Thank you very much, and thank you for our testimony.
I think the last comment was very important. Whether it's in cities...or in rural communities in particular, where everybody knows where somebody lives, unless there's 24/7 protection, a piece of paper doesn't really do it in those situations. Women have to make their own decisions based on their safety and their perceived risk of retribution.
As you know, those of us on our side felt that Wendy Grant-John was very eloquent in stating that the legislation on its own wouldn't do the job, that there needed to be provisions for the non-legislative outstanding issues that you've outlined.
I guess we have to say on this side, and on the record, that our answer to your three questions will be no, no, and no. Unless there is an actual commitment, we cannot allow the government to think they can pass this piece of legislation—which allows for a protection order but then walks away without any further commitment. There's not a lot of trust that this will happen, whether it's water or matrimonial real property.
I guess the government is going to push this thing through anyway. We need to know, how can you help us fix it? I guess one issue would be the capacity for first nations to build the capacity. As you said in the repeal of section 67, there was a three-year transition period to allow people to build the capacity. Certainly, what we've heard is that 12 months will not be enough.
I guess they're also talking about a centre of excellence that won't even be up and running when this bill is passed. Would you believe that 12 months is enough to create capacity in enough communities to make this at least work a little bit, or would you suggest that it be 36 months, like it was for the repeal of section 67?