I entirely agree with that analysis. Just in terms of the basic propriety or rightness of this settlement going solely to the investor and disregarding these other legitimate claims—as you've said, just stepping back from them—is, on the face of it, an unbalanced and inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.
The question is, how did it happen?
I think it happened because of the overriding influence of the NAFTA claim, which, as federal officials said, is a legally separate matter from all these other outstanding claims. We have a broadly worded set of rights, which I think diverges—I'd like to come to this point, too—considerably from Canadian domestic norms and parliamentary tradition, in a sense overriding and distorting important policy decisions.
I agree with you. I think the major priority--and certainly I think it was the major preoccupation of the provincial government--was to assert these claims of the people in the area.