Hon. Frances Lankin: I apologize, but I have to ask my question in English —

[English]

— because I’m not sufficiently fluent to do all this in French.

I agree with what you just said about the fact that section 35 requires more of the government than this particular amendment being put forward. I have another very significant concern, and I hope you — particularly because of your legal background — may be able to either assuage my concerns or agree that this is a concern.

The amendment that comes forward — and we’ve heard over and over, and I’m not sure why people are insisting on another amendment that accomplishes the same thing and even less; limits it. It is already in the legislation, and we’re looking to put another version of that in legislation.

My concern is that if anything does end up before the courts, the courts will be obligated to look at both of the clauses and understand whether this clause from the amendment, in fact, narrows the other reference to section 35. We are all agreeing that we want this to happen and we want this government or a future government to take — and I wish that the former Harper government and the former years of the Trudeau government had taken — more care with respect to consultation. Do you share the concern that having two competing clauses that speak to the same issue necessitates those in the judicial field to weigh what the importance is and to understand and second-guess why this Senate put forward two similar amendments that potentially are not accomplishing the same thing at the end, as was the point you made in your speech?

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you, Senator Arnot. I appreciate the knowledge and experience you bring to this, both legal and in terms of working with and supporting First Nations in your province and beyond.

First of all, we can all have different opinions. In my opinion, there is a potential downside, but putting that aside — and by the way, I agree with Senator Patterson on a lot of what he has said regarding what has not been done to include Innu people. I have no complaints about what he has said.

What I want to ask you and the others who have made this point is this: What makes you think that adding this amendment will be preventive in any way? If a government is not going to follow the Constitution, the Interpretation Act, their own legislation or a minister’s letter that says, “I messed up and we’re fixing it now,” how does this amendment ensure that the government will do it and that First Nations people won’t end up having to litigate it anyway? This does not preclude further litigation if they don’t live up to their already multiple stated obligations.

This bill is important, and I know that there are many amendments coming. Think about what we’re doing in one place or the other. Where are we attempting to make the situation better by repeating something that has already been ensured across laws? It does nothing to address the basic concerns that I’m in agreement about and which Senator Patterson has put forward.