Debates of Nov. 20th, 2012

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

Gatineau Park

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many citizens concerning the protection of Gatineau Park.

It is the most visited park in Canada, and it is crucial that the government examine this issue and bring in legislation to protect the park for all time.

Employment Insurance

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first is from my constituents who ask that the government consider keeping Kingston as an EI processing hub under the EI modernization bill. The reason for this is that my constituents believe that, first, there is no representation of employment insurance processing for eastern Ontario east of Toronto, and, second, that because there is already a processing centre in Kingston, this is probably the most cost-effective place to put an EI processing centre. If the jobs were moved elsewhere, there would have to be a lot of retraining and relocating, which would be an additional and unnecessary expense.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from constituents who are asking that the government fund the Experimental Lakes Area so that freshwater ecosystems can be studied, understood and properly managed for the benefit of all Canadians, and that the government use the evidence and the data that comes from that research to protect freshwater for Canada and, indeed, provide the data to protect freshwater ecosystems around the world.

41st General Election

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by the good people of the wonderful community of Peterborough.

The petitioners are concerned about the issues of electoral fraud that happened in the 41st federal general election. They are calling for a full investigation to find out who was behind this, to ensure there is sufficient resources for this investigation so that Canada's electoral system that was put at risk through the reports of widespread electoral fraud will be dealt with, and to ensure Canadians confidence in our democratic voting system can be reasserted.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present five petitions on the issue of saving the funding for the Experimental Lakes Area. It has been a trust between the public and its government that these lakes would be used in this way and would be restored, and that the research would be made available to protect the environment Canada-wide and to help internationally. This is in the public interest. It is very much the government's role and responsibility. For the government to abdicate that role and toss this program aside is completely unacceptable.

The petitioners are pointing that out. I have five petitions to that effect.

Pay Equity for Women

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by many residents of Thunder Bay and is on the issue of pay equity for working women. They note that women make up over 60% of the paid workforce and yet the reality is that women receive 21% less than men for doing the same work on average, and that 70% of women work in jobs which, despite being highly skilled, are sadly under-valued and frequently underpaid.

The petitioners are calling on the government to address this issue, which is long overdue.

Telecommunications

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is with regard to the tabling of my cellphone freedom bill.

The petitioners from Quebec feel that it is important to take the step to provide more consumer choice and to promote competition in the domestic wireless market by unlocking network locks on their cellphones.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-27. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

Motions in Amendment

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Mr. Speaker, for the public watching, Bill C-27 would:

...[provide] a legislative basis for the preparation and public disclosure of First Nations' audited consolidated financial statements and of remuneration, including salaries and expenses, that a First Nation or any entity that it controls pays to its elected officials.

Also, it would require that this information is published “...on a website maintained by or for the First Nation,...”. This is from the legislative summary prepared for this House.

I have proposed three amendments to this bill and I will speak specifically to those three amendments. One of them would delete the short title because, as always, the titles are often misleading. When we are talking about financial accountability and transparency, one would expect that the government would provide resources so first nations would have the ability to do some of the things that are being requested of them, and that there would have been adequate consultation before this bill was put forward.

The two sections of the bill that I propose deleting include clause 11. This clause of the bill allows “...any person...may apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council to carry out the duties under that section...”. Through the bill, an additional burden is being placed on first nations by allowing members of the general public to take a first nation to court if they do not feel that the information is published as required under the legislation. Nobody would argue that leadership in first nations should not be accountable to their own members but the bigger concern is having anybody being able to put this additional burden on first nations.

The third clause that I suggest we delete is the administrative measures clause. It would vest far too much power with the minister. This would allow the minister to “...withhold moneys payable as a grant or contribution to the First Nation...” if they are in breach of the legislation, and that the minister would be able to “...terminate any agreement referred to in paragraph (b)“. We would see more power being vested in the minister, which is a dangerous trend that we see throughout the current government.

I will touch on where this legislation came from and why we as New Democrats have some serious problems with it. In the legislative summary, it is pointed out that currently first nations communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and that in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required by the federal government. In December 2006, the Auditor General pointed out that “...AANDC alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations, [and the Auditor General] concluded that the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.

Any of us who have first nations communities in our ridings can attest to the fact that we have serious problems in many communities, whether it is housing, drinking water or education, and we continue to see these problems grow. The government has not committed the resources, the attention or the building of the relationship to ensure some of these problems are dealt with.

The reporting burden on first nations is not new information. In 1996, the Auditor General issued a report dealing about the reporting, and that has gone on report after report. It is not just first nations and the Auditor General who are talking about the problems. We also have a Conservative blue ribbon panel from December 2006 which wrote a report entitled, “From Red Tape to Clear Results”. In that report, the panel devoted a special section to the first nations, Inuit, Métis and other aboriginal organizations.

The report states:

The panel is of the view that mechanisms other than grants or contributions for the funding of essential services such as health, education and social assistance in reserve communities are needed....

It went on to say:

[W]e were reminded that the current practice of treating these kinds of transfers to First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Aboriginal organizations as more or less standard contribution arrangements is fraught with problems and leads to a costly and often unnecessary reporting burden on recipients.

That was the Conservatives' own panel and we have not seen the kind of action needed to deal with these reporting requirements. The assistant auditor general appeared at committee with a prepared statement on October 29, 2012. He stated:

At that time, we met with first nations and were told that they were willing to explore ways to ensure that the information needs of Parliament were met, and they stressed the importance of internal accountability. From their perspective, accountability is non-hierarchical and is based on shared objectives. They stated that the reporting framework was of limited value to them, was onerous, and did little to enhance accountability to the community.

That is a very important point because the bill is being sold as enhancing accountability in communities. If I have an opportunity, I am going to read a statement by the Canadian Bar Association about why simply posting numbers on a website does not necessarily enhance reporting accountability within communities. I am sure many people in the House could speak to the fact that we also need resources provided to communities so that community members actually have the knowledge to interpret the financial statements.

Financial statements, in and of themselves, do not speak to whether people are getting good results for their dollars. They are not talking about benchmarking the number of houses built, the number of children attending school or the number of people who now have access to clean drinking water. A financial statement does not provide that information. People say that by putting numbers on a website, accountability is somehow miraculously going to occur.

First nation leadership and community members would all agree that it is important to have accountability between chiefs and councils and their membership. The Assembly of First Nations back in 2006 produced a position paper entitled, “Accountability for Results”, which contains numerous suggestions about how accountability could be improved both from the federal government to first nations, because that is one accountability measure that is currently not in place, and second, from chiefs and councils to their memberships. It was an amendment the NDP proposed, but of course, it was voted down.

One of the proposals that the Assembly of First Nations made was that there should be an ombudsperson. The proposal stated:

[First Nations]-led and [First Nations]-specific institutions will be needed, as First Nation citizens must be empowered to hold both their local government and the Government of Canada to account. Such institutions include an Ombudsperson's office, so that individuals have a trusted venue to pursue accountability concerns outside of either the local or federal governments. They would also include a First Nations Auditor General who could both provide ongoing advice to assist [First Nations] governments in providing accountability and, at the same time, improve accountability by exposing problems and recommending solutions.

First nation leadership across this country has been at the table consistently proposing solutions to the government and the government has failed to act on any of them. One of the big sticking points about this piece of legislation is the fact that there was not appropriate consultation. I would be remiss if I did not quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Once again there is a piece of legislation before the House that does not have that free, prior and informed consent. One would think, given that the government almost a year ago committed to a new relationship, that it would have that free, prior and informed consent before bringing legislation forward. We are seeing bill after bill being introduced in the House without that kind of consent.

In fact, an official from the department yesterday talked about omnibus Bill C-45, clauses 206 to 209 in division 8, and said that it was fine for the government to go ahead without that free, prior and informed consent because, after all, they were just technical amendments. That is simply not good enough in this day and age. If the government is committed to a new relationship, it should make sure that it goes beyond engagement and consults with first nation communities across this country and ensures that legislation is what first nations are asking for.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Having many first nation communities in my riding, what we see again and again is the absolute refusal of the government to set any kind of economic accountability or transparency within its own department. Therefore, we have seen agreements signed and the government walks away. We have seen contractors left without getting paid for basic jobs, which they were hired to do by Indian affairs.

One of the big issues is the refusal of the department to put ring fencing around project dollars, which is a basic accountability standard at any level, particularly in education, whether it is municipal or provincial. If we look at the K to 12 study or the Parliamentary Budget Officer study, the refusal to put ring fencing around capital projects meant that in 2007-08, $121 million that should have been spent on grade schools for children was reallocated by the department and blown elsewhere. Therefore, there are no standards of accountability.

Does my hon. colleague think we might get a better set of benchmarks if we start holding the department to standards of accountability, having transparency and allowing citizens to ask the department how it is spending taxpayer money and why it is moving key dollars out of such basic issues as education and spending it on lawyers, consultants and spin doctors?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is absolutely correct. We know that he has led the fight on schools for first nations children.

What is interesting is that we hear the government continue to talk about accountability and transparency, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to threaten to go to the courts in order to get the information that he requires to do his job.

The member is correct that the government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has not demonstrated accountability back to first nation communities. Therefore, they make arbitrary decisions about where money will go and how it will be transferred without explaining how they are managing that money to first nations. There is not that accountability and transparency relationship from AANDC back to first nation communities, so often people are left proposing capital projects for schools or for water systems and then year after year these projects keep getting moved along the chain and people do not know why.

If we want to talk about accountability and transparency, let us make sure that people understand what the money is for, how it will be spent and when the community can expect to receive it.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech she alluded to no consultation with regard to first nations on the bill. However, we had several witnesses from the memberships of bands come to committee stating that they had tried to get remuneration expenses from chiefs and councillors but the system was too cumbersome. In fact, one of the biggest problems was that they had to divulge who they were. That becomes an intimidation factor for a lot of band members.

To say that we have not done consultations is one thing, but to have members of first nation communities come to committee saying there is a problem is another. Would the member like to comment on the fact that first nation members have to divulge their names to the chiefs and councillors and as a result are intimidated? Would she like to comment on the fact that this is a problem?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question reveals a lack of understanding of what “duty to consult” constitutes. Committee meetings are not a consultation process. The member well knows that the government has shifted its language from “consultation” to“engagement”, because it recognizes that what it is doing is not consultation.

The member pointed out quite rightly that there have been some challenges with band members getting access to financial information. However, the member is also very well aware that the minister already has the power to provide that information to band members. In fact, the department could not give us an adequate summary of the scope of the problem.

Once again, what we have is a smoke and mirrors bill that is talking about dealing with accountability and transparency. The government has not identified the scope of the problem. It has not identified other potential solutions. Instead, it is using a process that continues to violate the agreement around duty to consult.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to represent the concerns of my constituents from the great Kenora riding. That includes 42 first nations, 25 of which are isolated or not accessible by road.

I want to speak on just two things for the purposes of my 10 minutes.

First, on Motion No. 1, that Bill C-27 be amended by deleting clause 1,

If I have time, I will address the reporting requirements, the second issue raised by the opposition member.

Under debate is clause 1 of Bill C-27, first nations financial transparency act. The clause reads:

1. This Act may be cited as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

Essentially, Motion No. 1 goes to the very heart of Bill C-27 and so I would like to speak about the purpose of this legislation and why this is necessary and therefore its title.

In accordance with provisions in their funding agreements, first nation governments are already required to provide Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses for all elected officials. That deals with the redundancy piece that the member opposite keeps raising.

It is also a provision of these agreements that the audited consolidated financial statements be made available to the first nation membership in the community. On a large scale, this has not occurred. However, these agreements do not stipulate the manner and timing of disclosure. Many first nation governments have put into place sound accountability practices that ensure transparency and help to build confidence among members and other stakeholders.

I have said repeatedly at committee that, as often may be the case, the simple process of making these documents publicly accessible, in my respectful and humble view, will demonstrate that a great number of chiefs and councils are actually in full compliance and very competently managing their financial affairs, despite any challenges we hear. However, this bill is necessary because some first nations have not yet consistently developed and adopted these practices.

We have heard from first nations' constituency members and organizations with substantive and substantial concerns. As a result, questions have emerged about the financial decisions of first nations leaders and how first nations' monies are being spent; questions that can undermine the confidence of the public in all first nation governments, including those who are working to be transparent in their leadership. Indeed, at committee we heard from several witnesses who strive for that.

Ensuring the public disclosure of financial information would help to clarify the actual situation by explicitly stating the expectations of first nations in law with respect to accountability for the financial management of their governments and transparency in the remuneration and expenses that they incur in their roles as chief in council and any other activities with which they are involved. Greater transparency of financial information, including these notes for remuneration and expenses, would remove the speculation that currently exists and dispel rumours around the management of funds by first nation governments and the salaries of their leaders.

The bill would ensure that first nation community members have the information necessary to make informed decisions about their leadership and are better prepared to hold their government to account. The bill, and the easier access to financial information it promotes, would also support better policy development as it relates to first nation people.

One of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, John Graham of Patterson Creek Consulting, pointed out, “...public policy is always better if there is essentially good information”.

However, while this information is currently provided to the department, it cannot be shared in any meaningful way to promote this kind of public discussion. We want that conversation to occur between community members and their government. We, as a department or a minister, would prefer not to get involved in it. This goes to the very essence of self-governance, that conversation taking place between those two constituents and not having the department and/or minister involved in it.

The public disclosure of financial information of first nations governments has another benefit of increasing the confidence of potential investments. That level of transparency, with more complete and accurate information about potential partners, joint ventures that we are hearing about and exciting business development on reserve can flourish when these kinds of building blocks are put in place in the first nation people around the concepts of governance in an effort to put it out there to their community members and to the public.

In particular, I am thinking of the potential for business parties to engage in what we know has the potential to be flourishing new relationships in all kinds of first nations communities, particularly in the isolated communities of the great Kenora riding and Timmins—James Bay. Some of these communities are landlocked by good economic opportunities. They are finding ways to do that. We are working in partnership with them, with small business centres across our vast region. We look forward to a more integrated level of participation by first nations communities in our resource sector and the likes. These kinds of businesses want to understand what the financial positions of their first nations governments are and build on the strength of that relationship, from things like that.

We see this as an opportunity to further develop relationships with the private sector in addition to strengthening the relationship with the private sector to strengthen their economy.

The second thing I would like to say on the subject of reporting requirements, which was mentioned earlier, is that there is no mention in this bill of the burden currently facing first nations when it comes to reporting. First nations already have to produce consolidated financial statements each year, which are audited by an independent, accredited professional auditor as a requirement of their funding agreements with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, or AANDC.

The bill's objective is to increase transparency and accountability, requiring that these financial statements be disclosed to members of the first nations community as well as the general public. Once these practices become the norm, first nations will be in a much better position to prove that they deserve to benefit from more flexible funding arrangements. The purpose of the bill is to increase the financial transparency of first nations government, although we do expect this to reduce the reporting burden for many first nations in the medium and long term. This is not an immediate priority.

Bill C-27 is going to deal with the residual issues we have heard from some important stakeholders. We have heard from grassroots citizens across the country, the Peguis First Nation, first nations communities out in Nova Scotia and community members from the great Kenora riding, to name a few.

The private sector is excited about new relationships with first nations communities. We appreciate the critical mass of first nations communities that have chosen to lead by example and demonstrate to other orders of government processes for accountability. This includes furnishing these documents by way of public access, typically on the Internet for their members, disclosing salaries, honoraria and expenses associated with the operations of the chief and council specifically and ensuring information about community infrastructure and decision making would be easily accessible and available via the Internet and elsewhere as applicable.

Our government is not only confident that the bill will be supported by most first nations members seeking to improve the transparency and accountability of their band governments, but we also believe that first nations elected officials will welcome this opportunity, through the bill, to demonstrate that they are already operating as accountable governments. The next important step is simply to supply that information to their constituent members.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, and in Timmins—James Bay, where we are pretty much one of the centres of international mining, now mining exploration and the Ring of Fire along the James Bay, we are dealing all the time with private sector and first nations, trying to work through consultation, and I would say the relationship has moved ahead dramatically.

We have a few bad actors out there who believe they can just go and they do not need to talk to any first nation, and that is an impediment. However, industry is asking, “Where is the job training? Where is the federal government? How will we get these projects up and running if first nation communities do not have the job training?” They wonder how they can do joint ventures between a multinational and a community with 300 people out in the bush when there is no capital for the community to put that in place.

The other thing I hear in terms of transparency is on resource revenue sharing, because we have had all these BIAs that have been signed, but what we do not have is a clear standard where everyone knows the rules, industry and first nations communities in terms of transparent resource revenue-sharing agreements. I ask what my hon. colleague thinks of that.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of that. I think a lot of the member, actually, for asking that question.

As it turns out, this is one of those steps, one, parmi plusieurs d'autres, to address that kind of level playing field transparency that gives the private sector the kind of confidence it can have when it wants to work and establish a joint venture, establish a place in a small business centre. In a number of isolated first nations communities, that is occurring right in the great Kenora riding and right in the Timmins—James Bay riding as well.

It is true; the resource sector offers a dynamic legacy opportunity for first nations communities to participate in a fulsome, integrated way, and these steps, like the bill, provide a substantive opportunity to furnish information that would be available to its members to help actively participate in their government's decision making, whether it is infrastructure in their community or new relationships with the private sector.

Therefore, yes, we are looking forward to this and we see the bill as one critical step toward that goal.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this question with something hypothetical. Imagine if the United Nations decided to force Canada to disclose all of its financial information, which may not be a bad idea considering the lack of transparency of the government. However, if the United Nations forced disclosure of financial information for the Government of Canada, all the crown corporations, all the business activities of civil servants and politicians, would that be something Canada would find acceptable? Would it be good for the governance of Canada?

My question is: Should it not be the case that the citizens of a first nation should decide and tell their government what things to disclose to them, and would that not be better in the long term for the development of good governance in any organization?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I think that was a lob, Mr. Speaker. Imagine this hypothetical question. If only the Liberal government had carried through on its governance provisions under one of the previous ministers in its caucus, who happened to be the member of Parliament for Kenora, when he brought those forward, and their leader and several caucus members did not have the intestinal fortitude to bring that governance act forward. That is why we are debating certain things like this.

Second, the member is actually spot on. If he had participated or even read some of the transcripts at committee for this instead of getting up and asking this kind of fluffy question, he would know that it is coming from first nation community members.

That is exactly why the bill is here, because it meets the requests of numerous first nations peoples and organizations who simply wanted the bands to provide information to them in a safe, public forum so that they could understand what kinds of decisions their communities are making, and perhaps—imagine this—play a more vital role in that decision-making process.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in response to the last minute report stage amendments by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. What the member is trying to do is admirable in attempting to delete clauses 1, 11 and 13. I would also propose that we delete clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as well. Bill C-27 is a bad bill from a bad place.

The minister went to the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to announce the legislation, but shortly thereafter Chief Darcy Bear had to write a letter to all members of committee, particularly the member whose bill this was based on, to express his complete dismay at being misled about what the bill was really all about.

Chief Darcy Bear, and all first nations, totally support the principles of financial transparency and accountability. That is the main objective of Bill C-27. However it is totally unacceptable for the bill to have come forward without any consultation with first nations. On that basis alone the Liberal Party has been very clear that it does not want to discuss in this chamber anything that has not already been subject to full consultations with first nations. The minister was clear that no consultation took place on this legislation. There was perhaps some consultation on the concerns raised by the private member's bill that preceded this legislation, but as the government has learned the hard way, this legislation goes way beyond the private member's bill. Therefore, Chief Darcy Bear was quite surprised to see in Bill C-27 the kinds of things that have necessitated the government amendments. Unfortunately, the government has refused to accept any opposition amendments dealing with some of the other concerns expressed by first nations.

Deleting clauses 1, 11 and 13 would at least remove the bill's draconian punishment of first nations that do not adhere to its provisions, and the situation would revert to one in which the minister could use his existing powers regarding compliance with contribution agreements and future funding based on that. First nations have been concerned about this kind of consequence being written into the bill. It removes the minister's discretion in the very complex and difficult issues raised by the bill.

On the Liberal side, we are still very concerned about what Chief Darcy Bear thought was the intention of making mandatory the release of the budgets and revenues and expenditures of first nations to their members.

This bill codifies the paternalism of the Indian Act in an even worse way. The minister already has the power to compel a first nation to release its documents to its band members. The minister has been totally unable to explain to us how often this happens or any commitment that this has been measured in a real way. The problem the bill is trying to fix has been very poorly articulated by the government. We know it is the responsibility of the chief and council to report to their people. When it is a democratically elected chief and council, then it is up to their people to turf out a government or a chief and council who are not complying with the need for transparency and fiscal accountability.

It is again with sadness that we continue to hear from first nations across this country that it has not even been a year since the Crown-first nations gathering, where the Prime Minister promised to reset the relationship. When the government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it agreed to free, prior and informed consent, yet this bill and so many others have come before the House without any consultation with first nations.

We in the Liberal Party believe that the principle of consultation is inherent to a government-to-government relationship. The government has no idea and is still treating first nations like little children that need a governess. It is totally insulting that the government has yet again refused to consult and is insisting on this kind of legislation and did not even have the courtesy of explaining the far-reaching nature of this legislation compared to the previous private member's bill to the very chief whose first nation they announced this legislation to.

We are grateful that the government has tried to improve this bad bill by clarifying the difference between salaries and expenses. We are pleased that it has tried to rectify the issue of band owned enterprises, but we still think that this is a bad bill and we hope that the government will at least support the initiative of the New Democratic Party by deleting clauses that impose draconian and insulting measures on first nations.

I look forward to debating the bill in full later, but the Liberal Party will support the last minute report stage amendments by the New Democratic Party.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points. On the issue of consultation, I wonder if Jean Chrétien consulted with first nations constituents when he drafted his white paper. I wonder about the eight or nine years I lived in isolated, remote first nations across Canada, where there were water and sewer treatment plants in need of repair if not replacement and schools that had burned down in communities and were never replaced or had never existed in the first place. I wonder if there was any consultation at that point.

We know what the Liberal Party's position is on accountability: $40 million here, a $55 billion slush fund for employment. It is no wonder they want all of these clauses deleted. I am not surprised.

We know about moving the bill forward in co-operation with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, for example, which made substantive inputs because it has complex business operations and wanted these tightened up and addressed. We appreciated and received those amendments, and supported them at committee.

I think the bill has the essential components and I am wondering what the member has to say about things like accountability and the active participation of first nation community members in the decision-making of their chiefs and councils.