Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank National Chief Fontaine and Chief Price for coming before the committee today, and the other chiefs who have come to witness today. I also want to thank you for your very concrete suggestions for how this legislation could be changed and what kind of processes need to be in place, because I think they're very helpful.
I actually want to address a particular aspect of what's been put forward on this bill. I think it's important, because I think there's either a misunderstanding or an attempt to mislead. I would hope it was a misunderstanding.
My understanding of this bill is that it repeals section 67, which allows people to file a human rights complaint under the grounds of the Indian Act. Yet when the minister came before the committee the other day, he said that this repeal of section 67 would allow us to have a country—I'm paraphrasing here—such that, whether it's in the education system, the health care system, allocation of resources within the community.... He was implying that this repeal of section 67 would allow community members to file complaints about education and health.
We can see from the complaint that the Assembly of First Nations has raised around child protection that there already are mechanisms that allow first nations to appeal decisions made by governments that violate their human rights. There are a number of other court cases, which our researchers kindly identified, in which people have been able to proceed on human rights violations already.
I wonder if you could comment on what specifically this repeal of section 67 will give communities access to, if there's a due process in place that people agree to.