Thanks for the question.
With respect to the protection zone language, I would say that, in summation, maybe going back to the previous question, there were three large areas of focus by first nations. One was around rights. This is a rights-leading bill. The second is around funding. The third is the interplay of laws and jurisdiction that makes up the fabric of this country.
In relation to the protection zone, there are essentially three things happening in this legislation. The first, to your question, is the identification of what a protection zone is. Sources of water in this country vary greatly. In some cases, like in the Athabasca, they are very large. In other cases, they are much more geographically limited. The identification of a protection zone is something that's highly localized. Identifying what a protection zone is and the alignment of laws is a core part of this proposed legislation.
The second feature around the protection zones is largely around the participation of first nations and respective provinces and territories coming together to join agreements on protecting water. Water flows. Jurisdiction is finite. It has defined borders.
As Ms. Wilkinson mentioned earlier, there is a regulatory gap on reserve that should be bridged through the creation of essentially local laws. How those laws align to broader laws in a particular province and territory is critical in providing safe water for all Canadians.
So the protection zone really begins with, one, the conceptualization of what is the geospatial footprint of a protection zone, and then it moves toward—