Understood.
Okay, we'll move to something else. But I'll just say, for the benefit of my committee members, that the witnesses are making a case based on a trail of evidence as they're presenting it to allow an interpretation of the will of the parties. It seems to me if we were to accept that, given that Mr. Angel is a former Department of Fisheries and Oceans employee--and in his day a senior member of that department as well--if we were to make that assumption that a letter actually rejecting the application is valid.... Anyway, the only correspondence from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is that it should be rejected. I'll just simply note that it doesn't seem to apply in the reverse direction.
The next point is when Mr. Rhyno went fishing originally, was he under a contract of services to any other organization, and was he remunerated? Was he paid for those services?