To be fair, I am trying, Mr. Vidal.
There are a few reasons. One is that this legislation is codeveloped with our partners. This term, in part.... I don't know whether you're taking issue with the fact that these are indigenous governments that represent people who hold section 35 rights. There's a long history in Canada regarding the denial of Métis rights and challenges to the legitimacy, authenticity and authorization of these governments by Canada and other governments in this country.
Really, what I think this term has intended to signal, or make clear and explicit, is that these are indigenous governments. They've been authorized by people who hold section 35 rights. That's also why it makes reference to the schedule, the governments and the collectivities.
I hope you think that's an answer to your question. I'm happy to take a more specific question. I don't know if anyone else at this table wants to add anything.