Thank you very much, Madam Gill, for your question. You're getting right to the core of the issue.
Certainly I believe the mechanism is our hope, our early Christmas present, if, hopefully, a recommendation will come from the standing committee to the minister to create such a mechanism.
In my opening remarks, I pointed to the initial interim agreement in which we found an agreement between both parties. We created a way in for the Mi'kmaq back in 1999, and there was a balance. There was a balance of effort coming in with new licences for the Mi'kmaq spread out in LFA 34 in southwest Nova Scotia, but right now we see this chaos that I referred to. We're seeing communities like Saulnierville and Meteghan being ground zero or a lightning rod for the ministers and the Mi'kmaq's transition for moderate livelihood. We have to have a mechanism, a table where level-headed people can resolve this thing.
Put one word out there: “adjacency”. If we can accomplish that, if there's a compromise there.... To me it's very clear in the Marshall decision that it referred to Mi'kmaq territories, and I point out again that Mr. Sack has travelled over two bands. We would not be having this discussion right now if Mr. Sack would honour that word, “adjacency".
I have letters here in my files saying that the two territories, Acadia and Bear River, had never been consulted on this moderate livelihood by Mr. Sack. It's unfortunate, and we do not have to put communities like Saulnierville and Meteghan through this.
I hope I answered your question.