I get that.
I guess the other thing I would come back to is the clarity around the Métis government. Nobody is disputing the Métis government thing, or I haven't heard anybody disputing that. I'm not. I'm not disputing whether it's a government or whether it has rights. That's what we're doing here. In fact, in the definitions, there is a definition of a Métis government. It defines what it is, and that's why it's in the schedule that way.
If the broadening of the term includes indigenous groups, communities or people, we've had this discussion on community and collectivities. We said, no, it is collectivities, because that's how we recognize section 35 rights holders. I think that was the explanation. However, this term actually includes communities, groups and people, which now drills down to the level of individuals in my opinion.
I think we're broadening Métis government to something beyond what we all here understand this legislation to be. My concern is that we're trying to alleviate the fears of some of the people who are thinking they're caught up in something where we're telling them they're not.
Let's just be clear, so that we're not having a battle 10 years from now on this.