I'll let Laurie Sargent answer your last question.
With respect to your first question, we did a lot of consultations for more than two years with indigenous communities, among rights holders. The overriding principle we followed was that nothing should be decided for indigenous people without their participation.
We listened to the rights holders.
In their particular situation, they always wanted to safeguard their own non-derogation clause because it affects their rights, their treaties as such. We decided to maintain their own non-derogation clause. For the most part, they decided that the new comprehensive provision was much better, but in three very specific cases, the decision was made to keep the existing provisions.
I'd ask Laurie to answer the second question.