Thank you for your question, Mr. Lemire.
Look, it has been a challenge.
There have been a number of areas where the issue of identity or indigeneity has come up. From a departmental perspective, we have section 35 rights holders. They are recognized by the Constitution, but there is a process to attain that recognition. It's a very diligent process. Sometimes it's very frustrating for the people going through this process. However, we have not taken any shortcuts in order to ensure that the integrity of that recognition is sacrosanct. It's not something that can be compromised. At every step of the way.... Section 35 rights holders are those who are already recognized.
The groups you identified are not section 35 rights holders. We do, however, fund organizations, entities or collectives that are asserting section 35 rights for the purpose of ensuring they are able to ascertain or explore that right. I think it is in our best interest to continue doing that, because it is important. If their assertions are correct, we don't want to be disadvantaging them in the long term.
During COVID, we took some exceptional steps to ensure we didn't leave anyone behind. Post-COVID, we have been very diligent in terms of ensuring that only those with section 35 rights are able to exercise that identity.