Thank you very much.
I think at the beginning we thought this was a piece of legislation that was led by first nations and was supposed to be a no-brainer. This was something that the Atlantic Policy Congress, together with the AMC came forward with, and people thought we should just move forward.
My understanding is that in what was put forward and what was consulted on, paragraphs (b) and (c) of subclause 3(1) were not part of the original proposal from the AMC or the Atlantic Policy Congress.
I have to say that the phrase used by the parliamentary secretary, "ability to be opted in", is one of the finest pieces of political correctness that I have ever heard. I think this is fantastic as opposed to the minister's ability to force a first nation in under this kind of an election. The ability to be opted in is similar to "was quit".
The Atlantic Policy Congress was here two weeks ago, very much encouraging this committee to approve the bill even in its imperfection.
Jody Wilson-Raybould said before the Senate that if these clauses were removed, it would be simpler in that not as much consultation would be required because it would be a truly voluntary opt-in approach of a first nations-led initiative.
Unfortunately, with the bill as it's written now, that's not possible. Way more consultation would be required. We heard from the Atlantic Policy Congress that when they tried to do consultation, they heard very little back from Ontario and Quebec, even on the original proposal.
We just need advice. If the government was prepared to remove these parts that are upsetting everybody, do you feel that the bill would be characterized as totally optional? Would you be comfortable with the bill if the government removed those two parts?