Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps some witnesses who participated in the various consultations will agree. I realize that we're getting very vague responses.
We were told earlier that “moderate livelihood” couldn't be defined, because the first nations must provide the definition. We're now being told that the agreements signed with the Maliseet of Viger, for example, are having a positive impact and that the measures under way are also having a positive impact. I have trouble taking a position on this issue. I imagine that the first nations are also having trouble.
I want to hear the minister talk about initiatives, for example. She spoke about initiatives described as positive, including the Marshall decision and the agreement with the Maliseet people. However, people from the first nations are saying that they don't necessarily want commercial fishing.
How can you explain the fact that your statements don't necessarily align with what the first nations want in terms of the proposal and the organization of various programs, for example?