I think of your question in light of how we came here prepared to discuss proposed amendments for the inclusion of the indigenous human rights commission, and part of the intention behind the language that's before you I'll lean on to answer your question in relation to defining FPIC in the bill.
We see it as problematic. It's not providing the space and the time for consultation and dialogue between each of the distinctions-based groups. There are very distinct and unique circumstances and relationships with the Crown between all three—first nations, Inuit and Métis—so we simply do not foresee an ability to include such detailed language or definitions to confine and to create limitations on what could be discussed, elaborated on and interpreted moving down the line.
I know that I'm leaning back into the proposed amendments that we're seeking, but there was an interest to have a broader approach there that I think would also be the response to the question of having an FPIC definition. It's just simply not a good way to respect the distinct nature of each group and also to rely on the information and the dialogue consultation necessary with rights holders and other interested groups.
Thank you.