Thanks very much, and thanks for coming.
I think we all know that the way forward.... I was very grateful to your 20-year view, that if we don't keep our eye on that strong common purpose of an economy and a self-government that allows for the potential of first nations, we're going to get this wrong. I guess I am concerned, like my colleague from the NDP, that the piecemeal approach, and coming from a private member, is actually distracting us from getting on with a government approach that would receive, I believe, the support of all parties—if the government put in place a process.
The name of the bill is the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, but I don't see any work being done on how it's actually going to get replaced. What you describe is the revised fiscal financial relation between the crown and first nations; it is a piece of work that has to get done.
I hear you saying that biting off one piece at a time is okay to get rid of some of this administrative nonsense, but I also hear that the piecemeal approach hasn't worked in the past and that we've actually got to get going on the big picture.
I guess I'm worried that without that 20-year plan...this bill, which had no consultation before it, which has serious errors—failure faults. Whether it's intoxicants or whether it's posting in newspapers without resources, there are serious errors in this piece.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. We don't like this bill and this approach and this kind of time being spent at a parliamentary committee when we think it's something the government should be doing in a proper fashion.
Could you tell me what it would look like in terms of...? Bob Rae tabled a motion giving two years for a first-nations-led process, to figure out what the process would look like to get out from under the Indian Act.
What would be your way to get to that 20-year vision between the crown and first nations?