Meegwetch, Chief Maracle, to you and to your Tyendinaga Mohawk people, for having us. It's appreciated.
I just want to say, on the record, that I find that all talk and no action is disingenuous and not conducive to reconciliation. I'm hearing a lot of great, very critical, but still constructive, commentary. The idea that there is no action being undertaken by the present government does not hold water and I just don't think that it's helpful, so I just want to put that on the record. It's too partisan.
To bring us to the case that Chief Maracle mentioned, I want to mention the decision by Justice Rennie. Thanks to my colleague, Mr. Bossio, I had the opportunity yesterday to read that decision and it was edifying. It really does go to the heart of what our specific claims discussion should be about. Is this the right process at all? Is this going to achieve reconciliation?
We're in a different place than we were in 2007. We've had some interesting points made around the 80-20 rule, which is now being reviewed by the government, and the openness to a more equitable compensation and equitable remedy approach. We've heard quite clearly the idea that Chief Hill presented that you want to be accommodated and that accommodation is much larger than just the lump sum of money. You've also made that point that it's not about the money, but it's about land.
If not 80-20, what is it? What does more equitable compensation actually look like? How should that be framed? Stepping back further, do you think that a Specific Claims Tribunal approach, which does involve negotiation, but also a degree of conflict inherent in it, is the right approach, as we move toward reconciliation?