I hesitate to follow up on that with some technical details.
Thank you, Chief Thomas.
We have submitted a number of recommendations in our written submission, and I will refer you to those. There are a number of ways that the bill could change, but we have tried to identify some key things that we think need to happen.
The first really relates to what Chief Thomas said. There needs to be a way to self-identify as a jurisdiction in the bill. We have submitted in our written testimony an additional definition of a “jurisdiction” under proposed section 2 that allows self-identification. Of all the things we could possibly say, that's the key issue that Chief Thomas just raised. We can't have a system where we have to go through another process to be identified as a jurisdiction. It needs to be consistent with the Prime Minister's commitment to recognition and implementation of an indigenous rights framework, so the amendment that we have proposed is really key.
I agree with the panel members on another issue, that the bill provides wide discretion for the minister. If the discretion remains in the act, Tsleil-Waututh requires some type of safety valve to address disputes. In particular, Tsleil-Waututh is concerned that the act in general makes no mention of an appeals process in the event of a disagreement. While the act provides an opportunity for indigenous groups to participate as jurisdictions, it falls short of true decision-making. We therefore believe a dispute resolution process is necessary.
One option is the tribunal idea that was floated at the panel. We would be supportive of that idea, but if that doesn't sit well with the committee, we would, at a minimum, request that there be an automatic right of appeal included directly in the legislation.
Our preference is to broadly construe that right of appeal, and we have provided language to this effect in our written testimony. Stepping back a bit more, when you look at the factors in proposed sections 16, 22, and 63, we see that indigenous communities are subsumed under factors to consider. We really assert that the constitutionally protected rights of indigenous communities are different from the other factors on that list. At the barest minimum, there needs to be an automatic right of appeal should there be infringement or the threat of infringement on indigenous rights. That's really the other key thing that we want to drive home here for the committee today.
With that, I will let the written testimony speak to the rest of our comments. Thank you.