Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all for being here just to clarify a few things for us.
Let me begin with probably the one that was most unclear to us, I think, and that was the question of using the term “land claims agreement” to I think subsume everything in addition to food, social, and ceremonial purposes.
With section 35 of the Constitution Act using the term “treaty”, and the Fisheries Act not using the term “treaty”, there was some concern that some fisheries may not be included under the new definition of aboriginal fisheries in the proposed amendment.
For example, if there's a treaty that doesn't cede land, as such—for example, the peace and friendship treaties on the east coast—would that be covered under the definition of aboriginal fishery that's being proposed, or would, perhaps, some of the numbered treaties—Treaty 6, which refers to fisheries, and Treaty 8, for example?
Can you give us some further information that helps us understand that the proposed definition will not miss some aboriginal fisheries?