I think at the end of the day we did the work of the bringing our children home act, and that was something that was committed to us. We had laid out those parameters in that document and it was a first nations' approach because of the crisis in Manitoba.
We did ceremony. We had a lot of hopes in this and a lot of work in it. It covered a lot of areas that Bill C-92 doesn't, because we also need to bring all of our children home. I know that you heard from Natasha and Jeff this morning, and about all of those things that scar our young people who have already aged out. We're talking about thousands of people.
Bill C-92 is not doing anything to address those sorts of pieces. We're only looking at moving forward and not in the very short term either, because we have this provincial involvement. I can see that they are not going to let go easily.
The funding piece is huge, if you want to be able to make this extension and it be seen as genuine and legitimate that there would be resources. My concern, in Manitoba, is that right now the province contributes 60% of the $546-million budget. The feds only come in with that 40%, so I'm wondering if the funding model is somehow going to be changed completely. Is there going to be a need for the province to pony up dollars to make this fly?
If that's going to hold things up, then we'll never have Bill C-92. That's why we want that commitment for the bringing our children home act, because we want those direct relationships with Canada.