Quickly, first I just want to state—and I don't think anybody here would disagree—that we need to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court, so we're not going to put into question what was in the Moses affair.
Conversely, at least, the committee itself is of the opinion that it is a good decision to respect and to consult first nations from the beginning, which is more or less what was in the decision. Of note, though, is that it is one of the principal considerations in the agreement. The Crees enjoy a special status of consultation and participation over and above what is generally afforded to the general public, and that applies to section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
What we see is perhaps the Supreme Court properly reacting to concerns, obviously subsequent to the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was done in 1975.
The issue, though, is that when we get to the operational stage within the EA process, there is a disconnect between what happens during that process and what was supported or decided upon by the Supreme Court. So what we're asking—at least what Chantal forwarded—is to fill that gap. Section 22 goes well beyond what is in the CEAA, and it, of course, is in concordance with what the Supreme Court mentioned or decided, so perhaps it behooves this commission to consider specifically recognizing the convention, perhaps in the preamble or text of the act, when environmental assessments occur in the territory, so that by default we can then fill that gap.
In essence, right now section 22 goes well beyond what is in the act, and of course a Supreme Court decision is in line with that. There is still some road that has to be traversed before that.