I understand that what G-4 talks about is a bit broader and uses the exact language the AFN had asked us to use in looking at the cultural and spiritual needs. I think that covers all of the things that are covered within PV-2 and the NDP amendment, but it uses the broader language that was recommended by the AFN.
I wonder if we could get the experts to give us their sense of whether G-4 covers what is intended, without looking at the adjacency part within the NDP amendment. I understand there are issues with this on the Conservative side.
In terms of ensuring that the water meets the needs of first nations, taking into account their cultural and spiritual needs, is it the cleaner language that makes it broader?