Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I found it very interesting.
Clearly, some points warrant our attention. I have a question for her, to follow-up on what the minister is proposing. I also think he should have said it in a more respectful manner.
As everyone knows, the Supreme Court has said many times that the federal government is obliged not only to consult the first nations, but to accommodate them as well. In my opinion, that is what is missing here. There were consultations, but the accommodation does not seem to be on par with what the Supreme Court requires of the government.
I would like my colleague to share her interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings. Has the obligation to consult the first nations truly been respected?
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I totally agree with him. It is clear that the Supreme Court requires the federal government to consult the first nations of Canada and to respect and accommodate their interests and rights.
It is clear that in this situation, and since the institutions are the product of negotiations, this is not acceptable. This is against the law and it violates the right of the first nations to have a government that makes unilateral changes. That is why in the future, everyone will understand that it is against the law.