Again, from the experience we had, we welcomed the 36 months. We found it very helpful to be working with first nations, both people and governments, in providing the information and so on.
In terms of providing capacity, capacity, of course, is a very broad catch-all, if you will, for a number of things, so for the human and financial resource issue, no. But in terms of developing capacity, again, I would hearken back to the comments I made about having an alternate dispute mechanism in place. Many first nations, because of the work we have been doing with them and that they've been doing on their own...we have offered assistance to those communities who may wish for some help and guidance. We developed the tool kit in conjunction with first nations, with their input. They're well on their way.
It would seem to me that if they are faced with the potential of it becoming provincial-territorial after one year, and they choose not to have that—they would rather govern it themselves—they might either avail themselves of the tool kit that I saw the AFN develop for model legislation or they may move toward having an alternate dispute mechanism that may deal with some of the issues.
As I said before, our experience in working with first nations communities is that many of them look for a fulsome engagement with their communities. One year just doesn't provide that when you have the limitations and the restrictions that face first nations communities right now in this country. Would a longer period of time be welcome? Yes, but I think first nations have proven resilient in the past, and I think they would work as hard as they can.