Very quickly, Mr. Chair, to the officials....
I'm a little confused about the line of argument from Mr. Schmale. I understand where he's coming from. However, if the Parliament of Canada already adopted UNDRIP, which is inclusive of the language “free, prior and informed consent”, then absent a definition of that language—which, as you answered a few moments ago, legislation already passed through Parliament—it's unclear to me what difference this would make.
In other words, we already passed a law that didn't define this but is guided by the principle of it. What difference would lacking a definition make, if that piece of legislation has already made its way through Parliament? I'm just trying to understand this for some clarity there.
Thank you.