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

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Table the budget that it was in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he is asking for the tabling of the document. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the accord.

If government members or New Democratic members were to read the document, they would see that it is a document that the House of Commons should never have torn up, that it should have respected and acted upon it. It would have dealt with not only financial issues but a wide variety of issues. This is something on which Paul Martin, as prime minister, working in consultation with leaders of our first nations communities, was able to come up with a consensus and bring to the House of Common, which meant that there was widespread support for this document. That cannot be said, especially when it comes to consulting, with regard to the government of the day. That is why I say that it distinguishes a big difference between the Paul Martin era of governance versus what we see today.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for leave to table the Kelowna accord.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

Those watching this debate at home may be scratching their heads about the title of the bill. Canadians know that if there is one thing the government has failed on, it is accountability and transparency. The Conservatives attack every group in the country that does not agree with their right-wing agenda and they enforce transparency and accountability rules that they refuse to follow.

We only need remind ourselves of the $50 million spent in the G8-G20 debacle in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. We are now debating the fact that the government spent millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars on a botched F-35 process that did not go out to public tender. The government has no credibility with regard to accountability and transparency. Canadians are right to be concerned about this. Certainly first nations communities have almost unanimously rejected the proposal before the House today.

A concern that we and many leaders in first nations communities have is the gathering of more power in the minister's office. We see this as a trend with the government. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is telling museums how to curate. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wants to be the sole arbitrator on who is allowed to come to our country and who is not. The Minister of Public Safety wants to look at emails. Now, with this legislation. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be allow to withhold funds to first nations communities if these onerous accountability and disclosure rules were not followed the way in which the legislation would require them to do.

This is the kind of thing the government does routinely. Whether it is an NGO, union or first nations community, the government looks for ways to keep these groups under the burden of massive accountability and disclosure regimes in order to hamstring them.

There are real issues in first nations communities, which first nations have brought up with the government. They and we on this side of the House expect the government to work with first nations communities to solve these problems and not just impose arbitrary rules on them, rules that are already in place. First nations communities are some of the most transparent organizations in the country and the rules are already on the books. However, what is not on the books is the fact that the government has failed first nations communities. It has failed to discuss issues and engage with first nations communities. It cannot simply impose these requirements on communities that have their own systems and governance, which are extremely transparent.

I also want to discuss the fact that while the government refuses to address key issues in first nations communities, in some cases it requires the governance of those communities to, for example, post private information on websites. How does this enhance accountability, especially when the First Nations Regional Health Survey found that only 51% of first nations homes had Internet access and that dropped to 36% in homes with incomes under $25,000, the majority of which is on reserves?

That speaks to the issue of poverty and the lack of economic development and the lack of meaningful engagement on the part of the government with first nations communities to address the key concerns.

The government has told the management of band councils that it has to run through a million more hoops, put its information on a website in order to allow members to properly peruse the financial statements of first nations communities, when by and large the majority of the members on reserves would not be able to access that information online anyway. It begs the question as to how serious the government really is about this issue and what the real motivations are behind this kind of bill. We see this time and time again. The government uses one small example and casts a shadow over an entire organization, or an entire group or an entire nation in this case.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, another right-wing Conservative-friendly group, likes to make outrageous claims about first nations salaries. The average salary for chiefs is $60,000 and the average salary for councillors is $31,000. Fifty per cent of chiefs earn less than $60,000 and only five per cent earn more than $100,000. We are not talking about a system of financial abuse here, but this is the spin that gets put on this to justify this kind of legislation.

It is also important to look at this in the context of other legislative bodies in our country. For example, in Nova Scotia summaries of ministers' expenses are located at the legislative library for public viewing. In the Northwest Territories the government only publishes travel expenses of ministers and does not require salary disclosure of elected officials or senior public servants.

More important, the rules are already in place that very much adjudicate the fulsome transparency that is required, that first nations communities expect for themselves. These requirements are strong and muscular and they also require communities to make these disclosures available to members.

What is confusing is the government has not really answered a question. If the government's intent is to make these disclosures more available to members, then we can have that discussion. However, nowhere in this have we had that discussion, especially if the way the delivery of this public information is online when roughly only 36% of those on reserves can access the Internet. That is not a plan for more widespread access to this information.

The government is not really being serious about this issue and part of the reason is because the information is already available. Under the current requirements, first nations must submit to an annual audited consolidated financial statement for the public funds provided for them. These include salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials. The latter includes unelected positions such as those of executive director, band manager, senior program director and manager. First nations are also required to release these statements to their membership.

We have heard throughout the day that rules are on the books right now for proper disclosure, but that this is about making it accessible to the membership. First, the rules are already in place to make this information available and accessible to the membership and this legislation does not nearly address the key concerns of the communities.

The fact that the minister himself or herself would have the ability to arbitrarily withhold funds for schools, for social services, for water is unacceptable to us on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member for Davenport. He is kind of a Mini-Me version of the member for Timmins—James Bay. He tried his best to figure out from Davenport what would be applicable to first nations communities in many vast regions of the country. He would know, or he should, that the government, just by way of example, invested more than $80 million into state-of-the-art Internet service for communities covering Northern Ontario, which is an area larger than most European countries. We understand there are structural challenges and with respect to the bill, there are alternatives for supplying the information.

My question is in respect to his word “adjudicate”. The fact is that this information is not directly accessible by community members from their community. That creates the issue of self-governance. It is a conversation that needs to take place between the citizens living in a first nations community and their chief and council. It gets the minister out of it, which deals with the member's issue of gathering of power in the minister's office.

How can he reconcile his statements with the reality that the bill reflects the desires and wishes of first nations constituents asking this of their chief and council?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental ways in which communities access and get accountability is through dialogue and structures that are in place that are agreed upon by the community and not imposed upon them by the government. This is a huge issue. It is a historic problem and the government stepped right in that very same quagmire.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked about the possibility of tabling the Kelowna accord. I realize I did not get the support to do that. However, it is also important for us to note that there was an aboriginal round table in regard to the Kelowna accord in 2004-05. It has a lot of support information in it.

Could my colleague talk about how important it is to take a better approach at consulting prior to introducing legislation? With Bill C-27, the consulting seemed to have been done after the bill was introduced.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that the government's record on consultation means that it phones up some of its friends, gets a consensus and then imposes legislation with time allocation, rushing it through saying that it has properly consulted Canadians. This is a sham.

On our side, we introduced over a dozen amendments to the legislation in committee. Not one amendment to the bill from the NDP caucus was accepted or considered by the government. That is not broad consultation with Canadians. That is the government imposing its understanding of what is appropriate for first nations. It is the same paternalistic approach that governments of Canada have done with first nations throughout our history. It is not the way to go and it is not the way an NDP government would go.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this House to speak to the issues that are of concern to the people of Timmins—James Bay. I am particularly interested in speaking to Bill C-27.

I represent communities across the vast region of northern Ontario, and many of my communities are ground zero for the dysfunction in the relationship between the federal government and first nations.

In Kashechewan First Nation, we had two mass evacuations within one year. Not only the nation was shocked, but the world was shocked by the horrific conditions in Attawapiskat last year. Children in Attawapiskat, in a fight to get a basic grade school, had to take their fight all the way to the United Nations. We are talking about a very broken relationship. We talk about accountability. Accountability is a fundamental of re-establishing that relationship.

From my work within first nations and as a member of Parliament, I think that if the government were serious about addressing the fundamental dysfunction, it would start to shine the light of accountability within the Department of Indian Affairs, first and foremost. I have seen a black hole of accountability in that department. It shocks me that government after government continues on with the same broken old colonial system.

Getting basic numbers from Indian Affairs is an issue. The Conservatives talk about bands posting numbers. We are talking about budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars that have no accountability mechanisms to the people who should be receiving that accountability: the communities.

For example, I was trying to find out why we had such a lack of construction for schools. I was a school board trustee for the Northeastern Catholic District School Board, a little rural school board with some 15 schools spread over 400 kilometres.

Rural school board trustees have the same principles as trustees in a city like Toronto or Vancouver. They have to follow the rules. The rules are written. Literally they are the law of the land, because when children walk into a school, they have a set of rights. They do not even know what those rights are, but those rights are guaranteed in law—for example, the guarantee of a class size ratio, how much funding per pupil, how much funding to be set aside for teachers' salaries. The actual size of the classroom is written into law. Those things are all written in the laws of each of the provinces, and the funding is within ring fencing. Ring fencing is a fundamental principle of accountability.

For example, it would be impossible for the community of London, Ontario, to call its school board and tell the trustees that they are not getting a school, that the community is taking it because it has to give higher salaries to some of its staff, or that they cannot have the school because the community will be fixing some roads this year. That would be illegal.

That happens in the world of Indian Affairs all the time. The basic principle of ring fencing does not exist at Indian Affairs, because it does not want it to exist. What does that mean? Between 1999 and 2007, $579 million was taken out of the capital facilities and maintenance program at Indian Affairs. This was $579 million that would have been spent on schools, on water treatment plants and on housing.

It was roughly $72 million a year that was pilfered from these communities. Where was it spent? An answer to an order paper question explained that it was spent on management, on legal services, litigation, public affairs and communication.

While our kids were going to school on the largest, contaminated, toxic brown field in North America and being exposed to levels of benzene that caused liver cancers, skin cancers and bone cancers, Indian Affairs was taking that money and blowing it on spin doctors and lawyers. That is its lack of accountability. Until that changes, nothing will begin to move forward in these communities.

The Conservatives talk about Canadians having a right to information while they are telling the Parliamentary Budget Officer to take them to court if he wants to know how they are spending money. It was the Parliamentary Budget Officer who had to shine a light on this government's absolute failure to protect the rights of children.

Let us go back to the issue of child rights. Every child in this country has a set of rights, unless they live on reserve. Then they get whatever Indian Affairs gives them.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at the situation of education on reserves. What was found was appalling, that management of school assets was erratic, haphazard and without any coherent capital methodology whatsoever.

What does that mean? It means that in half of the provinces where the federal government has jurisdiction, the capital assets are not even monitored. It is not known if the schools are open, if they are full of mould or if they are shut.

It is not known that the Conservatives had taken over $122 million out of school construction and spent it elsewhere. They said that half of the existing schools were in good condition, but they could not really tell because they had not investigated any of them. There were 77 schools listed as temporary structures. What the heck is a “temporary structure”? Is that a tent?

Canada is a signatory to international treaties on the rights of the child. Young Shannen Koostachin from Attawapiskat challenged the government. She asked why it was that because her skin was brown and she lived in Attawapiskat First Nation she was denied the rights that a child in Timmins or Toronto takes for granted.

The right to an education is not just the right to a school, which the children in Attawapiskat were not being given. I can say from a school board perspective that the right to an education is a plan for education. We have to have that plan and methodology. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer showed, year after year the government completely failed. It was not just this government. There has been a long-standing failure to address basic issues.

My community of Marten Falls is now seven years into a boiled water advisory, in a first world nation. This is a community that happens to be sitting right beside the Ring of Fire. I see Dalton McGuinty in Ontario saying that the Ring of Fire will save Ontario. Governments just cannot wait to get their money on those resources. I hear that from the federal government. Meanwhile, the people who are sitting beside the Ring of Fire have had to boil their water for seven years, and the government has just announced that it will cut off bottled water to the community because it is too expensive. That is a lack of accountability.

There was a plan this past summer in Attawapiskat to build 30 permanent houses. That would have gone a long way to alleviating the crisis in housing that still exists within that community. There was an agreement signed with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not sign agreements unless the financial wherewithal is there to pull them off. It was going to be a rent-to-own plan. It would have been a really good news story. This is what taxpayers want to hear. The government could have said that it has a rent-to-own plan with the people who are building the houses. The Indian affairs minister scuttled that deal. He scuttled it to punish the community because it made him look bad.

Under this bill, the minister gets to decide whether or not the government will withhold funds to a band that he decides he does not like. Let us talk about what that was like in Attawapiskat last January when the minister cut off education dollars to children. He used children in one of my communities as hostages to try to force the band council to its knees over the third party manager.

The third party manager finally went to federal court, which came out with a decision that the government's decision was indefensible and that it had no basis for the accusations it made against the community. However, throughout that, for three months, last January to March, the government cut off the funding to the children. That would be illegal anywhere else. That could not be done in the provincial system. If it was fighting with a town—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to say that the member is diverging from the topic we are debating is an understatement. I would ask him to refocus his comments on the actual bill and its contents as they were laid out by his own colleague in Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which we heard the Speaker announce and ask us to speak to today.

[An hon. member]

That is not a point of order.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

It is a point of order.