Although we do believe that it would be nice to have that in there, I think it's important that we identify what substantive equality really means. Substantive equality might actually mean that you fund first nations much more than you fund non-first nations because of the equity position in which first nations have found themselves over the last hundred years. We're in a deficit when it comes to our opportunities and the different quality-of-life indicators if you look right across the board. We need institutions like CFS, education, and other areas to be an anchor in terms of improving the lives of our citizens.
It's important that we identify the level of funding that is attached to this bill, although I wouldn't want to lock it in, so that it continues in some..... One of the biggest problems faced by Parliament and people making decisions around funding is that funding might not necessarily have to be the same. Through the implementation of this bill over the next number of years, you're going to see that there are going to be areas where you might want to increase it. There are areas that may not need so much. That is based on how it looks on the ground at the community level.
I would argue that Pauingassi, Poplar River and Little Grand Rapids—the ground zero in southern Manitoba, which is really for the whole country—need much more resourcing than anywhere else. That's really how I've tried to focus and contextualize CFS because you want to deal with the areas where you're having the most trouble. In those instances, you might need more funding. You need much more funding and support than you would need in other areas.