Well, I'll reiterate a couple of points and I'll get Aaron to add to why we make the comment about how LIFO appeared in a bit of an unclear way. Essentially, there is a land claim agreement, a treaty signed by the Nunatsiavut government and the federal and provincial governments. It is the only treaty in the country that has the province involved, so it was the first of its kind. It does include a marine component that's both within and adjacent, so there are clear treaty rights that need to be considered. When you consider the principle of adjacency, that's defined in the agreement. But the fishing areas 4 and 5 are clearly adjacent. There's no doubt about that.
In relation to LIFO, in recent years a lot of the aboriginal groups were some of the last to be facilitated into the fishery—in a small way at that in a lot of cases. So it would seem contradictory to now facilitate them right back out of it by applying this policy, especially when there's a treaty in place. Certainly it would appear to go against the spirit and the intent of the agreement. We're not lawyers, but that's the language that certainly gets used a lot when we have analysis done on our behalf.
The LIFO policy, and I'll let Aaron speak more to it, seems to be a policy that materialized in an unclear way through different drafts of the integrated fisheries management plan. That it no doubt protects the interests of offshore industry would be my suggestion, and I don't feel it should be paramount or override all of the other points that we're making here in relation to treaty rights and adjacency. As you can see, the aboriginal share of the resource is still very small, so the recent cuts were very unfortunate.
I don't know if Aaron would like to add anything to this.