Thanks very much.
I know most of you have been here before. This morning seems to me one of the most poignant panels we've ever heard. Whether we're hearing from Akwesasne, the large Blood Tribe, or a small community, we're finding that nobody wants this bill. Everybody sees that it doesn't get you safe drinking water. Everybody sees it's just removing the liability from the federal government.
It is hugely important that you are here today. Your panel and the response this government makes to it should be compulsory watching for every Canadian. This is Civic Literacy 101, this is Idle No More, and this demonstrates how we as Canadians respond to yet another piece of legislation being foisted on the people who have to live with it. Chief Rose and many others have come great distances. Your testimony today was consistent and compelling. I hope that Canadians will call upon the Conservative members of this committee to understand that this is a bad bill. Every single expert, including a Senate committee, has said that without the resources you cannot do your job. They said these resources were a pre-condition of any legislation. We need to understand that one size doesn't fit all. The stories you've told us here morning show that top-down won't work, that only bottom-up with customizing will be effective, whether it's done by a neighbouring community like Grand Chief Twinn's or whether you undertake to do this yourselves.
I would love, Grand Chief Twinn, for you to table with the clerk your full set of remarks. I understand why you had to explain your feelings about what this bill feels like to somebody who is responsible for the safe drinking water of a number of people. I would like it if Grand Chief Makinaw could also table the letter he received from the department, saying that they're not doing safe drinking water any more. This is important. As a backbencher in a Liberal government, I can remember ragging the puck for over a year with a bad bill on endangered species. We refused to vote for it until the government would amend it.
What I'm hearing this morning is that you want this bill withdrawn because it's not fixable. But unless there some epiphany or some titanium is injected into the spines of the members opposite, we are going to get this bad bill. And we probably won't get any amendments, because that's been their track record. On this side, however, we make this commitment: in respect of your section 35 rights, we will work to persuade them to add a non-derogation clause or to remove clause 3 of the bill. The Canadian Bar Association believes this has to be done if your rights are going to prevail.
We wrote a letter to the minister saying that we couldn't support anything without the necessary resources and consultation, and we will stay with that. But today your concern that this will fall on deaf ears has never been more poignant. I wanted you to know that coming here is hugely important. Even if we can't fix this bill, you have shown how paternalism and a top-down approach makes things worse. This only makes it better for the crown to actually lift off, as it did with the human rights, where you didn't have the money to build ramps or do what was needed to honour those requirements.
I can't thank you enough for plainly telling your story of your different situations. We will do everything we can to persuade the members opposite that they have to go back to the minister and explain what a bad bill this is and how it will make things worse for you.