Thank you for that question.
As I said in my earlier references, this is the blueprint that gives clarity for everyone. I think when you look at it from the context.... That's why, if you heard me loud and clear, this is not a veto. You could record me over and over, and we would have courts that can use that as a clear example of my statement. We do not see it as a veto. We see it as clear guidance, a blueprint.
We'll look at the domestic law process of our situation in this country and the laws that are impacted. Section 35 has a clarity of duty to consult and sets an establishment, but usually it's after the fact that we're finding ourselves in the duty to consult process in this country. Already, by that time, legal arguments are being filed in courts, positions are being tagged or blockades are happening, and people have not started any discussion.
I think this particular aspect of having this bill will provide assurance and clarity. Let's understand this. No business is going to come in and.... Let's look at mining, for example. Let's choose that one. If you're going to invest in mining, you're not coming in and starting a mine tomorrow morning. It would take about 10 years or 20 years of planning before you ever go down that road.
I think this sets a clear foundation for industry, which will now have more comfort. If I'm a shareholder, an investor, I sure as hell won't want to put my money in some industry that I'm going to find out will be held up in the courts for the next 10 years. This will set the foundation of clarity between section 35 and ensuring free and prior consent. It gives you the blueprint of how industry will work with indigenous governments. It's very clear. It sets out the two. The two work actually very well together, and there will be clarity for both parties to understand, as well as provincial and municipal governments.