Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm a bit perplexed as to the change of heart. We've had discussions around this terminology before, also with regard to other amendments specifically and with other bills that we've studied at this committee, and we've had a bit of a different viewpoint.
I'll read a quote from one of our members, Mr. Schmale:
I remember that whole discussion when we were debating and discussing the UN declaration legislation at this committee. One of the issues we, the opposition, had was with the definition of “free, prior and informed consent” and what that actually meant. I remember I said—and so did many others on this side—that, if we don't [actually] do the work and start defining some of the major pieces in the legislation, we're going to wind up in trouble at some point and potentially in court.
Is that the goal with this amendment, to tie this up and to ensure that first nations are not actually finally receiving the legal precedent, the framework, the support with funding that will be tied to this in the future? I'm just wondering why there's a change of heart now.
Again, we have it in the principles clause. We already have the bill that proposes the co-development as described in UNDRIP, which is already the recognized precedent, and that is consultation and co-operation. That has been clearly defined. Again, in the context of my own province and in the communities I represent, it's free, prior and informed consent all day long because we already defined it in that context.
Where it's not defined and where you've kind of changed your opinion on it, do you want to see this stalled? Is that what this amendment is about? I'd like some further clarification on that.
Thank you.