Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Thomson and Mr. Devlin, for a very thorough presentation. I appreciated getting the briefing document.
It seems clause 7 of Bill C-428 is the most problematic. There are other issues as well, but it's the most problematic. I have a couple of points of clarification on your specific recommendations.
Regarding your recommended amendment about “common-law partner" for the purposes of Indians ordinarily resident on reserve, under subsection 2(1) of the act, common-law partner is already defined. The assumption is that subsection 2(1) of the act would prevail even if clause 7 were left in Bill C-428. Is there something I'm missing? Because there already is a definition.
Section 2(1) of the Indian Act states that:
“common-law partner”, in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year....