Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming today. It's always a great opportunity to talk to you specifically on the important work your board is doing.
I have five minutes here, so I'm not going to get very far, quite likely, but I am compelled to make some broad observations on the basis of your presentation and some of my colleagues' questions from both sides, which I appreciate very much.
I find this whole debate across the piecemeal versus incremental spectrum, if you will, interesting, probably more as a legal matter but also as a practical matter. As somebody who has spent close to 20 years practising law in first nations communities, this whole notion of a blanket approach within a specified period of time, even if the consultation process is clearly laid out, could spell trouble, given the socio-economic range we're talking about here among the 632 chiefs. As you rightly pointed out, lawyers, doctors, and first nations chiefs have a lot in common. If you put everybody in a room, you're not likely to walk out with one particular perspective—and for very good reasons, I might add.
I obviously side on the piecemeal approach that some sorts of substantive steps have to be taken before major changes occur to the Indian Act, which take a look at the residual conditions that exist so that you know and understand what the Indian Act could or would look like. What, in fact, by default, is it covering? I feel very strongly about that.
My predecessor in my riding, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Bob Nault, took some important steps with the first nations governance act. Perhaps, unfortunately, major pieces of that—which I really supported in its totality—didn't end up going through, because of the conditions and political dynamics of the day.
I would also add an interesting point that I haven't heard so far, and that is, the provinces do play a role in this. Some of the discussion around own-source revenue and certain kinds of what one might call legal activities necessarily depend on full cooperation with the provinces, I would say particularly on own-source revenue.
For this idea of things to work, whether the Indian Act exists in part, it is modernization. Rob has taken some important steps I think with respect to residential schools. As a person who negotiated on behalf of more than 900 survivors at the table, I think it is important that we have a first nations person taking that important symbolic step on the residential school piece. I would add, Harold, that there are some pieces of this bill, as it is, on which the government is certainly open to amendments, so some of my questions, as we heard earlier today from across the floor, are chipping away at that, and I think we'll arrive there.
That's a fairly long introduction, but I can see you nodding with some general consensus. You may want to add to that, but before you do, Harold, I would like to put this question to you. In addition to your thoughts on what I've said, and given the strong possibility that this will advance through the process and will become a useful piece of legislation for us, what does your board think is an important next step? You alluded to some of them in your opening presentation, but for practical terms, what do you think would be some important measures?
Perhaps since you've consistently said you want to defuse and depoliticize this, put those thoughts out there.