Thank you. I should clarify that I'm not a doctor, although I appreciate the vote of confidence.
In my mind, there is a very broad spectrum on what constitutes heritage, and commemoration is one vehicle or tool or method of one act of heritage. In fact, that's one of the problems. Indigenous cultural heritage has a commemorative component, but it is also very much on the complete other side of that spectrum, which is simply cultural practice. The challenge is what role the federal government plays in enriching or somehow contributing to the sustainability of those cultural practices while understanding that its primary vehicle is commemorative, which is over here.
I would say that in some ways that is a question.... Generally, to echo Madeleine's comments, I would say it's indigenous defined and indigenous led. It's not so much an invitation to have indigenous representation at the table; I think it's a little bit more that they need their own table. There are going to be a lot of conceptual issues but also practical issues that are just going to have to get wrestled with. The solutions are going to have to be discovered over time, and I think co-operatively. The work that the IHC is doing is sort of generating a bottom-up mandate for that community, but I think that community then is going to need someone to speak to in the government, in Parks, for example. I think the renaming of that department indicates an interest in addressing that.