Yes. Having taken a look at the bill, there are a number of aspects to it that of course would apply to Quebec. I think what we're trying to say in the brief is that inadvertently the drafters did not consider carefully enough the situation in Quebec to accommodate the uniqueness of the fact situation.
But if I could just get to one of your earlier comments, about the issue of this being voluntary, I find that a curious approach to take. If you look at it collectively, first nations across the country have been stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets that are the subject of specific claims, lawful obligations. The specific claims policy is an attempt to try to negotiate these in good faith. The defendant, which is the federal crown, has devised the policy—in this case, the legislation. If first nations don't like it, they're told it's voluntary, but what is the alternative if you want to get justice at last? The alternative is litigation. I suppose if the federal government was prepared to pay for litigation as an alternative to resolving it inside this legislation, that might be something that first nations would be prepared to look at. But to suggest that it's strictly voluntary, I think is a bit unfair, because it really doesn't take into account either the stated purpose of this initiative or the fact situation that is giving rise to these claims.