Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Clarke, for coming before the committee today.
We would likely agree with you that successive Conservative and Liberal governments have pursued an assimilationist agenda, and I would argue that an assimilationist agenda continues to play out today with the lack of progress on key issues that speak to the honour of the crown, like treaty and comprehensive land claims implementation. So we would agree with you on that point.
When we look at things like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its article that talks about “free, prior and informed consent”, this gets us to the heart of the matter. A private member's bill, no matter how well intentioned, does not point to the fact that what we are speaking about here is the honour of the crown and the duty to consult.
I want to quote from an article on the Turtle Island Native Network, from June 29, 2012, that notes:
Advancing Aboriginal policy through private member’s bills raises significant problems with the Crown’s duty to undertake consultation and accommodation on legislative changes that will impact Aboriginal and treaty rights.
I think that's the heart of the criticism that has come forward, that once again we have a bill—in this case a private member's bill—that is taking apart the Indian Act piecemeal. It could have unintended consequences, and I repeat, no matter how well intentioned, it's imposing changes on first nations.
I wonder if you could comment on that specific matter, that first nations have been saying that if the Indian Act is to be taken apart, they must be consulted in advance of proposed changes.