With respect to the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, it obtained band council resolutions to act on behalf of first nations. I haven't considered the practice here, but the BCRs in the Atlantic context is what brought to life the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority. That ongoing collaboration with first nations is part of the makeup, so I would imagine that if they're talking about law-making powers or standards, the AFNWA would need to partner, obviously, with first nations to actualize those things. The template is there.
To go back to the first part of the question about oversight, bureaucracy and limitations, I think we already spoke to how the concept of consent may create serious delays in the implementation of standards. To go back to the elevator brief of what this legislation is, it is twofold. One is the affirmation of self-government for first nations to manage their own laws, and the second is to close a regulatory and standards gap. The introduction of consent in this legislation could seriously hinder the second part of that objective, which is to close a regulatory and standards gap, through the ambiguity of these terms.