I'll add my two cents to that.
I think absolutely negotiation is better in terms of having an opportunity to work with the community on a nation-to-nation basis as opposed to being caught up in an adversarial system.
That said, we've seen that in a negotiation process, when it's controlled by one of the parties who is the defendant and the judge, the results have been skewed to the effect that the vast majority of claims don't find resolution. So I think it is important that there is a tribunal there that we have recourse to, and where we're not bogged down by technical defences and things like that. We can have a referee step in who understands first nations issues, constitutional issues, issues of significance.
In terms of the 80-20 method and how you go about resolving these claims, from a quantum perspective, from a monetary perspective, that memorandum I provided to you on the Beardy's decision details the way that the court is viewing the applications for equitable compensation. In that instance, it was 100% compound interest using the band trust fund rates through time. So that works.