Thank you for the question, Mr. MacGregor.
The key rationale for us came down to, effectively, the consultations that were undertaken. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there were about two years of consultation just on this very bill, which may seem to some people like a lot for what is a fairly short bill and what some might consider to be an administrative or housekeeping amendment. It was really important to get it right and to do right by the rights holders whom we consulted with around the country.
On the issue of how we reconcile UNDRIP with the non-derogation clause that is being proposed, we didn't have wide consultation on that piece. We felt it would not be appropriate to go ahead with that without doing the necessary consultation.
I would also underscore that there would be a bit of an internal inconsistency, as well, were we just to do an amendment through the parliamentary process on that very issue. UNDRIP itself, under section 5—and you're probably aware of this—calls for consultation on any legislation that may impact upon indigenous people's rights. Even pursuant to the UNDRIP document that we passed—the UN declaration act at the federal level—to comply with that statute, we would have to do that consultation by necessity.