I will try not to take too much time. I respectfully remind you, Mr. Minister, that we had asked your presence for two hours, since this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples that your government has and, regrettably, will introduce.
Over the last few days and weeks, since the bill has been tabled, I have met with many Aboriginals. They told me there had been consultations, and that, on the whole, it is a good idea to repeal section 67, but that they did not have time to discuss fully the impacts of this abrogation because they have too many issues to deal with from day to day. They did not take the time to ponder this important issue.
I have to admit, Mr. Minister, that I am somewhat torn about this matter and I mentioned it to Mr. Ricard, when I met him. I understand the difference between collective and individual rights. You do not need to belabour that point. After all, I have 25 years of experience as a lawyer. Aboriginals in this country do not get the consideration they deserve and they have many problems. However, I am not certain we are ready to go ahead with this section because the collective rights of First Nations people protect them at the present time against a large number of claims and legal challenges.
You have experienced difficulty with a similar situation this week, Mr. Minister. Let us suppose a member from Kashechewan brings a complaint against his or her community because of the lack of clean water or hydro power, in the case of Pikangikum, for example. I have a hard time seeing how this situation could be resolved by the time the bill is passed.
I hope you will agree with me that passage of this bill will give precedence to individual rights over collective rights, which are the rights of aboriginal peoples. Are we on the same page? Do you share my interpretation?