It's because it needs to be set out in law. When something is not set out in law, there is uncertainty. In the whole system, the way child welfare has worked since the mid-sixties, nothing is set out in law. There's nothing in the Indian Act about it. It leads to all kinds of uncertainty. It allows for this hot potato issue.
Framework legislation has to set out the bare minimum of content in terms of indigenous peoples' rights but also governments' obligations. If you don't set them out in legislation, it just leads to fighting and uncertainty and litigation, and in this particular context, indigenous children bearing the brunt of it.
That is why it is so key to get those really firm—funding, accountability, jurisdiction. It's so key to have those set out in law because that governs entirely how people deal with each other.