I think the department wouldn't disagree with that.
This change in Bill C-45 was made because feedback was received from some first nations groups and others that the definition in Bill C-38 would exclude some aboriginal fisheries, and the intent in the fisheries protection section of the act was to make sure that fisheries that involve fish that are fished, that are important to Canadians, be protected, and not to find a way to not protect some of those fisheries.
The advice was that by using the word “subsistence”, there would be some other fisheries.... The Nisga'a was one that was mentioned by the department official. Because they have a fishery that is commercial-like but doesn't have a commercial licence, it wasn't clear how a fishery like that would be caught by the terms “recreational”, “commercial”, and “aboriginal”. We were told that this broader term of “land claims agreement” would cover fisheries like that as well as arrangements that were made under treaty.
If you differ with that interpretation, perhaps you could say so, and if we have time—