Mr. Speaker, after hearing the member opposite make her presentation, I must rise and ask a few questions.
I heard her mention her previous government's last minute initiative to try to cover up 13 years of poor action on its part, especially in relation to aboriginal people. As for the Kelowna proposal she talks about so fondly, aside from the fact that it was really a desperate initiative of the previous government on its deathbed, it actually would not have brought any real change to first nations people's lives. It did not identify systemic reform.
Thankfully, our government has proceeded with some important systemic reform, such as matrimonial real property for aboriginal women and, of course, extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people.
With my question, I would like to continue in the same vein that I did with the previous member. That, of course, is how we as a country take our international obligations quite seriously.
As such, when we see a declaration that contemplates having Canada set aside its treaties, some that go back to before to our Confederation, to enter into a new legal context with our first peoples, we obviously look at that with a very serious perspective. As such, we cannot proceed with a signature. We take these obligations seriously. That is what we have done. Is the member opposite suggesting that she would entertain Canada returning to a pre-contact state in terms of our legal obligations to first nations people?