Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming before us.
We think this is an excellent example of bottom-up legislation. A lot of first nations have come together to bring this forward to you. Most other first nations we've talked to have seen this bill as basically positive as long as it remains optional legislation. As my colleague pointed out, although Bill C-9 is basically optional, clause 3 clearly provides you with explicit powers to bring first nations currently under the Indian Act or custom code under Bill C-9, which flies in the face of the optional nature of this bill, and it seems to be the primary source of concern for most first nations.
You said in your opening remarks:
This is paternalistic and frankly not a business I think that the minister should be in. This bill would remove the minister from the equation—and would ensure that appeals are dealt with by the courts....
You get that the minister shouldn't be in this business, but clause 3(1)(b) and (c) puts you right back telling first nations what to do again.
Will you remove this clause? It was almost right, and then you put this thing in and alienated all the people who were your original partners. You had a partnership and now they're annoyed. Neither protracted leadership dispute nor significantly compromised governance is defined in the legislation. We're back to the whim of the minister, and you have a very broad discretion about where you can intervene.
Minister, would it make more sense to just remove that one piece and let us get on with the bill, as was the original intent? From the AFN and Regional Chief Wilson-Raybould's testimony, there's a consensus: just get this little piece out and we'll help you get your bill.