Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much to our guests for coming by and helping us clarify some of the issues in the time we have.
I wanted to follow up on Mr. Kamp's question. It goes to that definition that using fish for food, social, or ceremonial purposes or for purposes set out in land claims agreements entered into with aboriginal organizations really seems to add a whole level of confusion. There is a problem in terms of the clarity of definition as it relates to, as Mr. Kamp has said, other agreements that do not refer to land claims, do not cede rights, or do not spell out those questions. The peace and friendship treaties on the east coast are a good example, but there are others.
I'm concerned, maybe more so, by some of the explanation that you've given us that there will continue to be problems with how this gets defined in the future. There has been very little effort to work with the AFN, and they would be the most appropriate organization to begin that high-level discussion. There hasn't been any effort to have that kind of intense discussion to clarify some of that. The result, of course, is that when it needs to be interpreted, it will end up having to be interpreted in the courts. Would you comment?