What we are approaching is a solution that is a combination of internal procedures--that is, connecting the grievance process and the decision-making in the grievance process with the resources that are available to analyze the implications of committing the money if the chief says to go ahead and do it. It's very important, if the chief is committing the Government of Canada to spending, that we know exactly what the commitment is. That is a procedural aspect.
At the same time, the chief does not have financial authority for these issues, so in essence the default position is to treat them as a claim against the crown, but the test for a claim against the crown is very different from the test for the redress of a grievance, and it is that inconsistency of approach that is frustrating the procedural solution.
I believe that a regulatory solution with Treasury Board to supplement the procedural solution gives us the best chance of a way ahead, and that is what we are pursuing, but as I say, having started last summer, I am surprised at how challenging this issue is. Still, I believe that in the next few months we will have at least a trial of a solution that we can put into place.