Mr. Speaker, this is quite an important question. The government may hold consultations without ever implementing any of the recommendations that were made during those consultations.
I know that with Bill S-6, which originated in the Senate, the first nations were initially receptive to the bill. The bill was then changed. There are now a number of serious issues with the final wording of the bill that the first nations are opposed to. Their opposition was made clear in committee and also in the public arena.
The definition of paternalistic legislation is when the government is aware of the problems caused by a bill that should be prepared in consultation and in co-operation with the first nations and still tries to pass it without the agreement of the first nations.
I hope that the government will respect the meaning of real consultation and take into account the various issues raised by the first nations. The future legislation could then respect their wishes and their ways of doing things, which in many cases are traditional. If any problems arise, they could then be resolved by the community.
In a previous speech, one of our colleagues mentioned that any problems that arose during an election could be referred to a first nations community, like an appeal process, for instance. Why must the minister assume the authority to deal with these matters, rather than letting the community deal with them itself?