Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon to our witnesses. We're certainly glad to have you here.
I appreciate the work you've done in bringing this bill before this particular committee and before the House of Commons.
I would just make a statement that the duty to consult is a legal duty the government has, and one cannot pick and choose in that particular regard. I would have wished that the government had chosen this course on other pieces of legislation, like the repeal of section 67.
I would also say that I hope the political accord you've signed with the government is going to be much more successful than the Kelowna accord, which the government has cancelled.
I would also like to ask a couple of very pertinent questions.
We can make amendments, or we can suggest amendments, to improve this legislation on the understanding that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. There are some problems with it. It's our time to do that now, not at some future point. If there were one or two amendments you would like to see us put forward, with the cooperation of all members of the committee, what would they be? I'll save this point until last.
I was really struck by your statement, Chief Joseph. You said that you need your land back; you want your land back. But interestingly enough, this particular piece of legislation cannot provide land in terms of awarding compensation.
I understand how fundamental land is to first nations, to Métis, and to Inuit communities and peoples. I would just ask how fundamental that piece is, how problematic it is, given that you can't be awarded land and that you really have to quit claims to certain pieces of land that the minister himself says are now in the hands of third parties. The release provision is necessary in order to clear title to the land. He's saying that we must have this approach in order to clear title to it.
So I would ask, first of all, about the issue of land, and as well, about any amendments.