Well, I couldn't agree more. The commitment to sufficient, predictable, sustained funding is there, but it means changing the fiscal relationship.
In some ways, what you're describing is even worse, in that some of the communities received notice on March 1 that they had to have the money spent by March 31, and it's only an annual grant. Nobody can plan like that. We couldn't plan our families that way. As you say, it's having sufficient predictable funding to move it more into a transfer, which is the objective of moving to a self-governing body, where they can actually know what's coming in the long term. It also allows them access to capital to be able to borrow. If people know there's money coming in a regular way, it's not this red light-green light, will the money be there next year or no?
Yes, absolutely, sitting down and working is how we can change from this very linear approach of just grants and contributions into a more mature nation-to-nation relationship. I think that is the goal of everyone.