Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that three of the four parties in the House did agree on the report at committee. Several speakers have mentioned that earlier today. That is fine.
The fact still remains, though, that perhaps because the committee did not hear enough witnesses, perhaps for other reasons, but whatever the cause of it, on the recommendations, it is not that they do not go far enough, or it is partially that; I will concede to the hon. member that on some of the recommendations the last three points Chief Fontaine's letter are about that. They are about the shortcomings of the report, but that is a different issue.
I am concerned about the first three points, where the recommendations say the opposite of what the AFN believes. The fact that the report is incomplete I suppose is an argument in which someone could say, “We could not put everything in the report. We put what we felt was important. Some people may think it should go beyond that and maybe it does not”.
That is true for the last three items in the chief's letter, but for the first three, and I will go back to them, the first point is:
The motion recommends terminating the current ADR process. The AFN believes it should be repaired, not terminated.
In other words, it is the opposite position: not.
The second point states:
The motion recommends that the process be handed over to the Courts to supervise and enforce.
It is actually even stronger than that if we read the actual recommendation. It continues:
The AFN says First Nations must negotiate the settlement with the Court's assistance for enforcement, if required.
In other words, it is again the opposite.
The third point states:
The motion recommends a partial truth commission involving Survivors only, whereas the AFN recommends a comprehensive truth commission involving government and churches.
What we have in those first three is not just that the AFN thinks it is incomplete. It is that the report of the committee, which we are asked to adopt, or to concur in, in other words, adopt today, is the opposite of what the AFN wants. I think that is the point that is important.
That is why I say to the hon. members to send it back to the committee. I proposed the motion to the House to do that: that the report not be concurred in and that it be referred back to the committee. The committee can look at these additional points. Maybe it will want to produce an amended report and bring it back a second time. Maybe it will abandon the thing altogether, I do not know, but this does not enjoy the agreement of the aboriginal organizations, and not just the Assembly of First Nations.
As Chief Fontaine says:
Our report has been endorsed by the Chiefs of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, Residential school survivor groups and the Consortium of lawyers representing class action law suits on this matter.
All these people seemingly do not agree with the report as presently drafted. I have proposed an amendment. Let us carry that amendment on a voice vote, send it back, and the hon. members then can improve it. These are not my words. They are the words of Chief Phil Fontaine.
As for the amendment I have proposed, I do not know if the Chair is prepared to rule on whether or not it is in order. Hopefully it is. If it is not, then perhaps by unanimous consent, of course, we could do it anyway.