Mr. Chairman, I hope I wasn't that person Mr. Kakfwi referred to when he said that aboriginal people don't need to be lectured.
I took notice of Mr. Antoine's comments when the bill came up before, about his concern that we understand that our elders are often very independent-minded people, and that this is something we're proud of and we respect. I'm not trying to lecture anybody. But -- I'll say the phrase I joked about the other day -- with respect to the Minister's comments, he's saying to me oh, don't worry, we spell out all these powers for the guardian to choose a job, to choose a training program, to protect the individual from abuse by an employer or by an educational institution...so all these extensive powers are there so that the guardian will be able to exert tremendous control over that person's life. That is a paternalistic approach. It's like an approach to rearing one's child. You can take a very domineering approach of taking steps to control every minute of that child's life, or you can take another approach which is to provide the maximum support and information so that child can make decisions in their own best interests and stand and protect themselves because they're strong and independent. I guess I have yet to be satisfied that the paternalistic approach is the way to go.
I would like to ask again whether the Minister has considered the suggestion of a preamble in this bill -- and I realize this is perhaps a late suggestion, I have not had the opportunity of participating through the Standing Committee on Finance, but I have done a little bit of research and talked to people who are concerned about these issues -- that if there's a concern about paternalism, perceived or real, would it hurt to lay out at the beginning of the act a presumption about the presumed independence, and the presumption that there should be the maximum support for independent decision-making and avoidance of guardianship so that everybody who is involved with administering these sections, including judges, will understand that the intention of the Legislature was to respect the right of individuals to make independent decisions, or to be supported to make independent decisions before the heavy arm of the state intervenes? I would like to ask the Minister again -- and the Minister is telling the House that the concerns have been addressed in the bill, the safeguards are there -- why don't we put it up front in a preamble? We weren't afraid to do it in the Official Languages Act; why don't we do it in this act so it will set the tone and provide clarification that these powers and this paternalism is to be exercised with the greatest of caution and the maximum respect to the individual and that person's right to make supported or independent decisions for themselves? Thank you.