To follow up on that, I think some members of the government will say, and have said in past meetings, that identity can be really complicated, that there can be marginal or ambiguous cases and that there might be some cases on which different indigenous peoples disagree about how that identity is precisely defined. However, I think there are also many clear-cut cases we've seen of how the federal government isn't keeping track of subcontracts. It's supposed to have this rule that when there's an indigenous procurement set-aside, a certain percentage of the subcontracts are indigenous, and there's no tracking of that whatsoever. That seems not so much like responding to difficulty, but sheer negligence and disregard for the results.
What do you make of this lack of information tracking that we've seen?