Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'd like to welcome two new members of our committee. Both Lori and Will are online. Deputy Gill is online as well.

We have quite a few people to present today. I would ask that you keep your earpieces in your ear, because people will switch back and forth between English and French. It's so you don't get delays. That way, you'll be able to hear, and it's better for the interpreters.

For people online, use the “raise hand” function, and the clerk will help me identify you.

I want to thank everyone for being here.

As individuals, we have Kathryn Fournier; Ryan Beaton, lawyer; Jeannette Corbiere Lavell; Mary Hannaburg; and Dawn Lavell Harvard, director, First Peoples House of Learning. We have, as Edmonton Stragglers, Steven Bentley, elder and band politics committee member, and Mark Nixdorf, elder and band politics committee member.

Welcome.

We'll start with the individuals.

Kathryn and Ryan—whoever will be speaking—you have five minutes. I'll let you know when you have about 30 seconds left so you can wrap up your thoughts. There will be a lot of time for exchanges in the rounds of questions and answers.

Go ahead, please.

[Kathryn Fournier, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to start by telling you a bit of my family's history.

My dad was francophone, my mother Cree and Ojibwa. Her parents—my maternal grandparents—spent many years in a residential school and married after leaving the school. Mostly, they lived in Indian country, but they moved to Kenora just before my mother was born. My grandfather enfranchised in 1922 in order to vote, because Kenora was a place where he could possibly vote if he wasn't an Indian. At that time, his family was automatically enfranchised, so my grandmother, aunts and uncles were automatically enfranchised.

My mother was born after that, so she never had status. She received status in 1985 when the Indian Act was changed, but she received a very limited status that she could pass only to her children. Growing up, we always knew that story about the Indian Act and enfranchisement, but we could never imagine challenging the Indian Act or that idea. While enfranchisement was well known by my family, it was never talked about anywhere. Even as the context of what you might call “indigenous rights”, “recognition”, “self-government” or those kinds of things began to come into the public discourse, enfranchisement, as far as I knew, was never talked about. I didn't know any other families with this history.

Then, several years ago, I heard about a case in Quebec regarding enfranchisement, in which INAC was taken to court. That case was won by the plaintiff. It led me to Ryan and the two families he was working with on enfranchisement. Our three brave little families, with Ryan's support and leadership, decided to challenge the Indian Act and the Government of Canada on the enfranchisement provisions. That's what led us here today.

I will let Ryan explain the ups and downs of the legal challenge and legislative process. All I will say is that, when we began this process, I was astounded by how many people contacted me after hearing about this challenge to the enfranchisement provisions. They told similar stories, and we learned more and more about how many families had a history of enfranchisement. It proved to me, even more clearly, that the goal of enfranchisement was not just to “reward Indians of good character”—as it was presented to my grandfather back in 1922—by letting them become citizens of Canada. It was also to remove, once and for all, status Indians from the calculus of this country, which I think we can agree meets certain definitions of a genocidal approach.

We are very glad to be here today and to see this work being undertaken.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Ryan Beaton, Lawyer, As an Individual]

I want to add something, as an initial matter, that it's really important to understand: Unlike in the McIvor and Descheneaux cases, in this case the court ordered a tailored remedy. If it went into effect, it would not hinder anyone else's ability to register or Parliament's ability to go further in changes if it wanted to.

I'll briefly note what the court said on this point:

In summary, the Declarations would remedy the precise Charter violations identified by the plaintiffs, as conceded by Canada, without restricting any entitlements or benefits under the Indian Act and without limiting Parliament's ability to craft any further legislative changes that it may consider appropriate.

I want to stress that there's no need to hold hostage the charter rights of the plaintiffs and those like them, whom the court has identified as having their rights violated, in order for Parliament to carry on the work of Bill S-2 and decide whether it wants to remove the second generation cut-off and go broader. We would certainly urge Canada to stop fighting to stop the court order from going into effect. If that went into effect, it would deal with the charter violations already identified, and Parliament would be free to pursue its debate on Bill S-2 without the pressure of a court-ordered deadline. I think it's really important for the committee to understand that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. You will have up to five minutes.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, As an Individual]

Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Anishinawbemwin and provided the following text:]

Aanii, boozoo. “Keewedanoung” ndiz niikaaz. Makaadekek n'dodem. Anishinabekwe n'daaw. M'nidoominissing doonjibaa.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hello, greetings. “Northstar” is my name. Blackbird is my clan. I'm from Manitoulin Island.

[English]

Good morning, everybody. My name is Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. I am the E-niigaanwidood E’Dbendaagzijig, the citizenship commissioner for the Anishinabek Nation. We represent 39 first nations across northern Ontario with a combined population of 70,000 citizens, or one-third of Ontario's first nations population.

E’Dbendaagzijig means “those who belong”. We adopted our E’Dbendaagzijig Naaknigewin based on the one-parent rule. I am mandated to assist our first nations in the exercise of our inherent right to self-determination. Last year we adopted the Declaration on E’Dbendaagzijig, which is the foundation of our jurisdiction and our first nations citizenship laws.

I must be clear: We know who belongs. We know our families, our people. E’Dbendaagzijig Naaknigewin is distinct from Indian status, which is determined by the federal government. These two must not be mixed up.

With respect to Indian status, Canada must end the sex and race discrimination now. You can do this by passing Bill S-2 as amended.

I live on the Wiikwemkoong unceded reserve. In 1970, two weeks after I married a non-status man, I received a letter from Indian Affairs: “Jeannette Corbiere, you are no longer a member of the Wiikwemkoong unceded reserve. Find enclosed a cheque for $35.”

That was it. That was all my rights were worth—$35. Why should I lose my connection to my people and my sense of belonging? This is where I was born. My family and my relatives are here. My ancestors are buried here. If I returned, I could have been charged with trespassing and hauled away by the police. That's the way it was.

I began a lifetime of fighting sex discrimination in the Indian Act. I am the plaintiff in the 1971 case of the Attorney General v. Lavell, which challenged paragraph 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. I argued that the provision violated the equality clause of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights by discriminating on the basis of sex. The judge suggested I should be happy because a white man married me and because I was better off, but I didn't give up. We've seen a few victories over the years. However, I'm still here before you, fighting, because young people now are facing the same stripping of rights that I did in those early days.

In my Anishinabek Nation, we follow a one-parent rule. We know who our people are—E’Dbendaagzijig, those who belong. Eliminating the second generation cut-off, following a one-parent rule and supporting our first nations' inherent jurisdiction to decide who belongs is the way for the Government of Canada to right its wrongs. This is the only way to stop the forced assimilation that I faced when I married and that our young people are facing today.

It's also really sad for me to say that this forced assimilation is still going strong. Because of Canada's laws, some of our 39 first nations in the Anishinabek Nation are 50% subsection 6(2) status Indians. I know what this means for our collective nations. This means the Government of Canada is legally extinguishing our people.

Now we hear that the government—you—wants to keep consulting through the collaborative process. My Anishinabek Nation says to eliminate the second generation cut-off. You don't need to wait for those consultations to make it right. You have consulted us for quite a while now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Jeannette, you have 30 seconds.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

Okay.

All I want to remind you of is this: End the second generation cut-off and return our women, children and grandchildren to their rightful place, where they belong. You can do that by eliminating the second generation cut-off in Bill S-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Chi-meegwetch.

Next, we have Mary Hannaburg for five minutes.

[Mary Hannaburg, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

My name is Mary Hannaburg. I'm a member of the Kanesatake Mohawk community, and I live on the territory. I am a mother, a grandmother and an aunt.

Thank you very much for the invitation to the people's house.

In 1996, I went to see Sister Mary Two-Axe Earley, a pioneer woman who fought alongside all the other women, and who also fought with Nellie Carlson. Before she passed away at the hospital, she told me on her deathbed that it was up to me to continue the fight.

I'm here today. It's been a long and arduous fight. Throughout the decades, I've been involved in the fight that has seen Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-3, following the Descheneaux decision. I've fought alongside many other women in the same fight for equality against the ongoing discrimination in the Indian Act.

This is what I have seen. It's a non-priority with the government. It doesn't matter; it's not a priority.

As a mental health worker in my community, I have witnessed that the second generation cut-off impacts community members on a day-to-day basis. These impacts include loss of culture; loss of language; no access to services, such as psychologists and therapists covered by non-insured health benefits; no medical transportation—you cannot ride the bus; no educational funding; no access to culturally appropriate resources, such as detox centres, especially with the growing problem of alcohol and opiate addiction; inability to own or inherit land to build a home; inability to participate in voting for your elected leadership in your community; and inability to be buried in a cemetery with your own kin. This is how it impacts our lives on a daily basis.

Exclusion and denial of services equal loss of sense of belonging, loss of hope, loss of purpose and loss of connection. The discrimination has an impact on our sense of belonging, which is a fundamental human need. You feel less than. You're not enough. It causes grave psychological, emotional, spiritual and economic harm.

There is a Kanesatake Mohawk community-specific data sheet. You will each receive one or you have them. As of December 31, 2025, 36.54% in section 6(2) are registered. This is what genocide looks like.

I've seen that community members are impacted; yet, they are reluctant to speak out for fear of outing themselves because discriminatory policies have been internalized. I have seen incited violence within my own community as a result of the lack of resources. It would be irresponsible to bring about these changes without the necessary addition to community funding. I will give you an example of a blanket. Adding more people to the blanket, which represents the resources, means it never gets bigger. This is what causes violence and racism.

The MMIWG2S+ report in 2019 explicitly identified discriminatory policies as having a direct connection with increased violence towards indigenous women. It broadened the gap and increased the risk.

I agree with Mr. Troy Chalifoux, who presented in the previous session. The work has already been done for you.

There are ongoing talks of consultation, when the solution has already been brought forward on many occasions and in various documents. Lengthy litigation has been taking our precious time away from our families, when the government knows that this is a discriminatory policy and practice. It is reluctant to change under the guise of a need for additional consultation, knowing that no consultation was had when my mother was stripped of her rights. It was devastating for my mother. Her broken connection was stolen from her. My mother was a fluent speaker. She had ties to her community, but she could not live there.

There are solutions spelled out in a document. It's called “Make it Stop!” This document was sent to you.

I would like to see the solutions that are spelled out so that this is rectified before I find myself on my deathbed. I do not want to leave this for the next generation to fight. We deserve to just be.

Governments move quickly on certain bills and laws, such as Bill C-5, without any long-term consultation. It suits their political agenda. There's no need for broader consultation. Then there's the political will, and it moves.

Please work to pass Bill S-2 with the Senate amendments. We've waited far too long.

Niawen’kó:wa. Skén:nen. Peace.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Dawn Lavell Harvard for five minutes, please.

[Dawn Lavell Harvard, Director, First Peoples House of Learning, As an Individual]

Thank you. Chi-meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

I'm the director of the First Peoples House of Learning and a former president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. As director, I'm responsible for the academic success, health and well-being of hundreds of our first nations youth each year. I'm here to share what I've learned, after spending countless nights in the emergency unit with yet another first nations youth who has tried to end their life.

We know that culture saves lives. Having a strong identity and a strong sense of community saves lives. Knowing who you are and where you belong gives our young people the strength to continue on living. If we care about the lives of our first nations youth—and I truly believe that everyone in this room does—I'm here to tell you that, with respect to Indian status, Canada must end the sex and race discrimination now. You must pass Bill S-2 exactly as amended by the Senate, as quickly as you can, to end the second generation cut-off before more lives are lost.

In 1985, when the subsection 6(2) category was created, the government created a legal situation that is still causing irreparable harm to our young people. We know, as Mary said, that having a sense of belonging is vital for our mental health, yet every day we see first nations youth who are in crisis, who feel that they don't belong in their first nation, that they don't have a right to be there. In fact, back in 1985, Canada passed legislation to ensure that they don't have a right to be there, that they don't have a right to belong and that they don't have the same rights as their cousins.

There are 14,000 children since just 2019, according to ISC's own numbers, who have grown up without rights: without the rights to language and culture programs, without the right to even play on the hockey team in their community. They're sitting on the sidelines and watching their cousins and siblings. Our youth are being told, right to their faces, that, because they are 6(2), or they are non-status, they don't belong in our first nations, they don't belong at our ceremonies or at our fires.

Our youth are being attacked on social media. They're being told that they're taking up resources that should be for the “real” Indians—and we wonder why we have a mental health crisis. Suicide rates among our youth are six times higher than among non-indigenous youth, and that's according to the government's own statistics. Suicide and self-inflicted injuries are the leading cause of death for first nations youth and adults up to 44 years old.

Canada must correct what was made wrong in 1985. We are not talking about going back hundreds of years to some distant ancestor. We are talking about the children of our current 6(2) band members. We are talking about babies, children and youth. Canada needs to make this right so that we can tell all of our children that they belong. Our teachings tell us every life is precious. Everyone says, “All lives matter.” Even one life lost to suicide is too much.

I have spent over 52 years at my mother's side, fighting against this discrimination, and I am still here, fighting, because our children deserve better. Why, after 55 years, are we still continuing study after study, delay after delay, instead of eliminating the root cause? We have an opportunity to make a change. We know this is causing harm. If we're not acting to stop the harm, then we are, in fact, complicit.

In some of our first nations, up to 50% have subsection 6(2) status. We know this means that individual rights holders, like my children and my nieces, who are working hard to achieve their dreams, are the end of their line. Our people have been on this land for over 60,000 years—and yes, we have the archaeological research to prove it—but they are going to be the end of that line.

We also know that, for our collective nations, this means the legal extinguishment of our people, and so, unless this was the intention and still continues to be the intention, this must stop. We've been part of the collaborative process. You've heard from our elders and youth, and I really believe we must act now before we lose even one more youth.

We don't have time for more studies. We can debate numbers. We can talk about costs. We can talk about the 320,000 people over the next 40 years—which works out to about 12 per band per year—or we can pass Bill S-2 as amended, end the second generation cut-off, tell our young people that they belong and end this legislative distinction policy.

Exactly 10 years ago, in May 2016, I stood at the United Nations behind Carolyn Bennett, when the Liberal government said it was signing on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I was standing behind her because our tradition is that you physically get up and you stand behind the people you believe in. You stand behind them to show them support.

I was the first one to stand up behind her when she said that this government was signing on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Ending the second generation cut-off does not violate the UN declaration. It is not telling our first nations who their people are. It's in fact removing a barrier that prevents us from accepting who we know our people are, because we must remember that Indian status is distinctly separate from band membership. There are processes for bands to develop their own membership. This is not in any way infringing on the United Nations declaration or the rights of our bands, our inherent rights. This is about lives. This is not about numbers.

Every day on social media I see people fundraising millions for some treatment. If we would pay millions for one person or hundreds of thousands for their cancer treatment, how much does one life in our community, one of our children...how much would we pay? Let's stop debating about how much it's going to cost.

Chi-meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Dawn.

Next we have Steven Bentley, elder, from the Edmonton Stragglers.

[Steven Bentley, Elder and Band Politics Committee Member, Edmonton Stragglers]

Good day.

My name is Steven Bentley. I represent the Edmonton Stragglers, a historically removed band that was made up primarily of women and represents one of the earliest legislative removals using gender.

We have a story that's rooted in Bill S-3 legislation and has harbingers for Bill S-2. We appear before you today to speak to the origins of continuity and the present-day legal reality of the Edmonton Stragglers, an indigenous collective whose existence has been documented, administered and yet paradoxically denied.

The registrar is registering our people per section 11, band membership regulations, from our band list of the Edmonton Stragglers, but the registration is fraught with difficulty, both in obtaining the requisite information and in privacy concerns of the department, creating a bottleneck and impeding timely and complete registrations.

We ask Minister Alty, who has the discretion under the power of “may”, to direct Indigenous Services Canada, ISC, to engage with us to overcome these issues and move on to empower the rights of our ancestors' women, allowing their descendants to form a chief and council and thus to fully engage with the Crown.

We ask further that a dedicated registration expediter be appointed to address the ongoing delays in systemic inefficiencies in the Indian status registration process, a model similar to the expedited passport processing “90 days or it's free” agenda. It would introduce accountability and timeliness into a process that currently leaves applicants waiting years. Justice delayed, in this case, is justice denied.

We also submit that a second generation cut-off should not be rigidly applied to those being now registered under Bill S-3. A more equitable approach would be to allow third-generation registration for our members whose exclusion was rooted in historical discrimination.

This is not expansion. It's restoration, which is unique to our case and thus differentiates us from other instances of corrective measures of other peoples who were never on pay lists, whilst our people spanned over 100 years of enrolment. They have demonstrated treaty community connections dating back to the Two Row Wampum and the Selkirk Treaty of 1817 before reclassification by Canada, which allowed for processing under inferior legislation protected by the fourth clause of the 1850 Indian Act and other legislation.

The Edmonton Stragglers were not a transient or incidental grouping. We were a recognized band explicitly identified in the public record as a band of Indians who owned land in the Edmonton vicinity. Our members were enumerated, tracked and governed through the colonial administrative systems, including Hudson's Bay Company records, ecclesiastical records and early census instruments tied to imperial Crown obligations.

Despite this clear documentary foundation, the Crown later advanced a legal fiction that scrip extinguished our collective identity and rights. Scrip, in practice, did not function as a lawful extinguishment mechanism. It was inconsistently applied, often coercive and, critically, it targeted individuals, not the collective identity of a band. The notion that it erased a people is unsupported in law and fact.

Today, under the amendments of Bill S-3, we are witnessing a quiet but profound contradiction. The federal registrar is actively reconstructing the very ban list that Canada once treated as extinguished. Individuals are being registered precisely because their ancestors were last recognized on the Edmonton Stragglers list. This is not a revival. It's a confirmation of the continuity of our community, and that continuity carries legal consequences.

Under section 11 of the Indian Act, control over band membership flows from recognized band lists. What now exists is a growing population of entitled people—our families, whose lineage traces directly to this list—without the corresponding recognition of the band entity itself. This creates a structural inconsistency: a band list without a band.

The historical reason for this fragmentation is clear: sex-based discrimination embedded in the Indian Act. Our women lost status upon marriage; our children were excluded, and entire family lines were administratively severed. The result was not extinction but dispersal.

I will turn this over to my colleague—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds to contribute, but we have quite a bit of time in the question and answer period too.

[Mark Nixdorf, Elder and Band Politics Committee Member, Edmonton Stragglers]

Tansi, asiniy awâsis. My name in Cree is Stonechild.

To carry on from where my colleague left off, we are now engaged in correcting that injustice, but the process is slow, burdensome and incomplete. Many of our families remain one step away from registration or reoccurring administration completion. However, the passage of Bill S-2 would expand entitlement, further compounding an already strained system.

Finally, the legal continuity of our claim is not speculative; it is grounded in clear legislation and constitutional lineage. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, the 1847 provincial census framework and 1850-57 Indian legislation defining indigenous belonging—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Mark, we're going to have to move on to questions. I think everyone wants to ask you guys questions, because the time is up for the presentation. Please submit your stuff that you have in writing to us as well. People will ask you questions and you'll be able to pull it out, because we're over the time and we want to have the exchange between you and our members.

First up are the Conservatives. You'll have six minutes for questions and answers.

Billy, you're first.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests for coming today.

I want to start with Ms. Lavell Harvard.

You mentioned you were at the UN and were standing behind former Liberal minister Carolyn Bennett, and she was endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I've been a first-time MP for the last year. The government's very good at making announcements but not necessarily good at follow-through or actual substance for real reconciliation. What does it say about the government when its members can make those announcements—you can stand behind them—but they've made no indication that they'll get rid of the second generation cut-off?

[Dawn Lavell Harvard]

This is exactly the thing. It needs to be more than a performative moment, standing in New York. Carolyn Bennett literally got a standing ovation. I was the first person to stand up behind her; the entire room stood up, and the entire world was watching.

The entire world is still watching to see if the government is willing to walk the talk and make the changes. This is why the United Nations declaration is so important. It says that we have the right to determine who our own people are, our own members. This barrier, the second generation cut-off, is preventing us from exercising that right.

I truly believe the Government of Canada can continue in honour, walk the talk, be more than performative and actually make a change. This is the moment right now to show that it was more than a performative action and that it's more than just Conservatives versus Liberals. This is about Canada, what Canada stands up for on an international stage and how the world sees what Canada stands for.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you.

I want to go to Ms. Hannaburg.

You were talking a lot about real life, tangible things in communities. I've heard these testimonies over the last six months. I lived it myself on my own first nation. One kid gets to be on the hockey team, but another kid doesn't get to be on the hockey team. One kid gets to go to school on the bus, but the other kid, who's their first cousin—or even their sister or brother in some cases—doesn't get to go on the bus. It's really good that you were talking about real-life situations. We've heard those testimonies.

Can you elaborate a bit more on those? The government has committed to doing Jordan's principle. They've made some announcements in that regard, but I'm reading, and even the Jordan's principle qualifications say, “is registered or eligible to be registered under the Indian Act”, “has one parent or guardian who is registered or eligible to be registered under the Indian Act”, “is recognized by their nation for the purposes of Jordan's Principle” and “is ordinarily a resident on reserve”.

Can you see that the second generation cut-off also inhibits kids from rightfully getting the support they need?

[Mary Hannaburg]

Certain funding is specific, and certain services want to have the band number. The indigenous service number clears the way. It clears the way for our community because council and leadership understand per capita. The per capita opens that door. We have people who are waiting for a long time to see a psychologist because the psychologist wants only the band number. You cannot even go in as a family under one band number; they want the band number for that particular person. If you have a child who needs a special therapist and we have the therapist in the community, that's too bad. Your child will not be seen. We are excluded. There are exclusions.

In my own family, my son has a daughter. My granddaughter is registered because my son was born in 1974. He had a child, and she's registered. My daughter was born in 1989, so—too bad—it's past the cut-off date. How does that make sense, that one from the same parent, from the same community, living in the community, trying to participate...? There are others; there are not only mine. I get up and speak, regardless of how I'm going to be treated. I've had racism. I've had violence in my community. We've had people show up and beat up my nephews because we had taken a home. We needed a place to live. This is what goes on in our daily lives, and this has to stop. It is insane. It is perpetuated by the Indian Act. The second generation cut-off is the barrier right now. We've gone through all the other barriers, but it's taken years of litigation and court proceedings.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

I'm sorry to cut you off. I have one more minute.

You mentioned politics earlier. We've heard that it seems to be using consultation as a shield, but it doesn't consult on other bills, so there's a double standard. Do you feel as though the reconciliation of the government has become performative?

[Mary Hannaburg]

I've seen it over many years. I've been through so many ministers that you would not believe it. Every minister that has represented indigenous affairs, whether it is Marc Miller, Gary Anandasangaree or Patty Hajdu, all of them.... You go and talk to them, and they say, “We're working on it.” It's performative. It's words without concrete actions and results. In the end, they start avoiding us because they know we're going to be continuing. Every day I send a letter to this Parliament, to the House of Commons. All the Liberals and all the other people have received a letter requiring that Bill S-2 be worked on. I brought one today for the INAN committee. I've sent one in the past. I will continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, Mary. We have the letter, and I truly appreciate that.

[Mary Hannaburg]

Thank you very much.