Well, perhaps I'll just follow up on the chair's question, though I'd first like to point out that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is an independent body that I'm sure will achieve a very good balance in delivering human rights to first nations people. I'm looking forward to seeing that happen.
Just following up on the concept of the duty to consult, in relation to Taku-Haida, you mentioned that there wasn't any deep analysis done at this point as to how it would relate, perhaps, to subsequent decisions or other matters maybe outside the realm of resources.
I had an argument that I was testing a little at the previous meeting, and perhaps I'll put it before you as well. Subsequent to Taku-Haida, the Supreme Court ruled to extend rights to the Métis people, like me, in regard to hunting and fishing. This, of course, impacts first nations people as these are finite resources we're talking about. They themselves didn't consult, so how would that be interpreted in relation to Taku-Haida?