Thanks very much.
We have grave concerns that this is a job that needs to be done by the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister promised at the crown-first nations gathering, the government would not repeal or rewrite the Indian Act, and any future changes would be developed with consultation among the government, the provinces, and first nation communities.
Therefore, I am concerned that this is piecemeal. As you know, when the officials came before us, Rob, there were serious flaws with this bill in terms of bands not being able to declare their communities dry, and serious concerns around how wills and estates would be dealt with in Quebec.
Consultation requires sending and receiving. Could you please tell us whom you consulted with and what they said? All we've heard on this side are some serious objections to this bill, including people saying that they wanted to get unanimous consent just to withdraw it and start again, with the Prime Minister at the helm. Could you tell us the dates, also?
Rob, you have to accept that once it has passed second reading and comes to this committee, the ability to make substantial changes to it is very limited by this committee. And that doesn't qualify as full-scale consultation.
Unlike what you said, it is possible to consult on a draft bill. And it is possible to do this properly with any private member's bill, by getting out and actually listening to what people say, as opposed to going out and saying, “This is what I want to do. How do you like it?”
We were very concerned last summer that even when you presented to the FSIN, you refused to take questions from them. It seemed as though you were not in listening mode and that this bill had already been tabled.
So in the order of how we do things as parliamentarians—going out, and in aboriginal-style leadership, by asking, not telling—whom in the first nations community did you hear from? Who wanted you to make these particular changes in this particular manner, rather than it being led by the Prime Minister?