On the first question about the years of work with the Assembly of First Nations, and rights holders themselves, we heard a myriad of voices, and you heard many of those at the table. I certainly respect the fact the AFN submitted suggestions in order to improve the bill, and that's what's being deliberated today. As my colleague had mentioned, the language being proposed in NDP-9 is analogous with language found in clause 6. It's very similar. It's affirming it in the “Purpose”, as opposed to in clause 6.
On the second question on protection zones, the committee will speak at length about that. As currently written, the bill speaks about a consultation and co-operation process in order to define that, including with provinces and territories. I think that is clear in the bill. Whether or not that's how it translates in the future is maybe something else. But as written in your amendment, in NDP-9, I would say it affirms some of the language that is found later on and brings it to the “Purpose” section. It does come from language that we've heard from many partners through the consultation process, so I would acknowledge that as well.