First, I understand the AFN provided some testimony, and as I indicated, we have had some meetings with them. They indicated they wanted to have more, so I certainly recognize that.
Part of the discussion with the AFN, and I think it needs to continue, is to clarify what the purpose of the definition of “aboriginal” is with respect to fishing. I'll say here—and we've said it there and we need to continue to say it—that aboriginal with respect to fishing...that definition in the Fisheries Act is not meant to refer to all fishing by aboriginals. It's not meant to refer to protecting rights or treaty rights. It's not meant to do that; it's meant to cover something that is not covered in commercial and recreational fisheries in those definitions. What we think is not covered in terms of the fisheries that we're seeking to protect is food, social, and ceremonial, and other items identified in the land claims.
It is a complex matter, you're absolutely right, and as evidenced by our discussions with the AFN and others, we'll have to continue to have those discussions. That said, our view is that it is clear in terms of what we're seeking to cover, and it's a matter of communications and clarity and working with people to ensure that there's a full understanding.