As an overarching comment, there needs to be more work done in this country as to how land is held, and it doesn't have to be the way I hold my property. I think that's one of the criticisms that has been fairly levelled on some of the self-governing work that we've done. That work is largely incomplete.
Some of the work that's been done in and around land codes has been groundbreaking, and some communities are benefiting from them but it doesn't fit for everyone. It is an impediment to moving forward on the self-governing status and, frankly, is one of the factors that are driving communities to choose to remain under the Indian Act, which is an unacceptable proposition, we all agree.
There is work being done. It is painstaking work, and it's work that we have to keep pushing.
I wanted to offer those comments, because it isn't simply the frame in which you're putting it. That is a very important one in terms of the speed at which we're deploying programs that have already been accepted to and codeveloped, but there's also a much larger discussion to be had, as we work towards ensuring that land is given back.
Daniel, do you have any additions to that?