Thanks for the question. It's good to be back.
Yes, I think that would be an accurate interpretation. In order to be expeditious, we've covered many of these concepts before, so I'll just go over them briefly. I think in previous meetings in the past we talked about a better alignment with the words “consultation and cooperation” found in UNDRIP, and a bit on the ambiguity on what the litmus test for understanding what co-development means, particularly in a legislative context. Those have been two periods of caution on which we've had conversations over the last couple of weeks.
Also, in terms of this amendment, it says it “must be co-developed with that body.” If you just read the text, it says, “First Nation governing body of the First Nation”, which I assume means the first nation, but then it also says, “and with the government of the province or territory”. I think maybe this sounds like co-developing with that body, meaning the first nation, but it does say “and”. There could be interpretation of co-development with provinces and territories, which we talked about at length at the close of our last meeting.
I would concur about the cascade of consistency of terms—“consultation and cooperation”—adherence to UNDRIP, previous conversations we've had with provinces and territories, and, in my mind, reading this text as an official, some ambiguity on what that body means in reference to a full phrase.
Thanks.