Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if you put everything into context here, I do not understand how the Minister can say, "We have no indication." We know the fact that these agreements are with First Nations on behalf of their members, and it is usually a First Nation in close proximity to a development site, so there is a strong indication right there in itself.
We also know the history of how IBAs became a reality in the Territories. It was the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs who strongly indicated to industry, to First Nations and to this government that IBAs should be negotiated with a deadline of 30 days. If there is more indication short of seeing these agreements, I do not know what it is.
I would like to ask again, how could the Minister miss the indications that these are based on treaties and/or aboriginal rights? It deals with the issue of ownership of land and ownership of resources. If that is the case, then under the policy of income support where it deals with treaties they do not touch that. That is outside the realm of this government to deal with that. I think the recent court case, the Benoit case, reaffirms that position taken by First Nations and reaffirms the position taken by the Akaitcho to begin with, that this is a peace and friendship treaty where we never extinguished our rights to our lands and resources. What more does he need, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.