Mr. Speaker, by way of reminder, every four years, like every member country of the United Nations, Canada undergoes a review of its human rights record and we receive comments from our peers. So it is strange to hear the hon. members talk about transparency and international reputation.
Let me continue. The most recent review, called the Universal Periodic Review, took place in 2009. You just have to read it to see that the same comments come up time and time again from various member countries about first nations' living conditions, about the situation of aboriginal women and girls, about access to education and drinking water. It is appalling.
As UN member countries are condemning this very embarrassing situation on the international diplomatic stage, the Government of Canada's response is to require first nations to provide receipts for per diem allowances. We detect some unease from the members opposite from time to time, perhaps even some remorse—and frankly I hope such is the case—in the face of mistakes that are theirs alone, such as their inability to manage the political, economic and humanitarian problems that aboriginal peoples are experiencing.
Such a feeling of remorse would be appropriate after the release of the Auditor General's report in 2011, a report that followed 16 other audit reports that, for the most part, have remained on the shelf gathering dust. That report from the Auditor General pointed out that the basic standard of living of first nations is getting consistently worse. The report described an ongoing deterioration that future generations will pay for.
By basic standard of living, we mean access to healthy food, to housing and to drinking water. We in Canada live in a G8 country. I cannot take this anymore. This is a shame that we can no longer keep to ourselves, let alone forget. The whole world is now aware of this unbelievable situation. The Attawapiskat tragedy, which is now known around the world, is also a tragedy, a liability, a disgrace for all Canadians. This chamber holds 308 people who are responsible for it, for we surely are. We are parliamentarians and it is in our power to ensure that Canada is not considered by the international media—as the hon. member suggested earlier—as a country that puts up with this absolutely obscene poverty.
I really hope some hon. members are uncomfortable, because this is about humanity and responsibility. We are all responsible for the countless mistakes of the last centuries and the last decades. Today, however, government members, including those here with us today, must acknowledge their responsibility for the fact that, in recent years, the living conditions of first nations have not been given the absolute priority they deserve. As Sheila Fraser emphasized, that very neglect is one of the factors that led to Attawapiskat.
Accepting this responsibility does not mean dumping it onto others, and certainly not onto the first nations themselves. Let us not make the victims into the villains.
My thanks to my colleague who is reminding me that I have to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette.
Instead of accepting the recommendations of the UN and the Auditor General, instead of recognizing that this is a serious problem, though one we can solve, government members, by introducing and passing Bill C-27, are choosing to put the blame onto aboriginal communities under the guise of requiring a transparency that their own ministers have difficulty observing, to say the least.
Instead of reading the multitude of reports, produced both in Canada and internationally, on the situation in first nations, the government is grabbing onto some old information fished up by a lobby group—about one administrator's salary in one community—and making it into a bill that it thinks is worthy of being a government program. An incident blown out of proportion by media in search of a scandal—not that there is any shortage of scandals here—becomes a policy of the Government of Canada. As a way to govern a country, that would be funny if the consequences were not so unfortunate.
The requirements in this bill are useless, because they already exist in a useful, adequate form. They are harmful because they impose a heavy burden on communities that few other jurisdictions have to bear.
They leave the bitter taste of colonialism in the mouth, just like the Indian Act. Where is the meaningful consultation and co-operation with first nations? Why is there none? Of course, it is because the government is doing this for their own good, as it has always done.
When you read this bill, you see paternalism on every line. The minister gets the power to withhold funds from communities, funds that are necessary to improve the standard of living of the people living there. What is more, anyone, from the community or not, has the right to go to Superior Court to ask that a community disclose its financial statements. Communities are also required to publish those financial statements online, though only half of aboriginal homes have an Internet connection.
As for families whose income is below the poverty line, the vast majority of which still live on reserves, 36% of these households have Internet access. We have to wonder who this measure is intended for. Is it really to ensure that the first nations are more transparent and accountable to their members? Or is it to make it easier for researchers at Sun News to find scandals in aboriginal communities?
This bill is a yet another way to divert attention. They are on the hunt for corrupt band leaders—the ultimate caricature—to hide the mistakes of this government and its predecessors.
What is most shocking in all of this is that audit powers already exist without the need for new legislation. The first nations already have a number of obligations to disclose financial information pursuant to the Indian Act—what a great title—and pursuant to a series of related laws and regulations.
The Governor in Council already has the power to allow the first nations to manage their revenues. He can issue regulations to make this permission effective. The Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations already requires a yearly audit of the financial statements and for the Auditor General's report to be posted in conspicuous places.
Once again, the funding agreements that the department signs with each first nation already include all kinds of requirements, including the salaries of elected and unelected officials, their fees and travel expenses. It is all examined by an independent auditor. Most existing funding agreements are conditional on the delivery of this audited data, with the involvement of the department, if necessary. Furthermore, these days, the department's focus is on prevention and ongoing sustainability, instead of departmental intervention.
In her 2011 report, which looks at the 16 previous reports, the Auditor General stated that the reporting requirements on communities have been too burdensome in recent years. In 2002, the Auditor General formally recommended that the federal government—careful, this will be difficult—“consult with first nations”, to review reporting requirements to determine information needs.
Do we truly need this information?
At the time, the federal government required some 200 annual reports from aboriginal communities, a good number of which were thrown in the recycling bin before being looked at. In 2010, the federal government was still requiring tens of thousands of annual reports, and that number continues to increase.
Today, the government is proposing to expand this huge operation of collecting and producing data, contrary to every recommendation made in the past 10 years.
This zeal, this enthusiasm for audits—which we should consider passing on to the riding office of the President of the Treasury Board the next time he organizes an international summit—is not limited to first nations' activities and services. It extends to the entities deemed to be under its control, such as partnerships, enterprises, associations, projects and organizations, which often receive no federal funding and which we have no business auditing or regulating.
This requirement will create serious problems for the competitiveness of these entities, which are not public organizations but will be subject to public audits. If an enterprise is managed by a first nation—even though it does not receive a dime of the first nation's federal funding—the government will force the enterprise to disclose the details of its finances on the Internet, to the delight of its competitors, who will expect nothing less.
By creating this disadvantage for first nation enterprises, the government is creating an economic climate that is not conducive to the creation of jobs and initiatives, or the economic development of aboriginal communities.
Partisanship aside, I would like to invite my colleagues opposite, who have adopted the mantra of economic development and job creation, to reconsider this measure, which ignores the different types of first nations' initiatives.
I respectfully point out that this type of measure jeopardizes jobs in a depressed economic area. I am not saying, especially as the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, that I can be considered an expert on aboriginal affairs. However, like many of my fellow Canadians, I listen to the media, I read the papers, and I am aware of the inequality that greatly troubles most Canadians.
Our relationship with the first nations is dysfunctional. It needs help. It is as though the government is trying to make us fill out a form to prove that we have health insurance when we are at the emergency department.
