I haven't tried to carry out a full survey of the provinces on this. I know at least one provincial government has already raised concerns with the federal government over the legislation and has asked for more dialogue around the federal-provincial interaction in relation to this legislation. If that isn't resolved in a co-operative way, I think there probably is a real risk of facing issues down the road.
I agree with the point that was made that we haven't seen provinces clamouring for jurisdiction in this area and we may not see that. To the extent that there's an expansion of federal involvement, especially off reserve, I think provinces are going to have something to say about that and as I said, at least one province has already raised concerns with the federal government over these issues.
I would just briefly add, to respond to the last comment, that there are, of course, some mixed views on the division of powers questions, generally. There are some very contested points. The scope of 91(24) has been tested out very little. Of course the federal government can set national standards when it actually has jurisdiction in an area. When it doesn't have jurisdiction, it can't set national standards. To the extent that it purports to use section 91(24) to legislate over indigenous children, it very much gets into an area where there's room to talk about whether that is, in pith and substance, about a 91(24) matter or about a matter within one of the provincial powers.
I don't make the claim that every part of this bill is going to fall, but I think there are real division of powers questions there and I'm very concerned to hear that there was only a five-minute discussion with the Department of Justice on those. They certainly would have background materials that I think it would be proper to ask them to share further in order to get to their view more clearly on what the state of affairs is and to analyze it.