Thank you.

I think there are two things that are pretty well known.

First of all, Canada's budget is insufficient to meet the needs of first nations on the infrastructure gap.

Second, there's a very large infrastructure gap and in some cases an internal capacity gap. If the budget cannot help fulfill those holes, then the alternative is economic participation.

FNFA's regulation change that we're asking for isn't mission creep. It's basically following what all parties in 2006 in Parliament put up their hands and voted for—that FNFA's act should change over time as the political climate, the economic climate and the needs of first nations also changed over time. There is a section in our act, section 141, that allows for an evolution of FNFA as continuing changes occur.

Economic participation has become how reconciliation is now defined. The projects out there are mostly in the resource sector and they change territory by territory, but Ernie and I aren't presenting equity participation here just hoping that this is something that will work: We have already canvassed the capital markets, the pension plans, the life insurance companies and the investors out there as to whether they would support equity participation, and the answer is yes.

If Canada's budget cannot help close the internal capacity or infrastructure gap, then allow economic participation by all and put a loan guarantee around a special purpose vehicle. FNFA is not for profit and we're not going to benefit by this, but first nations that cannot meet certain vetting tests will now be able to be included.

Our act is not about low rates; it's about providing increases in capacity and wealth management within first nations. It's imperative that all first nations whose projects are passing territorial areas now have the right to participate. This regulation will allow that to occur.