Having been one of the officials responsible for co-developing the text of this bill, I understand it to undermine some of the interests of our partners. I know for certain that they have an interest in being able to point to language recognizing that they're an indigenous governing body for the purposes of certain acts where they understand themselves to meet that test, an example being the child and family services legislation.
In a sense, this leads to an enduring uphill battle for our partners to make the point that they are indigenous governments that have been mandated and authorized to represent section 35 rights holders in instances and in the context of legislation where they should rightfully be respectfully dealt with as such.
I agree with Ms. Redmond's comments. I think it may well achieve some of the aims of the committee. I don't mean to speak to whether it does achieve the objectives of the committee, but I do think that, were our partners here today giving testimony in front of you, that's likely what you would hear.