Bill C-27 (Historical)

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations

This enactment enhances the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member, the same one I posed to the New Democratic Party.

It is about the obligation of the House of Commons to consult and work with first nations. Many would ultimately argue that the government did in fact drop the ball on this issue, that it was trying to take an issue it believed it might be able to score some political points on but where it put little effort into actually doing what it was supposed to do, which was to work with the first nations leadership before actually introducing the legislation.

Could the member inform the House of any consultation done prior to the introduction of the bill to the House of Commons?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of discussion about the bill in the previous Parliament, when it was Bill C-575. At that time, the House prorogued and the bill was not passed. It has been brought forward again in this Parliament. There has been quite a bit of consultation with chiefs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. There have been opportunities for dialogue, discussion and some debate. If we look back on the record, we will find that there has been a fair number of hours spent on the bill. Is it enough? Is it ever enough? All bills could enjoy more debate and dialogue if there were only more time.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on a point that has been mentioned several times, specifically, that some businesses with ties to first nations will be forced to share some very sensitive information.

In the business and finance community, certain information cannot be disclosed to the public, because it could prove to be a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint. Does the member think this measure could put those businesses at a disadvantage? Could this measure deprive aboriginal communities of certain sums of money because businesses do not want some information to be shared?

The government is calling for improved conditions for aboriginals, but this measure will do exactly the opposite, since it could scare businesses away. What does the member think of the fact that this could reduce the amount of money available to these communities?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that in any given situation that involves public dollars there is disclosure and all companies are aware of that. If they are going to bid on government contracts, they will have their dollars examined at one point in the process of awarding contracts as to whether they are the most acceptable bid. With all due respect to the member, I suggest it is not unlike what happened with the first nation contracts dealing with the private sector. Disclosure is part and parcel of the bidding and awarding process.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem I have with the narrative coming from across the floor is on this issue of the reporting burden. In one sense, we know that one of the central tenets of self-governance is that the conversation take place vis-à-vis accountability and transparency, and that it take place between the government and its constituents. The bill would help to facilitate that and furthermore, the reporting burdens would actually decrease if the communities put this out to their constituents for more flexible funding arrangements and a greater, stronger relationship.

Can the member talk about how the bill would actually lead to a reduction in reporting burdens for first nation communities?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all we can say on that is that we would enhance the reporting that is happening now. The enhancement would give more information to people about how money is spent and that is all good. Whether in government or in opposition, we want to know where the dollars go and this would help tell us where the dollars go.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations. This long title is quite pompous. The short title is the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. That sort of title should make us wary of the bill’s intent since, as usual, the Conservative government is targeting a specific, well-defined section of the population.

There is one paradoxical reason for my interest in this subject: I represent a riding where there are no first nations communities and no first nations people. According to the official data from the latest census, conducted by Statistics Canada in 2011, only 5 persons in 100,000 reported speaking an aboriginal language. That was 5, not 5,000. In comparison, there were 345 individuals who reported speaking German, for example, which is not traditionally a language that stands out in Statistics Canada’s figures.

That leads me to another remark: we know that, as of the latest census, the Conservative government abolished the long form census, technically known as form 2B. We can question the accuracy of the current figures, in relation to historic Canadian census figures, and of the conclusions based on these figures. The precision is no longer there because, even though the official statistics say that only 5 people in my riding of over 100,000 inhabitants speak an aboriginal language, I do think there are probably more than that.

And that is why I am interested in this issue. In a riding like mine, without any first nations, the perception of first nations communities is even more important, because it forms the basis for the idea of a nation—the Canadian nation—that wants to include various groups and ethnicities.

Canada is still quite young, as it was created in 1867. That is like one year compared to the multi-millennial history of some European nations. It is quite young. One of the important things in creating a nation is to fight prejudice and generalizations, and we must refrain from targeting specific groups and accusing them, with no evidence, of mismanaging public money. That is what we are talking about today at third reading of this bill.

Another aspect that worries me personally is that of the protection of personal information. Over the years in Canada we have been able to build legislation that protects personal privacy. This bill is something new, because it would disclose information—publicly and even on the Internet—that is truly personal. This kind of personal information is not requested of other groups, but will be specifically required from certain chosen, targeted groups. That also reminds me of a private member’s bill, Bill C-377, which similarly targets a specific group, in that case unions. Through such bills the government is trying to increase red tape and create unnecessary work in order to target these groups. That is the complete opposite of being inclusive and giving people a chance, assuming that people are not dishonest and organizations are not out to commit fraud.

If anyone wants to prove that a specific organization or group is committing fraud or misusing funds, it is up to the individual who makes that allegation to do so.

One of the amendments introduced by my NDP colleagues on the committee was to eliminate this additional burden that is being imposed solely on first nations, not on the population at large, as some of my colleagues have said. It is also important to emphasize that, under this act, the minister would be able to eliminate grants made to certain aboriginal groups based solely on speculation that funds had been misused. Once again, a mechanism is being permitted without the minister having to prove that there has been any misuse of public funds. Based solely on suspicion, he could cut grants and money that, as we saw in Attawapiskat, are sorely needed by the various communities.

Consistent with that logic, a number of reports will be required. In her speech this morning, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said that some organizations had to prepare more than 200 reports, which vastly increases the amount of work they have to do and artificially creates work for people who could be providing services to the public.

Do people really read all those reports, or are they merely there to generate work artificially? That is the question I would ask. Those communities need schools and drinking water. The people in my riding cannot even imagine what life can be like in an aboriginal community, because they have access to basic services. Consequently, they do not understand this gap within a single nation, where we have, on the one hand, people who have no drinking water or basic services and, on the other, those who enjoy a relatively decent life.

One may indeed wonder whether people really read all these reports and whether they are not the paradox of the Conservative government, which, as we have seen in recent budgets, is making systematic cuts to services. The main argument, if not the only argument, is that they want to reduce the needless workload involved in those services. Paradoxically, the government is creating an additional workload for groups that have been specifically targeted. This is nothing but red tape that few people can understand. In practice, only accountants will be able to understand the actual management implications of figures on certain lines of a financial report, and only they will be able to determine whether those figures are genuinely indicative of mismanagement.

Once again, I still tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, to consider that organizations, by default, are not poor managers. Aboriginal organizations are not fraudulent, and it is up to those who claim the contrary to prove it, not to create an artificial workload for all the communities, associations and entities that manage public funds.

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

Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that the mayors in his riding, the premier of his province or anyone in any level of government must provide only their personal financial information, namely their salaries and work-related expenses?

Is the member saying that this does not apply to the other levels of government, especially when, in certain cases, first nations governments receive almost all of their funds from the federal government?

The only real question is this: can the government in question provide the financial documents that include salaries and expenses, and make them available to the public? I cannot imagine the member saying no.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some financial information is already available to the minister. It is not true that there is no information and no transparency.

By asking for more information than is necessary, information that could not be obtained through an investigation—for example if misappropriation or fraud is suspected—the person being questioned is placed in the position of being considered guilty of fraud or misappropriation from the outset. That brings me back to the idea of perception.

To build a nation, to build Canada, we must not target specific groups. When specific groups are asked to provide additional information that other groups do not have to provide, people—such as those in my riding who do not have any contact with aboriginal peoples—develop a negative perception that is not in tune with reality. When we have no contact with a group, there is a tendency to have preconceptions and to make assumptions. A responsible government must fight that.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for his speech.

In his opinion, will the paternalistic tone of this bill appeal to first nations and improve our relationship with them in any way?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly not. This tone will not result in greater confidence.

We want the first nations to have more control over their own destiny and we want to see more economic development in their communities.

My colleagues raised the following argument: if other companies are given an unfair competitive advantage over a first nations business, one reaction may be to move that business outside the first nations sphere. Such action could produce the opposite of the intended effect, or in other words, it could result in less economic development in first nations communities and the relocation of certain companies. These companies could generate revenue and economic development for people who need it and who need schools and basic services—things that the people of my riding take for granted.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often play populist politics. They react to specific incidents and then introduce legislation. This is no way to manage a country and create laws.

What does the hon. member think about the approach the Conservatives are taking by reacting to incidents reported in the newspapers and then creating legislation that applies to all aboriginal communities in Canada? Does he think this is the right way to legislate?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, even though he sometimes tries to take my speaking time, which is perfectly natural.

He mentioned populist politics, but in this case, we are also talking about lobbying. Some groups that take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of taxpayers have a certain agenda, and the government is reacting to that agenda. There is probably a populist aspect to it, but there is also a lobbying aspect, which, in my opinion, is inconsistent with this type of bill. Instead, the government should be seeking to improve our relationship with aboriginal communities.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-27 today, after it was examined by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The government says the purpose of this bill is to improve the financial transparency of the first nations. I am going to ignore the irony of the situation, where we have the government talking about financial transparency. Everyone is aware of how grotesque that situation is without any comment being needed.

So this bill is supposed to enhance the financial transparency of the first nations by making it mandatory that their financial statements be prepared and disclosed. The information to be disclosed includes the details of the annual remuneration paid by a first nation, and by any entity that it controls, to its chief and each of its councillors, acting in their professional and personal capacity.

In addition to the obligation to report the salaries paid to chiefs and band councillors, the bill makes it mandatory to disclose complete audit reports and publish those documents on the first nation’s website for 10 years.

On this side of the House, we consider many points in this bill to be problematic, and I think the members who spoke before me have summarized them very well. For that reason, I am instead going to focus not on the content of this bill, but on the administrative burden it represents for many first nations communities.

First, the band councils already submit audited annual financial statements under agreements with the government. This bill therefore serves no purpose other than to make everything even more complicated.

According to the figures in the Auditor General’s 2006 report, a first nation has to produce, on average, 200 reports a year, when some communities have populations of 700 or 800 people—fewer than 1,000 people. This may raise some eyebrows.

If there still is not enough transparency, when first nations communities are being made to write an average of two reports a week, I would venture to suggest that the government perhaps needs to rethink the entire system. That would be more useful and more effective than adding another report on top of all the rest.

I watched the speech the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar gave when she introduced the bill; she had introduced the previous version of this bill in the last Parliament. According to her, the communities “go to great lengths to make this information available to community members. They display it on their community websites. They feature it in householder mailings. They post it in band offices.”

So the member is saying that chiefs and band councils are completely aware of the importance of transparency toward the members of their communities, and in fact they are already doing this very well without needing to be reminded by a humiliating and coercive bill.

A number of witnesses, including John Paul, a member of the Membertou First Nation, testified at the committee and also confirmed this. That witness told us: “…transparency, and disclosure of information...is very important to our leadership.... Over decades our community has provided full disclosure of our complete audit, and more recently on our website,...the complete details of compensation to all the members of council.”

I am going to digress for a moment. What about communities that, like those in my area, do not have Internet access at home? They will be forced to disclose information for 10 years on the community's website even though the community does not have Internet access. That is one of my questions that nobody has answered.

What have we learned from my Conservative colleague who introduced the bill in the last Parliament? We have learned that the chiefs and first nations elected officials recognize the value in ensuring the actions and decisions of elected officials are clearly visible to all and to the community. They recognize that their citizens share a fundamental right to know how their money is being spent. In fact, several first nations go to great lengths to make this information available to community members. Therefore, why is there a need for this humiliating and useless bill?

The bill finds its roots and origins in the racist assumption that all first nations are either corrupt or incompetent. I reject both of those assumptions. We need to stop those assumptions for good.

Band councils are already accountable to the government and they get the information out to their members. Why are we debating this bill? Is it because someone in the government decided that a 201st annual report would be amusing?

In the 2006 Auditor General's report, it was mentioned that 96% of first nations file their 200 annual reports on time, without any problem. The Auditor General's report did not include any kind of comment or criticism. Everything was fine. Only 1.7% of all first nations were put into third party management by the government because of financial management problems.

Are we talking about a chronic lack of transparency on the part of first nations? No, quite the contrary.

If one were to look at numbers and statistics, one would see there is nothing wrong with first nations' financial transparency. Of all first nations in this country, 96% submit their audits on time, without comments or criticism from the auditor. The lack of transparency is so minimal that I wonder why we are discussing this bill.

The truth is that all these reports, most of which are not even used by federal organizations, are a waste of time for first nations band councils, which could use that time to meet their population's needs. Yet, today we find ourselves debating the usefulness of a 201st annual report for our communities. Abitibi-Témiscamingue has five Algonquin First Nation communities, and some of them are seen as models of sound management and leading examples of development.

Take, for example, the Abitibiwinni band on the Pikogan reserve near Amos. Chief Kistabish and the council work very hard to ensure their community's prosperity and sustainability. Incidentally, they recently signed a historic agreement with their neighbours and a mining company. The Abitibiwinni band works in concert with stakeholders in regional development. Getting to this point took years of mutual trust. Now, the government is trying to stir up suspicion and misunderstanding.

Our Algonquin communities in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have nothing to gain from such a bill.

Other examples include Eagle Village from the Anishnabe Nation. Chief Madeleine Paul and her band council work so hard to ensure a healthy and wealthy community for future generations. She has to deal with the opportunities brought by a rare earth mining development and the danger of having Lake Kipawa polluted if things are not done properly. The Timiskaming First Nation and the new chief, Terence McBride, are also striving to seek new partnerships for their development.

I sincerely believe that there are other priorities. As we have seen, the financial transparency of first nations is not an issue in the vast majority of cases. Most are aware of the need for transparency and are already being transparent.

Most of my colleagues who have already spoken mentioned this, but I would like to talk about something that is extremely shocking to us: the lack of consultation with the first nations on this bill.

On a related note, and to conclude my speech, I would like to quote article 4 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

I remind all of my hon. colleagues that it is truly worthwhile to visit the first nations communities to see just how financially transparent they are, how proud we can be of how these communities are managed, and just how interested community members are in what is going on. A great many people go to band council meetings to find out exactly how their money is being spent. If we compare that to attendance at municipal council meetings in non-aboriginal cities and towns, I think that we can be proud of our aboriginal communities. People are interested in what is being done with their money, and these council leaders do their jobs diligently and provide all the information. It makes absolutely no sense to demand a 201st annual report, when they are already doing everything they can.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to put a question to my colleague, whom I congratulate on her speech.

The Conservatives often talk about red tape. They say they have to eliminate it as much as possible, but when the time comes for action, they do exactly the opposite. Bill C-377 generates even more red tape for the unions. And now the government is generating even more red tape for aboriginal people as well.

What can my colleague tell us about the Conservatives' doublespeak? When the time comes to take action, it does exactly the opposite and generates more red tape for communities.