I think maybe the best answer to the question, Mr. Chair, is that these are difficult agreements. They are complex, and to some extent one needs some flexibility to test drive them.
I come from the Yukon experience, where a different approach was taken to the original implementation costing and estimating. It's no secret that there have been some challenges to see the first nations in Yukon adequately implement their treaties.
The department has moved since that time—we're talking now about almost 15 years—to an activity-based costing model, which allows a little more flexibility. Given that these financial undertakings are not part of the section 35 constitutionally protected document, it allows some flexibility for the parties to assess at renewal time how the treaty is performing, whether or not it's achieving the objectives. If there are adjustments to be made, then those can be taken into account.
So it's part of getting onto the learning curve in the modern treaty world, if that helps to answer your question, Mr. Chair.