Senator Prosper: Yes.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Prosper, I appreciate your intervention and hearing your voice on the disappointment with the way in which governments have not lived up to their obligation to consult on behalf of Indigenous peoples.

You are a lawyer. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a trade union negotiator, among other things over the years involving contract language and requirements, and as a former Ontario legislator, I’ve been involved in drafting, writing and amending legislation.

My problem with your argument is that saying it 2, 3, 10 or 20 times in a piece of legislation doesn’t compel any government to live up to their obligations. We have seen this over the years. Section 35 has been around a long time. The obligations are there. In this case, they even wrote that into the bill already. This is a duplication, and it’s a narrower amendment than what the section 35 rights are. I would think you would agree that courts look to all of the provisions and how they work together and what the intent was of the legislature in doing this, and it can create problems.

Please tell me why saying it two, three or four times in one bill is going to help us correct this and avoid a government abrogating a responsibility? It will end up in court anyway, whether or not this amendment is put in place.

Hon. Paul J. Prosper: Honourable senators, I appreciate you, my colleagues in this chamber, for offering your perspectives on the nature of this amendment being proposed here.

A lot has been said about the existing constitutional obligations upon the Crown to consult with Indigenous peoples. Following Senator Dean’s comments, one can say there certainly have been positive steps taken both from a legislative and consultation perspective. While consultation is a matter that begs a bit of complexity, I can’t help but look at the record with respect to my colleague Senator Boisvenu and his recollection of the evidence and testimony that came before the committee.

When I look at an amendment and when I think about consultation, yes, there are provisions like non-derogation clauses, and things of that nature, but as mentioned previously — I believe Senator Quinn mentioned it as well — when it involves litigation and the advancement, protection and preservation of Indigenous rights, it is a costly exercise borne upon First Nations groups and organizations. It’s largely an access-to-justice issue.

Although one can look and hope that the duties and the obligations of the Crown with respect to consulting with Indigenous peoples takes place, it’s still an exercise that is subject to debate and criticism.

When I look at this provision, it’s a positive inclusion within an actual statute. It’s there. It provides guidance, like other pieces of legislation, to government to take into account the rights of Indigenous people and to consult on matters that are integral to who they are as a people. We’re talking about subsistence rights here. As my colleague Senator Patterson has mentioned, these are very significant rights that relate to livelihood.

I’m in agreement with this amendment. It provides a prescriptive way upon which consultations can take place and will provide guidance for lawmakers as well. Thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Lankin has a question. Would Senator Prosper accept a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Will Senator Prosper take another question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Prosper, do you have an answer to that question?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Will you take another question, Senator Prosper?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Prosper, will you take another question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question? Senator Prosper, will you take another question?