I would like to thank you for being here this morning.
I listened carefully to the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and I have been through his brief with a fine-tooth comb.
Rest assured, Mr. Toulouse, I will read your brief carefully once it has been translated and sent to us. You have my word.
I have a concern. In about 10 minutes, when members on the government side have the opportunity to ask questions, they will probably ask the same question, but from a different perspective.
We have been told that Bill C-44 is the fruit of 30 years of discussions. I was not here 30 years ago. I imagine that neither of you were either, but you have been chief and grand chief of your respective first nations for a number of years.
My question is very simple. We have been told that extensive consultations were undertaken, as a result of which, it was decided to review the act and repeal section 67, which is a symbol of discrimination against aboriginal peoples.
My question is for both of you, it does not matter who answers first. In what way were the Quebec and Ontario Assemblies of First Nations consulted? Were you consulted? What shape did the consultations take? Aside from the Assembly of First Nations and the grand chiefs, were there any other consultations? Were the so-called—and I do not like the term—isolated communities in Northern Ontario consulted? Kashechewan, in Ontario, springs to mind. We could take the example of Winneway or Kitcisakik in Quebec.
Have there been, to your knowledge, any consultations on repealing the infamous section 67 since 1977? If yes, what shape did they take?