Generally, we don't feel that we're being represented. Maybe one of the specifics you might want to look at would be to make specific reference to the agreements that we have. For example, I mentioned the Tlicho agreement.
Right now, in most of the legislation, you use a generic term that says this legislation will not abrogate or infringe upon.... I can't remember the exact wording, but you use a generic term that says you will not violate our rights. But if you turn that around a bit and say we have a land claim agreement that is very specific when it comes to water, we have to adhere to it, then you make mention in the legislation, you make specific reference to the Tlicho agreement, to the Gwich'in land claim agreement, to the Sahtu land claim agreement, to spell out those agreements in there. Then when something comes before you, you go to the chapter in that agreement and can say, “Wow, we didn't realize. This is beyond consultation. We need to get their approval because the Supreme Court of Canada says, in particular instances, when there are serious matters, you need their consent.”
For the short part of it, we don't feel we're being adequately involved at that level. That's where we need to go.