Thank you.
Quite rightly, the question was asked. Our concern about it, our understanding--and I'll get back to our understanding in a moment--was that some first nations do have the legal tradition or customary law and others do not, and they're different from one to the other.
Quite frankly, from our point of view, part of the transition and part of the reason we want to develop the interpretive guidelines or whatever instrument in discussion and dialogue with first nations across the country is to learn more. So for us to incorporate or propose language on something we're not all that familiar with we felt was not appropriate. Also, we thought that collective interests could be broad enough to include legal traditions and customary laws.
The other aspect is that the legal tradition and customary law may in fact be an alternative dispute mechanism, which would mean that we wouldn't even deal with it because we do move disputes to alternative redress if it exists. So rather than building it into a statement of principle, we felt it was something that would be worked at with us through the transition period.