To come back to where I was, I'm trying to figure out something definition-wise that, in my opinion, if I were going to propose an amendment, might work. As it turns out, I also have the privilege of working on the first nations water legislation and the consultation process. There are rumours that we'll hear that today. In that consultation draft of the water legislation, there's actually a definition that talks about a first nation governing body. That legislation is specific to first nations. They've actually taken a definition specifically to refer to a first nation governing body.
I can't find anything that says “Métis governing body” anywhere. The points we're talking about very clearly and your explanations have been around defining this strictly as a Métis government. My question around that would be that, if we were to change this language from “Indigenous governing body” to “Métis governing body”, and then put in a definition like in the proposed water legislation—or in the draft, as I'm not sure it'll be in the final—would there potentially be a compromise there? I'm not sure if that's the right word, but maybe it would be the compromise that leads to clarity that would satisfy the needs of, as you talked about, your partners in codevelopment.
I'm looking for a solution here. I hope you can see that from this perspective. I'm looking for an answer. Rather than draft an amendment that will get shot to heck because it doesn't meet some kind of proper process or whatever and doesn't solve the issue, I'm looking for some guidance and some input, maybe, from the table that would give me some direction as to how I might propose that, if I were to do that—if that makes sense.
I can't find an actual definition out there. Is there a definition beyond “Indigenous governing body” that is more specific here? I mean, to my understanding, this is kind of emerging stuff, with some newer terms and newer definitions. Is there a way that we can maybe approach this that would be a compromise?