I mean, clearly we would like it to be as clear as possible. By indicating that they hoped they would fall into a definition....
We'll have to see if that's the case, but clearly if it's spelled out properly in the act it would provide more certainty to first nations communities.
There's also an issue with respect to the ongoing evolution of aboriginal fisheries as new technologies and those types of things come into play. Clearly we want those protected in the aboriginal fisheries as well.
There is an issue with respect to “sustenance” and what that is. Recent Federal Court of Appeal cases with respect to taxation of first nations fishers in Manitoba was released just a couple of weeks ago or last week. They state that there may be commercial activities, but they also may be integral and tied to a first nations community. Again, we want to ensure that those types of arrangements are captured in the act and contemplated, and also consultation and accommodation result in those activities as well.
We agree that clarity and certainty are preferred, and if the act can be changed to make things clearer, that would be our preference.
Thank you.