I know, Gary, that you're subbing in. In previous discussions we had about how to show free, prior and informed consent when it was specific to a first nations band, we used the term “BCR” to demonstrate that. That's fine. There are others who will do things outside of a BCR.
I feel that, when we're talking about legislation, it's great to have these principles up in the air. However, as someone who lives in a first nations community and who knows what mechanisms are available under the Indian Act and what's currently there, I need to find language that all 630 first nations bands are able to understand, so they don't have to prove things individually, as bands, and by varying degrees throughout this process.
I was talking to my colleague Martin Shields. He said that, when he saw “consent”, he said “agreements”. At least, as someone who went to law school and who knows what contractual law is, I know what an agreement is. I know what a BCR is. What I do not know is what large-scale “free, prior and informed consent” mandate we're putting in this legislation, which might end up making its implementation impossible.
I'll ask the officials this: Is not having these terms introduced within communities going to delay or jeopardize the actual implementation of first nations clean water regulations on reserve?