Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate, as the both Members agree, that Members weren't able, for whatever reason, to have their views dealt with to their satisfaction within the normal process that this legislation goes through. So we are trying to come up with some suggestions
that would meet with the approval of Mr. Lewis, even though the committee had set his concerns for individual rights aside, in his opinion.
Mr. Patterson, who was gone and unable to have input earlier, is now addressing them and they should be addressed, however late they are. I would say that it is ironic for me to see, in a constituency that is overwhelmingly aboriginal, that the most restrictive legislation in North America dealing with any group of people is being inflicted on aboriginal people. The legislation still stands today in the Parliament. It treats aboriginal people as lesser people. The Indian Act, a copy of which is sitting in front of me right now, is an example of that. Aboriginal people don't need lectures on the dangers of people intruding on individual and collective rights of people. It is great to hear that Members are concerned about any possible intrusion.
It has been my view that Mr. Lewis's and Mr. Patterson's concerns are already taken care of and the committee was right to proceed in the manner they did. As I have said, they are real. Whether it is reality or a perception, isn't the point. We have come up with some suggestions that I think still meet with Mr. Lewis's concerns. At least, he is satisfied with the proposed amendments we will make and we are making about nine of them, after having some discussion with him.
We should be clear that the primary aim of this legislation is to help individuals who clearly need help, but the operative word in this legislation is they won't be helped through this legislation unless it is of a substantial nature. That is, in order for a trustee or guardian to be appointed by a court, we have to demonstrate to the courts that there will be substantial benefit to the individual. Maybe Mr. Patterson didn't read all of the legislation, but it is very clear that the courts will be very specific about which things the represented person will have help with from the appointed guardian or trustee. The courts have to specify exactly what the appointed trustee or guardian may do on behalf of the represented person. It's going to be specific, so it's not all-inclusive. You don't hand the represented person into the hands of a guardian and wish them good luck; it's specific, very specific.
I think Mr. Patterson is raising the same type of concern that Mr. Lewis was in ensuring that the least amount is done; that we don't create a dependant and a big brother. This legislation provides for that. It is true that a guardian may start choosing the types of jobs that that represented person may take or go after. They can be empowered by the courts to decide which educational facility or course or program the represented person should or may take. But, again, those are specific things that could be assigned to the guardian in this case, and that's for a specific reason. For instance, that's to protect a mentally incompetent person from being abused by potential employers, or being placed in unsuitable programs that are not of benefit to them. That's the intent.
Again, a court can make those specific assignments. That's the intent of it. So it's not as repugnant as the Member makes it out to be. In fact, it's reassuring to know that those specific things can be assigned. In a case where it is made clear that a mentally incompetent person is being abused under present circumstances, for instance, by being employed and exploited unduly by employers, a court may decide that yes, a guardian should assist that person and make a decision on what types of jobs this person may take to protect them from abuse. Thank you.