Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the question. I don't appreciate, frankly, the tone of it.
Look, we've been very clear that we've had concerns with not defining a number of things. Obviously, that is one, the definition of consent, because people don't seem to be able to define it. Mrs. Atwin mentioned that in New Brunswick perhaps it's not the case. Maybe that's something we should be looking to. I'm happy to do the work to give it that definition so that it is strengthened.
Regarding the goal of this, as I've said, we've heard from a number of first nation leaders who expressed concerns that their voices were not heard on this or on previous pieces of legislation, but particularly on Bill C-61. They want to ensure that they have the authority to govern their lands and their waters, as they should be able to. That's the goal.
I recognize that the definition of consent could be problematic, but I would say to the member, let's work to define it. Let's put that work in. To me, it does not make sense to include something in a principle, in a preamble, to say that you support it and then to not put it throughout the rest of the bill. To me, that just doesn't make sense.
I'm not going to make any further speculations or political commentary about it, because I don't believe it's going to be helpful. I just think that, for the sake of consistency, it would make sense to include it. I think we've heard from a number of leaders on this, so that's the goal here, to ensure that first nations have the consent and authority.
I know Ms. Idlout wants to comment, so I'll cede the floor.