Thank you for the question, and the previous question.
I certainly recognize the intent here is to fill a gap. As we all know, the legislation is part of the solution moving forward, but it's not the entire solution. I think having my colleagues here—and I'm also a director on the Lands Advisory Board—to reflect an option that first nations have undertaken, in terms of broader land management powers.... One of the obstacles for first nations pursuing those broader land management powers and removing themselves from 25% of the Indian Act is that the federal government is currently playing gatekeeper to the numerous first nations that want to enter this process—some 68 in number—because there aren't the dollars in order for them to do that. That's one example. Beyond the 23 matrimonial property laws under the framework agreement, there are numerous other MRP laws in comprehensive self-government arrangements, as well as those traditionally enacted by various first nations.
So, you know, I think that it's important to look at this issue in that broader context of nation-building, and what communities are actually doing, and the opportunities that they have.