It's no surprise that I'm not a big fan of the legislation itself. But I am even more troubled by this approach, to again have this ad hoc way of doing things. This isn't a high school project; this is important legislation that would have a major impact on Canadians, on provinces, and on the relationship the federal government has with its provinces.
Ms. Dhalla says she consulted with many stakeholders from the aboriginal community, but we haven't had a chance to talk to any of them as witnesses--maybe one of them, but we haven't talked to many of the other ones. It's a ridiculous way of doing legislation.
My question for our witnesses has to do with this wording. Is this wording consistent with other legislation, the type of wording used in this? I'm concerned about the consistency, the way we're approaching this thing. Can you comment a bit on other pieces of legislation and this type of wording?