Again, in relation to what I've described, there really isn't a week that goes by when I'm not speaking with, for example, Byron Louis, of the Okanagan Indian Band in the interior of British Columbia about invasive species in that watershed. Whether it's cottage development, which has been mentioned, mining, or other developments that are happening on watersheds, each and every one of them relate to a regulation that's provincial or federal in which first nations' rights and title are being overstepped or overlooked.
We have a tremendous opportunity for first nations, like the one I just mentioned in that particular watershed, to be involved to a much greater degree to describe what sustainability looks like, including what prosperity looks like in those respective territories. For first nations, we see the challenges with both invasive species and the species at risk identification. All of these elements are being implicated in this major bill without the kind of consideration that's required.
It's less, Mr. Allen, about what I think about the invasive species in Lake Okanagan. It's more about what we need to do to make sure we are engaging with the chief, who has constitutionally protected rights and title, to give effect to their interests in the lake, which are not only water but are also food- and fisheries-related. It's resource-related.
Once again, to pull back to a specific question, we need to revisit the notion of how first nations are going to not just be consulted and accommodated, which is the current common law that we have in this country, but how they can achieve free, prior, and informed consent, which is the UN declaration and international customary law. Canada endorsed this after careful consideration just a few years ago.