Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards. I think you've laid out your position pretty clearly.
We would agree that no matter how well intentioned a bill put forward by a member might be, in this case a private member's bill, something that continues to alter the Indian Act piecemeal shouldn't proceed. We would also agree that using the UN declaration's statements about around free, prior, and informed consent, there should be a process developed in conjunction with aboriginal peoples to amend or change or abolish the Indian Act.
You're right: we all agree that it's a colonialist piece of legislation that needs to change. Not everybody from coast to coast to coast is in agreement about how that should happen, and so there does need to be that process.
I have two questions, and I'll ask the first one. A couple of times in your presentation you used the word “collaboration”. In its preamble, Bill C-428 says, “for the development of this new legislation in collaboration with the First Nations organizations”, and in clause 2, it says—and this is where the minister is supposed to report to the House—“on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations organizations”.
In our view, collaboration does not equal consultation and does not equal free, prior, and informed consent. I wonder if you could comment on those two sections of the bill where it talks about collaboration, and whether in your view that translates into consultation.