Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight is about a very serious matter. In January, the Prime Minister stated:
Our government has no grand scheme to repeal or to unilaterally rewrite the Indian Act: After 136 years, that tree has deep roots; blowing up the stump would just leave a big hole. However, there are ways, creative ways, collaborative ways, ways that involve consultation between our government, the provinces and First Nations leadership and communities, ways that provide options within the act, or outside of it, for practical, incremental and real change.
At that same meeting the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, said this with respect to the Indian Act:
Like a rock that sits in the middle of the road, a boulder that blocks the path of collaboration, remains
—as we have been saying here—
the Indian Act, along with the age-old structures and policies that administer it and steadfastly resist change.
I am sorry that we have to raise this here tonight because it means that the government has not taken this solemn promise of the Prime Minister seriously. He said in January that the government would not repeal or unilaterally rewrite the Indian Act and indicated that any future changes would be developed in consultation with the government, the provinces and first nations communities. I am afraid that a backbencher's private member's bill is not an appropriate consultation for this very serious relationship with first nations in this country.
This kind of change must be undertaken by the Prime Minister in a government-to-government way. Now we have a member of Parliament moving legislation to unilaterally change the Indian Act with no prior consultation.
All private member's bills should include consultation before they are tabled, and when they are drafted and afterwards. None of this happened, which extremely egregious when dealing with an issue concerning first nations.
If the member had consulted, he would have heard loudly—