I echo the comments of Mr. McLeod and, to some extent, my friend Mr. Schmale, but sometimes my job is to read the room and then find a way to make the amendment salvageable—because I live in a first nations community and I know the potential implications of what could happen—and find a way to make progress, not perfection. When Ms. Idlout asks whether adding this clause and this amendment to CPC-1 create additional bureaucracy, it's yes, but who controls that bureaucracy when you're looking at a band council resolution? It will be done by the community as opposed to others trying to say what that definition is.
What this attempts to do is to take everyone's read of what they would like to see and make it in a way that, if a community has to demonstrate this, which they will have to, we give them the language and the wording that's consistent within the current Indian Act system, which they've been working with for the last 150 years, in terms of understanding what the process is for them to show consent—if we're going to go down this road.
I heard from the other parties that they want to ensure that communities have a say in this. I agree with them. I don't agree that the term “consent” is the right one, but with this amendment, it makes it salvageable that everyone gets what they want and, at the end, the communities benefit without major delays. That's the hope.