Thank you.
It is interesting that those who are in self-government have a completely different fiscal relationship than do those who are not. Typically you're talking about a 10-year agreement whereby you're providing a government transfer that funds the bulk of the operations of the self-governing first nation.
You're right in that some concerns have been noted about the fiscal approach. I think I would say two things about the fiscal approach. One is that when it was made public, we were basically being transparent about how the mandates were actually being constructed to fund self-governing first nations. We have been using the formulas that are enunciated in that policy for quite some time.
The idea was that we wanted to be completely transparent about the basis on which we were doing that so that we could have a different conversation about how to actually move forward in a way in which we could have a funding approach that would be more responsive to the actual needs of the given self-governing nation. As part of that policy, we committed to an approach under which we would work with the 27 that are under self-governing arrangements to develop together how we should shape that policy to serve the interests into the future. The policy was never meant to have a shelf life. It wasn't launched with the idea that it would be in place for x amount of time. It was launched to say here's how we've currently been doing it. We made some changes based on feedback we had received around own-source revenue, but the intent was to move forward by having a dialogue on how we could work together to develop a different approach that would help to satisfy the needs of the first nations.