I think you made an important point there. There is a perverse incentive on the part of businesses to pretend to be indigenous to take advantage of these opportunities. However, there's also a perverse incentive on the side of the government and other entities that are trying to say they've met a target. By having an overly permissive standard that, in reality, includes non-indigenous businesses in the category of indigenous, they can trumpet having met some kind of a target, which in reality they haven't met. I think we do see a lot of that from this government, a desire to show success that is beyond that merited by the evidence.
I want to ask you about enforcement as well. There's the issue of what the review standard is and who qualifies, but there's also the issue of enforcement. We found that, for subcontracting, for example, there are clear rules. If you're benefiting from that indigenous procurement opportunity, you can't subcontract exclusively to non-indigenous businesses. A third of your subcontracts have to be indigenous as well, yet there's no tracking of subcontracting.
There seems to be a complete lack of enforcement around that subcontract rule, which allows a bait and switch as well, a promise that there are going to be subcontracts to certain companies that then are not there. Do you have reflections on the enforcement around some of these rules and the extent to which that's part of the problem?