Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, or almost good afternoon, to each of you.
When the comment was made by my colleague that there have been various attempts to repeal section 67, I think it should be noted that the bill we have in front of us is not the same as other bills that have come before the House and been put to the test. Maybe we should just reflect on why those various attempts have failed in the past. One of them could very well have been that we didn't engage in an appropriate process of consultation and engagement with those who were going to be most affected by various pieces of legislation, in this case a bill that would repeal section 67.
If we were going to honour your voices and your intentions and your aspirations for your community, would any of you have a problem with taking more time and repealing section 67 in an appropriate fashion? Would each of you want to see an appropriate consultation, whatever that is?
We have to remember that the definition of consultation is not only an onus that should be placed upon aboriginal communities, but the government itself has a legal obligation to consult. And it's supposed to come forward with a policy on proper consultation, which we haven't seen yet. So the onus is not only on aboriginal communities to define what proper consultation is; the government has its own obligations as well.
So would you feel comfortable that, if we could, we would take more time to do this properly? Would that be your wish?