Thank you for that question.

In this bill, the minister has the right to make that decision. That concerns us quite a bit.

I will put the protection zones in a historical context. When we entered into Six Nations of the Grand River, we were given six miles on either side of the Grand River. We actually came from the American Revolution. We missed out on nine million acres because of the war. Therefore, we ended up in southern Ontario, right through the heart of southern Ontario, right through the economic engine of southern Ontario. We were given, in 1784, six miles on either side of that, and that included tributaries. It included from the mouth to the source, from Dundalk all the way down to Lake Erie.

Then over time, of course, as we all know, it was whittled away. We ended up going from 950,000 acres to 46,000 acres. However, on that six miles on either side of the Grand River, we still have the interest in that land and water. We still have various treaties that have clauses on hunting and fishing rights, such as the Nanfan Treaty. We often see that everything seems to be restricted. You'll probably bring up jurisdiction. We're talking about these protection zones.

Protection zones to us are where all of the sources of our water come to affect us. It's six miles on either side of the river. I grew up on the river. My house is on the river. However, we cannot rely on the minister to tell us how far out the tributaries come or how far out all of the land comes. We're actually still in a court case over this.

We have a court case that's going after the fiduciary land claim of almost a million acres. Within that million acres was our watershed and our protection zone. From a historical context, we have six miles on either side, which actually encompasses all of the tributaries, and now, we've lost that.

We get a little offended. It's offensive for the ministers to say, “Okay, you have the right to this much or that much”. That is our stand on that issue.