Thank you, Ms. Block, for coming before the committee.
You're probably aware that when legislation that impacts on first nations, Métis, and Inuit comes before this committee, one of the questions that we always ask is about the duty to consult. Now we have another example of a piece of legislation coming before this committee for which the duty to consult that's been mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada has not been fulfilled. I think that arguably most people are in support of accountability and transparency, but we can't disregard a process when it is a consistent message that we put out, so it's troubling that once again we're dealing with a piece of legislation that has not fulfilled that duty.
In our looking at the bill, a number of issues have arisen. I know a number of us have consistently said that it's important for chiefs and councils to be responsible to the people who elect them and not to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. I don't think you'll find broad disagreement on that. Here, though, it appears that you're requesting a standard that's different from what other Canadians are subject to, and I want to refer to a couple of points before I get you to respond.
You're asking for federally funded dollars, and a significant amount of those dollars comes in through grants and contribution agreements. I don't know if you're aware that Treasury Board guidelines on contribution agreements, under appendix C, make no mention of salaries, even with respect to people who act as third parties to transfer money to other people. The guidelines just have a lot about audit requirements.
What I hear you saying about this bill is that all the other Canadians who get grants or contribution agreements don't need to release their salaries, but first nations do, so you're setting up another double standard here.
We're fairly used to that. First nations are governed by double standards all over the place, whether it's funding on reserves for child welfare, education, health care, or clean drinking water. We consistently say that it's perfectly acceptable for first nations to be treated as second-class citizens. Once again, I see you implementing a double standard by requiring something from them that we don't ask for other people on grants and contributions. That's one aspect of it.
The second aspect is that you've included under clause 6:
Despite anything in the Privacy Act, where, at the end of the period referred to in subsection 5(3), the Schedule of Remuneration has not been made publicly available, the Minister shall make it publicly available.
The way I read this—and it will be interesting to hear from some lawyers on it—is that all other Canadians are subject to the Privacy Act, but we're going to override the Privacy Act in the case of first nations. We're not going to have it apply to them, because somehow or other they're a different class of citizen. This is another example of saying first nations don't deserve the same treatment as other Canadians and that we're going to allow the government to override the Privacy Act in this case.
I wonder if you could explain to me and to other Canadians who may be listening why it's okay to treat first nations differently from other people in this country.
