the legislation in the case of Nunavut. From the outset, one of the problems with species listing is the whole decision-making process. Of course, you have a land claims agreement that I feel is strong, and maybe even stronger than any other protocol signed a few years ago.
It's clear in your minds that the land claims agreement supercedes the act and takes precedence in the decision-making process. You are hoping that the provisions of the land claims agreement respecting the decision-making process and species listing will apply and take precedence over any action officials might take. I understand that you signed a protocol further to a working group's recommendations. However, this does not appear to have produced any results.
Is it your opinion that under the land claims agreement, the provisions of the Species at Risk Act must apply as per the discussions that have taken place in recent years? The protocol signed with the government does not appear to have produced much in the way of results. Which of the two documents has precedence, legislation that you might enact, or the statute enacted by Canada's Parliament?