 So today's webinar again, applications to the CLSA and considerations for access and use of indigenous identified data will be presented by Dr. Jennifer Walker. Dr. Walker is a member of Six Nations and an associate professor in the Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact at McMaster University. She has a PhD in community sciences with a specialization in epidemiology from the University of Calgary. She's also a senior scientist with ICES and currently holds a candidate research chair in indigenous health data and aging. And now I will pass it on to you. Thank you so much. It's really nice to see all these familiar and new names and to be with you today to share some, basically to share some of the journey that I think essentially the CLSA has been on since its inception. But in the sort of recent years of really kind of digging deep and thinking about the indigenous data that's within the CLSA and how to basically respectfully and ethically handle that data and provide access and use of indigenous identified data. So I've been really privileged to be able to have these conversations with the CLSA and to sort of come closer into being involved with the CLSA in recent years. So I just want to start a little bit by just, you know, before we jump into thinking about what is indigenous data governance, what are we talking about here? I just wanted to sort of remind people about the indigenous data that is in the CLSA. So most, I assume there's so many people on this call who are very familiar with how the CLSA, you know, probably all written about how the CLSA recruitment happened and sampling, what the structure of it, so I won't go through all of that. But just to say that at baseline, there are 1,879 individuals who participated in the CLSA that would be categorized as having indigenous identity, and I'll tell you a little bit about how that would happen. And so that is 1128 in the comprehensive cohort and 751 in the tracking cohort. So those are the kind of, that's what's currently within the CLSA. And so we're going to have a broad conversation about the CLSA and being responsive to reconciliation and decolonizing indigenous, decolonizing kind of cohort data around indigenous populations in general. But particularly when we're talking about the access questions and what's new in terms of the access to indigenous identified data in the CLSA, it's really this group that we're talking about. So these are the ways that someone could be identified as indigenous within the current CLSA data. There are three variables that have some indigenous identity embedded within them, the ethnicity variable, the cultural and racial background question, and in the languages spoken. So Aboriginal is an option for each of those questions. So when we combine those three potential ways, then we have the sort of makings of self-reported indigenous identity, either in just going back again to either in terms of ethnicity, cultural and racial background or languages that are spoken. So the CLSA really has been on a path to reconciliation and respect for indigenous data sovereignty and indigenous data governance. And I wanted to just ground us in this image for a second because it's one image that I sometimes reflect on when I think about paths to respecting indigenous data sovereignty and indigenous data governance. Because the water is traveling in a direction. The water, let's just say, is traveling in the direction of indigenous data sovereignty and indigenous data governance. But the water can take a lot of different paths on that route. Sometimes it gets held up by a rock, sometimes it takes a little journey to the side, sometimes it's moving quickly and sometimes it's moving slowly. And I just really want us to honor the fact that it takes time and it's really important to reflect where things keep in mind the end journey and where the water is going, where we are all going together. But also honor the fact that there are different paths to get there and not just one straight line. So when we first started talking about this, well, I mean, there's different points where the conversations initially happened. So in the initial design of the CLSA, it did not include a co-design with indigenous researchers or communities. So that's, you know, part of what we are now addressing, that in that initial design, there wasn't room for that. There were some initial conversations, but it wasn't designed in collaboration with indigenous researchers or communities. So this sampling, the kinds of questions, the approach is something that was built and then now we're trying to work with. So that's foundational to this conversation, I think. And back in, it was either 2017 or 2018, but there was a presentation by the CLSA about the initial sort of description of who was in the baseline. And a group of indigenous dementia researchers within the CCNA sort of became aware that there was indigenous data, indigenous identified data within the CLSA. And that prompted discussions with indigenous organizations about the data access and use because it was exciting to think that there is indigenous data, indigenous identified aging data that can help answer questions for organizations and communities. But also just this sort of like, also this responsibility that indigenous communities and leadership feels over data that's about their communities and populations and people. So really wanting to make sure that the data would be used and accessed in a way that would center indigenous organizations, communities and people. So we actually collaborated on an initial data request for all the indigenous identified CLSA data. So just the request was not for a specific research question, it was, we want to have all the data that can be co-governed by indigenous organizations, indigenous researchers, so that we can make sure that it's safe and that it's being used by indigenous organizations and communities for indigenous organizations and communities. This request was not approved and you will, like we were very naive, you will completely understand why it wasn't approved because you will all know the process of having very specific research questions and justification for all the variables that you're asking for. But we were coming at it from a very different perspective. We were coming at it from the perspective of indigenous data sovereignty. And so I want to use this quote to ground that conversation just a little bit in that the act of knowing is a collective cultural and political imperative for indigenous peoples. Information, data and research about our peoples collected about us with us or by us belongs to us and must be cared for by us. So this was the sort of framing and positionality that we come to data with, that we're coming from those perspectives that it is our actual responsibility as indigenous organizations and nations and leaders to care for that data and to use it in a cycle of indigenous governance where the indigenous data are governed by indigenous leaders and that indigenous leaders use indigenous data for governance and decision making. So indigenous data governance involves both governance of data and use of data for governance. So this is the framing we're coming at this with an initial request for the CLSA data in its whole so that we could make sure that indigenous data governance principles were embedded. So we hesitate to step back obviously when those conversations were not aligned with how the CLSA is set up, how access to the data works. And so in 2019 then we regrouped and we put in with the Native Women's Association of Canada, that's what NWAC stands for, we put in a request for specific variables and with specific research questions in collaboration together. So between Native Women's Association of Canada and academic researchers like me. And then we did an initial descriptive analysis of the data. So what we were looking for is really to answer broad questions about aging experiences in indigenous people across Canada. And we gathered a group of 16 older indigenous people and elders from across Canada together to review the findings, to think about the context and to decide and confirm where to go next with the data. And that is part of a very community engaged approach to analysis of data. There must be a community partner, which is the Native Women's Association of Canada. There has to be ongoing community involvement and consent. And it has to, the analysis has to be guided by community. And so we had this meeting and you can see just a little screenshot of the report that came from the meeting that NWAC compiled. And they presented on behalf of those elders significant concerns to the CLSA about data governance, about representation and sampling. And about the relevance of the content and the need for indigenous people to be determining what was asked of indigenous participants in the CLSA. So data governance, representation and sampling and relevance of content. These were sort of three buckets of concerns that community brought forward, community members and NWAC brought forward to us as researchers. And so really we're now, this has taken us on, it has really prompted us on this journey of really reflecting on these things and saying, okay, what in the CLSA, the currently collected CLSA data needs to change in terms of data governance to make sure that the current cohort of indigenous people who have given their individual consent, but that we've got principles of indigenous data governance in the access and use of the data. What do we need to do in the future for better representation and sampling for First Nations in NMAT populations when we're thinking about aging cohorts? Because we can't change that for right now, for the baseline CLSA, but we can envision and imagine and develop approaches to First Nation, NMAT cohorts potentially, if that's where communities and organizations would want us to go. And then the third thing really the relevance of the content, how do we decolonize the approaches? How do we make sure that we're asking about people's asking in really trauma-informed and safe ways, asking about the context of residential school, for example, and things that really do influence how people experience aging from First Nations, NMAT and NMAT populations. So in 2020, that year will trigger for you that this was, it was right before the pandemic. CLSA hosted a gathering of indigenous organizations and researchers here in Hamilton, and I was coming down from Sudbury because I was working at Laurentian University at the time. So we all gathered and talked about these things and reviewed what the report from the Native Women's Association had said in CLSA people had invited other indigenous organizations as well. And the outcome of the meeting was a pause on accessing indigenous identified data until we could figure some things out. So you can see that the statement that came out in September based on that earlier meeting where there was a pause. And so that might be the last time you heard about this. And so where are we going from here? So this access was paused until we could figure out a process that respects both research ethics requirements and indigenous data sovereignty principles. And so this is where we're on, you know, we're at one of those slow parts of the journey where we're going a little bit sideways. The water is not moving quickly because we really need to figure out where we're going next. Where are we going to sort of make a new path through this mountain pass? And so the CLSA made some commitments. They committed to supporting research that benefits all people living in Canada and to ensuring that all research involving First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples is conducted in a manner that respects indigenous data governance principles and rights, including researcher responsibilities to uphold those same principles and rights in their research activities. So this commitment was made and then we sort of have to figure out, okay, what does that actually mean? So where I'm going to go from here in our conversation is to think about what are those data governance principles and rights. And then we'll talk about how the CLSA is sort of operationalizing a process that respects those principles and rights. So first we're going to talk about, you know, things at a bit of a higher level like what are those principles and then what the CLSA is doing. So first thing, research ethics. What does our tri-council policy statements say about working with indigenous data? And this is a requirement we all have as researchers. And sometimes, you know, we know we've all sort of taken the TCPS core training. We know that Chapter 9 is about indigenous First Nations, Inuit, Métis research. What does it actually mean for the work that we do? If we're going to be using data that's been previously collected, that includes an indigenous identifier. What does it mean? So in Article 9.1, it says that researchers, if there's going to be research that affects the welfare of an indigenous community or communities, researchers shall seek engagement with the relevant community. That includes research where indigenous identity or membership in an indigenous community is used as a variable for the purpose of analysis of the research data. So it doesn't say that your whole study is about indigenous populations. It says where you've used an indigenous identifier. And we just talked about all three of the places in the CLSA where you can find indigenous identifiers. So if we are using those identifiers as a variable or those, you know, those levels of the variable for the purpose of analysis of the research data, even if we're controlling for it, you know, we're controlling for indigenous identity or we want to explore the impact of, you know, race and culture. And that includes indigenous identity. This requires engagement with the relevant community. So this isn't even something that, you know, we're going above and beyond what's required for just the ethical standards of research. The base requirement for ethical standards of research in Canada. So that caused us to pause to make sure that we have a process that ensures that researchers are seeking engagement with the relevant community if they're accessing indigenous identifiers. So that was the first thing. The second article to point out is article 9.2. And the nature and extent of community engagement of projects shall be determined jointly by the researcher and the relevant community. And shall be appropriate to community characteristics and the nature of the research. So that means that there's not only one way of doing it. It means there's not a formula for community engagement. So that poses a challenge for reviewing CLSA applications to access data, obviously, because, you know, there's not just going to be able to be a clear. Yes, this is, you know, this is every project needs this, this and this, or needs a signature or needs that every project could look different in terms of the nature and extent of community engagement, because it's determined jointly by the researcher and the relevant community. So this other aspect of it where it's appropriate to community characteristics and the nature of the research also matters. So, you know, it's, you know, there are some ways that I go about it in my work, where if I'm working with a national level data, I try and have a national level partner. Or if I'm working with provincial level data, I try to have a provincial level partner. And if I'm working with First Nations data, it's a First Nations partner. If it's indigenous data that includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis, then I decide whether I'm really engaging with First Nations, Inuit and Métis, or if I should only be accessing First Nations data because I'm only really engaging with First Nations. So there's lots of different things to consider when we're talking about the nature and extent of community engagement. But this, this we know, it is part of the TCPS, we know that this is the base requirement that we all have to, we all have to stand up to. So, indigenous data sovereignty, what is that? So we've looked at it from an ethics perspective, now thinking about indigenous sovereignty. So the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is a starting point. And, you know, Canada is now a signatory to, not just a signatory to that, took a while actually. But also now has an act to make these things part of how we, a legal framework for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And some of the things to just really think about, it's like, it's all about self-determination. It's about ensuring that we recognize that all these institutions that we are part of at universities and governments, as researchers often, part of these institutions are situated in places where indigenous sovereignty is a reality. It's not just a concept, it's a reality. Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty are established in treaties and it is a reality. So we have to respect it. So some of those key features are, you know, the right to autonomy and self-government, having distinct institutions. And then the diversity, this Article 15 here, the right to dignity and diversity of cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations, which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information. So we want to make sure that indigenous knowledges are respected in the way we collect data to produce public information. We want to make sure that we respect the decision-making authority of indigenous institutions, that we're seeking free prior and informed consent before we do anything that might affect indigenous nations, and that they have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies and administer programs. And this is part of that governance cycle where it's the right to govern data, but also to use data to develop and administer programs and to develop priorities. So I wanted to highlight these things because I think that both the research ethics and the indigenous sovereignty helps to ground us in thinking beyond individual consent. So every one of those 1800 people gave individual consent for researchers to use their indigenous identity data. But what we also see from both the research ethics perspective and indigenous sovereignty perspective is that we also need collective consent. We need to find a way to make sure we're doing adequate engagement for collective consent. So every one of these little threads that make up this spider web have to consent, but there needs to be something holding it together to make sure that there's collective consent to go down any analysis path. So here are some other principles that can help to take those concepts and make them a little bit more, they're still principles, but make them a little bit more concrete. They're things that can help guide our thinking around what this means. And, you know, so this, these care principles were actually developed in response to the fair principles. So fair principles you may have heard about before that, that all research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. But also, we said, great, that makes perfect sense. But at the same time, if it's indigenous data, there needs to be another layer. And that these principles, these care principles of collective benefit, the authority to control responsibility and ethics also need to be applied. So there's some resources here. There's a publication, but then also these kinds of visuals and things to help you think through both operationalizing the care principles. So there's another paper that I should add there on operationalizing the care principles. But just thinking through what do these, what do these things mean? So here's a bit more detail on the collective benefit data ecosystem shall be designed and function in ways that enable indigenous peoples to derive benefit from the data. You can see that's what we were trying to do at the very beginning where we said, okay, we need to have the data ecosystem for the COSA is not designed that right now for indigenous peoples to derive benefit from the data. So let's hold the data somewhere and make sure that that's the priority that the indigenous data is is helping to helping in that cycle of indigenous data governance. So for for these for these outcomes. So also go to authority to control so that indigenous peoples rights and interests and indigenous data must be recognized and their authority to control such data respected. So this is these, this is that concept of data for governance and governance of data that I keep coming back to you. The responsibility those working with indigenous data have a responsibility to share how those data are used to support indigenous peoples self determination and collective benefit. And then the ethics indigenous peoples rights and well being should be the primary concern of all stages of the data life cycle and across the data ecosystem for maximizing harm, minimizing our maximizing benefit for justice and for future use. So these principles can be helpful to to start thinking through even your own use. It's definitely helpful for thinking about like, what does a cohort. Like, what does the COSA cohort and the way we organize the data and the data access have to look like, but also also thinking through, you know, your own projects with the data. Another set of principles which you probably are familiar with, but just in case you're not is the First Nations data governance principles in Canada. So those other principles were developed globally. These principles are very specific to First Nations data in Canada, and have been established since the 1990s, and they are that First Nations data needs to be owned controlled access and possessed by First Nations. And I wanted to highlight here that there's an opportunity. It may be paused right now, again, like the it's a little fork in the river, where they're updating their OCAP training. But this is where through the First Nations information governance center you can access training to help understand these principles of ownership control access and possession. And visiting the First Nations information governance center website is a great idea. And that's one of the organizations that the COSA was consulting with when we had that meeting in 2020. So here we come to, okay, so, you know, we've paused since 2020 on releasing Indigenous identified data in the COSA. And we dealt with a few other things in the meantime, but also like, you know, like the pandemic and my I moved from Laurentian University to McMaster University. There's been lots and lots of changes in all of our lives. And so we're starting another part of this journey. We found another, we found a path. We think that will be a bit of the next stage of this journey in terms of the access to Indigenous identified data within the COSA. So here's a summary of the new requirements. Really, there needs to be meaningful and respectful engagement with relevant Indigenous peoples when using and reporting on Indigenous identifiers. So there will have, when you are applying, and I'm going to show you this process, when you're applying, you're going to need to talk about your engagement with who the level of engagement, not just a thought about who you might engage with, but actually what conversations have you had. If you're not sure where to start with thinking about partnering with Indigenous organizations, there's some training that can potentially help you at least get started. You know, your first call shouldn't be to your local Indigenous scholar if you don't already have experience with this. Your first step should be to kind of seek out some, you know, taking cultural safety training. And then these two resources I really wanted to highlight for people. One is training on building Indigenous community research partnerships. So it gives you an opportunity to reflect on how to begin building community research partnerships. And then this other training that's very, it's very new. And it's actually what we're going to be basing much of our assessment of the extent and quality of the engagement. For the applications that come forward to the COSA. So this training on using this Indigenous research engagement tool that was developed in Saskatchewan. So right now it's very Saskatchewan specific. And it was developed from the Saskatchewan Center for Patient-Oriented Research, but also in collaboration with the First Nations University of Canada. And so I really encourage you to go and look at this tool. There's like a really nice, nicely laid out, very easy to follow, sort of tool to guide the level and extent of engagement. Ideally, if you're doing an Indigenous focused project that has Indigenous focused research question, there should be Indigenous governance of the whole project. So what we're not introducing is like an Indigenous data governance committee that approves all access to all Indigenous data in the COSA. We are not doing that. What we're doing is saying it is the researcher's responsibility to ensure that your project includes the appropriate engagement and governance within it. So it's not, you know, there's not going to be a group of Indigenous community members saying yay or nay. What you're going to have to do as researchers is design your projects in a way that respects both research ethics and Indigenous data sovereignty. So here's how you actually do that. Once you've kind of got that sorted out, you're going to apply for, you know, in Magnolia, if you've applied for CLSA data before, you're familiar with this, and you're going to see a section here that says, please note that projects that include Indigenous identifiers will undergo an additional review to ensure that meaningful and respectful engagement with relevant Indigenous peoples is integrated throughout the project. And then you have to answer the question, does your proposed project include the use of Indigenous First Nations, Métis, and you meet self-identifiers? And you know that that could be the ethnicity, the culture and race or language, self-identifiers. And then if it's a yes, please include a description of how you intend to use Indigenous identifiers in your analysis and how you're involving Indigenous organizations, people and governing bodies in your project. Have you established Indigenous governance of your project? If this is not a central part of your research, like you want to access the identifiers, but it's not a central part, who are you working with to ensure that any interpretation of meaning that comes from the analysis of the Indigenous identifiers is informed, is driven by Indigenous organizations, people and governing bodies. So this is going to be the new thing that as an applicant to access the data, this is what researchers will be asked to do. So it doesn't have to be, you know, what it does have to be is specific. It does have to be as specific as possible so that we can assess. We can ensure that it's not just a future state. But we also don't want to dictate, because you remember in the Tri-Council Policy Statement, it says that, you know, between the community partner and the researcher, then the level and extent of engagement is co-determined. So we don't want to say you have to have a signed letter or you have to have this because we don't want to impose on any Indigenous organization or community what their governance looks like, but we want to know that the researcher has done that work. So simple, right? So this is kind of where we've come to is that we have, you know, there's always this, what I just described as the one page, when you do a submission that says how the identifiers are going to be used and how you're doing engagement. Then it will go through its normal reviews, but these reviews will now include aspects of assessing the Indigenous, if you're going to be accessing Indigenous identifiers, and then making sure that there is some, there's evidence of meaningful and respectful engagement with the appropriate groups. So, you know, all these same processes, it doesn't impact anything that you have to do other than that one page, it's just how it will be assessed going forward. And just, you know, we'll do a double check, making sure that the ethics approval, you know, that it's included in there, that we've got the throughout. We've got an assurance that the data that we are basically holding in trust for Indigenous nations is going to be used in the best way. So I just wanted to sort of sum up that part by saying here's some tips that I have for ethically using and reporting on Indigenous data. And just it's about, it's about approach, right? It's about conducting work and service to community that supports community priorities as respecting Indigenous governance protocols. So if you're working with, you know, when we're working with the Native Women's Association, it's very different than working with the First Nations Information Governance Centre or with the Chiefs of Ontario or with the Bahl-Huskabell Tribal Council. I'm listing off different partners I've worked with because every single one of them has been very, very different in terms of their governance protocols and the steps we have to go through for everything. You know, as a researcher, as researchers, often we think, okay, well, we've got the data, now let's, you know, analyze it, get an abstract out. I can't, in none of the work that I do, can I submit an abstract without having it approved at a community level first. So that means that any timelines I have for getting an abstract and for a conference, back that up by two months, or potentially one month if we can be really quick about it, to make sure it goes through the approval processes before anything is shared outside the community. Recognize and promote sovereignty by ensuring Indigenous direction and governance throughout, so really understanding what sovereignty means. Centering Indigenous values and communities in the knowledge sharing, so making sure that we're prioritizing information, getting to the people it needs to get to, to support their decision making and governance. Strengthening and building data capacity within communities. So, you know, that's a big part of what our responsibility is as researchers who use data is making sure that we're building collective capacity, building our own capacity to work in partnership and building community capacity to use and understand data. And really to build on strengths and not deficits. And that's a really important thing when we're thinking about data because data can be used as in very harmful ways if we're building on deficits instead of strengths. So where are we going next? Like where is this path going to go from here? So there's really two conditions for data sovereignty. We have to think about decolonizing data and the governance. So we have been focusing on this governance question. We haven't been focusing on decolonizing the actual data right now. And when I say decolonizing, it's because data has often been used in actually as a vehicle for colonization when it actually keeps perpetuating narratives of disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction, and difference. So when we perpetuate these narratives of dependency, then we're actually undermining sovereignty. So we really need to be flipping everything if we're going to be decolonizing data. So now we have to go back to what advice we got from the Native Women's Association at the beginning and those 16 elders who took the time to travel to be together and to sit with us with the data. And the other things that they were worried about, the relevance of the content and the representation and sampling. So we are a key next step is establishing a CLSA Indigenous Working Group that can start to think about where we need to go from here. This is not going to be a small task. This is not going to be a few small meetings. If it took us this long to kind of get a data governance pathway, imagine how long it could take us to sort of decolonize our thinking around the content, the representation and sampling within the CLSA. So I just want to invite any Indigenous scholars or people with a depth of experience that could be really helpful and useful in this process and who are really interested in thinking through these issues to reach out to me as we start to think about an Indigenous Working Group to guide these next steps. Or to actually take the next steps, I should say, we're getting the guidance. We have to get the guidance from Indigenous organizations and communities. So I just want to say now I thank you so much for this opportunity to share with you and I look forward to the time we have left to have a discussion. Thank you. Thank you so much, Jennifer. I know this having been part of these discussions with you since 2020, I know how much work and effort and discussion has gone into this. So thank you again for everything as well as this webinar today. I'm going to open it up to questions now. Some people have already started posting questions. Just a reminder though that the meeting will remain on, but you can enter your questions into the Q&A box, not the chat box, in the bottom of the Zoom window. So the first question is hopefully an easy question, but I'll let you, I think I know the answer, but I'll let you answer. Is the report that came out between NWAC and CLSA publicly available? Oh, sorry. There wasn't a report from the meeting between NWAC and CLSA. This was a report of the meeting of the elders council that reviewed the CLSA data with us. And that hasn't been publicly available. What we have been working on, you can imagine that, or maybe you can't imagine that it's been three years and it's not finished. But we have written a paper that we will be submitting that will then sort of give that analysis that we did, and then also the response that we had from the elders and from NWAC. So when that's available, I think it will be very helpful to people. But the actual report that NWAC provided to the CLSA is not public. So the next one is, is there interested in learning how the possession part of OCAP is being followed by the CLSA, as well as other population-based surveys such as CCHS and ITES data? Do these sets not violate that principle since indigenous peoples and communities do not physically control the data? Yes, yeah. So we are not, I would not say that the way we're organizing the data access is OCAP because we are not able to, I mean, that was the initial request we had was to possess the data, right? We couldn't have it held in trust by an indigenous organization that could then be more in line with OCAP itself. What we don't have is, and that's this, so the CLSA, it's funny that we have these three examples in here because they're actually all quite different in how they approach indigenous data sovereignty. Yes, it doesn't, right? So there is no sort of indigenous governance at all of CCHS data. CLSA has now put in some indigenous governance of indigenous data. And then at ICES, it's a different kind of data because it's not primary data collection, it's administrative health data. And there it's done through data governance agreements with the First Nations in Ontario. So there's, it's not in the legal framework of health data in Ontario, it's not legal for ICES to transfer data to chiefs of Ontario, for example. So instead there's a data governance agreement that is based on those OCAP principles so that it's possession in sort of a virtual way through data governance rather than the physical possession of the data. So like it is, you know, it's like I said, there's different paths to this, and it has to be done in collaboration. So, you know, we've had the, you know, the form formality of data governance agreements at ICES here with the CLSA rather than sort of an overall data governance framework, it's sort of project by project data governance that's going to have to happen, and then the CCHS there's not. So I know that's maybe a convoluted answer, but essentially none of those are purely OCAP compliant. Okay, so we have a few more questions. So the next one is, are the questions and strategies in the CLSA for Indigenous identity acceptable? What I'm trying to ask is if there are methods, are the methods and what you and others, are they what you would recommend? No, I mean, they're not really questions about Indigenous identity, right? So they're not, but I think that kind of thing is part of the next steps. Because what we're trying to deal with, what we've been trying to deal with is what's there right now, and then where we go from here I think is going to require a totally different conversation with a wide variety of people. What I do know is that if we go down the path of having a distinctly Indigenous process or something like that, then I don't think that those identifiers are how people would want to be... So like there would be interest in a distinctions based approach, right? Where there would be a First Nations kind of approach and cohort, a Metis approach and cohort. So like this sort of pan-Indigenous approach is not the one that I expect Indigenous organizations would want to take. So embedding these kinds of like embedding it in culture and ethnicity and language variables is not the approach that we would likely take if we were building this from scratch. So it's something that the Indigenous working group will be doing consultation on. Thanks for the question, Andrea. The next question is related to Magnolia, which is the CLSA's data application system. Will there be an expectation, if not now, but in the future for applicants who do not plan to use Indigenous identifiers to justify why they're not justifying it? I'm just thinking about, for example, how not considering sex and gender must be justified for CIHR. I would not, at this point, suggest it. I wouldn't suggest it because I think it takes the sort of commitment and like genuine commitment that it takes to do Indigenous research. I wouldn't want it to be a general expectation for every research project because that burden of having Indigenous organizations needing to be engaged in every project, even when it's not coming from their priority, is not the way I would want to see it at all. Like Indigenous communities don't have everything as a priority and can't invest time in every researcher's priorities. So I would suggest that we wouldn't want to go down a route where it was expected that every application can include Indigenous involvement. Okay, so we have another question. I understand the talk deals with self-identification. What happens if Indigenous ancestry is indicated by genetic analysis of CLSA biospecimens? Wow, interesting. That's not something we've considered at all, but it sounds like David Hogan would like to join the Indigenous working group. I agree. But I think that's, I mean, those are real questions and right now there's a big Indigenous identity conference happening. There's so many questions about Indigenous identity and ancestry and what is the distinction between ancestry and identity? Those are big, big questions. And so I think they, if there's, if we wouldn't want to conflate the two, I guess, we wouldn't want to make, we wouldn't want to imagine that those two things are the same. Thanks for that. Heads up there, David. The next question is from Stephanie. She asks, will this reduce the researchers who request Indigenous data and therefore leave a gap in the information we have on this community? When Indigenous peoples are not a main focus, for example, in dementia across peoples? So it's a gap for who, I guess, is the thing. So this is always, this is always a challenge, right? Because if a researcher is not willing or have the time to do Indigenous engagement properly and use the data in a way that's really informing Indigenous nations, then it's not very helpful to just put more information out about Indigenous people without involving Indigenous people. So I think that, you know, there might be, there might be fewer projects, but that might not actually, you know, if there's a priority coming from Indigenous communities, then that's what we need to focus on. But I, you know, I hear what you're saying, and it happens a lot. People often say this to me, like, well, then you're just not going to get the same quality of research or the same number of research projects done with Indigenous communities. But if it's not done the right way, it can do more harm than good. So that's, I guess, my main answer. And thanks for Tina Wolfson, who's one of the PIs has added a comment in support of that. I'll let both of you read that. But I'm just going to note, we have probably a time for one last question. So just a reminder for those participants who are starting to lead to please complete your exit questionnaire. And meantime, we'll continue with the last question or two, which is next one is from Megan O'Connell. Given how NWAC did not feel that sampling methods and CLSA did not reflect the experience of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people, are there plans to help CLSA researchers understand the limitations of the findings they have with Indigenous identifiers? Or is the manuscript you're working on going to be able to be a resource? Yes, I'm hoping the manuscript will be a resource. Yeah. Yeah, that's the main message there. Which means, Tina, I don't think there was a question in your comments. I'm just going to presume that was just a comment. Cliff asks, thanks so much for the presentation and all the hard work. I had two questions. Does the CLSA administration have any plans to offer access fee waivers or grants for Indigenous scholars? That's not a question for me, I don't think. Cliff, I'll just pipe in and say, unless Parminder or Tina wants to pipe in, I think we're considering everything at this point and I don't think anything is off the table or on the table. So we don't know right now. So the second question is, but it is a great idea and probably something that should be done. Second question, I work with the Indigenous cohort in the Health and Retirement Study in the U.S. and am interested in cross-walking these data with the CLSA. Is there any interest with the CLSA administration in developing cross-national collaborations on Indigenous aging research when possible? I would say, I don't know about the CLSA administration, but I'm very interested. Yeah, you can consider yourself part of that. Yeah, so maybe if there is interest there, I mean, I think you're welcome to follow up with Dr. Walker or any of our PIs in the study. So always looking to collaborate. Okay, so I think that will actually, let's squeeze in one more if that's okay, and then that'll be the last one. I know I usually like to finish right at two. But Kate asks, if identifiers are not used for access, is there any guidance or recommendation on how to report the representative representatives of the sample in terms of Indigenous population in the methods or limitation section of description analysis of CLSA data? Based on census data, I think 3.7% is slightly lower than the Indigenous population. Yeah, and that would make sense, right, because there was no sampling on reserve. So we're missing all the on reserve population for sure. So I think it's a good question and I think that that's something we can take back and consider and making sure that there's guidance around that. Thank you so much, Kate. Okay, so I think that will bring us to an end. Thank you again. I think this was really a very engaging webinar and lots of questions. And again, we've had lots of interesting questions come to the CLSA about this, so very timely and well overdue. I'd like to thank everyone else for attending. Please remember that the deadline for the next data access applications is April 12. And you can find information under data access on the CLSA website to review the available data as well as additional details of data access process. I'd also like to remind you about completing your anonymous survey upon leaving, which I've already reminded you about. And that breaks us to the next CLSA webinar, which explores the topic, the impact of urban greenness on health and aging, and that'll be on April 19 by Susanna Abraham, Kota Kota jury and Irmina Plistnik. I did not say those names right. I apologize. Registration details are on our website as well. And remember this CLSA promotes this webinar series using the hashtag CLSA webinar. And we invite you to follow us on Twitter at CLSA underscore CLSA underscore ELCV. I'm trying to rush and so I'm fumbling now, but thank you again everyone and Dr. Walker for attending and for a great webinar. Have a great day.