I'll be succinct.
My concern is that we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Every statute is read within the context of other statutes. Any statute, federal or provincial, that may have an implication for aboriginal lands is read within the context.... If there's a first nations final agreement, it prevails over all statutes. You don't put all of that again into every statute that you write. If there's any conflict between what this bill might provide or any determination by the court, they make their determination within the context of the first nations final agreement. Plus, under the First Nations Land Management Act, if the first nation decides they want a land code, that code prevails over federal law. Therefore, the federal law would not be applying to that area anyway; the first nation law would. The law is certain. You just have to understand the whole context of all of the law, which would be considered in any case that is brought.
My question would go to all parties: did everybody here consult intensively with first nations in this bill and all bills that we've reviewed? I do my best to talk to as many people as I possibly can, and I have in fact sought their participation here. They just haven't been available. I really think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. The question here simply is this: do we want to go with the definition as revised in CEPA, 1999, or do we want to go with the definition that was in the original CEPA and appears to be in CEAA? These definitions were determined by respective governments, not by me, and they were passed by Parliament. The question is simple. We go with one definition or the other. If we go with the updated CEPA definition, then you would approve my amendment. If you want to go back to the definition in the former CEPA, and what is apparently in CEAA, then you vote against my amendment.