I would say yes, and I would say that all of the literature on Elections Canada's site would say yes. They talk about the historical displacement. They talk about the lack of trust in federal institutions, and we can see why.
The reason Eskasoni is the largest Mi'kmaq community is that we took Mi'kmaq communities from all across Nova Scotia, displaced them from their homes, centralized them into a reserve and hoped that they would die off. They didn't die off. They grew. Now they're the largest Mi'kmaq community.
Then, when you hear a presentation at a consultation that says, “You know, this community maybe has a little too much of a voice in the institution and we should remove them”, it creates suspicion.
Also, the fact that there is a process, as Mr. Perkins talked about, does not change the constitutional nature of the law. It does not change what UNDRIP states:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous people concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting or implementing [any] legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
Now, I think there's a reason why they put in “administrative measures”. It's because a lot of times the displacement of indigenous communities has not been done by legislation. It's been done by administrative boards. This is what we're seeing in this situation.
I'm asking that this committee look at that and say, never again should an indigenous community be displaced without their consent and without their consultation.