I think the tone of what you're suggesting is there's an evolution. Jurisprudence in anything grows over time and each experience builds on the next. If we look at the jurisprudence and the experience we've had, our policy framework and the advancement of how the government works with, engages with and consults with indigenous communities comes from our Constitution. The jurisprudence in that is roughly 40 years' worth of experience.
The recent decision that you reference builds on the one before it, which builds on the one before that, and each of them tries to reach the point at which it advances the government's ability and the ability of indigenous communities to share interest and move ahead. In the recent decision, the court was pretty clear that the government had more work to do, that it failed to execute in one part of the consultation process, but it then also provided some guidance on what components of that process were sufficient and what happened to move forward. There are other court cases where the government's decision and its consultation were upheld, so it's an evolving landscape.
One of the challenges to answer the question in the way that would have meaning is that each case has a lot of circumstances specific to that community, that particular indigenous group that are very context-, geographic- and time-based, and it's very difficult to say one size fits all.
One of the findings in the court decision was that we owed a duty to each community that was unique and distinct. In some of the projects that have dozens or hundreds of communities, that increases the necessary level of engagement and consultation because we owe dozens and dozens of communities a unique conversation focused on the issues of that community in the context of a bigger consultation. I'm trying to make the point that some projects involve half a dozen communities and others involve 40 to 50.