It's a little complicated, as I am sure you can appreciate. This takes place at a variety of different levels. The primary importance is consultation with the rights holders themselves, individual first nations themselves.
We've heard it reflected from some of our constituents that notification is not consultation. Coming in and telling that you're doing something does not meet whatever standards we have out there, or they're not seen as the standards we should strive for.
We do have a Supreme Court reference on the matter, in section 35. Any time the right is infringed, or we say it is infringed, there is a duty to consult and accommodate. That doesn't mean there's a veto, but it certainly means there's a requirement to engage in those discussions in good faith.
Of course, Canada endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with that comes the free, prior, and informed consent for communities as well, as they go forward.
So what consultation has taken place? I don't think we've seen the substantive consultation process yet that ticks off all those boxes. Certainly I want to acknowledge that first nations have a responsibility to engage in good faith in those consultations, but it can't simply be notification that we're going forward with this and we're interested in your opinions as we go forward with this. I think it was meant to be more iterative.
As it relates to what we stated here this morning about resource development, if you're going to come into a community and extract resources from that community, a variety of negotiations need to take place. Those are understood, affirmed rights to those communities and those areas and those resources.
So I think it needs to be much more iterative. It must be prior to them coming in. It must be collaborative. And it must end in a relationship where the nations themselves are thriving as well as broader Canadians.