Did you? I missed that, then.
In the monetary-type things or policy, those are great ones and I know we've spoken about that. That's great. I missed that specific reference.
Just for clarification on the cost-share program, when I was involved in the program, national historic sites with for-profit ownership—so, for example, a hotel—did not qualify for the funding. I think the program applies only to things that are not-for-profit and federally or provincially owned and perhaps indigenous-owned. There are other categories of classification and ownership that would not qualify. I don't know if everybody understood that. Even though you have the designation, it doesn't mean that other programs exist.
I want to jump to indigenous designations. I'm working on another project. I've been looking at the Truth and Reconciliation report, and recommendation 79 relates to indigenous designations. It's sort of curious that for the national historic sites program we heard that there was a systems plan, not for acquisition but for designation. As Martin mentioned, a few years ago, priority was put on indigenous women's history and ethnocultural communities. Is there any update now? What's the current focus?
I realize it's a very grassroots-driven program, but recommendation 79 actually talks about, “a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada's history.” Is that working its way into Parks Canada's leadership in trying to get these designations and nominations before the board?