Mr. Chairman, maybe we should lighten up a little. The comments I made about aboriginal
people and the comments the Member took possible exception to, for me in my mind, what I see is it was non-aboriginal people who passed all these laws that restricted the lives of aboriginal people over the last few years. Now, I just have the perception that it's going to be the non-aboriginal people who are going to lead the charge the other way. I just find it ironic that those who fixed it want to fix it again.
In any case, the comments are welcome and we'll deal with them as rationally as we can. I still say to Mr. Patterson that if he reads the legislation, he will see that it is written in a way that respects human dignity; it does not give guardians unlimited power at all. For instance, if a person believes that a mentally incompetent person is being abused, they can make an application to a court. It's the judge, it's the court that decides if in fact there is any substantial benefit. You have to establish that there is substantial benefit to assigning a guardian and then the courts will assign that guardian only those specific powers that are required to remedy the specific situation where abuse occurred in the first place.
It is very clear in the legislation, Mr. Patterson, that that is the way it goes. It meets fully with the concerns that you have. If a person, for instance, is continually abused in his quest to have jobs and he is being abused by employers, as a concerned citizen you can apply to have a guardian assigned to that person. You can go to the judge and say, Your Lordship -- or whatever you call them -- I have substantial proof that this person has been seriously abused as a result of his need to have a job and, therefore, I request that I be assigned guardianship because I know that I can find him a job and help him find a job where he will not be. Can I have that specific task? I will take that on.
And, even in that case, as well-intentioned as you are, the judge will probably ask, Isn't there somebody else who is related to this person who can do it? Because we will have amendments introduced that the first choice will always go to friends and relatives. In any case, once that is done and the judge is convinced, first of all, that there is abuse and there is a section in here that can provide remedy, the courts will say "Yes, but you have to do it in the least restrictive manner possible," because that is also in the legislation. You have to do it while preserving the dignity of that individual.
So, that is in there. You have to read and appreciate the full nature of what the intention is.