I'm going back to the conversation we had. Our colleagues, Mr. Sikand and Mr. Badawey, summed it up very accurately.
I'm going to give you an example. Perhaps you're familiar with Semiahmoo First Nation. They have a population of 98. They have no natural resource development. They have no source of development because of where they're situated. Regarding our colleague Mr. Sikand's comment, is it equitable that the funding be based on a population of 98, or should it be based on the economic opportunity that this infrastructure could potentially bring to the community?
To that point, as Mr. Badawey mentioned—this is where I was going, and he said it far more eloquently than I did; unfortunately, that will be a good video clip for him—ultimately, when you are providing funding for assets or infrastructure, at some point there's a cost to that first nation to manage that facility or infrastructure, whether that capacity is there or not to manage the project along the way.
That infrastructure could all of a sudden be seen not as an asset, but as something that will fall into disrepair. Again, going back to whether it is equitable, population versus opportunity.... I don't think I got the department's exact program that could provide the resources to ensure that whatever investment is being done on the first nations, there is sufficient support to help build the capacity to manage that asset as you move forward.