That is a very good question.
I was alluding to that earlier. For example, if you look at our original agreements, we have historic treaties, pre-confederation treaties, and modern land claim agreements. In our area up north, we have the Tlicho agreement, for example, that's been in effect for 11 years. They have a huge land mass of 36,000 square kilometres and they own the surface and the sub-surface of that land. They have legislative authority over it, including taxing powers. Part of their agreement, which is a constitutionally protected document, says that the quality and the quantity of water, and the flow of water, has to be protected.
What you're talking about is this. If I'm up north, the water comes from the south, so whatever happens in the south affects us as the water basin goes to the Arctic Ocean. It doesn't only affect us; it goes internationally to the global circumpolar world. Canada has to be very cognizant of that. This is not just a domestic question. If our agreement, for example, says that the quality and the quantity has to be adhered to, then there is a mandatory, legal obligation on the part of Canada to come clean with that.
If you look at that same agreement, there are seven pages that deal with international matters. When Canada is dealing with these issues, they are legally obligated to go to the Tlicho and talk to them about the issues that may affect them. That includes the testing of health. We're being affected up north. The dam, Site C, is being proposed there but there were never hearings up north. All hearings were south of 60°. The waters upstream from us come north so we will be affected. That's not to talk about the project at all. The project is one thing, but the results from that are another. You're quite accurate in the way you're approaching it.