Yes, I've thought about this a long time. There should have been action taken long before it was. I think there was a standoff or breakdown in communications or negotiations between the government and first nations, and that was allowed to stagnate. In an effort to push things ahead, we had the incidents we saw there.
I have a little bit of sympathy for the government, in that there's ambiguity around the law. When I read some of the media reports, how the government is not laying charges and not taking action because it doesn't think it can get a conviction when it thinks the regulations are being violated, that's a big concern to me when the government is stuck that way.
That's why I put in there about the test the government has to justify to fetter the right. I know there's a lot of difference of opinion around that, but there's no definition around necessity with regard to the Badger test. At what point can the government enforce its regulation? Then, if it lays charges, it may or may not.
That ambiguity puts the government in a very awkward position. It's a big concern to me when the government can't lay charges in order to enforce its regulations, especially in this fishing industry, because regulations are so important in the marketing of our product.