It's a tough question to answer.
We've heard that from DFO for a while now, and there have obviously been a number of Supreme Court cases since 1980, since section 35 was introduced into the Constitution.
We're hopeful that further engagement does occur and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, like all of government, works in first nation communities to accommodate first nation interests, and also works on other projects such as economic development ventures and on how first nations can alleviate some of the poverty constraints they currently find themselves in. Clearly that's an interest of many first nation communities and the Assembly of First Nations.
On the case-by-case basis, again, you may have two communities living in the same treaty area, say Treaty No. 5, for instance. You may have DFO applying certain standards to one community and different standards to the other community even though they exist under the same treaty. There may be inequities in those relationships as far as licensing and other things are concerned.
There may be some positive aspects about that, but there also may be some problematic aspects of this case-by-case relationship. Again, we would encourage that the federal government work with first nation communities to provide greater certainty to all of first nation communities.
We agree that, based on ecosystems, there may be some differences in the fisheries, but again by and large the aboriginal and treaty rights are fairly consistent in broad areas and we would hate to see differences in DFO's treatment between certain communities and certain classes of fishers.