Thank you for having come here to give us your explanations and your opinions. Let me tell you that you have used some words that reflect my concerns.
You have referred to an interpretation clause, a transition period, the need to consult the First Nations and the duty of the Crown relating to reconciliation. There is however a matter that keeps bothering me. I am not a lawyer but I wonder if we could repeal section 67 and include at the same time in the Bill a clause postponing its coming into force with specific conditions and obligations for the Crown?
If at the end those objectives were not met, would the repealing of section 67 become null and void?
We may want to rely on the good faith of the government — someone referred to that — after repealing section 67 and on the commitment of the First Nations not to take legal action on the basis of the Canadian Human Rights Act but that would remain voluntary.
Taking all that into account and considering also the fact that governments may change, since we've had minority governments... I would like to remind you of the May 31st, 2005 example when the government made the commitment to improve its cooperation with the First Nations and to discuss with them before developing any new policy affecting them. Has that been done with this initiative? Not at all. Absolutely not.
There was also the commitment made by the government in the fall of 2005 with the Kelowna Accord. Has that commitment been met? Absolutely not.
If we repeal section 67, can we expect that in the future, despite all the good faith of the present government, a future government would be as committed to implementing this provision?
I wonder if you are not in fact suggesting to us instead to amend the Indian Act, perhaps even on a piecemeal basis, until it meets in the objectives of the Canadian Human Rights Act?