Dick Harris

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the members of the Bloc just do not get the truth of this whole thing. Canada is almost flat broke, if not already there. We have a $535 billion debt. We are operating $40 billion in the hole a year. There is no money for increasing services. The only way that can possibly be done at this stage is to increase taxes. Quite frankly, this is not a viable option. The Canadian people and Canadian businesses are taxed to death. They cannot take any more tax hits.

If we do not get our finances under control, if we do not get our deficit under control, if we do not start attacking the debt, Canada is going to hit the wall. All these services, the transportation services, hospital services, the infrastructure that the Bloc members are talking about are simply going to be gone, period.

This is a time when Canada has to clearly distinguish its wants from its needs. What we need is what we can afford to pay for; what we want is not what we can afford to pay for. The Bloc is talking about wants. The wants side of the thing should not even be on the agenda today, considering our financial position.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the last little while to members of the Bloc speaking on their position. There are several things that seem to be fairly common throughout what they are saying.

First of all they are still looking for the government to pour more money in the form of grants and subsidies into the province of Quebec. This is to help with the continuation of rail service, a service which across the country is having a tremendous problem trying to break even.

We have listened while the Bloc on a number of occasions has promoted a rapid rail line from Quebec into Ontario. To date there is no substantive evidence whatsoever that this rapid rail line is financially viable. As a matter of fact any statistics I have seen have pointed to just the opposite. It is strictly a money losing proposition.

Surely the Bloc can recognize the financial position and the crisis Canada is in. I really wonder how members of that party can stand here day after day and request that the government in fact borrow more money to plough into the province of Quebec for infrastructure and services. It just does not make sense from a purely logical point of view that members of the Bloc actually think this money is growing on trees and that they have somehow been deprived for the last 20 or 30 years. In fact, Quebec has been operating at a transfer payment deficit for many years. The funds have not exactly been withheld from the province of Quebec.

Now I get to my last point. In addition to all this and the fact that the Bloc has requested over and over again that more funds be poured into the province of Quebec for infrastructure and services, this is the same party whose goal in this House is to facilitate the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Of all the illogical notions I have ever heard in my life, they have the audacity to stand here and ask for more and more money to be poured into the province of Quebec, when at the same time they are trying to separate from Canada. For goodness sake, where is the logic in what they are saying? Will they get their stories straight? It just defies logic to sit here and listen to them.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to extend my appreciation to the hon. member for letting me speak. I am going to split my time with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I will take 10 minutes.

We are talking about small business today. That is something that I am not totally unfamiliar with, having spent a number of years in small business, most of my life actually. I have come face to face with almost every single problem that small business today and over the last 25 or 30 years could ever face. I am happy to say that I was able to meet those challenges in most cases.

Although I agree with the report from the committee in many respects, I think it is important today that I spend some time talking about the difficulties and the attitudes of small business if for no other reason than to try and put it again in front of the government and again in front of the banking industry, if it happens to be listening today, so that some of the challenges that small businesses face is driven home to them as well the important role that small business plays in the economy of Canada.

Most people probably believe that it is Esso, IBM, General Motors and the other mega companies that we all so familiar with that are the engine that drives the economy in this country. These same people would probably be of the opinion that it is these large corporations, these mega companies, that employ the majority of the people in this country. This is truly not the case. In fact the opinion that these mega companies drive the economy and hire the most people in the country is very far removed from reality.

The truth is that the economic health of this country depends on small business. It is the small businesses with less than 20 employees that create new jobs, create new growth in the country, and create growth in the economy and opportunities for Canadian workers.

Given the importance of the role that small business plays in the economy of this country it is surprising, as highlighted in the report from the Standing Committee on Industry, to see again the numerous obstacles and challenges that small business must continue to deal with in order to simply do business in this country, obstacles established by government and by the banking industry in this country.

I hope today that the banking community and the government will take note of what is being said here today as well as the contents of the report in the interest of the health and welfare of the country, the survival and growth of small business in this country, and the future well-being of Canada.

In 1990 small business employed some 4.2 million people in Canada. That is out of a total of 12 million people who are working in this country. Small business was responsible for 80 per cent of all new jobs created between 1977 and 1987 and it continues. Small business continues to be the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

The government is truly aware of these numbers. It has displayed its understanding of the importance of the role that small business plays in the country. As a matter of fact, the red ink book devotes quite a few pages to extolling the virtues of small business in Canada and some of the challenges and impediments that small business faces.

The budget promised a small business review, the purpose of which would be to determine how government can help these smaller firms succeed. It recognized in the budget that the tax burden, paper burden, lack of financing and lack of access to government information and programs were all issues that needed to be addressed by this government in relation to small business.

During the G-7 in Naples on July 9 all countries agreed that it was important to focus on removing the challenges and the impediments to small and medium sized business. It was important to the lifeblood of the economies of all the countries that participated in that conference.

In short, the government is certainly well aware of the importance of small business and the various difficulties it encounters. The government knows about small business according to the report from the industry committee. It is reminded of it every night as well during the required reading of the red ink book and is reminded of small business importance when attending international economic conferences.

Beyond trips to Naples, beyond the red ink book rhetoric, beyond the issuance of this report, what has the government done to assist this vital sector of the economy? We have had lots of talk, lots of words and lots of promises. In fact, what has been accomplished in the year since this government took office to help small business is almost absolutely nothing.

I spoke earlier about some of the things the government could do to encourage the banking industry, the big six that controls the banking community in this country. They control all the financing for small business. I spoke of some things they can do. Make no mistake about it, until the government puts a hammer to the heads of the big six that control all the money and tells them they are going to have to start paying attention to small business in a real way, nothing is going to happen in the area of financing for small business.

That is one thing the government can do. It does not have to wait for two or three years. It can do it almost immediately. It is the government. It controls the regulations that govern the banking industry in Canada. That is something it can do right away.

In the government's last budget it created another impediment when it increased the taxes on all medium sized business that had at least $15 million in capital. We are not talking about small business in this group, but there are many small businesses that benefit from medium sized businesses having this kind of capital and this kind of revenue. It increased the taxes on that particular sector of medium sized business.

Now the Minister of Finance in his new work entitled "A new framework for economic policy" is of the opinion, and this is surprising, that income taxes and payroll taxes distort economic behaviour and stunt economic growth.

All he had to do was walk downtown and talk to a few small businesses and he would have got this in a moment without having to spend a lot of time pondering it. It is not a trade secret in the small business community that taxes hurt.

Nowhere are taxes more abundant than on small and medium sized businesses. This is the major deterrent to economic growth of small businesses and expansion and job creation. They have income tax, payroll tax, capital tax, sales tax, property tax, and who knows what other taxes.

If we take the ratio of taxes levied on a business in relation to the income of the business we find that small businesses are saddled with 30 per cent more taxes in comparison with larger firms. Payroll and local taxes hit small businesses particularly hard. They carry up to 44 per cent of the tax burden in this area while the megafirms carry some 28 per cent or less.

I just want to sum up now by saying that I stated in this House before that the biggest thing this government can do to help private sector job creation, to help private sector growth in the economy is get out of the pockets of business. In particular, that applies to small and medium size business. They are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

That is the area that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry can look at if they want the economy to grow. That is the area they should be looking at if they want to reach that magical 3 per cent deficit to GDP. That is the area they can look at to help small and medium size businesses. One place they

have to concentrate is lowering the tax levels and getting on the backs of the big financial institutions.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of points the hon. member mentioned. I acknowledge that certainly people in Canada want to work and people in Guelph-Wellington indeed want to work. They want jobs. No one wants to be on welfare, although that seems to be somewhat of an industry in the country these days.

The hon. member touched on the fact that the United States, Japan, Germany and one other country spend many more times on worker training than does business in Canada. I do not doubt that statistic for a moment but the fact is that by comparison the cost of doing business in those countries is many times less than it is in Canada.

The fact that probably our businesses are not spending an equal amount of money on training programs is that they cannot afford it. The taxation levels for small and medium sized business in this country are many times higher than what it is in the four countries the hon. member mentioned. The cost of doing business in this country with taxation in all its forms, property taxes, payroll taxes, is many times more than in other countries.

The fact is the other countries simply have more money to spend on training programs. They do not have a $40 billion deficit ratio to GDP that we have in Canada. They do not have a $535 billion debt which when ratioed out to the GDP is almost uncontrollable or we are going to have a terrible time making a dent in it. They do not have the financial problems Canada has.

The problems that Canada has with its financial house is a direct factor in the cost of doing business in this country particularly for small and medium sized business which invariably do not have the advantages the large mega-businesses do. They struggle to a far greater extent. They do not have the money to put into training programs.

There was a time in this country prior to a Liberal government which started this deficit and debt spiral some 25 years ago, when the cost of doing business made Canadian business extremely competitive in the world market. Canadian business was very profitable because we did not have these extreme taxation levels and cost of doing business. Those times are long gone.

Right now the biggest deterrent to training programs in this country is that the businesses simply cannot afford it. If we did not have the deficit and the debt, this country would be in fine shape.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will be monitoring the promises-if we can call them that-of the banking industry to see whether they are actually following through on them. I am not going to cross my fingers because I have heard this rhetoric from the banking industry for a number of years. It is always the small businessmen. When the sun is shining the banks will hand them an umbrella but when it starts to rain they are the first ones to take it away.

The hon. member knows very well that the big six do in fact control virtually all the business in the country. The hon. member also knows that the big six have the resources to get involved in a little bit of risk financing. I am sure they consider small businesses as high risk, otherwise they would not treat them as they do.

The hon. member also knows that the smaller banks do not have the kind of capital to get involved in the more risky loan portfolios like small business. That is why all the small businesses are pretty much obliged to deal with the big banking institutions, the big six. They really do not have too many choices.

The government should tell the banking industry: "Now listen. You folks are talking about rearranging your priorities when it comes to small business, rearranging the conditions under which you lend. You are doing these studies and you are going to come up with some good programs. You have admitted it has to be done, now what are you going to do about it? Are you really going to do something? Because if you do not we as a government are going to impose a few restrictions on you. You will not have such a monopoly in dealing with business in this country".

Clearly the government is going to have to hold some sort of a hammer over these guys in the banking industry. If not, they are simply not going to do anything no matter how much the government talks to them, no matter how many times their CEOs meet and say that yes, they have to be a little more gentle toward the small business interests. They are simply not going to change their practices they have followed since day one until the government holds a hammer over their heads to change their lending practices.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's presentation.

I purchased my first business when I was 18 years old. Throughout all of my life save for about five years I have been in and out of small business and consider myself somewhat of an entrepreneur. The definition of that as an entrepreneur through your life you have some winners and some losers but at the end of the day you hope you have more winners than losers. Fortunately I lucked out from hard work, but through all those years my biggest competitors were the bankers.

I listened to the hon. member talk about proposals and that the banks are going to do studies and they are going to talk about this and talk about that. They have been doing that for years.

I particularly remember the period of the great recession in early 1982 when the Bank of Commerce had a multimillion dollar television campaign with Anne Murray telling all small businesses in Canada that the Bank of Commerce was their friend. I was operating a business then and fortunately I was not really caught in the recession. One day I got a call from my banker who said: "Dick, we are going to cut your credit line in half". When I asked why, he said: "We have just been advised we have to raise some capital".

The banks can talk all they want about programs and plans. The government can talk all it wants about how much it is talking to the banks, but nothing is going to happen to help small business until the monopoly of the big five bankers in this country is threatened or broken up.

The hon. member said that the government has met with the CEOs of the major banks and they have promised to look at improving banking practices in relation to small business. That is fine, but my question is, improving banking practices or what? What kind of hammer is the government going to hold over these bankers to make sure they do?

If the government would dare to suggest to the big five who have this country in a monopolistic grip when it comes to finance, if it would threaten to open up the banking industry to private enterprise, to competition, to regional banks that would specialize in small business financing, that would be the biggest incentive for the banks to start looking seriously at small business. As long as the banks hold all the cards, as long as they are contributing millions of dollars to the two old line parties to help them with their election costs, they are never going to give up their monopoly and small business is never ever going to get any benefit or relief from the banking industry in this country.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act.

Before I start to speak about the quality of the bill, I want to make it clear that the government can take no credit for drafting the agreement. As much as it pains me, I have to acknowledge that the previous government and the people negotiating on its behalf did an excellent job on the agreement.

At the same time I will not hesitate to credit the present government for implementing this agreement by way of Bill C-36.

I am confused as to the display of schizophrenia on behalf of the government when back in June it introduced a couple of pieces of legislation dealing with aboriginal issues, namely Bills C-33 and C-34 which were terrible pieces of legislation and terrible agreements. Now in direct contrast it is introducing a bill that has a great deal of merit. I wonder how the present government can take such opposite views of agreements and still call it good legislation.

As an example, when we compare Bills C-33 and C-34 with the way Bill C-36 was introduced, on Bill C-36 there was plenty of time the analyse the legislation and the agreement to make reasoned, logical decisions. In contrast to that, Bills C-33 and C-34 were presented a very short time before debate. There was no time to analyse the two bills before they were debated in the House.

On Bill C-36, there was plenty of time to prepare a response to the bill and the agreement through a detailed analysis. On Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 as you know, Mr. Speaker, there was no time to prepare adequate responses. Once the bills were rammed through the House, we had time to come up with more reasons why those bills should not have gone through.

In contrast there was plenty of time to debate Bill C-36, which we really appreciated. Our party has debated it at length. It is good legislation. By contrast the Liberal government invoked closure on debate on Bill C-33 and Bill C-34. It devalued the democracy that was present in the House.

We appreciate the debate time we have had on Bill C-36. Bill C-36 is an excellent agreement, an excellent piece of legislation because there is finality to it. It actually reaches a conclusion. The amount of moneys payable under the agreement are set. They are predetermined. They will end at a particular date.

As opposed to that, in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 it is completely open-ended. It is a blank cheque piece of legislation. There is no finality to it. There are so many grey areas that we could be paying for the same thing over and over again for generations to come. We appreciate the finality that Bill C-36 has and we question the reasoning behind Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 that the government was so pleased about.

By contrast again, in Bill C-36 there was sound logical and reasonable solutions put into this agreement to solve the problem. Contrast in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 there was no reason, no logic, no sound solutions to the problem, just vague statements that left the opportunity for abuse over and over again and the cost to rise upward and upward and the payments to go on for generations.

Now that I have drawn a comparison between a good piece of legislation and a great agreement that we have in the House today with some terrible legislation, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 that the Liberals rammed through the House in June in order that they could break early and have a holiday over the summer and the minister of Indian affairs could go to the Yukon and proudly proclaim this agreement, I want to talk about Bill C-36 and why our party would support it.

Problems in this region of Manitoba began in the 1940s with the Lake Winnipeg regulation and the Churchill River diversion projects. These were huge hydroelectric projects initiated by Manitoba Hydro that flooded almost 12,000 acres of reserve

lands that were the occupied lands of the different Cree groups there. This represented about 10 per cent of reserve lands among five Indian bands.

In 1975 the Northern Flood Committee was established with representation of all five bands which of course included the Split Lake Cree band.

This committee was established to determine exactly how the bands affected by this hydroelectric project were to be compensated for the flooding of their lands and the negative impact that this had on aboriginal fishing, hunting, gathering and trapping, traditional activities in that part of the area among the Cree bands.

The work of the committee eventually lead to the creation of an economic development agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement known as the NFA in 1977. That was not a good agreement. The NFA was vague in its terms. It was very open-ended. It presented all sorts of opportunities for abuse of the compensation. It has cost the government well over $100 million because of the disastrous formulating of that agreement.

Bill C-36 is a result of the many serious problems that were experienced under the NFA between the bands, Manitoba Hydro, the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, problems which began only a year after the signing of the NFA in 1978 and carried through to 1988.

In 1992 the Auditor General reviewed the operation of the NFA and found a huge number of problems. He found that the terms and conditions of the NFA were terribly unclear. This resulted over a period of time in a large number of arbitration applications being put forward by the signatories over the years.

Just after the NFA was signed the terms and conditions were so clouded that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requested an extensive legal analysis of its obligations under the agreement. DIAND was very worried about this agreement and the implications it would cause for compensation and for provisions down the road. It requested this huge legal analysis so it could get its position a little bit clearer.

This resulted in a 72 page report being produced in 1983 and later a 200 page report being produced in 1987 outlining DIAND's obligations under the NFA.

One really has to wonder whether the people who put this NFA together were asleep at the switch when it was signed and what the government was doing when it was being put together. In 1983 and 1987 the government had to go into this huge legal process to find out exactly what its obligations were under the NFA. One wonders who the negotiators were representing. It also brings into question their competence.

By way of example of the obligations of the government that were unclear, the NFA appears to be definitive when it states that Canada is responsible to supply drinking water to the bands. Manitoba Hydro was supposed to pick up 50 per cent of the cost of doing this. It just so happens that to date Canada has spent $88 million on this obligation to supply pure drinking water and Manitoba Hydro has not picked up one cent of this cost. We are talking about $44 million here.

When this bill was before the committee on aboriginal affairs we discovered that an arbitrator was still trying to determine if Manitoba is responsible to pay 50 per cent of Canada's cost of supplying drinking water to the five bands. We have the Northern Flood Agreement that is or appears to be very definitive that there was a 50 per cent cost sharing between Canada and Manitoba Hydro. It ends up that Canada has paid the whole shot up to now, $88 million. There is an arbitrator still trying to determine if Manitoba Hydro was responsible to pick up 50 per cent of the cost. It gives an idea how unclear in many areas the NFA was. It was actually a very bad agreement for Canada to be involved in.

This example I just gave on the drinking water clearly highlights the uncertainty which exists in the terms and conditions of the NFA. That is why it is such a good thing that we are able to break out of it and sign this particular agreement with the Split Lake Cree Nation.

The Auditor General determined that the NFA was designed to be implemented through a co-operative approach. Instead, he found that the NFA was being implemented through an adversarial approach. This adversarial condition was brought about by the cloudiness of the agreement and people thinking that they could take advantage of this. In fact, there was every opportunity for them to take advantage of it.

As a matter of fact, as of November 1991 signatories to the NFA had filed a total of 150 claims for arbitration. At that time there were 32 outstanding claims where Canada was either the respondent or the claimant. This adversarial process is frustrating to the bands, it is frustrating to the government and it is frustrating to Manitoba Hydro.

It is a process which of course is expensive to the taxpayer because the taxpayers end up paying the shot for the legal costs on this.

Because the parties are retaining legal counsel to battle their claim before an arbitrator, the Canadian taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for the federal government's lawyers, the Manitoba Hydro lawyers, the province of Manitoba and the bands involved, the signators on the native side of it.

I can clearly say that the taxpayer may never know the true cost of the Northern Flood Agreement. It is that bad and it is that expensive.

The Auditor General estimated that the NFA had cost the federal government $115 million and up between the time it was signed in 1977 and March 31, 1991. This was an agreement that was supposed to solve the problems. It created problems and it created a huge obligation to the Canadian taxpayers. However, the Auditor General said that this was strictly an estimate because in fact-I love this statement-the Department of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development had not captured the entire cost.

Within his recommendations in the 1992 report, the Auditor General stated that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must capture all NFA associated costs, a huge obligation for the taxpayers of Canada for this disaster of an agreement, the Northern Flood Agreement.

In all, the NFA was not clear in its terms and conditions and this led to various claims being filed for arbitration between the parties which would sign the agreement. This led to an expensive and certainly unworkable agreement.

In 1989 negotiations began between the parties to address the severe difficulties found within the Northern Flood Agreement. The negotiators were seeking band specific agreements. I think that was a good first step.

Bill C-36 is just such an agreement reached with the Split Lake Cree band. I want to say that as a participant in the committee process on this bill, I had the opportunity to talk with many members of the Split Lake Cree band. I was very encouraged by their determination to resolve this thing and get it so that there is some definite finality to this bill in order that the vague, grey areas of the NFA can be put aside. They can get on with life and make some definite plans for the future well-being of their community.

I commend the Split Lake Cree band for having the courage to break away from the Manitoba flood committee and negotiate this final settlement with Manitoba Hydro and the provincial and federal governments. They faced a lot of adverse criticism from the other four bands that were the original signatories for breaking away and wanting to get the thing done. I commend them for what they did. It was a very courageous act.

Apparently work is currently under way with the four remaining bands to try to draft similar agreements to this in the coming year.

There is again a lot of resistance to it because of the blank cheque opportunities in the NFA. It is incumbent on the government that it pursue coming up with agreements for those four remaining bands as quickly as possible. It is going to solve the problems in that area and it will save the Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money and problems.

I am not going to be as long as the former speaker but I want to talk briefly about some of the really good things in this bill. Specifically under this agreement, the Split Lake Cree will receive about $47 million over five years. They will receive some 34,000 acres of new reserve land and some 2,800 acres of fee simple land.

This is good because they will know what their land reserve will be. They will have this money for economic development in setting up infrastructures within their communities and they will be able to put a business plan together.

It is interesting to note also that the settlement moneys will be transferred to a trust fund in the name of the Split Lake Cree. These funds will be administered by a trust company in order to guarantee accountability. This is going to ensure that the band has the utmost flexibility in determining where and how the money will be spent within its community. In speaking with the Split Lake Cree I believe it is going to be spent with due diligence and accountability.

The 2,800 acres of fee simple lands will be subject to property taxation. Any business originating from those lands is also taxable. I like that. We have a form of taxation that is going to help the economic base.

I am also pleased to note that this agreement was put to a referendum in the band. Individuals in the band voted 93 per cent in favour of the agreement. I like that as well because that is the democratic process. It is important to utilize such a mechanism in order to allow the input of the rank and file band members since this settlement agreement has a direct effect upon their lives and the lives of their children.

Further Bill C-36 was examined by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which examination ended on October 6. This bill was reported back to the House without amendment. It was a good piece of legislation. It is a good agreement. Committee members found that the bill sufficiently addresses the problems found within the northern flood agreement. Members hope that Bill C-36 will adequately settle the grievances arising out of the flooding of reserve lands.

The Reform Party supports the settling of legitimate Indian grievances. This indeed is a legitimate grievance. I know this new agreement will work a lot better than the NFA. I hope that similar settlement legislation relating to other affected bands will be forthcoming.

I have no hesitation and the Reform Party has no hesitation in supporting Bill C-36.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Liberal Government, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our country is drowning in deficit and haemorrhaging in debt. Yet day after day the Liberals jump to their feet to proudly announce that Canada is the best country in the world to live in.

When one compares Canada with other countries in the world, there is no contest. Even if things were two or three times as bad in Canada it would still be the best country in the world to live in.

I would like to suggest a different test for the Liberals to ponder. Compare how Canada is now with all these problems and how it could be were it not for 25 years of irresponsible Tory and Liberal governments. That is the real test.

By the way, as of this morning our national debt stands at $536,017,269,801.89. Shame on that irresponsible government.

[Royal Commission On Aboriginal Peoples, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this report will come in a year late at best. It will have a cost overrun of some $48 million. As the minister indicated a couple of days ago, they probably will not be able to implement some of the recommendations by the time they get it anyway.

In spite of all of this, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apparently thought this was something to joke about when he said the other day that maybe he would like to have a job on the commission but that he would have to stand in line.

My question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is how does he ever expect the Canadian people to regain some trust in the government when he treats such a serious matter like this with such irresponsible statements?

[Royal Commission On Aboriginal Peoples, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was projected to cost $10 million. Now in fact it will come in at a staggering $58 million. At best the report will come in a year past its deadline and there is strong evidence of abuse in the $8 million research budget.

In light of the government's promise to cut government spending and in light of the government's promise of accountability, does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development really expect the taxpayer to happily swallow the costs of the commission simply because the minister claims it was started by the previous government?