If I could answer perhaps on behalf of NAPO, I think it's a difficult question to answer without really giving it some very careful thought. Every government in power certainly has its own philosophy of how to approach issues and what may work best to solve a particular social or economic challenge. I think, though, that the principles of access to justice, access to the courts, particularly in our circumstances, with people who don't have the means otherwise, is a fundamental principle that needs to be upheld.
And sticking strictly to this particular issue at hand, I think the fundamental issue here is that there are times in the course of a year or in the course of history when disadvantaged groups need to be able to access resources to challenge a court decision. If a funding program is not available for them to do that, they're fundamentally disadvantaged relative to others who would have the resources to mount a challenge.
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but I do want to remind everyone of fundamental principles relative to this particular case.