Mr. Sewell alluded to a few of them.
I would say a couple of things. One is that INAC doesn't do very much of the procurement. It's either done by Public Works or other federal departments. There's a hell of an information-gathering challenge, which we're trying to get to the bottom of so we can insinuate the Inuvialuit obligations into decisions that are made across the federal government on procurement decisions--many by Public Works, some directly by departments--when they're buying goods and services. We have not done a great job of tracking and tracing that in the past. We'll try to do better in the future. That's the kind of thing Mr. Sewell was alluding to, and I'll turn to him in a moment.
“Reasonable share” is one of those terms that the negotiators at the time agreed to as part of an overall bargain. I would deduce that in 1983 they could not define that there would be a numerical share 20 years or 30 years from now, because there was no way to forecast the economic development. Nobody, in 1983, would have predicted $100-a-barrel oil or what happened in diamonds or whether we'd be buying whatever, so the parties agreed that we will work towards a reasonable share. That's a moving target. We wanted a legal opinion because I don't want to expose the crown to litigation on this matter. If we say there's a certain reasonable share, somebody will go to court and challenge us on it. It's normal due diligence, to make sure we understand what the lawyers think “reasonable share” is.
We may have a view of it. The Inuvialuit undoubtedly have a view of it. We're going to have to sit down and talk to them about it.