I'm certainly happy to reflect on this. There are two kinds of concerns, as you well know as committee members, that have been raised, and national chief has spoken to these.
First of all, there is an element of what I would call “fearmongering” about the concept of free, prior and informed consent, that somehow that will cause economic damage and so forth. In fact, free, prior and informed consent, and operationalizing that by having industry, government and first nations work together appropriately early, in the context of recognizing the rights, provides more economic stability, certainty and security.
It should have been operationalized a long time ago. Unfortunately, many first nations had to assert their rights and have them clearly recognized in the Supreme Court.
Some of the fears around that are misplaced, in my respectful view, and the AFN, the chiefs of Canada, have been very clear to say that this shift needs to be more complete. That's one very important area.
The other area, I would conclude, is that there indigenous people have concerns about any legislation, because there has been a cycle of trust and mistrust in terms of the actions of government. It's very important—as I think a well-known indigenous leader, Ellen Gabriel, wrote recently about this—that this bill has the potential to break that cycle of trust and mistrust and shift to a better foundation. While no single legislation can do that—relationships need to be strengthened and supported—this legislation goes a long way to beginning that process, very much supported at the legal and technical levels, and, of course, as national chief has said, clearly mandated through resolution by the chiefs in assembly at the AFN level.