Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to thank our witnesses for coming here to discuss this important bill. There is no question that this bill is important. Your testimony here today is once again evidence of that fact.
I'm trying to understand where the real problem lies. Does it have to do with form, with substance, or with both? Right now, I'm leaning more toward form. However, I don't want to make a mistake here and that's why I'm seeking some clarification.
Your appeal to the committee this morning can be summed up by Mr. Lawrence Paul's request that we listen to you, engage in consultations, respect your beliefs, customs and practices and recognize the need for a fair balance between individual and collective rights.
I have the impression—and here's where we need to achieve greater understanding—that previous lawmakers tried to listen to you. The legislation adopted in 1977 contained an exemption, namely section 67. The matter was debated at length both at the time and during the ensuing years. To summarize, in 1999, a very important national committee—I believe Mr. Paul testified before this committee, as I believe some of you surely did as well—put forward a series of recommendations about, among other things, the federal government's fiduciary responsibility and the repeal of section 67. That debate took place in 1999.
The Assembly of First Nations has also expressed agreement with the principle of repealing section 67. The Native Women's Association of Canada is more specific, claiming to agree with the principle, but calling for an interpretative clause to be included in the bill. We understand that request, given the specific points you mentioned earlier.
As lawmakers, we feel that we have tried to listen to your concerns. Not only have we tried, but we've also given you opportunities to speak out. I gave you a few examples and today, you're here once again speaking to the committee.
One other thing aptly describes the situation. Mr. John Paul advises us that the proposed time frame will make it impossible to honour the obligations created by the repeal of the provision, because there will not necessarily be time to put in place the health, education and other measures to honour the various obligations.
Moreover, I'm here speaking to people who know that no one can be expected to do the impossible. This rule was also applied in 1977 to communities other than first nations communities. At the time, other very fragile communities were not able to honour certain obligations. In time, they succeeded.
My question is as follows: do you not feel that when you compare what has happened since the passage of this act in 1977 and the measures adopted to date, the additional benefits are apparent? The Canadian government is a trustee who has a certain number of responsibilities toward your communities. Do you not feel that we are debating form more than substance here, and that what we really need to decide is whether or not to adhere to the principle? Maybe I'm being somewhat blunt with you, but do we really agree on the principle here? For example, I would be surprised if you did not agree with the 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination.