Yes, and thank you for the question.
You may recall we had spoken to the transition period during the repeal of section 67, and it was changed to the three years by agreement. Our experience was...in the three years we had done modelling after constitutional amendments that occurred as well. The reality at that time—and I would draw the analogy to this legislation—was that when the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed in 1977, the section 67 restriction was intended as a temporary exemption, which of course lasted for 31 years before it was ultimately repealed. The point we were making was that a one-year transition period would be insufficient for first nations governments who have never been under the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, whereas the federal government and federally regulated employers had 30 years of working under the act.
We welcomed and acknowledged publicly that we supported the three years that was ultimately agreed to. I can say in our experience that even the three years may not have been sufficient, but thankfully there were three years, because we continued to work with first nations governments in a number of ways, particularly in developing not only the awareness but also the tool kit I referenced about alternative dispute mechanisms. Some communities have them, many don't, and many have asked us for assistance on how they should develop those. That work is ongoing, even though we've had now since June 2008. Of course, we're approaching the fifth anniversary since the change.
So in welcoming a sufficient period of time, even for engagement within the community, for first nations to ensure that if they want to develop their own legislation, their own matrimonial real property legislation, even apart from an alternative mechanism, one year may not be sufficient for engaging the community.