I guess I'm going to start, and Ms. Stuhec will jump in if I miss something.
Obviously, any federal piece of legislation only attaches to the areas of federal jurisdiction, but there's nothing unusual in that in terms of implementing any international treaty, agreement, and so on. There's always a question as to what role provinces will take, what approach they will take in looking at whether or not they see themselves in those commitments, and how they see implementing those commitments.
To be specific around the land use management question, at least in my area, which is in terms of the treaty negotiations and the work we do at tables across the country, most of those are tripartite tables in that the provinces are present in those negotiations. There very much is a dynamic where we work with provinces around what a land and cash package will look like, in order to address the interests of the indigenous community we're negotiating with.
There are certainly variances across the country in terms of the approaches by provinces around some of those questions, but it's a norm in our work that they are present at the table with us when we are trying to address how we're going to deal with defining and discerning jurisdiction around land use and management.