[Member spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]
ᐋᒻ, ᐊᓂᓯᓈᐱ ᐋᔅᑎᓇᐃᓴᓐᔅᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕐᒥ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖓ 8ᒥ ᐋ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐋᒻ ᖃᐃᑦᓯᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᒻ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖄᒑᒐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒥᒃᓯᐊᕙᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᒥᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯ61 ᐋ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᖃᕐᓂᐊᕈᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒃᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕈᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᒻ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ (affirmation) ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᒻ ᓯ6 ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒻᒪᑕᒎᖅ ᓯ61 ᐋ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᒃᓯᐊᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᓕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᕆᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋ ᓲᕐᓗ fundingᖑᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐋ ᑕᒃᑯᐊ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐊᓂᔅᓂᓈᐱ ᐋᔅᑎᓇᐃᓴᓐᔅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓴᓐᑭᔮᕆᐊᖅᑎᒃᓯᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᒃᓯᐊᕋᓱᒃᑲᓂᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐋ ᐃᒪᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐳᕌᕙᓐᓴᔅ ᐋ ᒪᓕᒐᖃᖅᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐋ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐋ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ (reserves) ᑖᓐᓇ ᓯ61ᒎᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᓐᖏᓕᖅᑎᒃᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᒃᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᒎᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐅᕙᓂ 9 ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓗᓕᖓᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇ− ᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐋ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᐱᓐᓇᕋᓂ ᐋ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᓲᖑᒻᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕌᒐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒫᑎᒋ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᑎᒃᓯᒐᓱᒃᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐋ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᐃᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓇᓕᒪᒌᖅᒐᓱᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᓱᑎᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᕈᒪ, ᑭᐅᒃᓯᐊᖅᐸᒋᖃᐃ.
[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]
It was the Nishnawbe Aski Nation that wrote to us. There's a summary on page 8. They tried giving us.... They asked, when people have a right, for example, to fresh water, will Bill C-61 have a foundation? They want this affirmation. They said they're concerned because Bill C-61 is not clearly defined. For example, they want the federal government to.... The Nishnawbe Aski Nation is trying to make this more visible or to put this out more clearly. When provinces have their own laws, will they be applied to first nations laws? This is trying to strengthen.
When first nations create laws, they want their laws to have more effect—not just be written down. Here in the federal government, laws can change. For that reason, if first nations laws were to change, they should be written down and have the same level as federal laws.
Is this understandable?
[English]