Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Obed for appearing today. We appreciate it when he shows up.
The crux of the bill is part four, the purpose of the act. There are two parts to that. It talks about affirming the declaration as a universal human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. The second is providing a framework for the Canadian government to implement that declaration. The Conservatives have no issue with the implementation of the declaration as a framework, as an aspirational document. We have an issue with the introduction into Canadian law of new concepts and new words that have not been tested by our courts.
As somebody who's worked on several private members' bills, I know the difference between the way I say things and the fact that, often, when the legislative drafters come back with it, I have to ask why they have used a certain word, and they say it's because that word has been tested by the courts. They know what it means. The words I wanted to use haven't been tested by the courts, particularly around the idea of free, prior and informed consent. That terminology sounds a lot like the duty to consult, but it is different terminology, and we haven't tested it in the courts.
I'm wondering, Mr. Obed, if you'd be interested in commenting on the application of the instrument in Canadian law. From my perspective, will that not introduce new terms and concepts that have not been tested in court and will lead to more court challenges and court decisions that will have to be hard fought and hard won in the future, particularly around large energy projects or large infrastructure projects?