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.

[Wallace Fox, Chairman, Indian Resource Council]

Good afternoon.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I was taught this way to address people no matter where I travel. In our language, I am acknowledging everyone here in the name of the Creator.

Good afternoon, and thank you, chairpersons and members of the committee, for inviting us to appear before you today. I understand you want us to share some best practices from the energy sector that could be helpful to other indigenous people internationally. We are happy to do so.

I am here on behalf of the Indian Resource Council, along with our president and CEO, Mr. Stephen Buffalo; and our vice-chair, Delbert Wapass. All of us come from first nation territories that have been involved in the oil and gas business for a long, long time.

In my case, I come from Onion Lake, Treaty No. 6 first nation, in central Saskatchewan, on the Alberta border. I've been in leadership for 30 years. I have since retired, last summer in June, as chief. I did not seek re-election to pursue other interests.

Our community is north of Lloydminster. It's probably the biggest heavy oil producer on Indian land in western Canada. We're producing about 12,000 barrels of heavy oil a day, of heavy crude in the middle of the oil formations.

I've been in council leadership since I was 21 years old. I became chief when I was 25. As I've said, I've retired to pursue other interests.

During my tenure as chief we were able to pursue significant benefits from the oil and gas by creating our own energy company, Onion Lake Energy. I don't know if you're familiar with Indian Oil and Gas Canada, an arm of Indian and Northern Affairs. The status quo is that they negotiate on behalf of first nations people. After they negotiate with the oil companies surface rights, exploration rights, royalty payments, etc., they come to first nations. Then they tell us to sign here. Well, I'm not one of those people who you tell what to do, especially government, Indian Affairs.

We created our own company back in 1990. Then we farmed out all the energy exploration rights to our energy company on our land, which is about 150,000 acres of land. It straddles the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta, north of Lloydminster. Then we told Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, through IOGC, here's the permit. We need the permit now. We've negotiated an oil deal, which is a joint venture in the working interests of first nations, our community. We basically run everything midstream, downstream and upstream in our community. We've entered into negotiations in a partnership with BlackPearl Resources out of Calgary. CNRL was producing on our land for many years.

We've since created many other business opportunities as a result of our joint venture in our community within the oil and gas sector. We have pressure trucks, service rigs, vacuum fluid haulers. We have different companies that basically provide service on a competitive rate with industry, with our partners.

Stephen Buffalo, the president, is from Maskwacis, which has also been a long-standing oil producer for many years, since the mid-seventies and eighties.

The Indian Resource Council is a national advocacy association that represents approximately 130 oil- and gas-producing first nations, mostly in western Canada. There are representatives from Ontario and within B.C. About 60 of these first nations have active production on their lands. The rest have either shut in production or have the potential to produce when the oil industry picks up.

Our main mandate is to ensure that our members are actively involved in this important industry and that they receive a fair return on oil and gas resources.

We have come a long way since that era, back in the seventies and eighties, of government paternalism, with indigenous people only being seen and not heard. I believe that in our community we've broken that pattern and blazed a trail in many of the different sectors...of what the government has told us.

As I said, I've been here since 1982, in leadership. I've seen the change in government and the paternalistic “policies” regarding indigenous people. I've always taken the position that we can do just the same as what mainstream industry is doing.

As a result, today in our administration and community we have more than 800 employees. Many of the senior management in all of our sectors are from our own membership. We've shipped them off to university, and they come back and work for us. My job at the time as chief was to create that opportunity for them, through the sector and industry. We reinvested our own resources back into our human resources and our community. If that's not a success story, then I don't know what is.

Our population is 6,500. Almost 4,000 live on first nations—in our community it's about 3,800.

IRC's mandate, again, is to assist and to be the vocal centre representing the industry and advocating, through IOGC—Indian Oil and Gas Canada, the sub-arm of the department—to ensure that the royalties are there, that the lease agreements are intact and that they support first nations. Many of our communities don't have that support system. Fortunately for us, we've been able to do that in our community. Many other communities have done that, also.

IRC has been instrumental in changing this mindset over the course of the last 30-plus years that it's been in operation. We've worked hard in succeeding and building very good relationships with industry over the years. We now consider industry as our partners and allies, and not adversaries. We have made many gains through joint ventures, equity ownership and capacity and employment programs, as I mentioned earlier.

We are constantly reminded by governments that partnerships with private industry are the key to the growth of our economies. We agree and have worked hard to achieve this goal. We have many success stories, such as the Blood Tribe, our community of Onion Lake, Frog Lake Energy, Fort MacKay and many others.

There is no first nation today that will agree to a lease arrangement that does not provide benefits over and above royalties, such as equity ownership, joint ventures, employment and so on. We have been successful in asserting our rights to resource ownership based on our aboriginal and treaty rights. Our modus operandi is based on a notion that economic and financial sovereignty of our nations go hand in hand with resource development, which is an important component of this equation.

The key to success is building our capacity, so training and education is an absolute requirement. Today, as I said earlier, many young people are completing college, university and technical programs. They did not have that opportunity a few years ago.

We have been very vocal in supporting the oil and gas industry in matters such as its opposition to Bill C-69, which threatens to take away the benefits and gains we have made.

Turning to the honourable committee, on the one hand we have no recourse but to constantly fight the paternalistic, outdated policies of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That's one challenge. On the other side, we've had to work and earn the right to sit in the boardrooms and create that opportunity with the oil and gas industry. We have done that in the last 30 to 40 years, but this legislation is now going to impede in some of those aspects and go backward instead of forward.

We also speak strongly in support of building pipelines such as TMX and others, so that we can get our products to the proper market and stop relying on just one customer, who is taking advantage of us.

We need and must take Canada back to the days when we were respected and seen as one of the best places to invest in business. That's why we've chosen to speak out in support of the oil and gas industry. When this industry hurts, as it does now, Alberta hurts, Canada hurts and indigenous people hurt even more.

If you can step into our shoes in that sector, you would see that we had nothing until 1979-80 when we started entering into oil and gas. In using that resource, on the one hand over here, the funding regime based on the policies of the government is never ever adequate for the populations and needs of first nations. What we've done is taken 60% of how we operate in our community and reinvested back from the resource sector into our own people, for roads, jobs, housing, education, while the Government of Canada is over here. As you may or may not be aware, we're the only community that stood up against Bill C-27, the transparency legislation. We won that in Federal Court.

It was not a matter—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure for me to be here to sit in on this committee.

Just so my colleagues understand, I want to thank all three of the witnesses for being here, and I am going to spend my time allowing Charmaine to speak. I represent the area of the Onion Lake community, where she is from, which overlaps into the Alberta side. With respect, and with thanks to you, I will be focusing on letting Charmaine speak more to her perspectives and her stories.

Charmaine, here's what I want to start with. First of all, I think it's important that we all acknowledge that after the financial transparency act was brought into law, the vast majority of first nations communities complied with the common-sense requirements of publishing their financial statements, their leaders' compensation, and their expenses. Those are the parameters under which all of the MPs here operate, as do many other elected representatives at their levels of government. Right across the board, more work can and should be done on financial transparency.

You alluded to having to go to the department multiple times to find the information about the spending in your community. Five months ago, I sat on this committee when the minister responded to several questions about specific instances and spending disparities and concerns around where funding is going in first nations communities. She stated a number of times that the solution was to call her office, or to call the department, or to call the police, or to call a lawyer. What do you think about those comments?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a comment on the discussions that have been happening around the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. When I visit with communities, I see gaps in housing, road and water infrastructure, and education. They very much want to have access to the spending and salaries in their communities, to which all other Canadians are entitled and can access easily.

I want to read a quote from a resident of Onion Lake. I know that you're very familiar with what is going on in Onion Lake and the advocacy from Charmaine Stick. I represent half of Onion Lake, which crosses the border between Saskatchewan and Alberta.

A local resident was quoted in our local paper saying:

We feel it’s important that our people need to know as far as accountability and transparency, in that area. When there was an announcement made this year stating the fact that the nation won the first part of the lawsuit against the government (against the First Nations Financial Transparency Act), we still feel it’s important that the people, the grassroots people, need to be aware of the financial transparency as far as us with the nation.

I find it totally distressing that we acknowledge gaps in capacity, that we recognize the vulnerability and the socio-economic challenges, and lack of access to education as individuals among first nations communities, which are disproportionate to other populations across Canada. Then our answer to them, about getting very basic information about spending and meeting priorities in their communities, is that they should call the cops, call the minister's office, or launch a lawsuit.

I think that's crazy.

It is very upsetting, as a person who represents first nations people in communities across the riding who face all of the gaps and all of the challenges that we all acknowledge are there.

Moving on to the issue of jobs, I know that members are probably familiar now with the case of the Vegreville immigration case processing centre. It will be closed with no cost study and no consultation, no economic impact assessment. It's being removed from the small town of Vegreville.

I just want to put on your radar, Minister, that there are a number of first nations people who work in that office, and they will not be able to commute in order to maintain their jobs in Edmonton. That's just so you're aware of that.

On the issue of jobs in the federal public service, I understand that the CBC reported on November 21 that the government has plans to hire 278 people in this department in this fiscal year. Is that accurate?

[Regena Crowchild]

I know. I'm getting there.

With the government, when they provide us with grants, we have no problem. We submit those annually. We submit our audits annually. Whatever the federal government wants to do with those, it is up to them if they want to post them. Now they are asking under Bill C-27 that we submit consolidated statements that include our own source funding. We do not want to be in a position where the whole of Canada...once they are on the web, that for 10 years we have to account to the public on our own funding.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

Minister Bennett, I was pleased to see a strong endorsement for financial transparency and accountability in the report on plans and priorities. The report states:

Transparent and accountable institutions and organizations strengthen the fabric of Indigenous governments across Canada, assist Indigenous communities and their governments in attracting investment, and support Indigenous participation in the Canadian economy.

If this is the case, why did you instruct your department to stop enforcing the First Nations Financial Transparency Act? It seems counterproductive.

Motions in amendment

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to speak in this House on Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

I stand with my colleagues in the NDP to oppose this bill in the House of Commons. This bill is very important to me as a New Democrat, but most importantly, as the member of Parliament for Churchill.

In northern Manitoba, I have the honour of representing 33 first nations. These first nations and the leadership of these first nations have often been at the front lines calling for a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. They have been at the front lines pointing to the way in which the Indian Act and a colonial system of legislation imposed on first nations has led to nothing but trouble.

These first nations have made clear the connection between the paternalistic attitude of successive federal governments and the way first nations are not able to deal with the serious issues they face at home, such as the third-world living conditions.

They have talked about the way in which, because of the approach of the federal government, they have not been able to get at the table or have had to struggle to get at the table to discuss basic things such as ensuring proper water and sewer services in their communities, ensuring that there is adequate housing for the people who live in their communities, and ensuring that there is equal funding for education in their communities. At every step along the way, these first nations have been told that the federal government and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs know best.

It is 2013, and if there is anything we have learned from our history, it is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the federal government do not know what is best for first nations. There are many incidents in our history that indicate just that, such as the residential schools, a policy that was supported by the federal government, a policy that was seen by the federal government overtly as a tool of assimilation and as the way to go. We know that it was a policy that has created long-term trauma and damage for first nations people in our country.

We had the Prime Minister, a number of years ago, doing something that many first nations took very seriously. He apologized to first nations, Métis, and Inuit people for the federal government's approach towards them. He committed to a new day, a new chapter, when it came to indigenous people in Canada.

That day has not come. First nations people in Canada are still waiting for that day. Allies of first nations people are still waiting for that day. Instead, the Prime Minister and his government have used that important symbol, the apology, as a tactic to wash themselves of the responsibility and duty to truly change course.

What they did after that apology, and every step along the way, was adhere to the same old paternalistic approach, which is that the federal government knows best. However, it makes it look as if it is engaging in some consultation. We do acknowledge that in the context of this bill, there were discussions and round tables that took place around the country. Unfortunately, the government took the feedback it got at these round tables and basically shelved it.

The government chose the discourse that suited it and came up with a bill that does not reflect the needs of first nations people. It does not reflect the real issues first nations people face in terms of their electoral system.

Instead, what the government's bill would do is give greater power to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to decide how electoral systems exist in first nations. It would take away power and models that first nations people have developed that work for them. The government has made it more difficult in terms of the appeal process.

It is really a slap in the face of first nations people when we are talking about that new chapter.

I have stood in the House far too many times in the last five years to speak out against bills from the Conservative government that would have a negative impact on first nations. I do not speak about them in theory. I have seen what they mean on the ground.

I have visited these first nations. I have heard from people first-hand what it is like to feel as if they still live in a time when paternalism rules the day. I have talked to chiefs who have fought to come to Ottawa to sit at the table with the minister, if they get that meeting. They have poured their hearts out about the pain in their communities, whether it is about housing, water and sewer services, or health care, only to be told to wait longer or that the federal government will come up with something. Instead, all we see, bill after bill, are bills that exclude first nations' voices.

It is great to have a process that listens to people, but if the final result, the final bill and the final piece of legislation, do not reflect what these people said, the Conservative government is not living up to its duty to consult. The constant paternalistic tone of knowing better has a detrimental effect on the ability of first nations to push forward.

Yesterday I was part of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women. It is a perfect example of the way the Conservative government is refusing to listen to first nations on the issues that really matter. A constituent of mine, Brenda Bignell, said that we need a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. We are a committee. We are looking for recommendations. Brenda Bignell's recommendation is one we could consider for our report. However, we have already heard from the Prime Minister that he does not feel that there needs to be a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

What do we tell Brenda Bignell? She has lost her stepmom, her cousin, and her brother. She talked about all of these stories. Do we say that we want to hear from her but that what she tells us will probably not end up in the end result of what we are doing here? That deeply saddens me. It saddens me to be part of a committee, when I know that the Prime Minister has set the tone on a very important issue for first nations people.

It also saddens me that day after day, week after week, month after month we have proposals by the Conservative government and bills that would change laws in our country that are created without hearing the views of first nations people. The government may have heard them, but the end result certainly does not reflect them. As I said, this has an impact on that working relationship.

Idle No More was a movement that came out as a response to Bill C-9, Bill C-27, Bill S-2, and all of the bills that have come forward that do not reflect true consultation with first nations people. Idle No More was people at the grassroots level standing up and saying “enough”. It was the first nations, Métis, and Inuit people and their allies who stood up and said that there is a pattern here and they have had enough of it.

We know that there is a long-term negative impact when it comes to the lack of consultation and the tokenistic approach of picking testimony that suits the government but not actually listening to what everybody has to say. We know that all first nations people suffer when their electoral and governance systems are not allowed to be developed based on what they think is best.

I thought we were past this. I thought that in this year, 2013, we were past this. I thought that after the apology six years ago, we were past this. I thought that after Idle No More, maybe the Prime Minister and his government had gotten the message. Business as usual is not going to work. I thought we were past this, but we clearly are not.

In addition to all of this, what bothers me is that the government uses its bills to divide our society. I have seen how it has done it in the communities I represent.

Parts of my constituency have high numbers of first nations people. Some parts do not. Interestingly, in the last election, the Conservative Party shared literature in the parts of the constituency where not many aboriginal people live that talked about corruption in first nations. It also talked about the chiefs and the councillors and those people who were using taxpayers' money. The government did not engage in a conversation with the people who live on reserve. There were some materials with vague references to accountability and transparency, which are issues we all think are important. Rather, it chose to speak in parts of the constituency and to fan the flames of division and racism. It chose to use examples of legislation to say that it is keeping people in line.

That was not just an election tactic. Unfortunately, it is a governing tactic that I have seen from the government too many times. The Conservatives go out there and use material that says that they know best and will tell the first nations how to run their business. However, they will not invest equally in first nations education or make a difference when it comes to the highest dropout rates in our country. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live shorter lives than non-aboriginal people in our country. They do not talk about the fact that young first nations women are five times more likely to be killed than young non-first nations women. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live in more precarious conditions, in poverty, compared to other people in our country.

The government talks about bills that will fix how things get done. The Conservatives will tell aboriginal people how to do it. They will point to a few people who maybe gave some testimony that sounded like what the Conservatives would like to say. They will not listen to people like Grand Chief Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who currently represents first nations from across Manitoba. He said that there are problems and that they have made recommendations, and those recommendations have not been heard.

The government will not listen to Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. It will not listen to Tammy Cook-Searson, the Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. It will not listen to people like Aimée E. Craft, the past chair of the National Aboriginal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. The government will not listen to first nations people who live in places like northern Manitoba. It will not listen to people who want to come to the table, want to work on a nation-to-nation relationship, and want to talk about what is best for their communities.

I have heard vague references made by some members about how they have been on a reserve or have worked on a reserve. Somehow that gives them the authority to know what is best.

Thirty-three first nations helped send me to Ottawa. What I have heard from people in my constituency, not just from the leadership but from people on the ground, is that they are still waiting for that new chapter from the Prime Minister. They are still waiting for consultation and for the word of the AMC Grand Chief to be taken seriously. He said that we have to go back to the drawing board when it comes to first nations electoral reform.

We in the NDP agree that changes need to be made, but this bill is not the way to do it. I could take any bill the government has put forward in the last five years related to first nations and raise similar issues and poke holes in the kind of paternalistic discourse it tries to use to divide Canadians and keep first nations at arm's-length. Unfortunately, it perpetuates the problematic relationship that sets so many first nations back. I wish the government would take on some of the serious day-to-day issues first nations people face with the same energy and passion.

Maybe government members could spend some time talking to the chiefs of the Island Lake First Nation. I would be happy to take them on a tour. We could visit houses that do not have sinks because they do not have running water.

Can members imagine that, in 2013? This is their regular house. They have a counter, but where there should be a sink, there is not one because there is no running water. Guess what that means? There is also no bathroom. One has to go to an outhouse.

I remember visiting an elder who had mobility issues due to diabetes. In -30° weather—the way the winter gets in northern Manitoba—he has to trudge out to the outhouse, with mobility issues, because he has no indoor bathroom. This was not 50 years ago; I was there just last year.

I could talk about other instances, such as in communities like Gods River where the chief is extremely passionate about people in his community succeeding when it comes to education. This is a community that has grown significantly over the last number of years, and the school is so overcrowded that the science lab and home economics room have been taken over for regular classrooms. This means that these children are obviously not getting the one-on-one attention they need. It also means that these kids are not able to access specialized programming because the needed classrooms equipped to do that have been dismantled and made into regular classrooms.

Often these kids see a system that has given up on them. They see their chief fighting for them, but they know that, although the chief has gone to Ottawa and Winnipeg fighting for a new school to fit their needs, year after year, that demand is denied, and many lose faith and hope.

Unfortunately, in communities like Gods River, Gods Lake Narrows, Shamattawa and Pukatawagan, too many kids have gone down that path too far and have not turned back. They have committed suicide, fallen through the cracks of our society or moved to urban centres where they have been lost and have never come back.

There would be an opportunity for change. It is not because their chief, their leadership, and people like the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have not said what needs to be done, but that the current federal government does not listen.

Not only do the Conservatives not listen, but they choose to drive an agenda that suits them. It is an agenda that sucks up wedge issues, pits people against aboriginal people in our country and tells first nations and aboriginal leadership that they do not know how to run their business. It is an agenda that fundamentally keeps us on the path of a history that has only created trouble, is based on paternalistic colonial views and has been proven wrong.

I am proud to stand with a party that seeks justice when it comes to first nations people, which is why we are opposed to Bill C-9, and why we are opposed to so many of the first nation-related bills that the Conservative government has put forward. It is why we are asking for change, for a better future for first nation people and all Canadians.

[Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Grand Chief, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations]

Good morning.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Today I am speaking for the Confederacy of Treaty 6 on Bill C-9.

I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations as well as my home nation, the Ermineskin Cree Nation.

As grand chief of the confederacy, I'm tasked with advocating for the protection of our treaty rights which have been enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as in the sacred agreements themselves. As grand chief I advocate for the 18 member nations and speak from a unified position.

Today I've been tasked with outlining our concerns with Bill C-9, the first nations elections act, and the continued imposition of supposed Canadian authority over first nations and our governance. The problematic sections of Bill C-9 are as follows.

Overall Bill C-9 can be seen as a slight modification on the current default election system outlined in section 74 of the Indian Act. These slight changes, although minimal, have great implications for first nations that rely on their own custom laws or those encountering some leadership issues. According to INAC numbers, out of 617 first nations in Canada, 238 hold their elections according to the Indian Act, 343 hold custom election systems, and 36 are self-governing.

The changes proposed by the bill may be of interest to the 238 that hold their elections in line with the Indian Act, but they will also have implications for those 343 that hold custom elections.

Our specific concern is with clause 3 of the bill in which the opt-in legislation can be applied by order in council to a first nation for which a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that first nation.

Interpretation of this provision could lead to the imposition of the new act on a first nation that is following a custom election system and that is involved in a dispute. By empowering the minister to impose the act, the Government of Canada once gain is overstepping its bounds in regard to first nations governance.

Disputes in leadership are commonplace in politics, yet first nations are the only bodies of which the leadership can be unilaterally changed, be it through the Indian Act or through Bill C-9.

Further to this intrusion on first nations governance, the minister and INAC are given the ability to define who an elector is. Although some first nations have come in line with Corbiere, the onus falls on the government to determine who these bands are and to deal with them individually. There is no unilateral blanket definition of elector.

These intrusions of the federal government continue to serve as a detriment to leadership and to relationship building, and they seem to impose changes that fit the government agenda.

Compounding the definition of elector is the provision that empowers the electors to petition for a change in leadership. This petition exists and is unique to first nations in a very discriminatory fashion, and as well may lead to the attempted application of the provincial judicial system, which is a violation of section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.

These issues must be taken into full consideration by the minister and government.

On the right to self-determination, attempting to impose new provisions regarding first nations elections is a violation of their rights as laid out in section 35.

There are also internationally recognized inherent rights of first nations. A UN declaration outlines the rights of first nations in regard to governance. I've referenced four articles in my presentation. I'll just give the numbers, because there are four different sections, as you all know, in the declaration: article 3, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination; article 4, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination...”; article 5, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions...”; and article 6, “Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.”

The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the INAC minister to respect and enact these provisions of the UN declaration, and not simply recognize, but affirm them through practice.

Bill C-9 is not to be construed as a respecting of first nations governance. The reality is that Canada is attempting to define the rules by which first nations govern themselves, and this is not self-determination.

With respect to the contradictory actions of the government, once again we have an example of the government acting contrary to the statement made by the Prime Minister at the crown-first nations gathering in 2012.

Unilateral imposition or altering of the Indian Act was targeted by Harper as a step in the wrong direction, yet we have been provided with numerous alterations and changes through Bill C-45, Bill C-27, Bill C-9, and finally with Bill C-428.

Chiefs call upon the continued attacks on our sovereignty to cease and for the Prime Minister to stand by his words. Archaic provisions of the Indian Act and perhaps the entire act itself must be scrapped. However, the replacement legislation must be created by first nations and embody the relationships that serve as a foundation for this country. A treaty must be fully implemented and enshrined.

In closing, I would like to state that the provisions that allow for a unilateral imposition of the act on those first nations that follow custom election systems must be re-examined as this is a direct violation of our treaty and their inherent rights enshrined in section 35 as well as in section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.

The government appears to be making a habit of violating these foundational documents, including the breaking of the treaty with little recourse or penalty. This continued approach will only hamper progress not only for first nations, but for the country as a whole.

The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the government to retract all bills that are unilateral in nature and demand that meaningful consultation begin at the nation-to-nation level.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

I have another paper besides my confederacy paper from the Treaty 6 chiefs. It's from Ermineskin. They are pretty much the same, so as you read them both, the arguments are the same.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration in my being here today.

First Nations Elections Act

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 would make a positive difference in the lives of first nation citizens. As the government has articulated clearly, this bill would enable first nations to build stronger, more accountable governments that would lead to better futures for themselves, their families and their communities.

Before I go on, I would like to advise the House that I plan to share my time with the most distinguished and most effective member in the history of York Centre.

Bill S-6, which henceforth shall be known as the First Nations Elections Act, will give individual band members an electoral system they can trust.

When they exercise their democratic rights, they will have the confidence that they are doing so within a strong system that is available to Canadians at elections held at all other levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal.

Bill S-6 is about empowering first nation people with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account and make informed decisions about their leadership.

It is about ensuring that chiefs and councillors have the legitimacy and political stability they need to make the best decisions on behalf of their communities.

In essence, you could say it is about building trust, respect and confidence in the local leadership and the system used to elected them.

However, the proposed legislation does not just empower first nation citizens. It offers a viable alternative to some of the most objectionable parts of the Indian Act related to elections, which hinder the ability of a first nation's leadership to improve the well-being of its community, or attract and create economic and investment opportunities, for that matter. Let me explain some of those shortcomings and how this has impacted first nation governments and communities.

The first serious failing of the Indian Act is that it limits the term of office for elected officials to just two years. In contrast, federal, provincial and most municipal governments generally have terms of four years.

Two-year election terms place first nation chiefs and councillors in a state of constant electioneering, like having constant minority governments.

This prevents first nation leaderships from focusing on the long term and does not provide enough time to plan for and implement long-term initiatives. Almost as soon as they are elected, band councils turn their minds to the next election.

As a result of this short-sightedness, first nations governments often fail to build a proper foundation for community development. This concern has been expressed by both first nations governments and residents, who lament that this failing has created conditions of instability and missed opportunity.

All of this has a direct bearing on economic development and job creation. Private sector interests hesitate to invest in such uncertain conditions. At the end of day, it is first nation communities—and first nations men, women and children—that pay the greatest price for this instability in the way of missed business development and employment opportunities.

The first nations' next bone of contention with the electoral system under the Indian Act is the process for nominating candidates, or should I say, the lack thereof. Provisions in the Indian Act allow elections to go ahead, even if the nominated person has no interest in running for office or, as sometimes happens, is unaware that his or her name is on the ballot.

By the way, we used to have this problem in Ontario. Ninety years ago, my grandfather was elected reeve of a local township. He had to cancel his election the next day, because he did not seek the office.

Once people are nominated, their names automatically appear on the ballot, unless they withdraw in writing. If the ballots are already printed, a name stays on the ballot even if the candidate has withdrawn.

Therefore, people with no intention of serving on council can find themselves in this position, and may even be elected, but not wanting to serve. This happened to my grandfather 90 years ago.

That is not the only issue. The Indian Act and the Indian Band Election Regulations also permit the same person to be nominated for both chief and the councillor positions.

Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of candidates that any one person can nominate. It is not unheard of to have up to 100 people vying for a handful of positions on council. All of these issues would be resolved with the passage of Bill S-6.

Another concern that came up over and over relates to the mail-in ballot system under the Indian Act.

We have all heard stories of people whose names were on the band voter list who sold their ballots to others. Unfortunately, these are not just rare occasions. Research suggests that in some parts of the country, the alleged buying and selling of mail-in ballots has been widespread. Since the band council provides electoral officers with a list of addresses for mail-in ballots that may or may not be accurate or up to date, situations like this can easily take place.

First nations electors and leaders have made it clear that they want a more rigorous process, one that assures them that ballots will only be mailed out to, and cast by, eligible voters.

These concerns are compounded by the fact that the Indian Act does not include any offences and penalties for fraudulent activity connected to the electoral process in first nation communities. At the moment, anyone wishing to cheat the system is free to do so. If these same activities were to take place in the context of a federal, provincial or municipal election, the individual would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Why do first nations people expect less? They do not.

Finally, under the Indian Act, the power to investigate and make decisions about the validity of election results rests with the minister. This takes us back to a time when it was believed that the minister was the best person to oversee matters of band governance. This government does not agree. We believe that first nations communities, not the minister, are best placed to make informed decisions about their own leadership and that first nations governments are best placed to make decisions about their own affairs. That is why we want to empower them with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account.

In addition, the existing appeal system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.

In addition, the existing appeals system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.

That is why Bill S-6 introduces several improvements, as an alternative to the Indian Act, that will better respond to the request of first nations for a more rigorous and reliable elections system.

This bill, and Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, which received royal assent earlier this year, help to create the conditions that will encourage stronger, more stable and effective first nations governments, based on principles of accountability and transparency. Let me briefly highlight the main advantages of this bill for first nations that choose to opt in to these provisions.

First, the proposed legislation provides for longer terms of office.

Second, Bill S-6 would offer a more robust process to nominate candidates. First nations would be free to bring in a fee for candidacy. An anomaly, such as one person being elected to both positions of chief and councillor, would be eliminated.

Third, it outlines penalties for defined offences, such as obstructing the electoral process or engaging in corrupt or fraudulent actions, similar to those found in other election laws.

Fourth, it removes the minister’s role in the election process. The minister would no longer be involved in election appeals or the removal of elected officials. Those decisions would be made by the courts. I urge all members of this House to support the swift passage of this important legislation.

In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that next Friday, June 21st, will mark National Aboriginal Day in Canada.

This date was chosen because it coincides with the summer solstice, a time when many aboriginal peoples celebrate their culture and rich heritage.

That morning, at seven o’clock, we will meet next door at the Château Laurier for the first National Aboriginal Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast.

That evening, at 10:45, there will be a wreath-laying ceremony at the Aboriginal Veterans National Monument in Confederation Park, on Elgin Street.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to a very important bill and a very important issue for the people I represent in northern Manitoba. I am honoured to represent the people of Churchill. That includes 33 first nations, first nations that are diverse, young with tremendous energy and tremendous opportunity. However, immense challenges exist on these first nations. Nowhere is that challenge more evident than the lack of access to safe drinking water, water services and sewage services on first nations.

When the reference to third world conditions is made, it is made because of the lack of access to safe drinking water that exists on many first nations in northern Manitoba. I think of the Island Lake community, four first nations that are isolated on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. I think of St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. All of these communities are growing, like many first nations, at a high rate. There are a lot of young people and young families. Overcrowding and lack of housing are very serious issues.

However, what is evident in these communities is the impact of the lack of safe drinking water in terms of health outcomes, in terms of broader indicators of quality of life, in terms of the mortality rate that unfortunately among first nations remains lower than the Canadian average. That mortality rate is connected to a number of factors, but the fundamental lack of access to safe drinking water is key.

It is unacceptable that in the year 2013, in a country as wealthy as Canada, that first nations, simply because they are first nations, lack access to a basic right, the right of clean water and access to safe drinking water. They lack access to the kind of infrastructure that would ensure a healthier lifestyle in line with that which all Canadians enjoy.

While members from the governing party have spoken to the disastrous indicators, what they fail to speak to is their own failure to uphold their fiduciary obligation to first nations, their own failure to live up to the treaties, to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in ensuring that first nations, no matter where they are, have access to safe drinking water.

Instead of recognizing that failure and investing in the kind of infrastructure that is necessary, investing in the kind of training that is necessary for first nations to be able to provide access to safe drinking water, the government has chosen to uphold its pattern of imposing legislation on first nations. Not only has it imposed legislation in this case, Bill S-8, but it has done so without consultation, without recognizing the tremendous concerns that first nations have brought forward with respect to previous iterations of the bill. Fundamentally it is disrespecting its commitments under the treaties, under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which it signed. Even more reason for concern is the fact it is putting first nations in even greater danger than they are already in.

We know that Bill S-8 provides no funding to improve water systems on reserve. This is shameful because, given the rhetoric that we hear from the government about commitments to first nations, the reality is that when it comes to making a difference for safe drinking water, the need for investment in infrastructure and investment in capacity building is extremely serious.

I was there in February this year, but I remember being in Little Grand Rapids a couple of years back where the water treatment plant operator talked to us about how the chemicals he needed to be able to make sure that the water was safe for his community to drink were going to run out halfway through the year. I have spoken to water treatment plant operators who have talked about the lack of access to training programs so that they can improve their skills, so they can have the knowledge and skill set to be able to provide safe drinking water for their community members.

I have heard from water treatment plant operators, sewage treatment plant operators and leaders in communities who have expressed real concern about their inability, with the little they are given from this federal government, to provide what is a basic standard of living to their people. That onus falls entirely on the backs of the federal government.

Unfortunately, this is a result of years of neglect by the previous Liberal government, the imposition of the 2% cap that was halted, and has frozen in many cases, the kind of funding that is necessary for first nations to operate, and has been very much continued by the Conservative government.

We have seen that first nations that are continuing to grow, where their needs are continuing to grow, are turning to a federal government that is not only not prepared to make the investments in infrastructure, but is actually imposing its colonial agenda to boot.

We are very concerned in the NDP that on Bill S-8, like previous bills, Bill S-2, and so many others that impact first nations, Bill C-27, the government has insisted on shutting down debate on these very important bills, preventing members of Parliament from speaking out on behalf of their constituents who would be negatively impacted as a result of this legislation. We believe that by doing so, it is also silencing the voice of the first nations in this House.

This practice has unfortunately also been applied to committees where the facts have not been heard because of the government's attempt to muzzle those who oppose its agenda.

We in the NDP also stand in solidarity with first nations that have decried the government's continued pattern in which bills affecting first nations also include a clause, and we see it in Bill S-8, that gives the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights. The clause says, “Except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nations land”.

It is unconscionable that a federal government that is charged with a fiduciary obligation to first nations, that is there to honour the treaty relationships it is party to, would go so far as to derogate from aboriginal rights, to be able to break that very commitment it has to first nations. That is a failure on the part of the government. First nations have risen up against this failure, through the Idle No More movement, and through activism and leadership that first nations have consistently shown, saying that they are opposed to the government's agenda, and Bill S-8 is one of those reasons if we look at it clearly.

We are also very concerned about the pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation. We recognize that the AFN, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a series of representative organizations of first nations have been very clear in their opposition to Bill S-8.

The reality is that the government is trying to change the channel on its own failed rhetoric around accountability and transparency, words that it cannot take to heart, given the recent scandals that have emerged. The government is trying to change the channel and put the blame on first nations.

When it comes to something as serious as access to safe drinking water, there is no room for these kinds of political games. The government should stand up, and instead of changing the channel, instead of imposing legislation, instead of breaking its commitment under the treaties and disrespecting aboriginal rights, it should work with first nations in partnership to make the investments that are necessary and obvious to ensure that safe access to drinking water exists in first nations communities the way it exists in communities across the country.

For the people of Island Lake, for first nations across this country, for all Canadians, we deserve better from the government.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, who started the work on her private member's bill and made significant contributions to what would become Bill C-27 and now law.

Our government believes first nation members, like all Canadians, deserve that kind of transparency and accountability from their elected officials. The act builds on our ongoing commitment to ensure that first nations have strong, transparent and accountable governments and does not increase the current reporting requirements of first nations.

Our government has heard from aboriginal community members who have said that financial disclosure is important and necessary for their communities. I am proud that we have taken action to deliver results for first nations and, as a matter of governance, have that discussion go on between its members and its council with respect to financial transparency.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, two years ago, after hearing complaints from first nation community members, I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-575, to increase financial transparency and accountability for first nations across Canada. My bill died on the order paper, but this government introduced Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, to deliver more effective, transparent and accountable governments. I am proud to have contributed to this legislation becoming law so that first nation communities can benefit from the investment, economic development and greater certainty that accompanies enhanced accountability and transparency.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the time the minister spent in Winnipeg in celebrating this legislation coming into force and the many meetings we held that day to celebrate with many of the members who had been calling for this legislation for quite some time.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is: Why did the government bring in a piece of legislation on first nation financial transparency?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's main estimates for 2013-14. Before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will use the first 10 minutes of my time to speak and the last 5 minutes to pose questions.

These main estimates reflect the Government of Canada's continued commitment to improving the quality of life for aboriginal people and northerners. Through targeted investments, this government is helping build the strong foundations of governance, human capital and infrastructure, which are the basis for healthy and prosperous communities.

Bill C-27, First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which received royal assent this past March, is one such example of our government's efforts to promote greater transparency and accountability. This, in turn, will create the conditions that encourage investment, economic development and growth, building a foundation for long-term prosperity in first nation communities across the country.

The passage of this legislation into law represents a milestone for those first nation communities, members and leaders who have been calling for this change. As I have said before, all Canadians, including first nations, want and deserve transparency and accountability from their governments. I am proud of our work with grassroots first nation members to have this legislation passed into law.

Until this legislation was passed, first nation governments were the only level of government in Canada that did not have some form of legislation to enhance or ensure accountability and transparency. Now the roughly 580 first nations operating under the Indian Act can benefit from more accountable, transparent governments.

Phyllis Sutherland, member of the Peguis First Nation and president of the Peguis Accountability Coalition, has said:

Bill C-27 will lead to big changes in accountability and transparency in First Nation communities...People at the grassroots level will be able to access information about their community without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

Colin Craig, prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said:

We pushed for this new law for over three years so we're ecstatic it has passed. We commend the government for acting on concerns raised by taxpayers and whistleblowers living on reserves...Plain and simple, this new law will improve accountability and especially help the grassroots hold their elected officials accountable.

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act ensures first nation citizens have the same democratic rights and protections as all other Canadians. First nations are already required as a condition of funding agreements to provide government officials with audited financial statements and a schedule of salary, honoraria and travel expenses for chiefs and councillors.

That is not always shared with local residents, even when they ask for the information. In fact, during committee hearings for Bill C-27, we heard stories of people being intimidated in their home community, just for asking for that information.

This act ensures these statements will now be made available to first nation members, as well as to the public through posting on a website. This change will not lead to an increased reporting burden. These documents are already being prepared in accordance with the same accounting principles that apply to all levels of government right across the country, using a consistent format that was put in place in 2012-13.

Our ultimate goal is one recipient, one agreement and one report. Work toward this goal has already begun through a pilot project in which several first nations across Canada are taking part. The participating first nations prepare an annual report to their community and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada will now draw the performance information it needs from these reports to satisfy its own requirements to report to the Treasury Board and Parliament.

The results of this pilot project have been encouraging and as an added benefit, the participating first nations are in an excellent position to meet the requirements under the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

In parallel with financial transparency created by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, our government is reducing the reporting burden on first nations created by funding agreements. The year-end reporting handbook has been streamlined by 60% from previous years. This means that we are reducing the number of reports recipients must submit, including eliminating those that duplicate information we can now get from the audited financial statements that will be online.

All first nations will now be completing fewer reports each year, beginning this year. We intend to go even further to weed out unnecessary reporting, while ensuring Parliament, Canadians and first nations community members can evaluate the results achieved with taxpayer dollars.

Consistency and transparency will help voters in first nations make decisions at election time. They will be able to make comparisons from year to year and from community to community. They can ask questions about spending and about revenues. Some first nations governments already post financial information on their communities' websites. Some already table comprehensive annual reports to their communities. We commend them for this. The First Nations Financial Transparency Act will encourage this kind of progress right across the country. Legislation like Bill C-27 is an essential step forward on that path.

We have worked with first nations partners to develop legislation that would replace the defective election provisions of the Indian Act with a clear, consistent, reliable framework that communities can use to elect strong, stable, effective governments. I am pleased to report that our creative and collaborative work has borne fruit and the result of that creative collaboration is Bill S-6, the first nations election act.

The Indian Act elections system has significant flaws. For instance, the Indian Act requires that first nations communities hold elections every two years. This requirement deters first nations chiefs and councils from initiating long-term projects, from working closely with investors, business owners and partners in other governments and from taking full advantage of emerging opportunities to improve the lives of people in their communities.

There is more. The Indian Act does not prevent any person from running and being elected chief and to a councillor position at the same time. The current system's loose nomination process also enables the names of candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to be placed on the ballot without their approval and, in some instances, without their knowledge. Because of this omission in the law, some first nations elections have had more than 100 candidates vie for as few as 13 positions.

Finally, the Indian Act elections system does not contain offence and penalty provisions, leaving it open to abuse and questionable activities.

Bill S-6 would enable first nations people to shut a piece of the Indian Act by providing an alternative to its flawed election provisions. Bill S-6 would present an open, transparent and accountable election system that first nations people expect and deserve. We only have to consider some key provisions of the bill and what these provisions would set in motion to understand its value.

Significantly, Bill S-6 would provide for terms of office of four years. With this time horizon, band councils are well positioned to advance important initiatives for the well-being of their communities. As well, Bill S-6 would provide: more rigour to the nomination of candidates; offence and penalty provisions that would allow courts to impose penalties for activities such as vote buying and obstructing the electoral process; and remove the paternalistic role of the minister in reviewing and deciding upon election appeals.

It is important that we all understand that the proposed act would not be mandatory. A first nation could simply remain under its current election system, whether that is the Indian Act or its own community-based system. To opt into the new law, a band council must adopt a resolution asking the minister to add its name to the schedule of first nations to which the new election system would apply. At a later time, a first nation could remove itself from the first nations election act by developing its own community election code, submitting that code to a community vote and receiving a favourable outcome. More than that, the fact that Bill S-6 is the product of collaborative efforts among government and first nations organizations is testament to its validity as an important step forward for first nations.

As members can see from our work on the First Nations Financial Transparency Act and on Bill S-6, the first nations election act, our government is committed to helping deliver more effective, more transparent and accountable governments.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Chair, since there is clearly no money to implement Bill C-27, why did the government change the most recent contribution agreements to tie the implementation of Bill C-27 to the funding agreements?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Chair, could the minister please indicate where in the estimates the additional funding required by first nations to implement all aspects of Bill C-27 is?

Opposition Motion--First Nations, Métis and Inuit

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Manicouagan for that very good speech and for his very committed work. I know that he has been doing great work raising awareness on a number of pieces of legislation, including the omnibus bill, Bill C-45, and Bill C-27, the financial transparency and accountability act, which the Conservatives have pushed through.

When it comes to NunatuKavut and other nations across the country, one of the things we observe is that while the comprehensive land claims and treaty or self-government agreements are stalled in negotiations, or not even accepted for negotiation, development is taking place on the traditional territories, whether it be forestry or mining. The people who have inhabited those lands for millennia are not benefiting from that development or are having no say when it comes to the environmental impact.

The Fort Chipewyan First Nations in Alberta are very concerned about the environmental impact on their communities. On the west coast, we have forestry. In Ontario, there is the Ring of Fire.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on why it is important to move forward on negotiating these comprehensive land claims and treaty and self-government agreements so that the people who live in those territories have a say about the kind of development that is happening.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, taking into account the scope and familiar nature of the motion before the House, it is my duty to support the explicit and underlying concepts it contains.

As a result, in my speech today, I will provide some perspective on the realities addressed by the motion by focusing on the confrontational approach that characterizes the modern relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal people across the country. I would like to read from the motion before us, which states:

That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue...

First, I will talk about the confrontational approach. At the risk of repeating myself, over the Christmas break, when I was deeply inspired by the Idle No More movement, I was asked to prepare a course and to travel throughout Canada and the United States. I had to do a detour through the United States to get to certain parts of Quebec. In short, I travelled to many aboriginal communities across the country to give a course on the modernization and amendment of the Indian Act, which is related to bills such as Bill C-27, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

In the course introduction, I made a point of indicating that the comments made by a number of ministers and stakeholders suggest that they see the affirmation of the identity of first nations in Canada as a barrier to economic expansion. This view is shared by many other stakeholders and is due, in part, to various speeches made in the House. Some ministers and others have been quoted on this issue.

If we look closer, it is true that there is some correlation between the assertive measures that have been taken by aboriginal communities across Canada in affirmation of their identity and the dramatic drop in the stock market value of some corporate entities.

One might assume that this is a fairly simple relationship when, in reality, it is very complex. If there has been a dramatic drop in the stock value, it is because the entity in question was lax and failed to shoulder its corporate social responsibility. That is why this affirmation of identity is undermining the stock market value of these entities. In a way, this premise is flawed because it is not the affirmation of aboriginal identity itself that is creating a barrier to economic expansion; rather, it is the lack of transparency and the financial wrongdoing observed in remote areas.

Successive Canadian governments and all of the other parties have tried over the years to put Indians in a box, if I may say so. In other words, they have tried to restrict the jurisdiction, the affirmation of identity, the social, cultural and economic affirmation of first nations, in order to give economic entities more peace of mind. This government has been even more obvious about it than its predecessors and is moving forward with a corporatist agenda, primarily promoting natural resources extraction as an economic engine and key component of economic development across the country.

I simply wanted to point that out. I should technically be talking about how shocked nationalists are in Quebec right now, because they are also dealing with a conflict situation that can lead to confrontation. However, that is a different story, and I will discuss the situation with the appropriate stakeholders in due course. There you go.

This situation reveals the selective and preferential nature of the relationships between aboriginal communities and the Canadian government in 2013. The motion before us refers to a comprehensive land claim that has not been addressed since 1991, and it is not the only one. I will give some concrete examples in a few seconds. Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue between stakeholders is a reflection of the reality of a number of contentious aboriginal cases across the country.

Successive governments, and this government in particular, could be criticized for cherry-picking. In other words, the Conservatives are choosing which stakeholders they want to talk to. In some respects, although this situation is not so widespread, I find it problematic enough to bring it to the attention of the House.

There are some community management organizations and band councils that are essentially puppet governments. The Conservatives hand-picked, cherry-picked some pawns. These people were put in place in strategic communities to speak out in favour of proposed policies. This is not necessarily widespread, but it is common enough that I wanted to mention it today.

The government is trying to interfere in tribal politics. It chooses representatives. That is why some communities have really spoken out. They have such strong social, economic and cultural foundations that federal transfers and support seem marginal. These people are more autonomous.

Strangely enough, as in the case of the situation that has been going on since 1991, the current government will simply choose to ignore remote communities because they are too strong and they have developed energy policies that the government is unhappy with.

What this government wants are good, servile, submissive, accommodating and easily manipulated Indians. It is as though the government is a puppeteer making its marionettes dance.

I say this because in recent years, I have found that I often end up out on the sidewalk, strangely enough, during big community meetings.

I would like to share an example that I will continue to come back to until the end of my term. A supposedly historic meeting was held in January 2012. A number of community representatives were invited. However, the invitation was not extended to all communities, even though the government claimed to be inclusive. The government wanted to develop a new relationship with first nations peoples. I was personally escorted by intelligence officers. I was essentially kicked to the curb. As I was on the sidewalk, I realized that I was in good company. There were other representatives from several nations who were deemed unwelcome.

So much for the inclusive aspect of this new relationship.

I think that is quite deplorable. Things like that should not be happening in 2013.

Cherry-picking and choosing pawns and representatives for community management organizations is highly objectionable. That is why, in 2013, the Conservatives are seeing a huge amount of opposition from the first nations. That is also why their economic development plan has stalled and is really struggling.

Our international reputation is plummeting, just like the stock market value of some companies that are ignoring their social, environmental and other responsibilities.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the fact that the government has a record in terms of putting time allocation on numerous bills. The Liberal Party has been fairly clear in stating its support for the principle of the bill that is in question today, and we would ultimately like to see it pass. We have not been putting up speakers to try to delay, or anything of that nature, but we do question the level of frequency by which the government uses time allocation. We have seen it on numerous bills, whether it is Bill C-27, the first nations accountability bill, Air Canada, Canada Post, CP, the Panama free trade agreement, budget bills, back to work legislation with regard to Air Canada, the Financial System Review Act, the gun registry, the copyright bill, the pooled pension plan bill, one of my favourites, and the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these are bills, and more, on which the government has decided to invoke time allocation.

My question is more for the government House leader. Why does the government choose to introduce time allocation on many bills, which therefore takes away the responsibility of opposition members and all backbenchers, I would suggest, to provide due diligence in ensuring that every bill is given due process and is well debated and ultimately passed or defeated in the House of Commons? Why does the government go to this tool time after time?

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by talking about the implications when someone receives a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. I will focus on understanding the parameters for and applications of such measures in criminal proceedings.

It is an honour for me to be able to inform the public. Over the holidays and over the past few weeks, I toured a number of reserves in Quebec. I was informing people about the amendments set out in Bill C-45, Bill C-38 and Bill C-27. These amendments will affect both the traditional and contemporary ways of life of the aboriginal peoples.

I will do the same thing today. I will be informing the public. My background is in law. I was a litigator for almost six years. I worked primarily in criminal law, but I also worked in mental health. During my years as a lawyer, I was called upon to present a number of applications under subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b). Later on, I will talk more about how these two parts of the section are applied.

Based on how the media have covered certain cases over the years, it seems clear that the bottom line is popularity and ad revenue, and that the media will resort to flashy tactics, broad appeal and—to a certain extent—misinformation. This is why some people err in fact and in law. This is not a criticism, because not everyone has a legal background, but there are some misconceptions floating around. I think it is important to get back to the basics with this debate, to talk about the foundations, what it truly means and how these sections are applied.

Subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code refer to applications that the defence lawyer and the prosecutor can submit to a judge in a specific case. When we meet our client for the first time in a criminal case—I will talk about my experience as a defence lawyer—we can determine fairly quickly whether the individual is in a fragile state of mind, as we say. When we visit a client in his cell or in the psychiatric wing and he is not in his right mind, the psychiatrists' reports will often say that he is in a fragile state of mind, disoriented and confused.

It is at that point that the lawyer goes to the judge and says that when he met with his client, the client was not able to give clear instructions and seemed to be in a fragile state of mind and somewhat confused. There is therefore reason to believe that he is not in his right mind and should undergo an assessment pursuant to paragraph 672.11(a) or 672.11(b). The crown prosecutor may also broach this subject.

I see this all the time in my practice in my riding. For example, in the past few days, journalists from Radio-Canada—not to name names—have said that drug-related crime in my riding increased by 38% in 2012.

Psychosis and toxic psychosis are recurring themes. That is why I have submitted dozens of requests pursuant to section 672.11 over the years. That is specific to my practice in my riding. There is a lot of violence. The psychiatric wing is very well equipped. There are a number of psychiatrists working in Sept-Îles. Some cases, not the majority, were so serious that clients were routinely transferred to the Philippe-Pinel Institute in Montreal for help.

It can take about a month for a client to leave and get assessed to determine if he is criminally responsible. The client is sent to Montreal or, sometimes, to Sept-Îles. The serious cases are usually sent to Montreal to be assessed. The client comes back with an assessment, and the findings go on for pages.

It is interesting reading material and I miss it very much. I will not hide the fact that I miss my practice. I often receive calls on my business cell phone asking me to represent someone. I have to refuse because I do not have the time.

When the client returns and we look at the case, we examine the assessment and the expert report, which provide information about the circumstances and the expert's opinion. To date, I have never seen the Crown challenge the assessment or ask for a second one, but that can happen.

The judge relies on the findings of the expert in Montreal or Sept-Îles, as the case may be. The judge will refer the case of the individual in question to Quebec's administrative tribunal. He will rule that the individual is not responsible and simply transfer the file.

This is one aspect that we have not talked about much. I have not heard anything about this today. None of my colleagues has mentioned this. In Quebec, the administrative tribunal is responsible for the file and will determine the course of action to be taken for people who are not criminally responsible.

To put all of this into perspective, I will add that the hearings of Quebec's administrative tribunal are held by videoconference at the Sept-Îles hospital, in my experience. The tribunal members appear by video. The lawyer is present with his client, who must appear once or a few times a year, if I am not mistaken.

Ultimately, the members of the administrative tribunal will determine what course of action should be taken in a case. That is where the problem lies. I will provide more information on this subject in the next few minutes.

I worked for years with clients with mental health problems. Some but not all people with these types of disorders are stubborn about or opposed to being monitored and taking medication. Many of my clients were opposed to taking medication.

One of the criteria for determining whether people are mentally ill is that they are not aware of their own illness. As a result, as soon as they are not being so closely monitored, individuals who do not realize that they are sick tend to stop taking their medication because they do not believe that they are sick and they do not think that they need to take it. This is a fairly volatile client group. These people may simply stop going to their monthly appointments with their psychiatrist and may just vanish.

I have dealt with this type of situation in my practice. The extremely difficult cases I have had to deal with sometimes gave me the shivers. I will not give any identifying information because of privacy concerns. However, some files dealt with necrophilia, arson and extreme violence. Over the years, I was able to help some of these individuals get back on the right track.

Sometimes, once these individuals were released following their hearing before Quebec's administrative tribunal, they vanished because they were not being monitored closely enough.

I have sometimes received calls after a few months or years from the police or from the client himself who is in a fragile mental state but, in a moment of lucidity, called me to find out the status of his case. I would ask him if he was still taking his medication and where he was in Quebec. I wanted to know where he was because I knew he had high potential for violence. I will spare you the details, but they sometimes keep me awake at night.

In short, these individuals decided to run away, which is why I insisted that, at the very least, they be more closely monitored and that their location be tracked in order to prevent them from vanishing.

I also dealt with arson, which is a fairly common occurrence. Those working in the field of psychiatry see all kinds of people. Sometimes it can be interesting to read about these cases.

The cases could give you goosebumps.

Some recent highly publicized cases have called the existing approach into question. So we must refocus the debate on the best interests of victims, while ensuring that the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.

I plan on returning to practising law sometime in the future. Perhaps I should not say this, but it comes naturally to me to represent these individuals and help them get back on the right track after they are assessed by the people in Montreal. The judge would simply refer the whole thing to Quebec's administrative tribunal.

As I have already said, decisions from this tribunal do not carry a lot of weight, at least not in Sept-Îles. It may be different in a metropolitan or urban area, where the hearings are conducted in person. But that is not the case where I come from. I remember one case in particular, with someone who took off after the hearing and attended only one hearing with the administrative tribunal. Perhaps this person was eventually caught. An arrest warrant may have been issued. The police eventually tracked him down to make sure that he was not in a fragile state of mind, that he was taking his medication properly and did not represent a danger to himself or others. I am thinking of cases of schizophrenia, since people with this illness can be dangerous to themselves and to the general public.

That is something that poses significant problems. I am thinking about a specific case, but I should mention that he was a martial arts expert and he assaulted anyone who tried to go into his cell or into his room in the psychiatric wing. He thought the Hells Angels were coming to the hospital to get him. That is why he punched people, including large men. The hospital uses “code 88” when a patient becomes violent. All of the large men are asked to help out. It may be “code 89”; I cannot remember anymore. There is an internal code at the hospital in Sept-Îles. Whatever the case may be, he punched out five people. He was in pretty good shape.

He was found not criminally responsible because he could not discern right from wrong. He was a victim of his own illusions. However, he was released and no one knew where he was for a while. A few months went by, maybe a year or two, and then he called me about his case. I knew then that he had stopped taking his medication and appearing at hearings.

That is my summary of the risks and implications, which I submit to you.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to say a few words on Bill C-55.

There are many thoughts I would like to share with members, albeit we are somewhat limited in terms of time.

I want to pick up on two or three themes. I always take great exception when the government does things in a fashion that ultimately is disrespectful to the functionality of the House.

It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament, and I value the role I get to play. I thank the constituents of Winnipeg North for allowing me to represent them. I am also very grateful for the Liberal Party allowing me to respond to the different bills and so forth.

When I look at what the government is doing here, I find it is once again somewhat disrespectful. We need to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada made the decision that precipitated the legislation before us. This decision was not made a month ago or two months ago. This decision was made back in April 2012.

The government has known for months that it needed to change the legislation. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that could justify the delay it has taken in introducing Bill C-55.

What the government has done through procrastination is put the House of Commons in a position where, if we want to respect what our Supreme Court has ruled, there is pressure on its members to pass the legislation not only through second reading, but also committee, third reading and so forth, before April 13 of this year.

Today is the first opportunity to debate the bill. It is a significant issue. One has to question why the government—former Reformers and now Conservatives, as the members call themselves—has taken a different approach to dealing with legislation.

Members will recall the two massive budget bills in which the government, through the back door, made amendments to dozens of pieces of legislation. I am somewhat surprised that the government did not include this change. I guess the minister responsible did not think about it, or maybe he did not get the message from the PMO that the budget bill was coming forward. I am glad that at the very least the minister did not take advantage of the budget bill.

The government has been bringing in a record number of time allocation motions. I have a fairly lengthy list, and I will not go through the entire list. Some of these issues of time allocation were quite significant, whether it was on back-to-work type of legislation, the gun registry, a pension plan, the Canadian Wheat Board, Air Canada, Bill C-31, Bill C-27 or numerous other bills.

All of these deal with opportunities that members of Parliament have to provide due diligence and go through the legislation in a timely fashion to ensure the legislation is debated and that ideas will stem out from those debates, ultimately seeing it going to the committees and allowing them to do their jobs. Hopefully the government is then sympathetic to recognizing that its legislation quite often needs to be amended. Amendments come from many members on a wide variety of legislation.

Therefore, today we have a very short window. I suspect time allocation will be placed on this bill. However, there is a high sense of co-operation from opposition parties. On behalf of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party critic was able to address the bill earlier today and indicated that we were very comfortable in seeing the bill go to committee. We recognize the importance of that.

That does not excuse the government of its irresponsible behaviour in not providing the House the respect that is necessary when dealing with legislation. It should be held accountable for taking so long in bringing this legislation before us.

However, the Liberal Party will behave responsibly and do what it can to get it to committee. We hope the government will be sensitive to possible amendments to the legislation. We recognize the bill does deserve attention at committee and understand that hopefully there will be some changes brought forward.

There are four things that Bill C-55 attempts to do.

It requires the ministers of public safety and emergency preparedness and the attorney generals of each province to report on the inception of private communications made under section 184.4. That is a positive request. It is something that the Supreme Court did not require. It is a reporting mechanism and there is great merit for it.

Bill C-55 provides that a person who is the subject of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period of time. We must give thought to what the appropriate amount of time is. Hopefully that will come out in committee. We are very much aware of the importance of our charter and the protection of our privacy. There has to be a balancing of the public good and life-threatening situations and so forth. However, there also needs to be protection for individuals who ultimately might be subjected to a warrantless wiretap. I suggest the committee would do well to have some dialogue as to whether it should be 90 days or less than that and what the arguments and concerns are. It would be interesting to hear what the stakeholders would have to say on that point.

It would narrow the class of individuals who can intercept a wiretap. My understanding is that it is more general today. What the government wants to do is narrow it to include police officers. Hopefully, we will have some dialogue at committee stage regarding contracting out. Many municipalities hire private services related to security and policing. How will they be incorporated, or will they be incorporated?

Again, there is an opportunity with respect to the limits of those interceptions for offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. We can appreciate that when that type of authority is issued, we should be very careful in terms of when and for what circumstances it would be utilized. Two things that come to mind are life-saving measures or kidnappings. These are the types of things where timing is of the essence. There might be a requirement for us to ensure that law enforcement officers are able to get the necessary information as quickly as possible.

The minister and others have talked a lot about section 184.4. That is really what we are talking about and that is what the Supreme Court made its ruling on. In going through some notes and, in particular, comments by judges, I thought I would share two that are really important to recognize and are related to section 184.4, which deals with the warrantless wiretapping provisions.

The first quote was said by one of our court judges:

—the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society — here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

I find that to be a most appropriate statement. This is why I raised this a few minutes ago. It is important for us to take a look at the most appropriate time frame. When someone's telephone conversation is being tapped into and the individual is not aware of it, what is an appropriate amount of time between the law officer making a recording of a conversation and the individual's right to know that recording was in fact made? From what I understand, the bill suggests 90 days.

The judge has correctly pointed out the importance of this to the public. We need to recognize that it outweighs the private interest. However, in the same breath, it is still important the private interest be protected in some fashion.

The second quote is as follows:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual’s s. 8 charter rights and society’s interests in preventing serious harm.

I wanted to read those quotes because I believe very passionately in the charter. I believe the vast majority of Canadians over the years have recognized how important it is to protect and refer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because we have taken ownership of that over the last 30 years. We need to do what we can to always reflect on that.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a number of members a very important question that many took for granted, and I want to use a couple of examples.

I am the critic for citizenship and immigration. I have been frustrated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and some of the legislation he has brought forward. The question I posed to members earlier was related to the obligation of government ministers, with regard to the changes they are proposing at the draft stage, to get a better sense of whether these changes would meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or pass a constitutional challenge. This has been an important issue for me because it has been raised in committee on several occasions. In fact, there is a group of lawyers and doctors in Toronto that is going to the Federal Court questioning the constitutionality of the decision made by the minister to cut back health care services to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

We have challenged the minister on that and it is now going to a federal court. We are not confident that the minister knew what he was doing when he brought in that change. Through Bill C-38, the minister made changes that ultimately excluded hundreds of thousands of skilled workers. Again, we questioned that. Not only does it come across as a very cruel and inhumane policy change, but when the minister brought in the change it was, and is being, challenged by a federal court. In fact, there was a ruling made by one court in Ontario indicating that the minister was wrong. I am not sure where this is at within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but that is another issue.

Then we had the issue of detention, which is where committees really are of benefit. We had a minister who was going to put people in a detention centre without any real right of appeal for a year, but at committee stage we were able to make some serious changes to that proposal. However, it took a whole lot to do it. Again, we had presenters at committee who said that this would not meet a constitutional challenge. That is important.

In looking at the justice area, I always thought that Bill C-30 was an interesting bill when it was introduced. I understand that the government has now withdrawn Bill C-30, but one of the arguments in that regard was that it did not go far enough in its provisions to give police officers wiretapping power over Internet services. Now Bill C-30 has come to a standstill, with the government backing off from it for a wide variety of reasons. That said, I question whether or not the current section 184.4 is something that would have been able to deal with many of the measures suggested in Bill C-30. Is that one of the reasons the government is not moving forward with the legislation? If so, one could question why it brought forward the bill in the first place. What happened regarding the exploitation of children on the Internet? Is that issue addressed in section 184.4? I am interested in knowing the answer, as I do know there was an attempt to deal with that issue in Bill C-30.

When I look at Bill C-55 as a whole, I do see merit in it going to committee, where I am interested to see what will take place. Hopefully, there will be some discussion relating to Bill C-30 because there might have been possible amendments to it that would benefit Bill C-55. Canadians are concerned about the exploitation of children over the Internet. I do not know to what degree Bill C-55 could assist in extreme circumstances in dealing with that issue.

We look forward to the bill going to committee. I hope and trust that the government will look at bringing legislation in a more timely fashion to the House and allow members the necessary diligence, without being rushed to pass bills to meet a deadline such as the Supreme Court's decision.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs appeared before the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples on Bill C-27. During the meeting, Liberal Senator Nicholas acknowledged the difficulty in getting information out of her own first nations leadership and Liberal Senator Sibbeston said that he supported the bill. Yet, near the end of the meeting these same Liberal senators walked out of the meeting denouncing the bill.

Could the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs please remind the House of the importance of this particular bill?

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River.

Our government has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to self-government and land claim settlements. We know they are the keys to increasing opportunities, jobs and prosperity for first nations. Enabling first nations to participate more fully in the economic improvements, both for their financial and social well-being, contributes to healthier, more sustainable communities. Equally important, self-government gives greater control to first nations leaders and residents over the decisions that affect their daily lives.

Our government is committed to working with willing first nations to make changes to elements of the Indian Act that are barriers to first nations governance and economic growth. This past month, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced that eight more first nations have joined the First Nations Land Management Act and chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources, so they are able to take advantage of the economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

The First Nations Land Management Act is an important stepping stone to achieving self-government because it builds community capacity. Since first nations opted into this act and are no longer required to adhere to these land-related sections of the Indian Act, they have developed experience with land management. This experience, as well as developing a strong governance structure, sets the stage for greater self-government responsibilities down the road and improving accountability to members of first nation communities.

When a first nation opts into the First Nations Land Management Act regime, it opts out of the 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act. This frees the community from the outdated land management provisions of the Indian Act, which have not kept pace with first nations' desire for increased participation in the Canadian economy. There have been 69 first nations that have already made the decision to use this tool. We look forward to welcoming many more of them.

Communities deserve to be responsible for land-related issues that were previously administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This shift gives back the responsibility to the first nations to take greater ownership of economic development on reserve and encourages partnership with the private sector. This is a key component of our government's shared goal with first nations people to increase autonomy and self-sufficient communities. Our government believes that incremental amendments to the Indian Act to bring our concrete, practical changes will lead to real results for grassroots first nations people and enable them to achieve greater self-sufficiency and prosperity.

Another example is Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act. Canadians understand the importance of transparency and accountability to promote confidence in their leaders. They know that first nations members deserve the same from their leadership, and they need access to adequate information to ensure their elected leaders are acting in their best interest. Bill C-27 puts in place the same types of rules for first nations on financial transparency that already apply to other levels of government in Canada. Let me remind my hon. colleagues that chiefs belonging to the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution at their special chiefs assembly in December 2010 regarding financial disclosure. They affirm the need to publicly release information regarding salaries and expenses to their members. They have also agreed to make financial information available via the Internet where applicable.

Sadly, implementation of this resolution is far from complete. Even the AFN knows that financial disclosure is needed for first nation communities. The bill will provide an important new tool that will enable first nation leaders to be more accountable to their members. Transparency is at the foundation of a healthy democracy. To this end, Bill C-27 is designed to empower first nation community members to hold their leaders to account. Further, this initiative is part of a wider government effort to create greater accountability to enhance economic growth for first nations and all Canadians.

This legislation is something first nation residents are demanding. The real genesis of this legislation rests at the grassroots level. Individual members of first nations and, in some cases, community coalition groups formed across the country have repeatedly complained about questionable financial practices by their band councils. Too many first nation members say that they do not have access to the information they need to hold their officials to account. Bill C-27 will require the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors and the audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole to be publicly disclosed. It will put in place rules regarding financial transparency that are comparable to those that apply to governments across Canada.

Most important, the public availability of this data will result in greater and more consistent transparency practices that will increase investor confidence in first nation communities. The proposed legislation has benefited from the input of first nation leaders, such as Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation in Saskatchewan. Chief Bear stated during his appearance before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that transparency and accountability were among the principle factors that turned the Whitecap Dakota First Nation from near bankruptcy to the model vibrant community it is today.

Bill C-27 complements Bill S-6, the first nations elections act. These are both important pieces of legislation that support democratic practices and will empower first nations in the future. If passed, Bill S-6 will help ensure that first nations have a modern legislative framework to better support democracy, accountability and transparent governments, allowing first nation community members to make informed decisions about their leadership and create a better environment for private sector investment. This could in turn lead to greater economic development opportunities and improve the quality of life for first nation communities.

Our government is committed to working with willing first nations to strengthen financial and government transparency and accountability on reserve. The Indian Act cannot be replaced overnight, but our government has committed to working together to create the conditions to enable sustainable and economic success for first nations.

Furthermore, our government is investing in programs such as the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, and the skills partnership fund. A set $1.68 billion has been committed from 2010 to 2015 to increase first nation participation in the Canadian labour force. I believe this is a great move forward, and I look forward, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to working further with first nations to ensure that they move forward as all Canadians should.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. The member's motion calls for improved economic outcomes for first nations, Inuit and Métis, and a commitment on treaty implementation and meaningful consultation on legislation with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I am proud of our government's record on improving the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments that will make a concrete difference in the lives of aboriginal people, including skills training, housing on reserves, potable water, schools, treaty rights, protection of the rights of women and the resolution of land claims.

For example, we have built over 30 new schools on reserve and renovated more than 200 others. We have invested in a major way in safe drinking water systems. We have built over 10,000 new homes and renovated thousands more. We have increased funding for child and family services by 25%. We have legislated that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to first nation individuals living on reserves. This was a glaring discriminatory provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we reversed, over the objections of the opposition.

We introduced legislation to improve the accountability of first nation governments to their people. We introduced legislation to create an open and transparent elections process, necessary for economic development. We have settled over 80 outstanding land claims, many of which had been languishing for 20 years in the hopper. We have invested in over 700 projects, linking aboriginals across Canada with job training and counselling services.

I have had a long history with first nations and have seen a lot of change over the years. I am very encouraged to see firsthand many examples of strong first nation leadership driving very positive change.

Aboriginal peoples represent the fastest growing population in Canada. Given the country's labour shortages and the proximity of first nation communities to resource development projects, there is a tremendous economic opportunity before us. That is why we have consistently invested in measures to improve aboriginal participation in the economy.

Like economic action plan 2012, economic action plan 2013 will be focused on jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Finding ways to ensure that first nations can benefit from resource development is a priority. It is good for first nations, for Canada, for our Métis and for our Inuit. Our government is investing in measures that will help ensure that first nations are well-positioned to take advantage of these and other economic opportunities. For example, our government has invested in over 700 initiatives to link aboriginal people with job training, mentoring and other supports. We also invest more than $400 million annually in direct funding for aboriginal skills development and training.

My department's major projects and investment funds initiative has also contributed over $22 million to support aboriginal participation in 87 energy and resource projects, such as hydro, mining, renewable energy and forestry. These contributions have helped create over 400 jobs and levered just over $307 million from public and private debt and equity financing sources.

In addition to these investments, our government has worked to modernize legislation to allow first nations and aboriginal organizations to operate at the speed of business. Last year, our government introduced Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act to allow first nations community members access to the same basic financial information about their government and their elected officials available to all other Canadians.

More specifically, the bill would require first nation elected officials to publish their statements of remuneration and expenses as well as their audited consolidated financial statements. The bill would provide community members with the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and to provide investors with the confidence they need to enter into financial partnerships with first nations.

Now that the legislation is before the Senate committee, we hope to see it passed into law very soon.

The first nations financial transparency act was driven by grassroots first nation members who were calling for greater accountability from their governments. Many of these people have suffered retribution, including intimidation and verbal and physical abuse, for having spoken in support of greater transparency and accountability.

Another important legislative initiative that would foster jobs and economic growth is Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, which includes the Nunavut planning and project assessment act and the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, along with related amendments to the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. Together, these measures would fulfill outstanding obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as well as the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreements, and respond to calls for measures to streamline and improve regulatory processes in the north. The bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Amendments to the land designation sections of the Indian Act that comprised a portion of Bill C-45 would also create economic opportunities. These amendments would speed up the process for leasing lands for economic development purposes, while allowing first nations to maintain full ownership of their lands. As a result, it would provide greater flexibility for first nations to act on time-sensitive economic development opportunities. These amendments responded directly to first nations who had expressed frustration to me, to the standing committee and to other members with the overly complex and lengthy process of designating land, which was an impediment to investment opportunities.

I quote from Chief Shane Gottfriedson, chief of the Tk'emlúps Indian Band in British Columbia, speaking about these changes to the land designation process in Bill C-45. “[Before the changes] it was just horrific for us to try and do any sort of business within our territory”.

Chief Reginald Bellerose of the Muskowekwan First Nation in Saskatchewan also spoke in favour of the changes: “[Muskowekwan First Nation] recognizes the positive steps the federal government has made to assist First Nation communities to operate in a more efficient and commercial manner. Specifically, Bill C-45 provides for a more efficient land designation vote process”.

We have heard from first nations that they want to be able to move at the speed of business and we continue to work with willing partners to remove economic barriers to the success of first nation communities as they seek out opportunities to generate wealth for their communities and their members.

If further proof was needed that legislative action can speed economic development, I would like to point to my announcement just last week on new regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that will allow the Kitimat natural gas facility on the Haisla First Nation's Bees Indian Reserve No. 6 to move forward. The Kitimat LNG facility will provide Canada's energy producers with a doorway to overseas markets. It will create well-paying jobs and economic growth opportunities for the Haisla First Nation and the entire northwest region of British Columbia.

We have also invested in modernizing the land management regimes for first nations so that they can unlock the potential of their lands and natural resources. This past month I announced that eight more first nations will soon be operating under the First Nations Land Management Act. These first nations have chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act, which were holding them back from achieving their full economic potential. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources so that they can take advantage of economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

This is in addition to 18 other first nations that I announced last January, making a total of 69 first nations that can now develop their own land codes, which will allow them to more quickly and effectively pursue economic opportunities and create jobs. Through these initiatives we are putting in place the building blocks for future success. These foundational pieces will help prepare communities to take advantage of new economic opportunities available to them.

We are a business-like government. We like to obtain concrete results. We are making unprecedented investments in the spirit of partnership and we recognize historical grievances. This is why we have settled outstanding land claims that have been long languishing.

The government is committed to continue building on the progress we have made to improve living conditions for first nations and to create jobs and economic opportunities in their communities. Specifically, we are committed to expediting comprehensive claims and treaty implementation. We all recognize that while much progress has been made, more work remains to be done. We are taking steps to improve land claim and self-government negotiation processes. This includes identifying alternatives to negotiations that meet the interests of the parties as well as practical measures to make sure that first nations are ready and able to fully engage and participate in the process.

In some cases there are alternatives to comprehensive claims and we are good with that. For example, the Haisla, the Squamish First Nation and Westbank First Nation are not specifically interested in pursuing treaties. They realize there are other measures that can and have been put in place, which are expediting the conditions for economic prosperity for their communities. We are also involved currently in self-government negotiations on a number of historic treaties. An example of that is the Sioux Valley Dakota First Nation in Manitoba, where we anticipate imminently the conclusion of self-government negotiations.

There is a clear link between the strength of the relationship and the economic prosperity of first nations and all Canadians. Protection of aboriginal treaty rights and consultations with aboriginals are enshrined in our laws, which have been passed by this Parliament. This government fully respects our duty to consult. That is why we have conducted more than 5,000 consultations annually. As minister, I have visited over 50 first nation communities since 2010 and I have had hundreds of productive meetings with first nation chiefs, councillors and community members across Canada.

This government also undertook unprecedented consultations on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. We are currently in the midst of intensive consultations with first nation leaders, teachers, students and educators in the development of a first nation education act. I would like to highlight some of the important work that has been done on the development of a first nation education act.

In economic action plan 2012, our government committed to work with willing partners to establish a first nation education act that will establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve. Through intense consultations, we have committed to work with willing partners to have the legislation in place by September 2014. We are determined to follow through on this commitment.

First nation students are the only children in Canada whose education system is not governed by legislation. Our government, unlike previous governments, is committed to bringing forward such legislation. The legislation would provide the modern framework necessary to build standards and structures, strengthen governance and accountability, and provide the mechanism for stable, predictable and sustainable funding.

I would like to add that, as recently as yesterday, I met with the first nation education steering committee in British Columbia. We have other examples, such as Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey in Nova Scotia, where these parameters are already in place. An important part of our consultation is to meet with first nation authorities that have already done much work in this area and are obtaining results of the kind that are setting a great example.

We are making other investments. We have also invested an additional $100 million over three years to help ensure readiness for the new education system to be put in place by September 2014. We committed an incremental $175 million, on top of the $200 million that we spend on an annual basis, to new school projects. It is unfortunate that the member who brought forward today's motion chose to vote against these investments in first nation education.

This past December I announced the launch of intensive face-to-face consultation with first nation parents, students, leaders, educators and others on the initiative. The first in a series of sessions began in Halifax last week. The second session will be in Saskatoon next week.

I want to state very clearly that there is no legislation drafted. The purpose of these ongoing consultations is to get views and feedback so that legislation can be drafted. The input gathered during consultations will help shape the drafting of the legislation. Once drafted, the proposed legislation will be shared with every first nation across Canada, as well as with provincial governments and other stakeholders for feedback.

Modern land claims and self-government agreements can also provide a path to self-sufficiency and unlock economic opportunities. We are working in partnership with first nations on a new results-based approach to treaty and self-government negotiations to achieve more treaties in less time so that aboriginal communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities that can be realized through treaties.

Under the new approach, our government will focus its resources on tables with the greatest potential for success to bring treaties to fruition. The chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission is strongly supportive of our new approach, saying that she is encouraged our government is accelerating progress. We have heard first nations' concerns and we are delivering necessary change. It is also clear that there are options to the treaty process. Our goal is to achieve treaties where we can and to develop options to treaties where we cannot.

I will conclude by saying that moving forward will take time and dedicated effort from all parties. We are fully committed to taking further steps along this journey. We will continue to focus on real structural reforms and increasing the effectiveness of long-term investments.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.

I am going to draw on my experience. Over the holidays—they were supposed to be holidays, but that was not the case—I was asked to develop a course on the amendments to the Indian Act and on bills C-27, C-38 and C-45.

For Bill C-27, I addressed certain concepts related to accountability, sharing and public disclosure of financial information on economic transactions and the financial information of private on-reserve businesses. The imposition of those measures is a first in Canada. It is likely that they will be fast-tracked and ultimately adopted. Well, with Bill C-27, it will be a first. Private and corporate entities will have to make their financial information available to the general public on the band councils' websites for a minimum of 10 years.

Once again, it is likely that there will be cherry-picking, that these measures will be imposed on certain communities and that the government in power will be quite accommodating and hands-off with other communities that support it more. I submit to you that there is a willingness to keep the communities at a certain level.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin the New Year by addressing some notions that are, to say the least, tiresome, since they are associated with the ins and outs of the Canadian tax system. The spirit of plurality that should inform remarks made in this House and my constant concern to highlight the ethnic diversity of this country encourage me to present these comments, which deal with Bill C-48, from a perspective of exposing white-collar crime, tax avoidance schemes and corporate tax evasion on aboriginal lands.

At the risk of repeating myself, I did teach for one semester at the Cégep in Sept-Îles. My course was on legal and administrative aspects of aboriginal organizations. I have therefore gone very deeply into the subject, which I was teaching at the time at the college level, and I have decided to bring that knowledge up to date. Within the course, one section dealt essentially with white-collar crime, and the ways organized crime has found to interfere in the management and economic operations specific to Indian reserves. I think it is timely to share this information with all Canadians.

The Conservatives must already be telling themselves that they addressed this idea in Bill C-27. However, they are on the wrong track, because the people behind this economic malfeasance and who work on the fringes of Indian reserves in Canada are most often, in fact, non-aboriginal. They are foreign elements. They are financiers, lobbyists, people with special interests who prowl around the reserves and work on the fringes because of the special schemes relating to income and other taxes, among other things.

That is why these financiers propose phoney corporate vehicles, which are mere fronts. The most common method is to exploit a few willing Indians on a reserve. The corporate vehicle is developed with a very special capital structure. From that point, the rules respecting income and other taxes come into play. We have to address this reality when we talk about tax evasion on the reserves in 2013.

If we consider this interference in the context of economic expansion in our communities, it is related to the successive announcements about such matters as the development of natural resources in remote communities, but it is also related to economic growth. I have already indicated in the past that the people who live on Indian reserves across the country have been compelled over the last 150 years to develop what is designed to be a parallel economy, not “parallel” in the pejorative sense, but because it meets special requirements, responding to a way of life and to adversity.

The aboriginal communities in Canada have long been ignored in the development of economic growth measures as proposed by the various governments, even in 2013. These communities have been left behind, and for a long time, many communities, if not nearly all the Indian reserves in Canada, have gone without.

Over the last 50 years, there has been an expansion, with the development of special schemes and alternative measures. There has been a genuine expansion. Economic conditions in some communities are very good. This is not true of most Indian reserves, but some communities are fairly well provided for with respect to their economic basis. This interference by harmful elements and criminal elements has been accentuated with this growth in the economic strength of Indian reserves.

The concerted efforts of tax authorities, combined with joint investigations carried out by specialized police units in Canada, have in fact highlighted the real mark left by embezzlement on the part of organized cells of shady operators, on the fringes of the aboriginal communities in Canada.

I said there are special tax rules for Indian reserves. Nonetheless, it took a few years for promoters from outside the communities to find compliant actors, among other things, on Indian reserves.

To set up these business vehicles, which are dubious, to say the least, it still takes a token member of the community. Often, these people are well placed and visible within the communities, but there also has to be a form of compliance on the part of both the federal and the provincial government authorities.

At one point, when I worked for my band council, I submitted this problem to the Indian affairs representative who travelled there. I was told quite brusquely that this did not fall within their mandate and I should approach some other authorities to resolve that kind of problem. In other words, they turned a deaf ear. I concluded as follows: there was compliance and blinkers had been very carefully placed on the representatives of government agencies at both the federal and provincial levels. This is a known fact.

When I taught that course, I based what I said on information compiled by information agencies here, agencies of Canada. So this was a well documented problem. When we talk about tax havens, we think of foreign destinations, but this type of scheme operates and is observed right here in Canada. We cannot ignore this.

On the subject of the compliance that existed, I would say that the various governments engaged in cherry-picking. In other words, they take a different view of operations in communities that are more docile or are relatively supportive of the policies of a particular government.

Other communities, some of whose representatives come to testify before the committee fairly regularly, support the existing government policies. In those communities, the schemes run by shady operators, organized crime or white-collar crime will be given free rein, even though that is not how it looks at first glance. These kinds of operations will be allowed to go on in certain more docile communities that toe the line promulgated by the government authorities.

The New Democrats believe this kind of tax avoidance and tax evasion has to be combatted, while at the same time preserving the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes this bill makes, and particularly those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

I indicated that measures like the ones in Bill C-27 will make us look at our own community leaders and members as negative influences and the only ones responsible for tax avoidance and obvious financial wrongdoing, and this is a mistake. This is false in most cases, based on what has been proven. Studies and wiretaps from undercover operations and intelligence agencies in Canada indicate that these negative influences are located outside of the community. These include businesspeople as well as people involved in organized crime. Biker gangs have also expressed interest.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that most native reserves are located in isolated communities in the north. Verifications are done by financial institutions. However, based on my own experience and my own reality, other auditors and people in a position to shed some light on these kinds of economic activities and wrongdoings take very little interest in the development of and the realities facing communities above the 52nd parallel. That is why these kinds of wrongdoings can persist.

Make no mistake, in most cases, the expertise comes primarily from people who are outside of the community. Legal and judicial advisors have developed economic and financial schemes. They also develop share capital and divide this phony share capital in such a way that puts all voting shares in the hands of one individual or group. Everything is calculated very carefully. The same goes for imposing shotgun clauses.

Since I have studied corporate law at the post-graduate level, I am in a position to dissect share capital and to see it for what it really is. On the face of it, a business can call itself aboriginal, even though that technically may not be the case. A business might be owned by aboriginal interests on paper, but when we really look at how the share capital is divided up, we quickly see that the power is held by individuals outside of the community.

I submit this respectfully.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to welcome you and thank you for being here.

In your very brief opening remarks, you noted that you have a number of pieces of legislation working their way through either the Senate or the House of Commons. I was very pleased to see Bill C-27 pass in the House of Commons. It's now in the Senate.

I want to commend the department on the work it is doing, and I want to focus some of my questions around some of the transfers I see in the supplementary (B)s. My first question is around the grants to first nations “to settle specific claims negotiated by Canada”. This is on page 86 of the supplementary estimates document.

I'm wondering about the $17.421 million in funding for specific claim settlements. Can you tell us a little bit about how that money is being spent?

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the privilege of talking about an issue as important as the one addressed in Bill C-428. I believe that this bill is important because it tackles the horrible Indian Act of 1876. There can be no doubt that this bill is one of Canada's most archaic colonial legacies. That is why I commend the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River on his initiative. However, it is not enough. It is too little, too late. The Conservative government should consider a much farther-reaching rewrite of the Indian Act and a much more open process.

As a New Democrat, I believe that a complete overhaul of this cursed bill should be led by aboriginals. If the changes are imposed unilaterally, then what, really, has changed? That is why Bill C-428 seems inappropriate.

I will explain why this bill is not likely to go down in history. I do not claim to have a plan to make up for 136 years of colonialism, but I can say that ideally, new legislation should be drafted in collaboration with aboriginals, be introduced by the government and honour the goals of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Because Bill C-428 does not satisfy any of these conditions, I cannot support it.

I want to begin by pointing out that the goal of the 1876 act was the assimilation of all aboriginals and their forced integration into what was then a fledgling Canadian society. When I visit Manawan, people there are still speaking Atikamekw in 2012. In that respect, the act failed. It also includes many provisions that make life difficult for aboriginals. The government will have to do better than a private member's bill to fix it.

In 1969, the Liberal Party tried to get rid of the act in order to integrate aboriginals into Canadian society. That was supposed to happen without compensation, without special status, and with no respect for treaties signed in the past. As one, aboriginals rejected the idea, but that does not mean they wanted to keep the Indian Act. Quite the contrary.

In their red paper, aboriginals stated that it was neither possible nor desirable to abolish the Indian Act. They said that a review of the act was critical, but that it should not happen until treaty issues were resolved. Some 45 years later, that issue is still outstanding.

Other attempts were explored in this House. In 1987, a list was made of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, and this led to a bill. Later, in 2003, the Liberals introduced Bill C-7, which, once again, was heavily criticized by first nations. The Conservatives are now bringing forward Bill C-428, a private member's bill, which seems just as irrelevant as other attempts.

In the words of Einstein, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In my opinion, this quote points to what is clearly lacking in Bill C-428: a different approach. Perhaps this flaw is the reason why there is very little support for the bill outside the Conservative caucus. The chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, said that this bill is along the same lines as the policy espoused in the 1969 white paper.

Had the Conservatives listened to Mr. Atleo, they would have understood that what to do with aboriginals is no longer the question. In the 21st century, the question is: what do aboriginals want to do with us?

Bill C-428, which the Assembly of First Nations has said came out of nowhere, does not reflect the current reality. During the Crown–First Nations Gathering, the Conservative Prime Minister spoke at length about how his government would work with the first nations.

Aboriginal peoples were not consulted about Bill C-428, or about Bill C-27 or Bill S-8. When the government promises something—and especially something so important—it must follow through. It is shameful to see that this government is not keeping its own promises.

Speaking of broken promises, the government committed to removing the residential school provisions from the Indian Act. We can see that the government preferred to hide the clause in a private member's bill. The NDP thinks that something so important should come from the government, and with apologies, no less. The government must take responsibility and come up with a real, serious solution to replace the Indian Act.

Bill C-428 contains some clauses that seem to be chosen at random, when they are not downright negative. For example, the elimination of the provisions dealing with wills and estates could put aboriginal people in a very frustrating legal void. Does the bill's sponsor understand its implications?

Finally, we must recognize that the living conditions of aboriginal people are getting worse all the time. While the first nations communities are experiencing an ongoing demographic boom, their social services budgets are increasing by only 2% a year, thanks to the Liberals. The fact that the social services budgets for other Canadians are increasing by 6% a year does not seem to bother the government at all.

Malnutrition and education problems are hitting first nations communities hard. I am afraid that the Prime Minister will have to do more than give a medal to Justin Bieber to make young aboriginals forget about this sad reality. When the government decides to really tackle the problems resulting from the Indian Act, I will be there.

Furthermore, I expect that the proposed measure will be very much in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration, which Canada ignorantly refused to support, recognizes the specific needs of aboriginal people. It recognizes their right to be consulted about the use of resources on their land. Do we not owe at least that to those who played key roles in our history and the development of our economy?

If the government does not change its attitude toward the first nations, they will understand that the NDP is the only party that can offer them a truly open consultation process. We want to help them to govern themselves. Other Canadians need to know that the excellent social services they receive must also be provided to aboriginal people, in a spirit of sharing and recognition.

The Indian Act needs to be revised, but not without real consultation, clear objectives and a detailed plan of steps to follow. Unfortunately, Bill C-428 does not meet any of these criteria.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as many of speeches here today have underlined, there is no shortage of good reasons to support this legislation. Among the most powerful is the fact that this act will address a glaring deficiency in the way first nations governments operate at the moment. They are currently the only governments in Canada that do not adhere to transparency and accountability legislation.

While many first nations governments have put in place sound accountability practices to ensure transparency, there is no legislated requirement for them to release the information to community members and too many do not. All other jurisdictions across the country have realized the importance of putting financial transparency requirements into legislation. They understand that governments must be accountable in exchange for legitimacy in the eyes of the people they serve and that they must lead by example.

Several of my colleagues have touched on various aspects of provincial and territorial legislation in their presentations today. They have noted that in addition to the demands they make of their own elected officials, most provinces and territories have laws that also require municipalities to make financial documents public.

This highlights an important point. Even though municipalities are governments in their own right, they are required to follow provincial legislation with respect to financial transparency. In many respects, this parallels some aspects of the government-to-government relationship of first nations with the federal government. For this reason, I believe it may be helpful to explore what municipal governments are expected to do, to appreciate just how commonplace and beneficial these financial transparency laws are.

I am convinced this underscores that the provisions in the first nations financial transparency act are not only reasonable but also entirely do-able, as the many municipal governments from coast to coast to coast demonstrate when implementing their own versions of financial accountability legislation. For example, look at what municipalities in Ontario are expected to do when it comes to issuing annual financial statements. Section 294.1 of the Ontario Municipal Act says:

A municipality shall, for each fiscal year, prepare annual financial statements for the municipality in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments as recommended, from time to time, by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Section 295 stipulates that within 60 days of receiving the audited financial statements of the municipality for the previous years, the municipal treasurer must publish this information in a local newspaper. This includes a copy of the audited financial statements, the notes to the financial statements, the auditor's report and the tax rate information for the current and previous year contained in the financial review.

Manitoba makes similar demands on municipalities under the province's municipal act. Section 183(1) requires a municipality to prepare annual financial statements for the immediately preceding year in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles for municipal governments recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It also demands that any modification of those principles or any supplementary accounting standards or principles be approved by the minister. Furthermore, section 194 of the act requires the municipality to notify the public that the report and the municipality's financial statements are available for inspection by anyone who asks to see them at the municipal office during regular business hours.

In my home province, Saskatchewan's municipal act is even more precise. It demands that on or before June 15 of each year, municipalities prepare financial statements. Again, they must conform with the generally accepted accounting principles for municipal governments recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. As in Ontario and Manitoba, the municipality also needs to publicize its financial statements, or at least a summary of them, as well as the auditor's report of the financial statements by September 1 of the following fiscal year. In addition, it has to submit its financial statements and the auditor's report on the financial statements to the minister by July 1 of the year following the financial year. Again, anyone in the province is entitled, at any time during regular business hours, to inspect and obtain copies of these documents.

The Province of Alberta's Municipal Government Act is almost a carbon copy of other acts. Like other provinces I have mentioned, it demands that each municipality prepare annual financial statements for the preceding fiscal year. It also stipulates that the statements must be in accordance with the accounting principles for municipal governments recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and that any modification to them needs to be established by the minister through regulation. Likewise, each municipality has to make its financial statements, or a summary of them, along with the auditor's report of the financial statements, available to the public. That needs to be done by May 1 following the year for which the financial statements have been prepared. However, Alberta expects even more from municipalities. Their financial statements need to include the municipality's debt limit, including the debt as defined in regulations under section 271 of the act.

Newfoundland and Labrador is another jurisdiction that insists municipalities' financial statements and auditors reports be made available for public inspection during normal business hours. Like the previous provinces I have mentioned, under Newfoundland and Labrador's Municipalities Act, municipalities' financial statements need to be made available for public inspection. The only fees involved are the actual costs to provide a copy.

All of the rules and regulations I have just described apply strictly to municipal governments, essentially the equivalent counterpart of first nations governments in our federation. Then, there are various laws regarding the remuneration and expenses of provincial, territorial and municipal leaders. I will not take the time to describe each jurisdiction's laws in great detail, but here is a sampling. The Government of the Northwest Territories, for example, requires the disclosure of the salaries of elected officials. The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act stipulates that the speaker must table a report that sets out in detail the indemnities and allowances paid to members and the expenses incurred by members in the previous fiscal year.

In addition, within two years after the polling day for a general election, the speaker must establish an independent commission and appoint three individuals who are independent, neutral and knowledgeable. Ten months following the independent commission's formation, the independent commissioners review the indemnities and any allowance or reimbursements for expenses payable, or other benefits available to members. They also have to provide a report to the speaker, setting out any recommendations for changes that they determine should be made.

The report needs to be very detailed. It has to break down the total amount of annual salary paid to each member, the total value of additional indemnities paid to each member holding an additional office, and the total dollar value of allowances for expenses as well as any other expenses and allowances. Apart from this report, the Government of the Northwest Territories publishes the salary and benefit allowances for its members on the legislative assembly website.

I could point to almost any province or territory and we would find similar laws or regulations governing officials' compensation. While the wording varies from one jurisdiction to another, they all require that the salaries of elected politicians be published along with any other special allowances that they receive. They also demand that this information be released to the public, whether within the legislature, council chamber, on government websites, in the local media or some combination of these locations.

This is true in Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and many other jurisdictions. These governments and the elected officials that lead them recognize both the necessity and the advantages of making information easily accessible to electors. They know it builds trust, inspires confidence and ensures the public understands how public funds are spent.

Most of all, these leaders respect the public has a right to know. They realize they are accountable for their actions. These publicly released financial statements demonstrate that government leaders are not afraid to stand behind their record. First nations leaders stand to enjoy the same benefits once Bill C-27 is passed.

By acknowledging that members of first nations have the same rights to information as all other Canadians and making financial information readily available to them, they can instill confidence among the electorate in their capacity to lead and meet the community's needs.

Making salary and expense information open to scrutiny will send a clear signal that they recognize that band members are the ultimate owners of any business owned by their band. It will formally recognize that local residents have the right to know what the value of those businesses are.

Rather than adding a layer of complexity, as some fear, the legislation may actually lighten the load for first nations officials. Bill C-27 would remove any cloud of uncertainty that currently hangs over some communities. All this bill would do is mirror what other jurisdictions, provinces, territories and municipalities already do without any problems.

I fully understand that it is only human nature to resist change. If we are totally honest, perhaps some of us as parliamentarians initially had second thoughts about the reporting requirements we had adopted at the federal level. However, I am sure we will be able to be the first to say that being open and transparent about what we are paid in the way of salaries and expenses is not onerous. We have proven that it is not difficult to do. It has simply become the way we do business.

I am equally confident that if we were to survey provincial, territorial and municipal politicians who are subject to similar legislation, we would get the same reaction. Even if it took a bit of getting used to, I do not doubt that almost all would agree that being open with the public is not a chore. It is actually a good way to earn the confidence of people.

I also expect that many first nations leaders who already employ these practices—

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her speech. I have to say that this government's slogan seems to be, “do as I say, not as I do.”

Unfortunately, we are once again being muzzled in the debate on Bill C-27. A time allocation motion was adopted for about the 30th time. I just wanted to point that out.

My first question for the member opposite is the following: the first nations asked the government to work with them to develop better transparency and governance measures on the reserves. Why is the Conservative government ignoring this opportunity to work together?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members would be hard pressed to find anyone who is more aware of the need for and proud of this legislation than I. As my hon. colleagues know, I have been championing this issue for a very long time. It is almost two years ago now that I introduced Bill C-575, the first iteration of today's first nations financial transparency act. I believed then, as I do now, that first nations residents, like all Canadians, deserve transparency and accountability from their officials.

Indeed, more than just saying they are accountable in terms of their salaries and the reimbursement of expenses, these officials need to demonstrate they are absolutely transparent when it comes to reporting their earnings. This is what people in many first nations communities are demanding. That is why I originally brought forward my private member's bill.

In a nutshell, the purpose of Bill C-575 was to ensure that public funds that flow to first nations leaders are publicly disclosed. There is an existing process for band members to request financial information from their leaders. At the moment, if those requests are not met, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development must step in and release the information.

My bill would have simplified the process, making disclosure automatic instead of going through this time-consuming and onerous process, which puts the minister in an awkward position and which undermines democracy, as first nations members cannot exercise their democratic rights without access to adequate information.

While some chiefs and councillors routinely release such financial information to their community members, unfortunately not all first nations achieve this standard. Those that do achieve this standard recognize the value in ensuring that their decisions and actions are clearly visible for all to see. They respect that their members have a fundamental right to know how public money is being spent. They know this information is vital to making wise, informed decisions about activities in their communities. They also understand that sharing this knowledge encourages an atmosphere of openness and trust between band councils and the community members they serve.

The problem is that not all band leaders see it that way. Current practices are uneven across the country. Some first nations will only release information about spending and the reimbursement of government officials' expenses on request. Others outright refuse to do so. It is precisely because some first nation leaders will not release this information that community members are forced to ask Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to provide them with the details on their behalf.

I heard from individual members of first nations communities who complained that their local governments refused to release financial information. They have told me that access to this information is important and necessary for their communities. I know they are not alone in feeling this way. There was enormous support all across Canada for Bill C-575 when it was working its way through Parliament.

Indeed, many first nation band members have been complaining for years about the lack of accountability among their political leaders and their unwillingness to provide details about the band's finances and management.

Jo-Ann Nahanee, an advocate for transparency and accountability, is reported in the press as saying:

...for self-government to be successful, you need to have your members of your community—the participants of your government—be involved by informing them. My band does not do that.

She went on to explain:

There is an underlying fear on the reserve because there is a reliance on chief and council for welfare, for income. You are taking about people in poverty...and they are scared to speak up because they are scared to have these things taken away, so nobody speaks out.

That is just one example. There are similar complaints coming from other corners of the country, such as those brought to our attention by the Peguis Accountability Coalition. The coalition was formed by community members who are frustrated because they cannot access salary or other financial information about their band. They insist that those in power must be held accountable.

I can assure the House I am not implying that all first nations are reporting such problems or that the activities of all band leaders should be suspect; far from it. In fact, I am extremely proud of the many successful first nations in my home province of Saskatchewan whose leaders are wonderful role models in this regard. A perfect example is Darcy Bear, Chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. Chief Bear is one of the biggest proponents of this legislation. He is on the record as stating:

This bill will mean more accountability of First Nation leaders to our people. Transparent and accountable First Nation governments support a strong environment for investment leading to greater economic development”.

Leaders like Chief Bear know that, in addition to better serving their community members, increased transparency and accountability pave the way to greater private sector investment and economic prosperity for first nations. As encouraged as I am by first nations chiefs and councils that recognize this reality, the fact remains that others do not. A sizeable proportion of first nations residents are not satisfied that they have access to the information they need to hold their officials to account. This has been substantiated by research produced by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. It found that 25% of first nation individuals surveyed as part of its aboriginal governments index say that salary information for public officials is not available to band members. Thanks to the legislation before us, that will soon no longer be the case.

As we are aware, Bill C-575 died on the order paper when the last election was called. However, that may have been a blessing in disguise because its replacement, Bill C-27, builds on my original private member's bill and makes it even better.

While my private member's bill was unable to pass through the House of Commons before the election, by reintroducing it this fall, our government has reinforced its commitment to transparency and accountability at all levels of government. The new first nations financial transparency act would fulfill the 2011 Speech from the Throne commitment to support strong, democratic, transparent and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses.

This act goes beyond what I had originally envisioned in Bill C-575. The new legislation would expand the scope of the information to be publicly disclosed over and above the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors. This bill also includes first nations' audited consolidated financial statements. This financial information would be made available to community members and the Canadian public on the individual first nation's website or on the website of a tribal council or partner organization. In addition, the audited consolidated financial statements and schedule of remuneration would be published on the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada once they are made available by the first nation. These steps would ensure that first nation community members have the information they need to make informed decisions about their governments.

What we are asking band councils to do is only what municipal, provincial and federal governments are already doing. They would retain all the rights and responsibilities they currently have. For example, the act would not set salary levels for chiefs and councillors. Decisions such as these would remain the responsibility of the first nation. It would be up to communities to determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their officials. All that Bill C-27 would change is that this information would be publicly disclosed to ensure that community members have the information they need to decide if levels of compensation are reasonable and justified.

All members of first nations have a right to know how much their chiefs and councillors are being paid. It is this knowledge that helps eliminate controversy over compensation and focuses the public discussion where it really belongs: on fundamental quality of life issues such as housing, health care and education. All Canadians, not only members of first nations communities, should be able to access detailed information on how much first nations chiefs and councillors are being paid. Accountability is a fundamental principle of Canadian political life that we all know to be true. This is the basis of laws that legislatures across Canada have passed to clarify how much elected officials and senior executives in governments earn each year.

All other levels of government across Canada, including ours, have also established rules to fully disclose the amount and nature of expenses being reimbursed to elected and unelected officials of government. We in this House abide by such rules. Therefore, we are certainly not asking anything of first nation leaders that we do not expect of ourselves.

Another major element of Bill C-27 is that it would ensure we achieve the goal of greater transparency without increasing the reporting burden for first nations. The bill would simply make public some of the documents that are already being prepared by first nations for submission to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada as part of their obligations under their funding agreements.

As proud as I am of my earlier efforts to address these issues in the last Parliament, I have to admit that the new legislation before us is even better than Bill C-575. Bill C-27 would ensure that the remuneration and expenses paid by a first nation to its political leaders would be disclosed. This includes individuals working in their capacity as chief and councillors, as well as their personal capacities, for instance, if they are also employees or contractors with the first nation.

The act would also ensure that a first nation's audited consolidated financial statements and schedule of remuneration and expenses would be disclosed to the public. It would ensure that this information is posted, both on a first nation website and on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's website for a minimum of 10 years.

The bill would have improved enforcement powers. It contains a provision that would guarantee a first nation member, a member of the general public or the minister could apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council of a first nation to publish the information. In addition, in cases where first nations are not compliant, the minister would have authority under the act to assess remedies that exist in grant or contribution funding agreements with the first nation. These range from requiring the first nation to develop an appropriate action plan for disclosure, to withholding funds from a grant or a contribution or terminating a grant or contribution agreement.

These mechanisms are already available to the minister under the funding agreements. However, with greater powers being placed in the hands of first nation members, we would expect these mechanisms would only be used as a last resort. Indeed, there is no need for it ever to come to that. All the band councils need to do is release the basic information that all other governments across the country already do.

As I have noted, many first nation leaders currently provide such information because they know it is in the best interest of their community. They recognize it is good for public relations and building trust between electors and their governing officials. They understand it is good for business, as successful communities like Whitecap Dakota First Nation, in Saskatchewan, have proven. Ultimately, they realize it is good for democracy. Indeed, it is vital to ensuring that the democratic rights of first nations people are upheld.

It is beyond me why anyone, aboriginal or otherwise, could possibly have a problem with this legislation. First nations members who have been calling for these improvements would undoubtedly like to know the answer to that too. Actually, I am sure they would prefer that we simply pass this legislation so they can get on with building strong communities and stronger economies.

I urge all hon. members do just that and vote with us to make Bill C-27 the law of the land.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, today we have before us Bill C-27, the so-called first nations financial transparency act. This is another example of how the Conservative government tells Canada's aboriginal people to do as it says, not as it does.

At committee witness after witness spoke of how accountability and transparency are vital concepts to effective governance. First nations have accepted that and they want to implement that as well on their own, as nations and as governments. I think of the first nations in my own community. Salt River First Nation has gone through the process of developing transparency. It has it together and it put it together itself. The pride this first nation takes in what it does comes from the fact that it has self-actualized in this regard.

Bill C-27 falls short in allowing first nations to stand for themselves as governments. It fails to develop workable government-to-government relationships. Instead, the bill treats aboriginal Canadians as wards of the state rather than being capable of governing themselves.

The Canadian Bar Association in a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated:

The [Canadian Bar Association's National Aboriginal Law] Section believes the proposed Bill would not improve the capacity of First Nations to assume control over their own affairs. By focusing only on the expenditures of First Nations, the proposed legislation fails to address larger systemic issues of funding and responsibility for those issues.

The CBA goes on to say:

Given First Nations’ inherent right to self-governance, dictating reporting requirements without sufficient consultation with First Nations is problematic. It fails to recognize the unique constitutional arrangements between First Nations and the federal government, and does little to move away from the paternalism which has historically defined this relationship.

It adds:

Ultimately, the Chief and Council should be accountable to the members of the First Nation, as those members are best positioned to say whether the salaries of Chief and Council are “reasonable” given the work they do in the particular context. Remuneration should be disclosed annually to the members of the First Nation....

Instead of working to encourage first nations to develop their own accountability and transparency protocols, the Conservatives have chosen to impose a system of reporting of which the Canadian Bar Association says:

—the consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration allow a far more detailed inspection of expenses than those released by provincial or territorial governments.

Speaking for the Assembly of First Nations, B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould told the committee:

Chiefs were clear in their assertion that these proposed measures...are both heavy-handed and unnecessary, and they suggest that first nations governments are corrupt and our leaders are not transparent and consequently need to be regulated by Ottawa.

As to who should be developing accountability and transparency protocols, Chief Wilson-Raybould was clear, saying:

—who should be responsible for determining the rules that apply to our governments and our governing bodies. The simple answer is that our nation should be....

In closing Chief Wilson-Raybould said:

It is troubling during this period of transition, as we move away from governance under the Indian Act, that the federal government seems to increasingly want to design our governance for us, in spite of the fundamental need for our nations to undertake this work ourselves in order for it to be legitimate.

Another shortfall with this legislation is the requirement to post financial information on the Internet for 10 years. Many first nations are located in very remote areas of Canada with little or no Internet access. Creating a website and maintaining it for years would be an additional cost to these first nations.

The Canadian Bar Association observed:

Most First Nations’ communities consist of fewer than 500 residents, many in remote areas, which impacts both service delivery and operating expenses. Most communities do not have funding to build the infrastructure necessary for Internet access, or the resources to create and maintain their own websites.

In addition to the technical problems with posting on the Internet, as the Canadian Bar Association observes, there is an issue of cost. However, this is not the only additional financial burden this act would place on first nations who are already seeing reduced funding for program delivery.

Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation told the committee:

One of the biggest problems for first nations is a lack of professional capacity, because of the way our communities are funded, through band support funding. A lot of our communities are funded and we have financial clerks. But a financial clerk cannot keep pace with the onerous reporting requirements of the federal government.

First nations, with their limited professional capacity, are already struggling to meet their reporting burden. First nation communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required yearly by the federal government.

In December 2006 the Auditor General pointed out that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs “alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations”. The Auditor General concluded that “the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.

The comment from the Canadian Bar Association is particularly telling. It states:

The legislation will not increase the capacity required to facilitate best practices of First Nations’ governments. Financial statements alone do not provide a meaningful measure of performance, nor are they a fair reflection of community priorities. In addition, non-compliance with onerous reporting burdens can lead to disastrous consequences, such as those flowing from the recent housing crisis at Attawapiskat First Nation. Withholding funds for non-compliance might result in the federal government failing to meet its constitutional obligation to provide essential services to all Canadians.

The Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada raised a key question about these increased costs, saying, “These types of reporting lead to increased costs. Who pays for these additional costs?” It is clear who would pay. The aboriginal people of Canada would pay through reduced government programs and services on their reserves and in their bands. Funding that should be going to improve the lives of Canada's aboriginal people would instead be spent on more red tape and paperwork.

Then there is the requirement that first nations must be accountable to more than their membership. Chief Wilson-Raybould addressed this in her testimony. She said:

There is, of course, no concern where those receiving the audited consolidated financial statements are our citizens. This is, however, not the case where there is a requirement for public dissemination. This is a material departure from what was proposed in Bill C-575 and the precedent set under the first nations fiscal management act.

The last area I want to address is the impact that the bill would have on the economic development of first nations. The Conservatives pretend the bill would improve economic development when it would be likely to drive business away. Chief Darcy Bear warned the committee that the bill would result in the private sector deciding not to invest or partner with first nations. He said:

—we want to make sure that this bill is not going to scare away businesses from our community. You have the private sector off reserve and they have certain reporting requirements, but if they go on reserve and they have to disclose their competitive information to all of their competitors, they're going to say they don't want to go on reserve, that it's not right for them.

In her testimony, Chief Wilson-Raybould wondered why the bill would not be in line with public sector accounting standards when it came to business information.

The bill has little to do with transparency and accountability. The bill would not increase economic development of first nations, rather, it would make first nations less attractive to business. The bill would not move first nations toward self-government, rather, it would go back to the days when aboriginal Canadians were treated as wards of the state. The effect of the bill would be to go back to paternalism and colonialism.

As Lloyd Phillips, who sits on the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake near Montreal observed, in part, “It seems like (Bill C-27) is really about blaming aboriginal poverty on fiscal mismanagement instead of chronic underfunding”.

Can we not start to treat first nations in a fashion that deserves their respect, that makes their way in this country acceptable? They need to build their institutions. That is clearly obvious. We do not need to tell them how to build their institutions. We do not need to instruct them every step of the way on how they are going to do things. They need the independence and the strength that comes from independence to build successful communities and governments, and make them really a part of this great nation.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the remarks that were just made that the NDP really wants to ensure that those first nations leaders who prefer not to provide their members with access to basic financial information will continue to have the right to do so. Indeed, during the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-27, which I participated in at committee, one of their amendments proposed removing the word “public” from before the word “disclosure” in clause 3.

Clearly, the NDP does not believe that first nation members should have the right to easily access basic financial information that is needed to hold elected leaders to account. The NDP members want to keep things private.

For example, at committee they also wanted to remove any reference to entities. They argued that information on band-owned businesses should not be included in the bill. Apparently the NDP does not believe that first nation members have the right to know the activities of their government and the businesses of which they are the ultimate owners.

The NDP believes it is okay for first nation members to continue to be denied access to basic financial information from their elected leaders who do not believe in transparency. Would the member care to comment on that?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to continue, we knew from the outset that there was a problem because the bill intended to duplicate something that already existed. To think that first nations report nothing about the funding they receive or the salaries and compensation they provide to their leadership is false and misleading.

In fact, first nations produce year-end reports that include annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to them. These reports include salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials.

First nations are also required to release statements to their membership about compensation earned or accrued by elected, appointed and unelected senior officials and the amounts of moneys paid, earned or accrued by elected and appointed officials, which must be from all sources within the recipient's financial reporting entity, including amounts from economic development and other types of business corporations.

We should not be so quick to dismiss the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General, which noted that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government had failed abysmally to address the worsening conditions of first nations.

The report tells us that money is just not flowing to problems and that it is not because of lack of audits or reporting processes. Indeed, the Auditor General pointed out that the reporting burden on first nations had actually worsened in recent years despite repeated calls to reduce the amount of red tape on these communities. To add insult to injury, the Auditor General tells us how many of the reports are not even used by federal government departments and serve nothing but bureaucratic requirements. They can be seen as white elephants, and with Bill C-27 the government is eagerly seeking to grow that herd.

I stick by my assertion that the government is more concerned with creating more red tape to accompany the core funding cut it has made to organizations important to first nations. Their communities rely on the services of tribal councils, the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance to assist with many items related to governance, but those budgets have been slashed.

In fact, at the same time the government is creating more and more work for tribal councils, it is telling them that they will have to perform their job with even less resources. Funding cuts like these show that the government is not working with a coherent plan.

I am reminded again of the comments of National Chief Shawn Atleo, who wondered if the government's intentions were good but its policies were unfocused, or if the government knows full well what it is doing as it piles on the work while pulling back the resources that facilitate these tasks. The latter speak to intentions that could never be described as good. The national chief's opinion could well be based on the apparent absence of an overall plan when significant cuts are accompanied by increased expectations.

There is no playing to strengths or even acknowledgement of interplay between variables. In fact, cuts to the tribal council funding program limit the significant assistance those bodies could provide bands, which will now be forced to comply with the technological bureaucracy the bill would set in play.

Tribal councils provide advisory services to their member first nations and administer other Indian and northern programs. Here, core funding cuts speak to the Conservative government's desire to limit their ability to do that job, which again is ultimately related to the requirements of Bill C-27.

Tribal councils are institutions established voluntarily by bands. In 2006-07, the program funded 78 tribal councils that served 471 first nations for about $45 million. This is money well spent when we consider the good work that tribal councils do.

Five advisory services have been devolved to tribal councils: economic development, financial management, community planning, technical services and band governance. Certainly, cutting core funding will affect the output of many first nations.

We have to acknowledge that the work of tribal councils on advisory services dovetails with the demands that Bill C-27 would place on first nations. Whether for technical services, financial management or band governance, tribal councils have an important role to play in this process. However, the government saw fit to claw back their budgets ahead of the bill.

We understand that there is not an infinite amount of resources. That is why New Democrats would never make the kind of cuts and demands the government has been making, all the while pretending that one does not affect the other.

We also understand that first nations are already subject to various policy-based and legal requirements regarding the management and expenditure of federal public funds. If these new requirements did away with those or streamlined them, then it might make more sense. Instead, this just amounts to the creation of more red tape for first nations.

New Democrats remain convinced that changing the way that audited statements are made public does not require heavy-handed legislation. Any changes deemed necessary could be a requirement of funding arrangements that the department would have each first nation government sign.

We are concerned that Bill C-27 is overly punitive and ignores the simple solution. Indeed, bands that do not comply with the demands of the bill could have their funding withheld or have a funding agreement terminated by the minister. How would that address critical challenges like education, housing or infrastructure?

New Democrats do not see the need to divert more money to a new layer of bureaucracy that would reproduce much of what has already been done.

We understand that there can be problems associated with reporting on websites that are not apparent to everyone. As someone who represents a northern rural constituency, I can tell members that Internet connectivity is not always possible. With that in mind, website reporting could become a hurdle that some bands might not easily jump over, especially those in more remote communities.

Again, we believe that there are already sufficient reporting processes in place and that funding agreements could be modified to address any gaps. If the government had fully consulted with first nations, Bill C-27 would have been more complete and legitimate.

The Conservatives should have remembered the commitment they made at the Crown-first nations gathering; they should have consulted with first nations in the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; and they should have reflected on the advice of the Auditor General and kept the pressing needs of Canada first nation communities in mind as they determined their legislative priorities. That would have served all involved much better.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Western Arctic.

I am keen to speak to this bill one more time. The path of this legislation seems to be predetermined, and any sense of debate or committee work should be viewed with that in mind.

Had Parliament been working in a collaborative manner, I believe we would have significantly changed this legislation. Had the government done its due diligence, we would be discussing an entirely different bill. Instead, by ignoring its duty to consult, we have arrived at a point where the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is wondering aloud if the government is headed toward a conflict with first nations over the way it is unilaterally ramming through legislation that will impact them. National Grand Chief Atleo is accusing the Prime Minister of pushing through a fragmented legislative agenda that he knows first nations communities will oppose. He said this is eroding trust between natives and the government. I think it is important that we listen.

It is instructive to see that the will to meet and consult, as expressed by first nations leadership, has not been reciprocated. Instead of pulling up a chair and working with those leaders, the government has instructed Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development bureaucrats to state that they have no mandate to negotiate.

Yet, much is being asked of first nations in terms of resource development on their land. We certainly hope the government is paying attention to the Grand Chief, who wrote the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last month stating:

We have been patient and reserved judgment. Neither that patience nor that demonstrated goodwill is infinite.

The government's response has been to fast-track legislation like Bill C-27, which remains largely unnecessary. Instead of addressing a multitude of better known long-standing problems that persist on many first nations, the government is creating an unnecessary reporting mechanism. The bill is overly punitive, duplicates efforts and increases the bureaucratic burden on those first nations that do not already have self-government regimes. It sets the course for costly legal battles and ignores the advice of the Auditor General to reduce the reporting burden placed on first nations. Instead, it adds to that reporting burden.

This bill imposes standards that are greater than those applied to elected politicians in many other jurisdictions, in a way that creates more bureaucracy and does nothing to increase accountability of first nations governments to their own communities. It has been created in a vacuum and reeks of bureaucracy. Initiatives like this that are implemented without consultation are bound to fail. It is guaranteeing the reaction that the government has received from first nations. It is as if the government is itching for a fight.

From the outset, we knew there was a problem because the intention of the bill is to duplicate something that already exists. To think that first nations report nothing about the—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the third time and passed.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we consulted. Between January 1, 2011 and September 25, 2012, the department received approximately 250 formal complaints from people in first nation communities in Canada saying they could not access the information that they wanted about their chiefs and their councillors. Bill C-27 will make this happen.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the requirement for our first nations to report is there because some first nations are not reporting and some of the people in these communities are asking for that to happen. Bill C-27 will fulfill those requests.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on Bill C-27, first nations financial transparency act, today.

As the title of the bill implies, the bill proposes to make crystal clear to community members exactly who gets paid for what within their band councils as well as any other benefits that go along with the job. The legislation states that first nation leaders shall be open about the salaries and expenses of the chief and councillors of the band council. With that knowledge, first nation residents can determine whether they are getting good value from their elected officials.

The bill might just as easily have been called “the citizens for accountability act” because its overarching objective is to increase accountability and ensure that political leaders are answerable to their constituents for their decisions about financial remuneration.

If we look at the root of the word “accountability”, we have the word “account”. The definition of accountability is the obligation of an individual or organization to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them and disclose the results in a transparent manner. It also includes the responsibility for money and other entrusted property. The legislation comes down to accounting in its classic sense.

First nation leaders are quite literally being asked to open their books so local residents can see how public money is being spent. To be precise, Bill C-27 would require that audited consolidated financial statements of first nation governments be prepared annually. It is worth noting that this includes all sources of funding.

In addition to federal government transfer payments from various departments and agencies, first nations have other sources of revenue. The nature and extent of these sources varies from first nation to first nation. It can include funding from provincial and territorial governments, user fees for services such as garbage pick-up, moorage, rental income for housing and property taxes, as well as other profits from economic development.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleagues that producing annual consolidated financial statements is something that band councils already do. It is a condition of their funding agreements with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

These agreements not only have requirements for reporting to the government and for members of first nations, but band councils also need to indicate whether funds were used for the purpose intended and whether programs and services were delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding arrangements. These financial statements, which have to include schedules of remuneration and expenses, must be audited by independent, accredited, professional auditors. Financial reporting is credible when it is based on independent set accounting standards.

What is new with Bill C-27 is that first nation governments would be obliged to disclose these financial statements to community members and the general public. Individuals who want to know what is in those statements would no longer have to ask for permission to see the books and hope that band council members would comply with their requests. First nation residents would be assured that these details would be disclosed publicly in an annual report to the community.

If first nation members have any concerns about the community's money and how the money is being spent, the new accountability standard would assure them of public avenues to have these issues addressed.

Financial reports would include information related to any and all band holdings, which according to generally acceptable accounting principles, need to be consolidated with the first nations' financial statements, but at the highest level of aggregate.

This would include most businesses owned by the band. I want to be clear that we do not expect each individual business to publish detailed financial statements. The only thing being asked for in this act is the publication of audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole. This would include any entities that, according to accounting rules, are consolidated with the first nation, such as band-owned businesses.

Since these statements are highly aggregated, no proprietary information would be revealed that could undercut the competitiveness of a business or that of its partners. I want to repeat that, because it is really important for the opposition to hear this. Since these statements are highly aggregated, no proprietary information would be revealed that could undercut the competitiveness of a business or that of its partners.

In addition, for the first time, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would publish the audited consolidated financial statements, including remuneration for all first nations officials, as soon as the information became available. As other members have pointed out, these new requirements are consistent with standard accounting practices employed by all other levels of government—the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels. Every other government in Canada routinely discloses audited consolidated financial statements and salaries. Once this act has been passed, it would bring politicians on reserves in line with other elected officials across the country whose salaries are already available to the public.

I can assure the House that accountability in this bill is not simply about bean-counting. As the Auditor General of Canada has defined it, accountability is a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate, review and take responsibility for performance, both the results achieved in light of agreement expectations and the means used. Making it law for first nations chiefs and councillors to open their books is really about good communication. It enhances trust and support for band councils among first nations members, and it increases the confidence of all Canadians in first nations governments.

No one needs to take it from me. No less of an authority than the World Bank made the same argument in a recent report about accountability through communication. The report states:

As an actor in the public sphere, the state is accountable for its actions in providing service delivery to its citizens. Citizens, in return, provide legitimacy to the state through public opinion. Both the state and citizens have communication processes and tools at their disposal that hold them accountable.... The effective use of structures and processes of communication for accountability can result in better relations between the state and its citizens, improved governance and, in the long run, increased effectiveness of development efforts...

The final point gets to the very heart of the legislation before us today. Bill C-27 is fundamentally about ensuring first nations members' democratic rights can be fully exercised. This expectation is clear in the report of a study group authorized by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, called “Financial Reporting by First Nations”. It points out that accounting practices and the need for financial reporting are based on social, political and economic circumstances and the accountability relationships that arise from these circumstances.

The report leaves no doubt that first nation governments are accountable at three levels. First, they are accountable to first nation members living on and off reserve, who have a right to select their first nation government's leaders. Second, they are accountable to the federal government departments that provide funding to first nations, as well as to provincial and territorial governments that have established legal or economic relationships with first nations, and third, to capital advisers who are investors.

Beyond these three groups, with whom first nations have direct relationships, they are also accountable to residents on first nation lands who are taxpayers, such as people with leases, whether they are first nation members or not. They are accountable to the various organizations that have contractual relationships with first nations requiring financial reporting; current and potential business partners who will want the information for decision-making purposes; developers, who are involved in residential housing, industry and commercial properties and other capital projects; as well as regulators and agencies monitoring first nations.

However, interest in first nation financial matters does not end there. Credit rating organizations and financial analysts, the news media, public interest groups and the general public may also want to access first nation financial reports. That is why Bill C-27 stipulates that band councils' annual financial information needs to be released not only within the immediate community but also to the wider Canadian public because, as the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants emphasizes in its report, government's goal is to provide services and redistribute resources, not to make a profit.

A government's budget portrays public policy, establishes estimates of revenue, expenses, expenditure and financing requirements, and is an important part of the government accountability cycle. Put more simply, consistent practices and procedures help to keep first nation governments transparent and accountable and make the services that governments provide more reliable and effective.

Equally important, opening the books and demonstrating sound accounting practices is good for business. This is made clear in the board's report and reinforced by practical experience at the community level. The certainty and predictability that comes with generally accepted accounting principles are a definite plus when it comes to attracting private sector partners. Being certain that a first nation government upholds standard accounting procedures and employs sound business practices is vitally important to potential investors. By applying the new accountability measures in this legislation, band councils will be able to demonstrate best practices in their financial operations, which is crucial to creating an environment conducive to job creation and economic growth.

Once a band council inspires confidence among prospective investors, it can attract economic development projects, leading to greater self-reliance and a better standard of living for first nation residents, the ultimate goal of the bill. This goal has been reiterated in every throne speech since 2006. It was powerfully reinforced in the 2011 Speech from the Throne, which committed the government to support transparency for first nation communities by requiring chiefs and councillors to publish their salaries and expenses. I am proud to say that with Bill C-27 we are delivering on this commitment.

The first nations financial transparency act joins a suite of laws and policies that we have developed to advance economic development on reserve, the most recent being the first nations elections act. These two pieces of legislation are the fundamental building blocks to effective first nation governance. Stronger election and accountability systems will result in stronger, more stable governments, which in turn will result in more prosperous communities. Strengthened first nation governments will be in a position to earn the trust of business partners who are willing to make solid business investments. These investments will lead to increased economic development and job creation in first nation communities. Who could possibly argue with that?

Anyone who looks objectively at the facts I have laid out, which are validated by the outside sources I have quoted, can only conclude that Bill C-27 is both necessary and beneficial. The legislation meets the needs of first nation residents. At the same time, it advances the interests of their local leaders, other governments, the private sector and, in the end, all Canadians. As I said at the outset of my speech, as much as the act is about increasing transparency, it is ultimately about ensuring accountability and upholding democracy. That is something all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, hold dear.

Surely all parties can see the merit in this worthy legislation and will give it their vote of confidence.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few months, I have been working very closely with the Manawan Atikamekw community in my riding to help it resolve a very difficult situation.

Like all reserves, Manawan has serious problems that will not be fixed with the wave of a magic wand. I could talk from now until morning about the needs of the first nations that I have heard from.

However, I wish to use my time wisely, so suffice it to say that what they truly do not need is Bill C-27. First nations do not want it and really do not need it because it is unjust, useless and contradictory. The Conservative government is so obsessed with its ideological agenda and so bound by its narrow-mindedness that I am tempted to believe it does not understand how unjust this bill is.

In January 2012, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to work with first nations during the Crown-first nations gathering. How can he unilaterally impose such a despicable bill mere months after making that statement? Either he is incompetent or he is ignorant.

The dictionary defines “co-operation” as “the act of co-operating, of participating with others in a task”. For the benefit of the hon. members opposite, here is the definition of “other”: “separate in identity or distinct in kind”. Clearly, alas, the Conservatives understand neither of those two words. So, for their information and for the general edification of all, here is the definition of “coercion”: “to force or constrain”, as in the sentence: “Bill C-27 is introduced in a spirit of coercion and with no regard for co-operation”.

Let me be perfectly clear, I am in favour of transparency. But, since this bill claims to be strengthening it for the first nations' benefit, why does the government make it possible for any Canadian to take advantage of it? The bill allows anyone to get up any fine morning and say that, since aboriginal people are bound by legislation, let us ask for an order that allows us to see their salaries. At that point, it is no longer transparency, it is prying.

To understand the government's action, we have to realize that Bill C-27 comes from Bill C-575, which grew out of a spurious story from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It is fine to listen to civil society lobby groups, but you also have to be honest enough to look at the facts before giving in to oversimplification.

This bill would never have seen the light of day without the endless repetition of the erroneous information that first nations' chiefs make more than the Prime Minister. That malicious rumour, racist in the strength with which it was spread, morphed into a bill with no regard to the facts: the average salary of a chief is $60,000 and councillors earn around $30,000. That is nothing to get into a panic about.

I imagine that actual facts about first nations have little importance in the eyes of the Conservatives, just like facts about climate change and the state of this country's democracy. When they are asked questions, all they do is trot out the same meaningless comments, like an old broken record.

If this bill served any purpose whatsoever, we could agree that we need to review how to implement it. But that is not the case. Bill C-27 is completely useless—as useless as the earth is round, as truly as ice melts, unless of course, its real purpose is to harm first nations. That would not be surprising, since that is precisely what the Canadian government has been trying to do since it was created in 1867.

Bill C-27 is calling on first nations to be even more accountable. They are already accountable to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Is there any point to producing reports that no one reads? No.

It is a fact that the documents produced by this legislation will serve no practical purpose. The reason is quite simple: the public service has no interest in the documents that are already produced. First nations are already sufficiently accountable and the government must stop treating them like children.

Among the needs of aboriginal people are things like education, health care, food, housing, social services and clean drinking water. Bill C-27 must be considered in light of the Auditor General's conclusions in June 2011. The AG reminded us that despite the repeated audits recommending many reforms over the past decade, the government has failed miserably to address the worsening living conditions of first nation members. However, I suppose that will not mean much to a government that is currently being taken to court by its Auditor General.

Once again, this would all seem like a pathetic joke if Bill C-27 at least had any consistency. However, this bill is so poorly put together that it is hardly worth mentioning.

Since coming to power, the Conservative government has done its utmost to steer clear of transparency. It no longer answers journalists' questions, no longer provides information to the Auditor General, and it has cut important audit positions. Then, it dares to ask first nations to do more than other Canadians, when they have neither the expertise nor the means to complete so much paperwork.

This bill is so contradictory that it even breaks other laws. Can we truly allow a bill to trample other laws so easily? Or will the Conservatives perhaps tell us that aboriginal peoples do not have the same rights as others?

I know that we are repeating ourselves, but I think what we have to say is worth repeating again and again. Although the stated objective of Bill C-27 is to enhance the transparency of first nations members, its scope is much broader because it requires the financial statements to be put up on first nations' and the AANDC websites, and permits anyone, not just a first nations member, to ask a superior court to disclose financial statements and salaries.

I will say it again: Bill C-27 is unfair, useless and contradictory. But given that we can say the same thing about the government, I do not expect it to change its mind. Therefore, I have this to say to my aboriginal sisters and brothers: the NDP will work with you to improve your self-governance and to help solve problems that are really affecting you.

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

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.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our country's forefathers knew a thing or two about accountability. Do people remember that peace, order and good government thing? They were founding objectives of government institutions in Canada under our Constitution. The Fathers of Confederation followed the lead of our other commonwealth countries in the era that assumed these objectives, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland.

Since Confederation, the provinces and municipalities of this country have also adopted these values and principles, recognizing the necessity and value of good government. With this legislation, first nations members can now rely on these values as well and be guaranteed these principles. The provinces and territories and, by extension, municipalities, which are governed by them, have all acknowledged the need for transparency and accountability, the foundation of good government. That is why Canada's first nations people need Bill C-27.

As my hon. colleagues will undoubtedly agree, accountability requires transparency, something currently lacking in some first nation communities today. Some actually refuse to divulge information that most Canadians would commonly expect, which denies their members access to essential information about the community's affairs. It leaves them wondering just how much their chiefs and councillors are being paid and why their leaders desire to keep this information out of the public view. First nations members have the right to expect a higher standard. Indeed, they deserve the same measure of accountability and transparency enjoyed by other Canadians, who are assured of access to information about their government's activities because it is enshrined in legislation.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development noted in his remarks in the chamber, our government has made sure that Canadians have ready access to information they need to judge our actions as parliamentarians. The very first piece of legislation we brought to the House back in 2006 was the Federal Accountability Act, which increased public oversight into how Canadians' tax dollars are spent. We not only publish public accounts, which document every dollar that is spent at the federal level each year, we also disclose the salaries of members of Parliament, through the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act.

These two pieces of legislation lay out a transparent formula to calculate salaries. They also provide for the publication of details of both the regular incomes and special allowances added to the salaries of MPs who take on extra responsibilities. Disclosure of other income and expense information is treated under conflict of interest and ethics legislation, as well. Public servants' pay is also on the record. Federal employee rates of pay are posted on the Treasury Board of Canada website, and all senior public servants are required to disclose, on a proactive quarterly basis, all travel and hospitality expenses.

The Government of Canada is not the only jurisdiction that requires the disclosure of audited consolidated financial statements and salaries. My hon. colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will attest that their province has a financial administration act that commits the province's legislature to table public accounts each and every year. The province's transparency and accountability act stipulates that ministers must account for government entities for which they are responsible, each year, in an annual report that includes an audited consolidated financial statement, which is then compared to the funds approved by the House of Assembly.

Newfoundland and Labrador's Municipalities Act also requires that local community leaders make their financial statements and audited reports available to the public. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have similar laws. Each has a financial administration act obligating the two provinces' respective legislatures to account for public spending in the previous fiscal year, and both have municipalities acts that require the specification of the types of information that must be made available to the public.

Likewise, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all have legislation governing the duties of municipalities to prepare and publish annual financial statements. Territorial governments also uphold this high standard. The Government of Northwest Territories makes its annual financial statements readily available on its website. The Government of Nunavut's financial administration act requires the government to publicly account for its expenditures for the previous year by laying the public accounts before the legislative assembly. The precise wording of the transparency and accountability legislation obviously varies from province to province and territory to territory, but almost all Canadian taxpayers have a guarantee in law that they can have access to basic information they require in order to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions and actions.

Many governments also disclose the salaries paid to their elected officials, from premiers to legislative backbenchers, to mayors and town councillors. The salaries of the members of many provincial legislatures are set by legislation and made available to the general public. Disclosure of other income and expense information is often treated under the conflict of interest and ethics legislation.

Nova Scotia's act respecting the public disclosure of compensation in the public sector applies to the public sector as well as to not-for-profit organizations receiving over $500,000 in public funding. These groups are required to post remuneration information on their websites for employees receiving compensation of $100,000 or more, or if they do not have a website, they have to make the information available on a publicly accessible website.

Similarly, in Manitoba, The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Act requires public sector bodies to disclose to the public the amount of compensation it pays annually to each of its officers as well as employees whose salaries are $50,000 or more. Along with this legislation, The Legislative Assembly Act of Manitoba sets out that remuneration allowances and retirement benefits of members be established by a commission. Furthermore, the legislation requires that members must post expense reports on the legislative assembly website. In addition to various provincial and territorial laws, a number of municipalities have passed bylaws that require the release of information about mayors' and councillors' remuneration, as a best practice. Clearly what is being asked of first nation leaders is nothing more than what is expected in any other jurisdiction across the country.

As Colin Craig, the prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said:

The bottom line is every politician in the country—federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal politicians, should have to disclose their pay to the public.

What we are asking is certainly not onerous. In fact, in some respects the legislation demands less of first nations than Canadians expect in other parts of the country from other levels of government. Bill C-27 would focus only on the disclosure of remuneration of the political leaders of the first nation governments, not those who are appointed officials or senior staff within their organizations.

I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of the self-government agreement, are already required to prepare such financial statements and make them available to community members. That is why these self-governing communities are not included in the bill.

Why should residents of other first nation communities expect any less? We need to only look at the history books to know that developing healthier, more sustainable communities depends on good democratic governance. This still holds true today. When we turn on our televisions we see people in countries all over the world living in less desirable political regimes and who are out marching in the streets demanding that they get this very right. However, we do not need to look beyond our borders to see people calling out for more transparency and accountability in government. First nation members, people living right here in Canada, are often the most vocal in calling for these same rights.

Members of the Squamish First Nation in British Columbia, the Peguis First Nation and other first nations in Manitoba have met with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development or have appeared before the standing committee, of which I chair, and have demanded the same things. They have all expressed their concerns about the lack of accountability from the grassroots perspective.

I will quote some of the things that we have been told.

Phyllis Sutherland from the Peguis Accountability Coalition criticized the $220,000 tax-free annual salary of her band chief. She talked about people who had pressed for more details about this or who had asked for more information about the band accounts, but had been subject to harassment or had been fired from their jobs.

Ms. Sutherland said:

Bill C-27 is important to grassroots people as it will allow band members access chief and council salaries without fear of threats or reprisals. If First Nations want to govern themself they should be accountable and transparent as all other levels of government who make their salaries accessible for the public

Solange Garson from a first nation in Manitoba is an elected councillor. She echoed these very same sentiments when she said:

I want accountability for all first nations in Canada. Our politicians need to be held accountable too...Bill C-27 is something [getting] a lot of grassroots support. We want transparency like everyone else.

That is clearly not too much to ask in a country that prides itself on peace, order and good government. To deny first nation members this high standard of governance, which all other Canadians expect and enjoy, is absolutely outrageous. Passing this fair and reasonable legislation is the responsible thing to do to ensure transparency, increase accountability and ultimately more effective governance in first nation communities.

In case others have forgotten, I would like to briefly review exactly what the bill would do and explain how it would be a major improvement over the status quo.

First and foremost, the bill would allow first nation members to easily access the information that they require to assess the performance of their government to hold them to account and to make informed choices at election time.

Bill C-27 would continue to create greater accountability for first nations from their respective community members and these financial records would be provided directly to local populations within their community rather than through the minister as is currently the case when band councils choose to withhold such information.

It is worth noting that this information will be easily accessible to the broader Canadian public in the same way that such information is currently provided by other levels of government in Canada.

The publication of financial records on the first nation aboriginal affairs Canadian website could make it easier for analysts and comparisons could be made by a much wider group of people. This would include other levels of government, academics, the media, economists, investors and interested Canadians. Not only would this improvement result in clearer lines of accountability among first nation leaders, it would also create an environment to have stronger, more capable governments that would attract outside investment and partners in community development.

Aside from upholding democratic principles and the good government that most Canadians already enjoy, this greater transparency would increase confidence in first nation governments among other governments and investors. It would position them to build stronger relationships and ultimately create a better environment for development and investment.

Being certain that the government upholds standard accounting procedures and sound business practices is vitally important to potential investors. Transparency builds trust, which is an integral part of building strong relationships. It is precisely because other levels of government are open and transparent that we have the confidence and support of the business community.

We want to replicate this kind of success in first nations all across the country. Once this legislation is in place and it is clear how communities manage their money and account for those expenditures, businesses would be more willing to pursue joint ventures. They will have greater assurance that they can count on first nations to be a trustworthy partner.

There are many compelling reasons to support Bill C-27, as I have just outlined and several of my colleagues have also explained today, but few are more persuasive than the fact that our country is founded on the fundamental commitment to good government, something guaranteed in legislation at all other levels of government across our great country. Once this act becomes law, first nations communities and first nations members will find themselves in esteemed company. This will be a welcome development among many community members who have called for us to act and to act right now.

I urge all parties to give this worthy legislation their wholehearted support. Let us ensure that first nations citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges that all other Canadians do from coast to coast to coast.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising a critical point on consultation. We are seeing a complete lack of appropriate consultation on one piece of legislation after the other. That speaks to the Conservative government's lack of desire to properly consult with first nations people, which is really a step backward.

I would like to read into the record the Assembly of First Nations report on this issue:

If the issue were only of transparency then, perhaps, the bill would be fine. But, as we have described, the issue is not so simple. [The precursor] Bill C-575 favours the further transfer of accountability away from First Nations, thereby only further entrenching the Indian Act and strengthening the Department of [Aboriginal] Affairs' role in this regard. This is not a solution, it is a short-sighted reaction to alarmist headlines—in fact, it takes us backwards.

The Assembly of First Nations has indicated, both on Bill C-575 but also in terms of Bill C-27, that this is the way backward. When the Assembly of First Nations says that, we do not need any clearer indication as to what is wrong with the government's practices. I am proud that we in the NDP stand with first nations and with the Assembly of First Nations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am experiencing a strong sense of déjà vu as I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-27, which I also had an opportunity to speak to at second reading. However, I am rising one more time in the House, following my colleagues, to speak to what is imposed legislation and a failure to consult properly with first nations and to address the root challenges that they, as well as Canadians, would like to see addressed. This is yet another tool of division that the government is using to deflect from its own lack of accountability to the most marginalized group of people in our country. It is using that same tool to divide us and communities. That is a sad assessment of where the government is taking our country.

I will start by speaking as the member for Churchill, as someone who has the honour of representing 33 first nations in northern Manitoba, some of whom face incredible challenges. In fact, all of them face incredible challenges, whether in terms of access to health care, housing, education, infrastructure or employment. The list goes on and on, making for what many of us would say is a third world reality existing in Canada today.

Instead of working in partnership with first nations to be able to put an end to these third world living conditions and real challenges that first nations face in Canada, the government once again has chosen to impose its own top-down approach. Its approach is very much rooted in a colonial way of doing things, that the government knows best, that first nations do not need to be heard, that capacity and human and financial resources do not matter. Rather, all that matters are inflammatory press releases and the politics of division to deflect from what the real issues are. I find that fundamentally unjust and unbecoming of what the Canadian federal government ought to be doing.

Here I would point out that the question of accountability is very pressing for all Canadians, first nations, Métis, Inuit and non-aboriginal Canadians. Certainly, when visiting the first nations I represent, it is evident that people want to make sure that funds are used appropriately and that the right kind of investments are made. However, fundamentally we all know that listening to how first nations would best approach the issue of accountability is the way to go.

I would add that this discussion about accountability is not just happening in a vacuum. We have seen the same federal government dismiss the whole notion of accountability when it comes to itself. We recall the purchases of orange juice for $16 and the use of the Coast Guard for trips that clearly had no connection to any emergency situation. We know of investigations that have taken place and are taking place around electoral discrepancies involving donations. We have heard of ministers and certainly members of Parliament who fail to come clean when it comes to serious questions that we, the opposition, have with respect to the use of finances. Perhaps the best example is the omnibus budget bills. If the government were so interested in accountability and transparency, why would it not allow us to go through the serious changes it is proposing in these omnibus budget bills? If it really wanted to be a model in terms of accountability for all Canadians, then it would be using that same tough-on-accountability stand with itself.

This is the irony of the situation we face. Once again the Conservative federal government is keen to point at first nations and approach them with a patriarchal, top-down approach that is not suitable for a Canadian federal government after all we have learned over the last few decades. We are basically seeing the clock being rolled back on fair dealing based on a government-to-government relationship with first nations. This of course should be seen in the light of the fact that the Prime Minister himself made what he claimed to be a sincere apology to residential school survivors, that it would be a new day, that there would be a new way of doing things. All we have seen, however, is a breaking of that commitment, a breaking of that promise, and nowhere is that more clearly felt than among first nations themselves.

New Democrats believe that Bill C-27 must be considered in the context of the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government has failed abysmally to address worsening conditions in first nations. In particular the Auditor General noted that the reporting burden on first nations has worsened in recent years. The Auditor General repeatedly recommended reducing the reporting burden, clearly understanding the demands on first nations and knowing that many of the reports are not even accessible.

All of this is to say that if the government only listened to the in-depth report by the Auditor General just over a year ago, we would not be in this situation. However, it is clear that the government takes issue with senior officers that Parliament ought to consult with. We have seen this in other areas. Facts and evidenced-based conclusions are certainly not what the government is interested in.

Raising the ire of aboriginal people is the government's way of dealing with things. Dividing people based on a notion of accountability that it cannot itself follow is the way the government chooses to move forward. That is fundamentally hypocritical.

The NDP does not support this bill. We believe that Bill C-27 does nothing to increase the accountability of first nation governments to their people. It also applies standards that are greater than those for elected officials in many other jurisdictions. I believe this is a very important point that many Canadians will not know about, thanks to the government's misinformation when it comes to this very bill.

I am sure that the government will criticize me and say that I opposed Bill C-27 and will not actually put out the facts as to why we in the NDP opposed it, because it is not interested in the facts. Instead, the government will riff off the politics of division and disrespect and, frankly, I am ashamed to say, the politics of hate.

When we are talking about the need to understand the double-standard that is being applied here, this notion that elected officials in other jurisdictions would have a lesser standard to live up to than first nation leaders is something worth considering. I would ask that the Conservative members think about that. I would also ask them to think fundamentally about the need to move on, to actually work with first nations to address the serious issues they face, including the desire for accountability, but in an appropriate way, and to address the third world living conditions that aboriginal people face in Canada.

That is when a federal government would actually be providing leadership, and if it is not willing to do it, then the NDP is willing to take its place.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this piece of legislation today.

There are those who argue that it is not necessary to enshrine transparency and accountability in legislation governing first nations' financial transactions. Those people appear to be content to let band officials decide whether they want to make available to members the information about how community funds are spent. They seem willing to leave such decisions to chance. Complaints by some first nation residents about their community leaders certainly seem to verify this observation, at least in certain cases. Nonetheless, I remind the House that we have heard disturbing tales about abuses of power.

For example, the Quebec resident Michael Benedict is a member of the Coalition of Abenaki Citizens for a Just, Transparent and Accountable Abenaki Government. He reported that:

My spouse and I have been harassed, my house vandalized and members of our local accountability organization have been intimidated for speaking out.

He went on to say:

Local elected officials were afraid we would empower Abenaki citizens to take a stand against abuse of power, misappropriation of public money and unavailability of information. C-27 will help improve transparency.

We have heard similar concerns in other parts of the country as well. For instance, Bev Brown of the Squamish First Nation has said:

When grassroots people request financial information from band council they are often threatened with support cuts from the band and are shunned in the community....

Like Michael Benedict, she believes that:

C-27 will help band members because it will allow them to view the material online and anonymously.

The problem boils down to this: Even though community members may ask for details about the remuneration of their chiefs and councillors, unless their leaders choose to release this information, there is no guarantee they will ever see it.

Now, one should not jump to the conclusion that this is the norm. Certainly, many first nations make every effort to provide this information to their community members. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, which is forthcoming with this kind of financial information, is a case in point. There is no question that some band councils display these records on their websites while others provide details in householder mailings or post them in their bands' offices. For that, they should be commended.

However, it appears that this is not the practice followed by all. The fact is that every year the federal government receives complaints from first nation residents that they cannot find out what the salaries of their chiefs and councillors are, or the specific work they do to earn their pay. Nor is there any accountability regarding reimbursement of expenses for activities that sometimes are a complete mystery to community members. In fact, many first nation members do not get to see the community's audited consolidated financial statements at all.

In those cases, everything may in fact be above board and the salaries or other financial compensation being paid to first nation leaders may well be worth every last penny. However, unless the books are open for the community members to judge, there is simply no way to know if that is true.

Testimony at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, of which I am a member, addressed the legislation earlier this fall and suggested that the examples I have cited are not isolated ones. Research data from the aboriginal governance index presented by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy indicates that 25% of first nations fail to provide financial information regarding salaries and expenses to their band members.

Admittedly, this is not the majority, but I am sure that all parties would agree, or certainly should agree, that one in four is very high. Indeed, even one such incident is one too many in a country that prides itself on being a democracy.

While compensation disclosure is basic information that is freely and easily available in all other jurisdictions in Canada, too many of the country's first nation leaders still refuse to make it available to their members. This is despite the fact that our country's chiefs have acknowledged the need to be more forthcoming.

I would remind my hon. colleagues that the Assembly of First Nations' chiefs passed a resolution at their special chiefs assembly in December of 2010 regarding financial disclosure. They affirmed the need to publicly release information regarding salaries and expenses to their members. They also agreed to make financial information available via the Internet, where applicable.

Just over half of the more that 600 first nations have their own websites. However, to date, very few have actually posted salary and remuneration information on the Internet. This does not suggest that all of the others have anything to hide, but it does confirm that good intentions do not automatically translate into good results. The current voluntary approach clearly does not always satisfy first nation members' right to know.

The assurance of a transparent, accountable, local government is the minimum that first nations members should expect in a democracy like ours. What first nations residents deserve and want is transparency and tangible information from their elected representatives when it comes to such issues.

Bill C-27 would ensure there are written, legal and binding guarantees that financial information will be freely and regularly released by first nation governments to local residents. The legislation would remove any opportunity to leave financial disclosure open to interpretation. It would put an end to the questionable practices of some leaders who think they do not need to account for their salaries and expenses, or for the way financial decisions are made. First nation governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make this basic financial information public. The bill before us is designed to address that gap.

Once passed, the act would require all first nations not under a self-government agreement to publish the salaries and expenses they pay to their chiefs and councillors on an annual basis. This means that they would need to disclose things like wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorariums, dividends and any other financial or non-monetary benefits they may receive. The entire remuneration received by chiefs and councillors would be disclosed, not just a portion of their remuneration paid for from funds transferred by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The proposed act also stipulates that information must be provided about spending related to transportation, accommodations, meals, hospitality and other expenses. I would note, however, that Bill C-27 would focus only on the political leaders of first nation governments. It would not apply to their appointed officials or senior staff.

The proposed legislation goes further than Bill C-575,, the private member's bill on which it is based. My hon. colleagues will recall that it died on the order paper when the last election was called. The new bill builds on the basic tenets of that earlier legislation, but goes further. Under Bill C-27, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada would also be required to publish the audited consolidated financial statements, as well as the schedule of remuneration for elected officials, for first nations all across Canada, as soon as the information is available.

It is expected that these records would also be made available in band offices, as well as be posted on their websites. As I know, not every first nation has a website. The community could request that another organization, such as a tribal council, a first nation organization, or even Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada itself, post the information on its behalf.

In addition, the new act would require that audited consolidated financial statements of first nation governments be prepared annually and disclosed to community members and the general public. The audited consolidated financial statements would include information related to any entities that, according to generally accepted accounting principles, are to be consolidated with the financial statements of the first nation, such as band-owned businesses.

Before anyone suggests that this could hurt those businesses' competitiveness, let me set the record straight. Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. All that is asked for is the publication of audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole. This would include entities that, according to accounting rules, are consolidated with the first nation, including band-owned businesses. This is simply standard accounting practice. These same principles and rules already apply to government-owned businesses all across Canada.

It is important to recognize that these statements are highly aggregated. Consequently, they would not be required to reveal any proprietary information that would undermine the competitiveness of a first nation's business or that of its partners. In fact, in response to concerns raised by witnesses appearing before the standing committee, the language of the bill has been amended to ensure it matches this spirit and intent.

I also want to be very clear about something else. We are not trying to create extra paperwork or to add red tape that might deter communities from attracting business development. Bill C-27 has been crafted so that no new reports are required. I repeat, no new reports are required. Do not forget that first nations are already required to produce annual consolidated financial statements audited by independent accredited professional auditors. As well, schedules of remuneration and expenses for the chiefs and councillors are a condition of their funding agreements with the federal government.

All that will change once the bill becomes law is that first nations will be legally obligated to share this information with the members of their bands. As I have already noted, many first nation elected officials already practice transparent and accountable reporting of their actions. Indeed, this is a requirement of self-government agreements, which explains why communities with signed agreements would be exempt from the act. However, those who have yet to demonstrate openness and willingness to be accountable to their communities and members must be held to the same standard and that is what the first nations financial transparency act would ensure.

Any concerns that first nation members have about how their communities' moneys are managed can be addressed if first nation governments meet this new accountability standard. This legislation is a win-win-win, no matter how one looks at it. Most essential is that Bill C-27 would make sure that first nation residents have access to the necessary information to make sound decisions about their leadership and their community's future. This goes to the very heart of a democratic society.

Equally important, it would enhance the confidence of all Canadians in first nation governments. Perhaps most promising is that his act would ensure potential investors that they can safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This could lead to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nation members. When businesses create those kinds of opportunities, it opens up many new prospects for first nation members. It provides jobs and economic opportunities, which could make a real difference in many of these communities.

As the Winnipeg Free Press stated in an editorial about Bill C-27 on November 23:

The transparency law may not spark a revolution, but it will certainly enhance accountability and could lead to demands for more reforms, which are desperately needed to raise the living standards of Canada's first people.

That, at the end of the day, is really what the bill is all about. It would provide the legislative foundation upon which to build strong communities and strong economies to create a better quality of life for people living on reserve. What we are talking about here are those opportunities, the business prospects, the economic growth and the jobs that could be created. First nation members, indeed all Canadians, need Bill C-27. This legislation would ensure that first nation community members can count on law and reason, rather than passion, when it comes to good government. They would have written assurance that they can hold their leaders to account.

Frankly, I cannot fathom why there would be any opposition to this reasoned and reasonable legislation. I, for one, am proud to stand behind this progressive act that would put an end to practices that are all too often denying first nations people the same access to fundamental financial freedom as other Canadians. The first nations financial transparency bill would guarantee that first nation residents would enjoy the same democratic rights as all other Canadians.

As I have already mentioned, many first nations already provide this information to their members. It is the same kind of information that is available to citizens across Canada. Certainly here in the House as members of Parliament and in the other place, our salaries are disclosed through the Parliament of Canada Act and through the Salaries Act. That legislation lays out a transparent formula that calculates our salaries and provides for the publication of those details, both for regular incomes and for special allowances that are added to the salaries of MPs who take on extra responsibilities. It is also subject to conflict of interest and ethics legislation.

The Government of Canada is not, by any means, the only jurisdiction that requires this disclosure. Many provinces across Canada require similar transparency and accountability. There are examples from Newfoundland and Labrador. That province has the Financial Administration Act, which permits the provincial legislature to table public accounts each year. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick there are similar laws as well.

Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta all have legislation governing the duty of municipalities to prepare and publish annual financial statements. Territorial governments also hold themselves to this standard. The Government of the Northwest Territories makes its annual financial statements readily available on its website. The Government of Nunavut, through its Financial Administration Act, requires the government to publicly account for its expenditures for the previous year by laying the public accounts before the legislative assembly.

Precise wording of transparency and accountability legislation obviously varies from province to province, but the fact remains that almost all Canadian taxpayers have a guarantee in law that they can access the basic financial information they require to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions and their actions. I think that is only to be accepted in a democracy.

The first nations financial transparency act would guarantee that first nation residents would enjoy the same democratic rights as all other Canadians. Bill C-27 would be good for first nation communities, it would be good for business and it would be good for democracy. For all these reasons, I encourage all parties to give the proposed legislation their full endorsement.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I would like to begin by pointing out that I also think it is appalling that Bill C-27 is the object of the 29th time allocation motion.

That being said, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. First of all, first nations governments are among the most transparent and accountable in all of Canada, and they are in favour of continuous improvement with consultation. However, the real problem is that they have suffered decades of paternalism, which has placed first nations chiefs in a position where, under the Indian Act, they are responsible for implementing decisions made by the federal government. Not only is that clearly inappropriate, but it is still a recipe for poor results. I wonder if my colleague could comment on these remarks from a first nations chief.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated in the House before, transparency and proactive disclosure are important goals for all governments, including first nations governments, and goals that the Liberal opposition supports. However, the Conservatives have a duty to work with first nations to improve mutual accountability, not just impose made-in-Ottawa legislation.

First nations are willing partners on the issues of governance. However, the government must stop treating them as adversaries; it must stop the paternalism; it must stop the raining down of legislation on first nations without any prior consultation; it must stop treating first nations as though they are children in need of discipline or adult supervision. The government must go back to the original understanding of a government-to-government relationship, as was stated in the Royal Proclamation, which will be 250 years ago next year.

The total lack of consultation on this bill is an insult. The government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which insists upon free, prior and informed consent. The government now sees that as aspirational in nature and has put in absolutely no mechanisms to implement this declaration across government departments or even within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is very sad that again we stand in the House having to fight back against the kind of paternalistic approaches that do nothing to enhance the capacity of first nations in the country. Yet again, this is a tremendous example of insulting behaviour.

We are very concerned about the genesis of this legislation and its predecessor, which seems to be linked to the controversial report published by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation detailing salary figures of first nations chiefs. We say “misleading” salary figures of first nations chiefs. Then again, as we came to understand in the amendments, linking salary, expenses and the remuneration for band-owned businesses is actually a purposeful sticker shock that has fed into the stereotypes and is extremely damaging to the reputations of all first nations. It is particularly insulting to the first nations who are moving out and leading in terms of successful business enterprises.

The sensationalist report was shown to have contained inflated numbers and misleading calculations of remuneration for first nations elected officials. It reminds me, as a physician in Ontario, of the time when people were listing the fees taken by physicians, not bringing into account that we had to pay our rent, pay our staff, pay the costs of doing business out of that remuneration. It was misleading, as though it was income going directly to physicians.

The Canadian Bar Association has expressed concern that:

...debates that focus on such matters make an informed discussion about the realities of first nations governments difficult.

It has also stated that:

Rather than focusing on legislation that diverts attention from more pressing challenges facing First Nations governments, we encourage a nation to nation dialogue held in the light of constitutional principles.

The AFN has expressed concern that the federal government seems increasingly focused on designing first nations governance from Ottawa despite the fundamental need for first nations to undertake this work for themselves for it to be legitimate. As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan articulated, this was beautifully done in the Assembly of First Nations discussion on governance and accountability in January 2006. We share those concerns about Bill C-27.

Unfortunately, the government's decision to cut the National Centre for First Nations Governance and to slash the funding for tribal councils and other institutions, which are focused on building first nations capacity, is further undermining the ability of first nations to develop and implement accountability measures. The NCFNG will now be closing its doors early next year. It is hypocrisy to legislate accountability and transparency while cutting funding to the organizations, like the NCFNG, whose mandate is to support the process of nation rebuilding and self-government. How can the government justify imposing additional reporting duties, while at the same time cutting the resources first nations have to comply with these requirements?

While Bill C-27 is intended to improve the accountability and transparency of first nations governments to first nations citizens, the government failed to carry out its constitutional duty to consult with first nations on the drafting of this legislation or regarding government amendments during the committee stage. Unfortunately, this lack of consultation has resulted in a number of fundamental problems with this bill. The government must work with, not simply on behalf of, aboriginal peoples, as we promised to do in our original treaty relationship and as expressed to us by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Beyond its legal duties to consult, the government also has a moral duty to ensure that first nations are a part of the process to develop good policy that will work for them. However, with this bill the Conservative government would impose major changes to first nations financial reporting requirements with no significant prior consultation with those who would have to implement these proposed changes. One of the most shocking things we heard during the committee testimony was the fact that when the government went to the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to announce this bill, Chief Darcy Bear and his council were not permitted to see the bill in its final form. Chief Darcy Bear even wrote to his local Conservative MP and minister, expressing his concerns on December 11, 2011, stating:

I do wish to point out that when we were asked to endorse the new Bill we were only provided with the backgrounder on November 22, 2011. We did not receive a copy of the actual draft Bill until it was introduced in Parliament on November 23, 2011, which was after our press conference of that same day. We did not have the opportunity to review and analyze Bill C-27....

The chief went on to say:

I do wish to emphasize that we provided our endorsement of the new Bill C-27 based on our support for the former Bill C-575, for the reasons stated above.

The Whitecap Dakota First Nation went on to raise serious concerns about the scope and application of Bill C-27. How does this kind of bait and switch approach, on an accountability bill of all things, facilitate trust and partnership with first nations?

The government has used the same flawed approach to manage the issues of drinking water and matrimonial real property. It does not consult the stakeholders, let alone the opposition, about the details of these bills before introducing them.

The government's approach violates its constitutional duty to consult first nations before making any changes to legislation and policies that affect first nations peoples, institutions and rights.

The government continued this pattern at committee, rejecting all opposition amendments out of hand and refusing to consult broadly on the few government amendments brought forward.

The previous Liberal government worked with first nations to develop a broad-based and comprehensive mutual accountability framework. This framework was included in the Kelowna accord, which Conservatives tore up in 2006. It was creative. It was built on collaboration and it was the way forward in terms of building accountability and transparency.

First nations funding arrangements are currently subject to annual allocations, changing program parameters and reporting obligations as well as unilateral realignment, reductions and adjustments. Any effort to improve accountability and transparency must be mutual and should include a commitment by the federal government to be accountable for its spending on first nations programs.

As I have indicated, Liberals fully support the principle of proactive disclosure of financial information from first nation chiefs and councils to band members. Clearly, cases of first nation citizens being denied access to this information are unacceptable. However, we must look at the appropriate accountability relationship for the disclosure of this information.

First nation governments must be accountable to the members of that first nation, the people who elect them. Reporting requirements should be focused on making sure the members of a first nation have access to the appropriate information to hold their elected leaders accountable. Therefore, the proactive disclosure provisions in the legislation should apply to first nations alone. There are existing models from first nations that already have strong governance models, which can be adopted. For instance, there are examples of bands that already proactively disclose financial statements on password-protected websites. These are the types of creative solutions that result from thorough two-way consultation.

The bill also applies to first nations with financial administration laws made under the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act and this could lead to conflicting reporting requirements. The reporting of salaries and expenses, which the government admitted would have created confusion, was amended but still requires first nation leaders to include compensation in their personal capacity. This not only creates serious privacy concerns but also the possibility of misleading information being disclosed regarding first nation leaders' compensation.

Again, the government refused to listen to the expert testimony at committee and rejected opposition amendments on these issues out of hand.

Bill C-27 does nothing to reduce the current overwhelming reporting burden, especially for small first nations with limited administrative capacity.

The Auditor General has repeatedly called for meaningful action to reduce unnecessary first nation reporting requirements that shift limited capacity from community programs. In her 2002 report, the Auditor General recommended that:

The federal government should consult with First Nations to review reporting requirements on a regular basis and to determine reporting needs when new programs are set up.

As recently as June 2011, the Auditor General reported government progress toward achieving this needed rationalization as unsatisfactory. The government has failed to make meaningful progress on this issue.

First nations provide a minimum of 168 different financial reports to the four major funding departments: INAC, Health Canada, HRSDC and CMHC. That is three per week. The majority of these communities have less than 500 people. AANDC alone receives over 60,000 reports from first nations annually as a requirement under existing funding agreements.

Legislation that adds additional reporting requirements for first nations must also deal with the overwhelming and often outdated and unnecessary burden of existing reporting requirements. The practical requirements of the legislation have the potential to be unduly burdensome to first nations. For example, many communities are in remote areas, which impacts both their service delivery and operating expenses. Most communities do not have funding to build the infrastructure necessary for Internet access or the resource to create and maintain their own websites. Again, the government rejected opposition amendments to provide for alternative reporting options to band members.

I would also like to point out that paternalistic lectures about accountability are particularly insulting coming from the Conservative government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is facing a serious investigation by Canada's independent election authority for spending irregularities and the Minister of Intergovernmental is under a cloud regarding questionable election expenses during the last election. Both still have their jobs and so much for accountability.

What about transparency? Bill C-38, a 425-page omnibus bill that amended over 70 different acts was rammed through Parliament last spring with no amendments and minimal debate. This fall, the government introduced yet another massive 443-page omnibus bill, tucking in changes to everything from exempting the Detroit-Windsor bridge from environmental laws, to changing the list of navigable waters, to changing the definition of aboriginal fisheries and rules for aboriginal land ownership. All indications are that the government will ram this mammoth bill through completely unchanged as well.

First nations have little to learn about accountability and transparency from the government when the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who the government enshrined in the 2006 Federal Accountability Act, now has to go to court to get the information he needs in order to do his job of reporting back to Canadians, members of Parliament and senators on what is going on with the government's spending.

The bill is inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Prime Minister's commitment at the Crown-first nations gathering to reset the relationship.

It is inconsistent with the new approach to managing relations between the Government of Canada and first nations that was supposed to have resulted from the residential schools apology in 2008.

As I have stated, Liberals support the underlying goal of the legislation, but we are very concerned about how it was brought to the House and how the lack of consultation and collaboration in its development has resulted in a fatally, fundamentally, flawed legislation.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I launch into my speech, there are a couple of points that the parliamentary secretary raised that I have to comment on. First of all, part of the problem the House is facing is that the Conservative government fails to recognize a government-to-government relationship. That is a fundamental principle underlying the opposition to this particular piece of legislation.

The member talked about consultation. However, if the Conservatives truly support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which they claim they do, they would look at section 19 that talks about free, prior and informed consent. First nations from coast to coast to coast are saying there has not been free, prior and informed consent on this piece of legislation.

There is another point around this. I would absolutely agree, everyone in the House agrees and first nations agree, that there does need to be accountability and transparency. However, it is how it happens that is critical to this conversation. We have seen the government, once again, unilaterally impose its vision of what accountability and transparency looks like.

The parliamentary secretary quoted a 2010 resolution from the Assembly of First Nations. I want to quote from a paper from 2006, where the Assembly of First Nations was calling on the Conservative government to work with first nations from coast to coast to coast in developing this kind of accountability and transparency. The Assembly of First Nations had a detailed position paper, which also included the suggestion that:

[First nations-led and first nations-specific institutions] will be needed, as First Nation citizens must be empowered to hold both their local governments and the Government of Canada to account. Such institutions include an Ombudsperson's office, so that individuals have a trusted venue to pursue accountability concerns outside of either the local or federal governments. They would also include a First Nations Auditor General who could both provide ongoing advice to assist FN governments in providing accountability and, at the same time, improve accountability by exposing problems and recommending solutions.

In 2006, first nations had a solution to deal with this. Six years later, we do not have to be dealing with a piece of legislation that is being unilaterally imposed by the Conservative government.

I am not going to go over the full details of the bill because we have now spoken about it a number of times in the House. However, the bill would essentially require audited annual consolidated financial statements; a separate annual schedule of remuneration which would include what is paid to the first nations, and any entity controlled by the first nations, its chief and each of its councillors; an auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statements; and an auditor's report respecting the schedule of remuneration.

Also, as members have already pointed out, there are some punishments if there is a failure by the first nation to comply, such that any first nation member may apply for a court order to the Superior Court; any person, including the minister, may apply for a court order to the Superior Court; and, the minister may develop an appropriate action plan to remedy the breach, which could include withholding funds or terminating a funding agreement.

I neglected to say at the outset that we will continue to oppose the bill rigorously. We did propose a number of amendments to try to improve the bill, including deleting some of the more egregious clauses, but those amendments were not supported.

In an article from iPolitics entitled “...the government's hollow embrace of transparency” the author says that “...its call for greater financial disclosure rings hollow coming from a government which is failing the transparency test itself”. Of course, it was welcomed to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about embracing the one rule for all. Perhaps the government will now cough up details on some of these following items that have been identified.

The article goes on to say:

Unfortunately, back in Ottawa, the federal government is also proving to be far more opaque than accountable.

In 2011...the interim auditor general, blasted the Conservatives for spending on the 2010 G8/G20 summit. Quoted in the National Post, [he] said: “Rules were broken. Lawyers could have an interesting debate as to whether any laws were broken.” [He] criticized the government for having no supporting documentation for the selection of 32 projects in the [gazebo] riding.

In 2012, Auditor General Michael Ferguson took the government to task over its failure to disclose the true cost of purchasing 65 F-35 fighter jets. According to Ferguson, the cost of acquiring the planes over their 20-year life cycle was not $15 billion, as the government claimed, but $25 billion.

That estimate was closer to one made in 2011 by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. After Ferguson's report, Page told CBC Radio’s Evan Solomon that it appeared that one set of books was available inside the Department of National Defense, while another was presented publicly by the government “for communication purposes.”..

Page, of course, made more headlines this week when he filed a reference application with the Federal Court of Canada to gain access to details of the federal government's austerity measures, which have so far been denied to his office.

This is the context we are working in. On the one hand, the government is saying to first nations chiefs and councils that they must be more accountable than almost any other government in the country. On the other hand, it will not produce basic fundamental documents to tell the Canadian public how it is spending its money. It seems to me that this inconsistency needs to be addressed before we move forward with Bill C-27.

I want to quote a law professor. I know many will be interested in this because she is not just a law professor, but former chief Judith Sayers. She is the national aboriginal economic development chair and the assistant professor of business and law at the University of Victoria. Also, she was formerly a chief of her nation. Therefore, she has a very good grasp of the situation that is facing first nations.

In her letter to the standing committee of November 20, 2012, she says:

To ensure First Nations members get copies of financial statements, provisions to do that could be placed into these funding agreements between AANCD and the First Nation.

She is proposing a solution instead of Bill C-27. She is proposing that this clause be inserted into these agreements. She also said:

There could also be a process put in place that if a First Nation did not provide their members with Financial Statements within 120 days of the year end, that the members could go to the auditor’s office and receive copies. The First Nation would be required to put this in the letter of engagement with the auditor and compensate the auditor for costs of making copies of the audit. Legislation is not required to do this when agreements have dictated First Nation/AANDC fiscal relationships and this can continue to be the tool that can accomplish this.

She goes on to say that passing the law to make first nations provide their financial statements to their members is “not a step toward self governing Nations nor does it make them accountable, it only makes them compliant”. This is a key point because the government continues to claim that there will be a miracle that will occur when first nations are required to post their consolidated financial statements, that all of a sudden economic development will occur and there will be lots of accountability. That is simply not the case.

Ms. Sayers goes on to say that part of the problem with the bill is that it is not just money from the federal government, but from the first nations own source revenues, such as grants from organizations, provincial governments and any other entities.

The Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over moneys received from other sources and cannot compel the First Nation to be providing this information to the public.

She is outlining a legislative authority regarding providing financial statements and legal entities to the public. She says:

It is my submission that the federal government does not have authority to legislate with respect to any corporation, society or other legal body incorporated under provincial laws to provide financial statements to members of the First Nation and more problematically, to the public at large.

Then she quotes section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, which gives authority to the federal government over Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

The proposed Bill C-27 claims authority over an “entity” which means a corporation or a partnership, a Joint Venture of any other unincorporated association or organization. Any “entity” that is incorporated under provincial laws whether it is a Corporations Act or Societies act or Cooperative becomes a legal entity, an entity that cannot be considered an “Indian” over which the federal government has no jurisdiction.

That is an important point because the government is now stepping into territory that many first nations feel they have absolutely no authority over. She continues:

If First Nations are incorporating their businesses using provincial law as most do, the Federal government cannot then override the provisions of the provincial law.

Provincial Laws do not require that financial statements go to anyone other than the Directors and Shareholders of the corporation. In BC shareholders access to financial information is subject to the terms and conditions of what is set out in the articles of incorporation of the company. So in the instance where the members are shareholders, or have a trustee that holds the shares for them, the financial statements will be available to the members to see by virtue of provincial law.

It would be my submission that the Federal Government cannot define consolidated financial statements of the First Nation as “those of any entity that it controls that are presented as those of a single economic entity” if those entities are a legally incorporated society/corporation/cooperative, partnership, joint venture under provincial law.

I reiterate the fact that the government is now requiring the chiefs and councils to provide any income from these entities and that these entities would be aggregated in the consolidated financial statement. This associate professor of law is claiming that it is overstepping its jurisdiction.

In her conclusion, Ms. Sayers says:

I respectfully submit to this committee that Bill C-27 is not needed and if it does proceed to law, must be fully overhauled to narrow it to areas where the federal government has jurisdiction. First Nations will be challenging this legislation in court regarding this issue and since AANDC spends more than any other federal department on legal fees, this does not seem like a desirable course of action.

That is an opinion that the legislation is not required and oversteps federal jurisdiction.

I want to make a couple points about the testimony in the committee meeting of Wednesday, October 24, of Mr. Harold Calla, the chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board. He raised a point about audits, which is important. He says:

First of all, an audit is a look at history. It's a reactive statement, and it's not designed to be proactive in informing and supporting future decisions. While an audit is a necessary and important part of the overall financial management system, there are many other elements of a financial management system that should not be lost in this discussion.

All orders of government are accountable. Within the federal system, the need for an increased emphasis on oversight within budgeting and forecasting has been recognized as a best practice with the establishment of a parliamentary budget officer. This is an example of an evolving world and perspective of what practices and standards should become as part of the overall financial management system. Good financial management practices should not be defined solely by political objectives. Good financial management should be driven by the needs of all stakeholders and should inform them.

In the case of first nations, this should include the financial results of the transaction activity it undertakes for the delivery of programs and services that a first nation is mandated to deliver. Although an audit does contain notes, these notes are generally a clarification of financial facts. An audit does not make qualitative observations or recommendations, nor does it give a clear indication of future direction.

Mr. Calla went on to talk about an annual report. As he has pointed out, a consolidated financial statement is a retrospective. It talks about the money that has been spent in a bunch of different categories, but does not talk about the results that have been achieved with that expenditure of money. The government claims that it will open up economic opportunities, but that kind of analysis must be done about where money is spent and what results are achieved in order to get that financial snapshot.

One of the issues absent in the bill, and has been absent largely in the discussion, is what kinds of resources the federal government is providing to first nations in order to help them with capacity building. We have recently seen cuts to tribal councils and other aboriginal organizations, which are the very organizations that provide some of the capacity building and support. On the one hand, first nations would be required to do something in addition to what they already do. On the other hand, the government has cut the very services and program supports that could help them develop the economic capacity, which everybody knows is a step toward lifting first nations out of poverty.

Mr. Calla further says:

The purpose of measures that support financial reporting or being accountable and transparent should create confidence in all stakeholder groups in the financial...capacity of the entity and give an indication of their fiscal capacity. It is always better when stakeholder groups, in this case our communities, are able to establish the accountability and transparency framework that they wish to establish for their community...

It is best if communities pass their own laws and agree to independent oversight by third parties. This is the concept developed by the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and it is currently being explored by 58 of the approximately 100 first nations that have become scheduled under the act.

Once again, there are first nations that do an exemplary job and there are organizations that support this.

I want to quote Jean Paul from the Membertou First Nation who attended the same meeting. He says:

All the information required by the new act is already being provided by the first nations in Canada to AANDC, as per their existing funding agreements over years and decades. Only last year the issue was pushed to the forefront, and now a bill will require all first nations to comply or...AANDC will release the information, and as a last resort, all funding will be stopped.

Mr. Paul raises the question about whether anybody has examined the implications of taking funding away when many first nations are delivering essential services to their communities, which include water, housing, education and so on. That question also has not been addressed.

In an email from AFOA Canada, which again provides support to the financial officer, it says:

Having said all this, the overriding issue here is that only by stating the words “First Nations” within the proposed Bill C-27 and defining these words as per the Indian Act, the government is signaling out a specific group of Canadians. This is of concern because of the increased financial level of reporting and accountability required which includes the schedule of salaries, honoraria, travel and other remuneration. More is being asked of First Nations than other groups of Canadians. If First Nations are not recognized as governments, why are we even comparing them to other governments? And even if they were recognized as Governments in legislation (which they are not), there is a higher standard required upon First Nations within this Bill.

It is interesting because the parliamentary secretary and others have talked about the fact that this is the same standard that is applied to everybody. I will quote from the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. Although we do have to declare if we have an interest or if we receive remuneration from another organization, under the content of our disclosure, it says “the source and nature, but not the value, of the income, assets and liabilities referred to in the Member’s statement filed under section 20”.

When it comes to contracts or subcontracts, it describes the subject matter and nature. It says, “The following shall not be set out in the summary: a source of income of less than $10,000 during the 12 months before the relevant date”. Once again we have a situation where first nations will be asked to report in a way that members of the House of Commons are not asked to report.

In an analysis that the Assembly of First Nations did on Bill C-27, it indicated that there were several provincial governments in Canada that did not have the same kind of reporting requirements.

Nova Scotia's summaries of expenses of ministers are located at the Legislative Library for public viewing. The Government of Northwest Territories only publishes travel expenses of ministers and does not require salary disclosure of elected officials or senior public servants. Neither Yukon nor Prince Edward Island disclose salaries of elected officials.

The claim that first nations would have to comply with what every other level of government in Canada does is simply not true.

There have been issues raised around privacy. When the privacy commissioner came to the aboriginal affairs committee on October 31, she raised four key questions that needed to be answered. One was the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need? Two was it likely to be effective in meeting that need? Three was the loss of privacy proportional to the need? Four was there less a privacy invasive way of achieving the same end?

This is a serious matter because we are asking first nations chiefs and councils to report in a way that many other entities are not required to report. Those four fundamental questions around privacy were never effectively dealt with. It was outside the scope for the privacy commissioner to make comments on particular legislation before the aboriginal affairs committee, but those are very serious issues that need to be addressed.

The fact that there has not been an appropriate consultation, that there are some serious questions that the consolidated financial statement, by including entities that are band owned, oversteps the authority of the government, that the privacy issues have not yet been adequately addressed and that the issues around the capacity building are not addressed in helping first nations ensure that they have the capacity to provide this information to their members, none of these issues are addressed adequately. Based on this, the New Democrats will oppose the bill at third reading.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary clarify for the House when first nation chiefs and councillors would begin disclosing their salaries and expenses if Bill C-27 is approved?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and respect the hon. member's contributions to this debate and all of the work that we do at committee. Nonetheless, I am interested in the evolving narrative from the other side.

Here is what we have heard so far as the bill has come through. One member for the NDP has said there should be one rule for all. Bill C-27 actually takes us in that direction. It makes a level playing field for constituents in first nation communities, as would exist in other communities in other jurisdictions.

Second, another member of the NDP said that government is about decision-making and emphasized the ability and right of a given community to participate in that. Having access to financial documents allows community members to exercise their participation in the decisions their elected officials are making.

Now the current member has just said and recognized that this is not an onerous exercise, since they already produce these documents. Indeed, it is not a redundant exercise; it simply means that they have to post the documents on an accessible website or be able to supply them to a community member on request.

We have these three approaches coming from the NDP. We are encouraged that their signals are strong and that they agree with the central tenets of and practical implementation issues regarding the bill. We look forward to today's vote so that we can move forward and send the bill to the other place.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the constituents of the great Kenora riding to speak, hopefully, for the last time to this piece of legislation before it moves on to the other place and receives royal assent.

I am proud to rise today to once again explain the need for Bill C-27 and to talk about its many benefits.

Before I do, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I want to thank all those who appeared before the committee during recent hearings. Their contributions have made this legislation better and stronger.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who spoke to the need for Bill C-27. They recognized that increased transparency and accountability will empower first nation members and their governments.

As do all Canadians, first nation community members want assurances that public funds are being used to improve their communities. They expect and deserve sound management practices from their elected leadership, as well as access to the information necessary to ensure that these leaders are acting in their best interests and priorities. Bill C-27 simply puts in place the same types of rules with respect to financial transparency that already apply to other levels of government in Canada. Why should first nations expect or have anything less?

Further, publicly accessible information will also boost investor confidence and create a better business environment for private sector investment on reserve. This will inevitably lead to increased economic opportunities that will help to create the conditions for healthier and more self-sufficient first nation communities.

Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation said it best when he stated:

You drive through my community, you'll see all the paved roads, paved streets, the good quality of life that my people, my members enjoy.... That's what good accountability brings to a community.

It is worth noting that the bill is entirely consistent with the resolution passed by first nation leadership at the Assembly of First Nations' Special Chiefs Assembly in December of 2010, where the chiefs committed to “Choose to lead by example and demonstrate to other orders of government processes for accountability”, which included:

Itemizing and publicly disclosing salaries, honoraria and expenses associated with the operations of Chief & Council;

Ensuring information about community finances and decision-making is easily accessible, and available via the internet where applicable.

That sounds a lot like the wording, spirit and intent of the bill.

Currently, there is no legislative requirement for transparency and accountability from first nation leadership. Under current funding agreements, first nation community members can ask for band-related financial information from their elected leaders, but there is no legislated obligation on the part of the administration to release it. We know that many first nations are already making their financial information public voluntarily. We appreciate that. I think it goes to reducing the amount of suspicion and political turmoil at the community level. However, not all first nation communities are doing this.

When individuals are refused information from their band council they often come to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to ask for the information to be released to them, as we have heard from various witnesses appearing before the standing committee. Some regional offices of the department receive as many as 25 to 30 informal requests each year from first nation members seeking this basic information, which would be readily available to any other constituent or any other Canadian in any other jurisdiction

At committee Phyllis Sutherland, president of the Peguis Accountability Coalition, told committee members about her community. They were unable to access salary and other financial information about their elected band officials. She in fact cited several cases where members were subject to intimidation. She insisted that this type of intimidation must stop and that those in power must be held accountable.

Similar concerns were raised in testimony by Joseph Quesnel, a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He presented research data culled from the Aboriginal Governance Index developed by the centre, which revealed that 77% of the first nation members surveyed agreed that salary information for elected officials should be made public and be accessible. However, 25% say this information is not available to their band members.

In addition to the requests for documents, the department also receives allegations and complaints regarding potential mismanagement or the misappropriation of band funds and remuneration of its elected officials. Since January 2011, there have been 1,450 such complaints.

The important point is not how many requests the department receives each year for salary information—although there are many—it is the fact that from this government’s perspective, even one request is one too many. Members must go to the department for information that should be coming directly from their own first nation. The minister would prefer not to be involved in issues that should be resolved by the community itself.

Bill C-27 removes the minister from the equation by ensuring this financial information is easily accessible to everyone who wants it. It creates a direct line of accountability between first nation leaders and their members.

The concern about accountability extends beyond government and first nation members to investors who might be deterred by a lack of reliable financial data. Bill C-27 would help address this problem by requiring first nation governments to publish annual audited consolidated financial statements, as well as a schedule of chiefs' and councillors' salaries, remunerations and expenses. Clear and consistent publication under Bill C-27 would provide potential investors with a snapshot of a community's financial situation and may lead to further opportunities for partnership and investment.

There has been misinformation spread about the bill by the opposition who opposes our government's efforts to support economic growth, investment and job creation through more accountable and transparent government. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up the misconceptions and explain what Bill C-27 would do.

First, the legislation would not set salary levels for chiefs and councillors. It would remain the first nation's responsibility to set the appropriate level of remuneration for its elected officials. The proposed act would simply ensure that financial information is disclosed to the public. This would provide band members with the information they need to hold their leadership to account. They can then use that information to determine whether funds are being spent for the benefit of the community and whether compensation levels are reasonable and appropriate.

Second, I want to make clear that the act would not require individual businesses owned by the band to publish their detailed financial statements. Rather, Bill C-27 would only require the publication of the first nation's audited consolidated financial statements. These financial statements would include any entities that, according to generally accepted accounting principles or GAP, are to be consolidated with the first nation in its financial statements, including most band-owned businesses. However, information relating to government business enterprises would be highly aggregated and would not be revealing any details that would undermine the competitiveness of their businesses.

I want to underline that this is a standard accounting principle. This rule applies to all other government-owned businesses across Canada. We are not asking anything different of first nation communities than we do of any other business or community in Canada.

As members of Parliament, we all fully disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public, as required by the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act. Not only that, but the Federal Accountability Act of 2006 has also increased the public's access to information about its government's activities and those of its members. Anyone interested in any of this data can find it without even asking. Similar laws are in place at the provincial and territorial level and most of those governments have adopted legislation requiring municipal governments to make these documents public as well.

Equally important, there is nothing in this legislation that would create any additional paperwork for first nation governments. They already produce consolidated financial statements each year, which are audited by independent accredited professional auditors. It is a requirement of their funding agreements with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

The legislation simply ensures that some of the critical documents which are already submitted to the department as part of a first nation’s funding agreement are made publicly available. This bill does not ask for anything new, except greater transparency to members.

To be clear, all that Bill C-27 would do is to require first nation governments to meet the same standards. They are the only governments in Canada that do not currently provide this basic level of information to the public, and this bill would fill that legislative gap.

As members can see, we are not proposing radical measures, nor are they onerous in terms of their additional reporting requirements. We have made every effort to make it easy for first nations to comply with this law.

It has been pointed out, for example, that not all first nations have websites. However, the bill fully addresses this point. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of the legislation. If a first nation is not able to publish the information electronically itself, it can ask another organization it is a member of to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to post the information on its behalf.

Of course, it is important to recognize that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial statements available to its members. Again, many of them already do this by either distributing printed copies to households or making information available in band offices. We heard at committee instances of where a number of communities actually host a forum, somewhat akin to an annual general assembly of its members, where they review these documents.

I also want to reinforce that there have been numerous opportunities to discuss and improve this legislation, first in the context of private member's Bill C-575 introduced in the previous Parliament, and now in the context of Bill C-27.

Over the course of the committee's review of the bill, we heard concerns about how certain sectors of the text might be interpreted. These concerns focused on the language of the bill in two key areas: first, the need to report information relating to remuneration and reimbursement of expenses separately; and second, the treatment of band-controlled entities. I am pleased to say that we have listened to the concerns raised by first nations and have introduced amendments to clarify the relevant language of the bill to address these concerns. That is a process that took place at committee.

With respect to the reporting of remuneration and expenses, the original text of the bill combined the concepts of salaries and expenses into a single definition of remuneration. Although it was not the intention of the bill, we heard from witnesses that this could be interpreted to suggest that these two amounts could be reported and disclosed to the public as one aggregate figure. To make things clearer and for greater certainty, the amendments split these two concepts into two separate definitions for the purposes of the legislation, and the schedule of remuneration has been re-named in the text of the bill to “schedule of remuneration and expenses”.

As it relates to the treatment of band-owned businesses, the intention of the bill has always been to put into legislation the same practices with respect to the treatment of band entities as are currently in place in the funding agreements. We believe it is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nation members, to see summary statements that capture the activities of their government and elected officials.

The entities to be included and the manner in which their financial information is presented will be determined by the standards set out by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This will ensure that the standards applying to businesses owned by other governments in Canada will also apply to first nation governments in precisely the same way.

The government worked hard to find language that strikes a balance between the need for precision and certainty in legislative drafting and complex accounting concepts. At committee we adopted an amended definition of consolidated financial statements that makes these points clear. These improvements resulted in some other small amendments but do not detract from the original intent of the bill. The only thing that has changed is the wording, which has been adjusted for clarity, greater certainty and to eliminate any confusion.

First nations people have been waiting a long time for the measures proposed in Bill C-27. They should not be asked to wait any longer for this bill to come into effect.

It was first introduced on November 23, 2011, and there has been ample time devoted to discussing views and concerns regarding this legislation. It was debated for almost six hours during second reading debate before being referred to committee, which met seven times to study and discuss Bill C-27.

During that time the committee heard from 21 witnesses from 13 different organizations. These witnesses came from a variety of organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada, and representatives from individual first nations communities.

During report stage, the House spent over six hours of debate on this bill. The NDP has had no less than 20 speakers, yet we heard no new issues raised by the opposition in all that time. In fact, one thing that we did hear was one member from across the way saying that he wanted to see one rule for all. It is great news that a member from the NDP would say that, because that is exactly what this bill strives to accomplish.

For this legislation to apply in the next fiscal year, it must come into force on or before March 31, 2013. This legislation is long overdue and will bring first nation governments in line with virtually all other governments in Canada. Our government believes that first nations people have waited long enough. We think this legislation should apply to the next fiscal year, 2013-14. This means that the publication of first nations' financial statements and salaries and expenses could occur as early as July 2014.

I am very proud of this legislation. I believe firmly that first nations deserve and expect the same level of transparency and accountability as all Canadians. The first nations financial transparency act would make that happen.

Bill C-27 will also reassure potential investors that they can safely enter into joint financial agreements, joint ventures and business undertakings with first nations. The resulting jobs and economic growth will contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives, the livelihoods and the communities of first nation members.

In short, Bill C-27 is a landmark bill that is worthy of the support of all parties. I urge all members of the House to give it their full support and vote unanimously in support of this bill.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-27.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and today it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act.

Over the last six years, our government has consistently demonstrated our commitment to creating the conditions for a healthier, more self-sufficient aboriginal communities. Fundamental to achieving that are strong, stable and accountable first nations governments. Bill C-27 would strengthen first nations governance by increasing accountability and transparency, giving first nations community members the information they need to make informed choices about their leadership.

Bill C-27 complements Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, which we introduced in December 2011. Together, these pieces of proposed legislation demonstrate democratic practices and would empower first nations people.

First nations residents expect to know how funds are being spent in their communities. Like all Canadians, they want assurance that these funds are being used to improve their quality of life. Bill C-27 would improve their access to the financial statements of their governments and provide information on the salaries and expenses of their elected officials.

Indeed, democracy depends on citizens being able to call their leaders to account and ensure they represent the community's best interests.

Currently, community members may ask for financial information related to their band but unless their leaders choose to release it, it can be difficult for them to access the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and the direction of their community. There are still community members who have no other option but to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development each year seeking assistance in obtaining this information.

A real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability from first nation leaders can also erode investor confidence and impede a community's ability to take full advantage of economic development opportunities. Ultimately, this delays or can destroy job opportunities and economic progress for the first nation and its members.

I also point out that parliamentarians already have a duty to inform Canadian taxpayers of how their tax dollars are spent, including for first nations.

A question was raised during the second reading debate of the bill on whether public disclosure of financial statements of band-owned businesses would undermine their competitiveness. It is important to note that Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. Instead, it is only the consolidated financial statements of the first nation that are covered under the proposed legislation. Some of my colleagues, in their speeches in the House today, have reiterated this point. These statements would not, in most cases, reveal any proprietary information that would undermine their competitiveness. There seems to be some misunderstanding on this. I understand that during the committee stage amendments were made to clarify these concerns.

Members of first nations are ultimately the owners of any businesses owned by the band and they have a right to know the financial position of those businesses, just as other Canadians have the right to know about businesses owned by other levels of government. The bill would ensure that this occurs.

Although some first nation-owned businesses may have concerns about providing financial information to the public, it is important to point out that these reporting rules are not our rules but the rules set out by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. In other words, these are the exact same rules that apply to businesses owned in other governments in Canada. To be absolutely clear, the proposed legislation would not create any additional paperwork for first nation governments. They already produce audited financial statements each year as a requirement for their funding agreements with the department, and this bill would not require anything new in that regard.

Similarly, what we are asking of chiefs and councillors is no more than what we ask of ourselves as parliamentarians. For example, the Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Internet and each of us, as members of Parliament, now disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public as required under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act.

Furthermore, Canadians can easily find all of these facts and figures, and much more, since we introduced the Federal Accountability Act. This act has also increased the public's access to information about government activities and spending.

Provincial and territorial governments have adopted similar practices and the vast majority of them have legislation that requires municipal governments to make these documents public, as well. In addition, some provinces, such as Manitoba and Ontario, have extended beyond the legislature to require public sector bodies to disclose the public amount of compensation it pays to its employees over a certain threshold.

In short, under the Indian Act, first nation governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make basic financial information public. Again, the bill would address this gap.

Some have noted that not all first nations have websites. This came up in debate in the House today. This is true, and Bill C-27 addresses this point. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of the bill. If a first nation were not able to publish the information electronically, it could ask another organization to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask the department to post the information on its behalf. However, we should be clear that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial statements available to its members.

Many first nations members do not have easy access to the Internet, a fact the department is also addressing through its connectivity efforts. As a result, first nations will need to continue to find ways to make this information available to their members who do not have Internet access. Many already do this by distributing printed copies to households, or making the information available in readily accessible locations in the community, including band offices.

As I mentioned at the outset, the department receives many requests each year for assistance in obtaining basic financial information from their own first nations government. Enhancing the accountability of band councils more directly to its members would be achieved by making more tools available to its individuals.

All that the bill changes is that first nations government will now join other Canadian governments in sharing basic financial information with its members and other Canadians. Once passed, the bill would also help assure potential investors that they could safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This could and should contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nations members.

I know members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step for empowering and improving the lives of first nations members, and I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the bill.

I will close with some of the statements I have heard in the House today. There has been some implication that requiring transparency that is similar to other levels of government is somehow paternalistic. I would disagree with that characterization. It is very positive for the bill to undertake the step of moving first nations members in the same direction as other levels of government when it comes to the transparency in the disclosure of financial records to its members and to other Canadians.

I want to note that the proposed legislation is asking that first nations use generally accepted accounting principles, which is consistent with expectations of governments from all other levels. We are not trying to prescribe salaries or the spending habits of first nations communities with Bill C-27. It is simply to move the financial reporting requirements and transparency requirements into alignment with other levels of government across this country.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern of paternalistic and prescribed regulations on first nations that may in fact be leading toward assimilation. However, it also highlights for all Canadians the problems in first nation communities, such as the lack of housing and the fact that women whose marriages break up will lose their ability to live in their first nation because there are not enough places for them to live.

The government is doing virtually nothing to correct the 85,000 spaces that are missing in first nation communities.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern that I have noticed as a non-first nations person here in the House of policies and practices of the government that are paternalistic, punishing and somewhat prejudicial. This pattern is quite disturbing to me as a non-first nations person in that the government should actually be protecting and enhancing the first nations people of this country rather than punishing them.

The genesis of the bill, as I understand it, was a report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation about the remuneration received by a band chief, or maybe other band chiefs, that was in excess of what we pay the Prime Minister. There are lots of corporations in this country that pay significantly in excess of what the Prime Minister makes. Whether a band has the resources to be able to pay its chiefs appropriately is not something that we should concern ourselves with unless there is some evidence of fraud or of other nefarious means. That is not the case here. There was no indication and no expectation on the part of the band that the chief was being paid in some manner that was inappropriate.

Indeed, the bill does not even touch on the appropriateness of compensation. It does not provide any guidance as to what would be a conflict of interest or what would be a conflict in terms of remuneration. Instead, it seems to punish the bands that are providing many financial statements already by making them provide even more by increasing the reporting requirements in an extreme way. That, again, seems to be a punishment for bands, perhaps for having spent so much on their chiefs.

In terms of it being paternalistic, once again we see that the government will not consult with the first nations themselves but instead prescribe for the first nations what they must do. We have heard time and time again in the House and from first nations themselves that what they want is be free to run their own affairs and, where the government provides some money, they want to be consulted. By the word “consult” we mean consent. We do not mean just spend a few dollars and bring a few people in to talk. We actually mean that the bands should give consent where there are major changes to how the government provides its services to them and the relationship between the Canadian government and the governments of the first nations people.

It gets even more paternalistic when the government says that if bands do not follow its rules it will hold back money. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would do that to a band, to punish the children of the band perhaps if the money is for education, or to punish the mothers of the band perhaps if the money is for food or shelter. Why on earth are we punishing these people for the actions of a few? We have tried at committee to move significant amendments to the bill to deal with those issues that have been raised with us by the first nations and the issues that we can plainly read in the text of the bill, and yet every one of those amendments have been rejected by the government. As is the case in almost all the bills before Parliament, there is no attempt to be co-operative or consultative with the other parties in the House. The government does it all on its own.

The bill is punishing to the first nations because, in many circumstances, it would require the proprietary business information be released to the public. We are not talking, as the member for Scarborough Centre suggested, about ensuring that band members have this information. In fact, the requirement is that the information be made completely public and, when it is made public, if it is proprietary information, it puts the band at a disadvantage. It is punishing the band.

Some of these bands have been quite successful in creating businesses and trying to lift some of their members out of the extreme poverty in which we often find Canadian first nation members. The government's reaction is to punish them for doing that by making them release proprietary information in their financial statements that would put them at a disadvantage to non-first nation businesses in Canada and elsewhere. That is just wrong. We should not be putting first nations people at a disadvantage.

When we talk about proprietary information, the thing that I find most ironic is that when a freedom of information request is made of the government, most often the excuse that it gives when turning down the release of information, whether it is financial or otherwise, is that it is proprietary information and protected by the privacy of the dealings with another business or entity. Yet first nations are not given the same ability to protect their information. Instead, they are being told they must disclose it or the government will step in and withhold money.

I believe the government has fallen 30 places in the world's rankings in terms of freedom of information requests. Yet it is telling first nations they have to release information. The government is not practising what it preaches. As we know, the government's accountability is always in question when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to take the government to court in order to get information released. Yet the way the government treats first nations is to say that if they do not release information, it will withhold their education money or money for housing or food.

There are some who have spoken at committee about the punishing nature of the required information. John Paul from the Membertou First Nation on October 24 stated:

In addition to what we do publicly, our first nation community must also still comply with all the detailed reporting requirements as decreed by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reporting handbook, developed by AANDC alone, as per the conditions of the five-year multi-year funding agreement that we have signed with AANDC. The time my staff has to spend to complete these obligations is significant and is done at our own first nation's cost.

The government does not help with any of this.

These reporting requirements and the need for documentation seem to have increased, even though a few years ago the Conservative government committed to an improved funding relationship. The continual and increasing reporting burden on our first nation must be addressed.

We are going in the opposite direction with the bill. We are creating a greater burden and more funding requirements, and there is no additional money to provide for it.

In terms of the policies of paternalism and some would say even prejudice toward the first nations, I am reminded of the comments of the Prime Minister when the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis came to our attention last fall. His knee-jerk reaction was to say, “We gave them lots of money. Where did they spend it?”

That was not the problem. The problem was not that the government gave them lots of money, it was that the government did not give them enough money. It has frozen their funding at 2% raises since 2000, first by the Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government, when their population is increasing at a greater rate than that and the inflation rate in Canada is higher than that on many occasions. Every year that funding arrangement stays in place, first nations fall further and further behind.

We are told that 85,000 new homes need to be built on first nation reserves. The Conservatives bragged yesterday about how it built 16,000 houses since 2005, which we should remind them was money that Jack Layton got out of the Paul Martin government to create new housing. In fact, the Conservatives voted against providing money for housing. Native North Americans in Canada are 85,000 houses short and yet the government is going ahead without providing any new housing infrastructure money for first nations. It is frozen at 2%.

As far as education goes and as far as we can tell, the first nations who must report on this money now are being paid half of what other Canadian children receive in terms of education dollar spending. In some cases this paternalistic attitude toward the first nation education system is such that when a first nation is given space to have a school, the government deducts the value of that space from the money it gives the first nation for education, even though it did not cost anyone anything. It is shameful that the government—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, and specifically to speak about the need for Bill C-27 as a way of re-establishing basic lines of accountability between a first nations chief and council and its members.

I begin by referring to a statement made by the Assembly of First Nations, which referred to this bill as “tinkering”. In a document prepared for the Special Chiefs Assembly held in December 2011, it said:

...federal led tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act with legislation that addresses aspects of core governance is not the answer. It will not provide long-term governance certainty and stability for our Nations.

Is this bill nothing more than tinkering with the Indian Act? Absolutely not. The Indian Act is silent on transparency and accountability. There is not a word in the Indian Act that deals with the preparation of financial statements and ensuring they are accessible to the public. The Indian Act is certainly not modern legislation that supports first nations governments. This is why the first nations financial transparency act is so needed.

To be clear, this bill would change the status quo. It would provide long-term governance, certainty and stability. The status quo as it relates to financial transparency is that there are currently no statutes or regulations to outline the financial transparency requirements for first nations governments or to guide the setting of salaries for chiefs and councillors. To the extent that there are any rules anywhere that require first nations to make their financial information available to their own people, it is not in that law, but in the funding agreements with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In accordance with provisions of these agreements, first nations governments are required to provide the department with audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses for all elected officials. However, it is also a provision of these agreements that the statements be made available to the first nations members in their own communities. These agreements do not stipulate the manner or timing for disclosure. As a result, some individuals have found it quite difficult to access these documents. The practices within individual first nations communities vary widely. Some communities may not consistently disclose financial statements or information concerning salary and expenses while others distribute the information to members or post it on community websites.

This bill would change all of this. It would indeed change the status quo for first nations communities. Under the proposed legislation, each first nation would need to make its audited consolidated financial statements available to its members, as well as to publish them on a website. The information found in the audited consolidated financial statements relates to the major activities undertaken by the particular first nation being audited and details how the first nation expended its moneys. The statement with respect to what information is provided in these statements would be determined by the generally accepted accounting principles. Information that would be disclosed in the schedules to the financial statements include the salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorariums, dividends and any other monetary or non-monetary benefit that chiefs or councillors are receiving. The expenses of first nations leadership, such as transportation, accommodation, meals and hospitality would also be included. Chiefs and councillors would also be required to disclose remuneration paid to them by any entity controlled by the first nation. This would reflect current practice, as first nations are already required to report the remuneration and expenses, in separate categories, paid to the chief and councillors as part of their agreements under the funding agreement with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be required to publish the audited consolidated financial statement and schedule of remuneration, when received, for each first nation on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website. This would ensure the information would be available and accessible at all times, and by everyone. The department already publishes on its website a document entitled “Schedule of Federal Funding” for each first nation as a result of the Federal Accountability Act. The bill would require first nations and the department to publish the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules on their websites, as well as remunerations and expenses of first nations to which the legislation would apply. If a first nation failed to do so, anyone, including the minister, could ask a court to require a band council to publish it.

The bill would not only empower first nation members but it would also change the status quo in another fundamental area.

Currently, when first nations members raise questions or concerns about the non-disclosure of financial statements or remuneration and expenses for chiefs and council members, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada encourages them to raise these issues directly with their chief and council, respecting the principles of local community accountability.

If the department becomes aware of a situation where a first nation member cannot gain access to his or her community's financial statements, the department will work with the first nation government to ensure that the information is released. If efforts to have a first nation government release the statements to a member are unsuccessful, the department releases the financial statements or schedule of remuneration and expenses directly to the member.

Not only does this place the minister in a difficult position between the first nation council and its members, it makes no sense to require individual first nation members to have to appeal to the minister just for access to basic financial information relating to their own community that they should be able to get from their own band.

Bill C-27 would create a direct relationship with a clear line of responsibility, accountability and transparency between council and first nations members. The bill would underscore the fact that first nations governments are accountable to their own communities for the decisions they make, in addition to being accountable to taxpayers for the funds that they receive.

The bill would change the status quo by finally putting in place the same rules with respect to financial transparency that apply to other governments in Canada to first nations governments. The bill would provide long-term governance certainty and stability by creating a direct line of accountability between a first nation and its chief and council for access to basic financial information and for the decisions that led to the information that those documents contain.

It is worth noting, too, that the bill would achieve this without increasing the already significant reporting burden on first nation governments. Because the preparation of these documents is already a condition of their funding agreements, there are no new reports required. The bill proposes to place the same requirements in legislation with the only additional requirement being that some of the information already prepared for the department is posted on a website, maintained by the first nation or on its behalf, and on the department's website as well.

I know that members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step forward in empowering and improving the lives of first nations members.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.

Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-27.

According to the Conservative majority, the purpose of this bill is to make first nations' finances more transparent by requiring first nations to disclose various pieces of information.

I must begin by pointing out to the House the irony in this situation: the Conservative government lacks transparency in many areas and has no problem criticizing the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he confirms their lack of transparency.

The Conservatives also hid information that the Chief Electoral Officer had requested when the robocall scandal came to light. They hide their destructive environmental policies in mammoth bills like the budget bill voted on last June. They deceived Canadians on the real cost of the F-35 and they misled Canadians during the election. At the time, they said they would not raise the age of eligibility for old age security, yet they raised it from 65 to 67 just a few months later.

Now the Conservatives are introducing a bill that suggests that first nations are not being transparent. This is ironic, coming from a government that is not very transparent itself.

Before preaching to others and imposing such conditions, the Conservatives should start by looking in the mirror.

Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to public funds. Canadians deserve to have their money well spent, and they deserve to have all the necessary means to know what governments are doing with that money. We must speak out against any misuse of public funds at every level of government.

This is also true for first nations, which deserve to have the funding they are given properly managed and used to develop their community. Like everywhere else, the money is sometimes mismanaged, and it is the members of these communities who suffer for it.

This bill could stigmatize first nations by giving Canadians the impression that aboriginal reserves mismanage their resources and must be put under trusteeship by Ottawa. That is insulting and disrespectful to aboriginal communities, which were not even consulted before the bill was drafted.

I would like to specify that, although it is possible that some communities mismanage their resources, this type of problem is not limited to first nations communities. Many municipalities and governments—federal and provincial—have done a shoddy job of managing public funds. We have seen this frequently in Quebec since the beginning of the Charbonneau commission. Such practices must be stopped at all levels.

We believe that public funds must be managed in a transparent manner. However, imposing transparency, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is insulting and reminiscent of colonial times. The Conservatives are forgetting that they have a constitutional duty to consult the first nations before making changes to laws that affect them.

However, as they have been in the habit of doing since they won a majority, the Conservatives are acting unilaterally, as though the other levels of government did not exist. The Conservatives are not even trying to examine the amendments proposed by the opposition or even hold consultations with regard to their own amendments. In short, this government is continuing to turn a deaf ear.

The paternalism of this bill is also of great concern. The first nations should have the same amount of freedom as the provinces and municipalities to manage themselves as they wish.

When the federal government sends the provinces equalization cheques, does it tell them how to do their accounting? The provinces pass their own laws, and we have confidence in their justice system.

With Bill C-27, we are acting as though the first nations belonged to the federal government. We are acting as though the first nations needed to be put under trusteeship, as though they were unable to take care of themselves.

Can we require that first nations communities be transparent toward their members? Likely. However, do we need a bill that tells them exactly how to do that?

Aboriginal communities do not all operate in the same way and do not all have the same resources.

By unilaterally passing a bill that will tell them exactly what to do, we will be imposing an administrative burden that will cause problems for many of them. For example, why force first nations to have a website where the public can consult the documents this bill requires, when some of them do not even have drinking water?

For a community of 200 people, for example, being forced to maintain a community website is an unjustifiable burden, especially since the Conservative government is not offering any financial compensation. Disclosing certain information to all Canadians can also cause problems for first nations businesses, which will be put at a competitive disadvantage, as the member for St. Paul's described.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts a huge administrative burden on aboriginal communities that have limited means. The first nations already provide at least 168 separate financial reports to the four main federal departments and agencies—Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the CMHC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Health Canada. The administrative burden imposed on the first nations is excessive, and the government is not doing anything to help them with this bill. Their resources are limited, so let us help them by reducing their spending on the administrative documents we force them to produce.

The Conservatives must stop treating the provinces and first nations with contempt. Not only does the Conservative government break our laws and frequently waste taxpayers' money, but it goes so far as to lecture others and to try to control them. A first step for the Conservatives would be to achieve transparency by providing documents in a timely manner when asked to do so by Elections Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And the Conservatives should consult the provinces and the first nations when considering changes that affect them.

The Liberal Party is not the only one saying it: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal and the provincial governments have an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that affect their rights, and that they must respond to their concerns.

So why impose this kind of legislation without consultation?

Canadians are afraid of this obsession with control. The provinces no longer have a say. The Conservatives have decided to cut transfers and services, and to increase provincial costs with complete disregard for the principles of federalism. Even the premier of Quebec, a sovereignist, was surprised and disappointed that the Prime Minister of Canada is not attending the meeting of the Council of the Federation in Halifax. We know that we have a serious problem when even a separatist seems to take Canadian federalism more seriously than the Prime Minister of Canada.

Today, the government is treating the first nations in the same way by unilaterally imposing its conditions. For the Prime Minister to have such control over his caucus that he forces them to read texts prepared by his office is one thing. But to have such contempt for Canadian federalism that he passes the costs on to the province and the aboriginal communities is, quite frankly, an insult to Canadians.

We must put an end to paternalism and the colonial mentality towards first nations. We must treat them like partners in our federation. The first nations are not government agencies; they are not the property of the federal government. The Conservatives must negotiate with the first nations in order to find common ground rather than being confrontational. The Conservative government must face the facts, reconsider its approach and take into account the opposition's concerns.

To that end, the Conservatives should vote with the Liberal Party against this bad bill, and they should go back to the drawing board.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that all members on this side are very upfront with regard to what they spend. I am sure all of the ministers would be very certain of that.

Having said that, the most important bill here today is Bill C-27, which will ensure that people on reserve can understand what their chiefs and councillors receive each year through remuneration.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should focus on Bill C-27, which would ensure that councillors and chiefs throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would be open to their constituents.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the games have ceased for a few minutes.

Accountability requires transparency. Not all first nations leaders are willing to release information to the community about how public funds are spent. Some choose also not to divulge this information, which results in their members wondering how much chiefs and councillors receive in remuneration.

First nations members have every right to expect a higher standard. Indeed, they deserve the same measure of accountability and transparency enjoyed by other Canadians, whose assurance of access to information about their government's activities is enshrined in legislation.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has noted in his remarks to this chamber, this government has ensured that Canadians have ready access to the information they need to judge our actions as parliamentarians. The first legislation we brought to the House back in 2006 was the Federal Accountability Act, which increased public oversight into how Canadian dollars are spent.

Not only do we publish public records about how every dollar is spent at the federal level each year, we also disclose the salaries of members of Parliament through the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act. These two pieces of legislation also lay out a transparent formula to calculate salaries and to provide the publication of details of both the regular incomes and special allowances added to salaries of MPs who take on extra responsibilities. Disclosure of other income and expense information is also treated under conflict of interest and ethics legislation.

The Government of Canada is not the only jurisdiction that requires the disclosure of audited consolidated financial statements and salaries.

My hon. colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will attest that their province has a financial accountability act that commits the provincial legislature to table public accounts each year. The province's transparency and accountability act stipulates that the ministers must account for government entities for which they are responsible each year in an annual report that includes an audited consolidated financial statement that then compares with the funds approved by the legislature's assembly. The Newfoundland and Labrador municipal act also requires that local community leaders make their financial statements and auditor's reports available to the public.

Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have similar laws. Each has a financial administration act that obliges the two provinces respective legislatures to account for public spending from the previous fiscal year and both have municipal acts that require the specifications of the types of information that must be made available to the public.

Likewise, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta all have legislation governing the duty of municipalities to prepare and publish annual financial statements.

Territorial governments also uphold this high standard. The Government of the Northwest Territories makes its annual financial statements readily available on its website. The Government of Nunavut's financial administration act requires the government to publicly account for its expenditures for the previous year by laying the public accounts before the legislative assembly.

The precise wording of the transparency and accountability legislation obviously varies from province to province, but the fact remains that almost all Canadian taxpayers have a guarantee in law that they can access the basic financial information they require in order to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions and actions.

Many governments also disclose the salaries paid to elected officials, from premiers to the legislative backbenchers to mayors and town councillors. Federal employee rates of pay are posted on the Treasury Board of Canada site. The salaries of members of many provincial legislatures are set by legislation and made available to the general public. Disclosure of the income and expense information is often treated under conflict of interest or ethics legislation.

Nova Scotia's act respecting the public disclosure of compensation in the public sector applies to the public sector as well as not-for-profit organizations receiving over $500,000 in public funding. These groups are required to post remuneration information on their websites for employees receiving compensation of $100,000 or more. If they do not have a website, they need to make the information available on a publicly accessible website.

Similarly, in Manitoba the public sector compensation disclosure act requires public sector bodies to disclose to the public the amount of compensation it pays annually to each of its officers as well as employees whose salaries are $50,000 or more. Along with this legislation, the Manitoba legislative assembly act sets out that the remuneration allowances and the retirement benefits of members be established by the commissioner. Furthermore, the regulations require that members post expense reports on the legislative assembly website.

In addition to various provincial and territorial legislation, a number of municipalities have passed bylaws requiring the release of information about the remuneration of mayors and councillors as a best practice.

Clearly, what is being asked of first nations leaders is nothing more than what is expected of their counterparts in other jurisdictions across our great country. In fact, in some respects, this legislation demands less. Bill C-27 would focus only on the disclosure of remuneration of elected officials of first nations governments. I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of their self-government agreements—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a common theme regarding Bill C-27, at least from our perspective in the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party believes that it is absolutely critical that we work with the first nation leadership.

Within that first nation leadership there is a great deal of expertise and experience for dealing with accountability and transparency. We need to enable that leadership to contribute to making good legislation. Without doing that, without having the proper consultation and without enabling the first nation leadership to participation wholly in that process, we would be selling it short.

Would the member agree that the government is making a mistake because of the manner in which it introduced the bill in the first place?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 raises a number of issues, of course. As I mentioned in my earlier question, with this bill, the government took for granted many negative and disparaging opinions about first nations in this country. Right from the start, the Conservatives noted that there was a problem with the first nations, and they imposed the view that there was indeed a problem.

There are first nations communities in my riding. For example, there is the Kitigan Zibi reserve, where the chief and the band council make an enormous effort to be accountable and transparent with their members. In order to do so, they publish documentation on their financial statements and their accounts, they use the Internet and they reply to the many questions from their members and the band councillors at public assemblies.

Beginning by identifying a problem, without even doing any research, is inherently problematic. It seems to me that, if you are going to discuss a problem, there must first be evidence of a problem.

With this in mind, I am going to give the House some statistics. First of all, is there a problem with the salaries of chiefs and band councillors? The answer is no. The average annual salary of a chief is $60,000, while that of a councillor is $31,000. Furthermore, 50% of chiefs earn less than $60,000 per year, and only 5% of them earn more than $100,000 per year. So how can anyone talk about abuse?

In comparison, an elected member of Parliament is paid $160,000 per year. Only 5% of first nations officials earn more than $100,000 a year, while every one of the elected members in the House of Commons earns more than $100,000 per year. So where is the problem?

Of course, it all depends on how we see things. Is this a government in the process of negotiating with another government, a nation—whether Quebec or Canada—negotiating with another nation, or is this the daddy of Canada that is continuing with its fault-finding, paternalistic relationship with the first nations? I think that this is the attitude that is the real basis for Bill C-27.

Here are some other statistics: a recent regional survey on the health of first nations members showed that only 51% of first nations families had Internet access at home. Making it mandatory to publish information on a website or on the Internet does not make sense considering that the bill primarily concerns first nations members. The figure drops to 36% for families whose income is lower than $25,000.

In Nova Scotia, the public can consult summaries of ministers' expenditures, for example, at the parliamentary library. The government of the Northwest Territories publishes only ministers' travel-related expenditures. The various levels of government are in fact less accountable than the first nations are. It is a double standard. They are expected to be more accountable than we are.

It should be pointed out that the current Conservative government is probably the least transparent government in Canada's history, in terms of layoffs in the public service, in terms of its spending, in terms of the F-35s and a number of other things. The first nations cannot be asked to be more accountable than we are.

We are opposed to this bill primarily for one basic reason: there has been absolutely no consultation with the first nations on this bill. I myself have done my work and asked the first nations in my riding if they were consulted with regard to Bill C-27; the answer was a resounding no.

How can we expect to have a good relationship with the first nations in this country if we do not even make the effort to convene an assembly of first nations or even to have a telephone conversation with the band councils about Bill C-27?

There are a number of reasons why I am personally opposed to this bill. For instance, it imposes tougher standards than those imposed on the elected representatives in other levels of government. I have already mentioned this. There is also the minister's power to withhold the payment of any sum due to a first nation or to terminate any agreement respecting any grant or contribution payable to the first nation, in the event of failure to comply with any obligation. This is an excessively harsh penalty, especially when we know that many first nations depend on these transfers for their health and well-being. In some cases, these transfers are a matter of life and death. We absolutely must take an approach that is smarter than simply punishing first nations if they do not comply with this new bill.

We want to see the government working in co-operation with first nations on improving their governance. That is true. Instead, we have noted that the Conservatives have eliminated funding for institutions supporting governance, such as the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Once again, it is completely wrong, if not hypocritical, to expect supposedly better governance by the first nations while cutting budgets for institutions that support the development of governing institutions.

We also believe that changes to the way in which audited financial statements are presented to the first nations do not require legislation. Such changes can be included in the requirements for the funding agreements that the minister had each first nation sign. Understanding the context would allow for a more personal approach to negotiating and co-operating with each of the first nations involved.

I am also concerned, as my party is, that this bill overlaps and breaches other legislation, including the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, both of which, let us remember, exist to protect Canadians.

The legislative summary provided by the Library of Parliament describes the legal requirements to which band councils are already subject. The Conservatives have not proven to us that these legal requirements are problematic: there has been no conversation and no facts have been presented. Why do these requirements cause a problem? I have come full circle in my speech: we have to identify and prove that there is a problem before we can find a solution to it.

I must say that my position—my party's position—is supported by a number of first nations groups. The Assembly of First Nations, for instance, has profound concerns about this bill.

The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians issued a press release on November 24.

I am pleased, therefore, to rise in this House to oppose this bill together with the first nations in my riding.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has spent countless hours meeting and speaking with individuals who are part of first nations governments.

In addition to that, the committee has reviewed at length what the language should be in this bill and has come forward with this, striking a balance, as I mentioned in my speech. We all need to know that the committee took thoughtful time and came up with excellent language that is acceptable.

The transparency provided in Bill C-27 would stop any speculation or dispel any rumours about the salaries around first nations leaders and allow Canadians to see the reality of how well first nations governments are being funded. In addition, this would ensure that the same standards that apply to businesses owned by their governments in Canada would also apply to first nations governments in precisely the same way.

This is good legislation. I look forward to the opposition supporting it.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that there are many examples of first nations that are only meeting these basic transparency requirements and expectations of a government but actually exceeding them. We should applaud those first nations for doing so.

However, the movement forward with Bill C-27 is about the governments. We want to ensure that governments are fair and transparent with the individuals they deal with, just like every other government, including the Government of Canada. We expect the same of provincial governments.

As I said before, there are many examples of first nations that not only meet these basic requirements but actually exceed them. We should applaud those first nations and encourage them to all meet that same bar.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 would strengthen transparency and accountability by requiring that the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration and expenses of a first nation be shared with the members of each first nation community, as well as the general public.

I know the committee made amendments to the bill, which helped to clarify this point. However, I feel it is important to discuss the motivations behind the specific reference to band entities in Bill C-27.

The consolidated financial statements of a first nation include the financial statements of the entity that, according to generally accepted accounting principles, are required to be consolidated with the first nation and to be presented as a single economic entity. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure clarity around what constitutes an entity for the purposes of this act. “Entity”, for the purposes of this bill, is defined as a corporation or partnership, a joint venture or any other unincorporated association or organization. As an example, a band-owned business would be considered an entity under the proposed act.

Members of first nations are ultimately the owners of any businesses owned by their band and, as a result, should have a right to know what the values and activities of those businesses are. Although some first nations may be reluctant to provide the full picture of their financial results for competitive reasons, it is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nations members, to see summary statements that capture the range of activities of their government.

Bill C-27 would require that an aggregate summary of the values and activities of the businesses that are consolidated into the financial statements of the first nations be published. This does not mean, however, that each individual business owned by the band would need to be publishing its own detailed set of financial statements. Instead, it is only the consolidated financial statements of the first nation to which the bill would apply. Any information concerning businesses would be highly aggregated and, in most cases, should not reveal any proprietary information.

AFN regional chief, Jody Wilson-Raybould, raised concerns about the inclusion of band entities in Bill C-27. She said during her appearance at the committee that was studying this bill:

...while public sector accounting standards do deal with government business enterprises, Bill C-27 seems to go further by adding definitions of “consolidated financial statements” and “entity”, as well as its own interpretation of what it means for an entity to be controlled by a first nations government under subclause 2(2). It is not clear what the intention is here. Why not just make the public sector accounting standards apply? We would like clarity, and we need to ensure that this bill does not inappropriately modify the rules that currently apply to other governments in Canada with respect to government business enterprises.

Once again, I know that the committee made amendments to the bill that address this point and improve the language. However, I want to be clear and bring to the attention of the House that the bill does not intend to seek to put into place the same rules that apply to businesses owned by other governments in Canada. These rules are developed not by the government but by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which are referred to in the bill.

The new language used to define “consolidated financial statements” reads as follows:

“consolidated financial statements” means the financial statements of a First Nation—prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles—in which the assets, liabilities, equity, income, expenses and cash flows of the First Nation and of those entities that are required by those principles to be included are presented as those of a single economic entity, as if the First Nation were a government reporting on its financial information.

This definition includes a specific reference to the fact that the preparation of financial statements is to be done, not in accordance with the rules established by the government but by generally accepted accounting principles. These principles include the public sector accounting standards demanded by Ms. Wilson-Raybould. This would ensure that the same standards that apply to businesses owned by other governments in Canada would apply to first nations governments in precisely the same way. Furthermore, this definition also makes it clear that first nations are to be treated as governments in the manner in which their financial information is presented.

The intention of this bill has always been to put into legislation the same practices with respect to the treatment of band entities that are currently in place in the funding agreements. It is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nations members as owners of those businesses but other users as well, to see summary statements that capture the activities of their government.

While we would encourage first nations to provide as much detail as possible to their memberships about the specifics of band-owned entities, the overall objective of this bill does not require it. The financial information for those entities that are considered to be part of the first nations overall economic activities would be aggregated. We believe this will be enough, albeit a minimum.

Bill C-27 may be seen by many progressive first nations as an opportunity to put into place or expand upon their own practices that aim to enhance the overall accountability of their government. In this way, the bill would serve as a catalyst for change in many communities which would lead to greater confidence in many first nations governments.

The challenge has been to find language that balances both the need for precision in the legislative drafting with accounting concepts that are both complex and constantly evolving. I congratulate the committee on finding solutions that skilfully strike a balance.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan is a very hard worker and understands the first nations issues.

If the bill does pass, there will be a major impact on our first nations with those cuts. It will impact on the ability of first nations to comply with the legislation that the government is putting forward.

I just received a copy of a newsletter from one of my first nations indicating that “The Resound is now going into its 11th year of production. Our paper is sent to citizens of our community living away from home, as well as our local residents. We have grown support for our paper today, and our paper enjoys 90% approval rating from our citizens when it comes to receiving timely information from the administration and council. We are a very transparent and accountable community. This is something Minister Duncan will be happy to hear”.

They do not support Bill C-27. This is from Chief Shining Turtle. I know the minister is very well aware of Chief Shining Turtle.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the member see problems ahead for the tribal councils and other national aboriginal organizations with the funding cuts if Bill C-27 gets passed, and the kinds of supports offered to tribal councils, in particular, and first nations governments in terms of reporting?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is evident there has not been enough consultation done on this legislation or any legislation for that matter that the government has introduced that would impact first nations.

We believe there are already sufficient reporting processes in place, talking about Bill C-27, and funding agreements could be modified to address any worst case scenarios that arise. The government should have drawn up Bill C-27, as the member says, with full consultation with first nations, which would have made the bill more complete and legitimate than it is. It should have consulted, reflected on the advice of the Auditor General and kept the pressing needs of Canada's first nations communities in mind as it determined its legislative priorities. That would have served all involved much better.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising again on a question I raised a number of weeks ago with regard to funding cuts to key aboriginal organizations.

I am going to read into the record a letter dated November 22 to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It says:

Dear Minister Duncan:

We are writing to express our dismay over unprecedentedly deep funding cuts for Canada's Aboriginal Representative Organizations, including the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and tribal councils across the country. This follows the forced closure of the National Aboriginal Health Organization.

As researchers, we work with these organizations and others in research partnerships to tackle some of the most pressing issues Canada faces. Grant funding agencies supported by your government consistently identify Aboriginal research as one of the top priorities for research in Canada. They also make it clear that this research can only be done in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

As minister, you are well aware of the health, education and infrastructure issues that are preventing Canadian First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities from reaching their full potential. Innovative research partnerships between the people affected and the brightest minds at Canadian universities offer hope for resolving these issues in an effective and fiscally responsible way. In many cases, these bright young minds are First Nations citizens themselves.

We partner with the organizations whose funding you have cut on practical issues such as clean drinking water and community planning. We also partner with individual First Nations that rely on these umbrella organizations for training and support that enables them to engage meaningfully in research. Dedicated staff at these larger organizations, with whom we have developed relationships over years, are named as co-applicants and collaborators on our research grants. However, these people may not be able to carry through on their commitments because they may lose their jobs.

The potential loss of expertise is staggering and could take a generation to recover. Canada cannot afford to wait another generation for solid research on urgent issues. We urge you to rethink these ill-advised cuts to organizations that have been doing excellent work in their communities that benefits Canada as a whole.

This letter is signed by 121 different individuals at universities and organizations that are supporting this research.

Concerns are being raised from coast to coast to coast on these cuts. I just need to quote once again the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada endorsed in November 2010. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

These cuts are seriously hampering organizations that are offering support, particularly to some of the smaller bands. The government is actually forcing cuts right at the time we are seeing crises in things like housing, water and education.

The Conservative government has a legislative agenda that actually requires some of the services that were formerly provided by, for example, tribal councils, to help with the implementation of that legislative agenda—for example, Bill C-27, the financial transparency and accountability act.

I am just asking the parliamentary secretary if the government has reviewed the impact of these cuts and what it will mean for these organizations to be able to deliver services that are essential in these communities.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have experienced some disruptions yesterday and today as a result of efforts by the Liberal Party to disrupt our agenda. I was puzzled as to why it was happening right now at this time. However, a news story just broke, which gave me some insight into it, where the young member for Papineau said that:

Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work....

When he was asked if Canada would be better served if Quebeckers were in charge rather than Albertans, he said:

I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so.... Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country--Canada--it belongs to us.

Obviously, the Liberals do not want to see the Conservatives governing, advancing our agenda or advancing our budgetary agenda. Therefore, I think that answers the NDP House leader's question as to why we are facing these delays right now in the House. However, we will carry on, Albertans and all, and the rest of the country, with Conservatives from coast to coast in this government trying to advance the agenda that Canadians believe in.

We will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, this afternoon. Tomorrow we will conclude report stage of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, and third reading will take place on Tuesday. We will start second reading debate of Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act, on Monday and the debate will continue on Wednesday.

The finance committee is working very hard to go through Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act. I commend them for their efforts. Our budget implementation legislation contains important measures, such as extending the hiring credit for small businesses, expanding tax relief for investment and clean energy, helping Canadians save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans and improving the registered disability savings plan.

However, I do confess that it does not include the NDP's carbon tax or its proposal for a 1% GST increase. Perhaps that is why its members are opposing it. In any event, we hope to start report stage consideration of Bill C-45 on Thursday, if at some point the Liberals give up on their disruptive delay objective and agree to allow someone other than the member for Papineau to have some say in running the country.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to ask the government what it has planned for the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

The government seems to have lost control of the legislative wheel this week. I will review for Canadians. The Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to ram Bill C-27 through. Thankfully, the official opposition took a principled stand against this and forced them to step back from shutting down the debate. The finance committee has rewritten its own ridiculous rules on how to deal with the Conservatives' monster budget bill, Bill C-45. The committee is now sitting around the clock to deal with this sham of a process, which the Conservative government has set up.

Yesterday, instead of standing up for victims of bullying, most government members shamefully decided to side with the aggressors who bully and torment Canada's most vulnerable young people.

It was a shameful demonstration of the importance the Conservatives attach to their partisan principles, at the expense of common sense.

I guess the only question I have for the government today is the following: How many more abuses of our democratic processes does the government have planned for this week and the one to follow?

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was only a matter of minutes ago that we had time allocation put on Bill C-27. That, in essence, said that the members of the House would have limits on our abilities to contribute to the debate on a very important issue with regard to our first nations.

Now we are talking about the importance of water on our reserves and other areas and we have a government member moving a motion that would again prevent debate on a critically important issue. The Conservatives will not allow members, whether it is members of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or even the Green Party, the opportunity to address important issues.

When the member talks about consultation, why will he not be very specific and tell us what first nations leaders the Conservatives consulted prior to the drafting of either Bill S-8 or Bill C-27?

Bill C-27—Notice of time allocation motion

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question that the member posed does not have anything to do with Bill C-27, quite obviously. Once again, we are seeing some politics at work here. I know that the whole pipeline--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The question before the House pertains to the time allocation question regarding Bill C-27. The member has posed a question. We will leave it to the minister if he wishes to answer the question and we will proceed at that point. I thank the hon. member.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the latitude that is afforded to all members in their questioning, but we started out this debate on three specific motions from the critic for aboriginal affairs and the bill itself. We have seen best efforts here to attach things like accountability back to the bill and I have remained seated, but this question actually has nothing to do with what we are currently debating, not in any way, shape or form.

I would turn our minds to Standing Order 11(2) where the Speaker in this case, having called the attention of the House to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or repetition, and, in this case, the point of order is on irrelevance. It has nothing to do with Bill C-27 in its substance.

That question was--

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to expect that from the member.

There is no requirement under Bill C-27 for anyone beyond elected officials to disclose salaries, per diems and honorariums. That is what we do federally, provincially and municipally. There is the odd jurisdiction that goes beyond that. We do not want to put this whole area into the realm of political partisanship, which is what the member is trying to do.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the views and concerns regarding the bill have had ample time to be debated and discussed. The bill was introduced on November 23, 2011. Second reading debate occurred on June 20, with the vote occurring June 21, and it featured almost six hours of debate in this chamber before being referred to committee. The standing committee met seven times between October 15 and November 5 to study and discuss Bill C-27. We also heard from 21 witnesses from 13 organizations.

During the report stage debate yesterday, the House spent over six hours of debate on the bill. The NDP had no less than 20 speakers. We heard no new opposition issues in all this time. On two occasions the Speaker had to intervene to ask members to keep their comments focused on the subject under debate. All this was for a relatively simple bill with only 13 clauses.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Report Stage

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the bill again.

At the outset, Bill C-27 remains largely unnecessary. It in no way addresses the multitude of better known, long-lasting and long-standing problems that persist on many first nations. The bill would create an unnecessary reporting mechanism that would rely on a form of communication that really would not reflect the way most people in these communities go about talking to each other or learn about their relationship.

Bill C-27 is overly punitive and amounts to a waste of valuable and much needed funds by duplicating efforts and increasing the bureaucratic burden on those first nations that do not already have self-governing regimes. It would set the course for costly legal battles and would ignore the advice of the Auditor General to reduce the reporting burden placed on first nations. It would add to that reporting burden at the same time the government handcuffs the participants by reducing the abilities and effectiveness of those bodies that assist with first nation governance.

Everyone in this place is aware of the failings of the Conservative government that claimed it would be more transparent and accountable than its predecessors. The Conservatives have learned that it is not as easy as it sounds, yet they are demanding what they cannot do themselves of our first nations.

In fact, the bill would impose standards greater than those applied to politicians in many other elected jurisdictions in a way that would create more bureaucracy without really increasing accountability of first nation governments to their communities.

The question that begs to be asked is this. Why is this being done now?

We might hear about a handful of overpaid band politicians. However, this is not the norm and any assumptions that are drawn from those stories are often based more on opinion than fact.

Also, if hearing about something is excuse enough to set the wheels of change in motion, I invite the government to recall how often we have heard about the challenges related to poverty, inadequate housing, substandard education opportunities, mental and physical health and so many more significant well-documented problems that persist in far too many first nation communities across Canada. I invite the government to find some resources to address some of those arguably more urgent issues.

I also invite the government to recall that only work done under the broader concept of full consultation is bound to succeed. If the government works in isolation, ignores its duty to consult, or only listens to the opinion of those who support its opinion, it will be spinning its wheels.

From the outset, we know that there is a problem because the intention of the bill is to duplicate something that already exists. Anyone watching Parliament today might be tempted to think that first nations report nothing about the funding they receive or on the salaries and compensation provided to their leadership when in fact the opposite is true.

First nations produce year-end reports that include annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to them. These reports include salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials.

First nations are also required to release statements to their membership about compensation earned or accrued by elected, appointed and unelected senior officials and the amounts of remuneration paid, earned or accrued by elected and appointed officials, which must be from all sources within the recipient's financial reporting entity, including amounts from economic development and other types of business corporations.

Let us remember the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General which stated that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government had failed abysmally to address the worsening conditions for first nations.

That report tells us that the money just is not flowing to the problems and that it is not for lack of audits or reporting processes. The Auditor General pointed out that the reporting burden on first nations had actually worsened in recent years despite the fact of the office's repeated calls to reduce the reporting burden.

Worst of all, the findings showed how many of the reports were not even used by federal government departments and were not serving anything but bureaucratic processes. They are white elephants and the government is eagerly seeking to increase them.

In this respect, we have a government that is all about creating more burdensome red tape to go along with the handcuffs it is putting on first nations communities, communities that rely on the services of tribal councils, the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance to assist with many items related to governance.

Consider the way the government has attacked tribal councils on one hand and created a great deal of work that those councils are uniquely positioned to assist with at the same time. The cuts to funding in this area show that the government is not working from a coherent plan. There is no playing to strengths or even acknowledgement of interplay between variables. In fact, cuts to the tribal council funding program mute the significant assistance that tribal councils could provide bands that will be forced to comply with the technological bureaucracy the bill sets in play. That program funds tribal councils so they can provide advisory services to their member first nations and to administer other Indian and northern programs.

Let us remember that tribal councils are institutions established voluntarily by the bands. In 2006-07 the program funded 78 tribal councils that served 471 first nations for a hair less than $45 million. That is not an excessive amount of money for the work these councils do. It is nowhere near the amount the government flushes down the drain for self-congratulatory advertising.

Consider the work tribal councils do. Five advisory services have been devolved to tribal councils: economic development, financial management, community planning, technical services and band governance. It is only reasonable to expect these cuts will affect the output of many first nations. Certainly, the work tribal councils on advisory services dovetails with the demands that Bill C-27 places on first nations. Be it technical services, financial management or band governance, tribal councils had an important role to play in this process. However, the government saw fit to claw back those budgets ahead of this bill.

We understand there is not an infinite amount of resources. That is why the New Democrats would never make the kinds of cuts and demands that the government has and pretend that one does not affect the other.

It is no secret that many first nation communities are not as well off as most non-aboriginal places. We know that almost a third of first nation households struggle to get by on less than $20,000 a year. We know that number is growing, which is to say, it is not going in the right direction. This is a significant problem and the government's answer seems to be to pile on in terms of the amount of money a community now has to spend reporting on how it spend its money. It sounds absurd. That is because it kind of is.

Consider that first nations are already subject to various policy-based and legal requirements regarding the management and expenditure of federal public funds. If these new requirements did away with those, or streamlined them, it might make more sense. Instead, this is just the creation of more red tape for first nations.

The New Democrats remain convinced that changes to how audited statements are made public does not require heavy-handed legislation. Any changes deemed necessary could be a requirement of funding arrangements that the department would have each first nation government sign.

We are concerned that Bill C-27 not only ignores the simple solution, but is overly punitive as well. Bands that do not comply with the demands of the bill can have their funding withheld or have a funding agreement terminated by the minister. How will that improve education, housing or the infrastructure challenges that many of these communities face?

The New Democrats do not see the need to divert more money to a new level of bureaucracy to reproduce much of what has already been done in a new or novel format. We understand there can be problems associated with reporting on the website that are not apparent to anyone. As someone who represents a northern rural constituency, Internet connectivity is not always possible. In fact, it is enough of a challenge to get service to relatively accessible areas like Manitoulin Island, so we can see that website reporting could become a hurdle some bands might not easily jump over, especially those in more remote areas.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to a certain extent. Consultation is important but it is also important to recognize the fundamental principle that this is a government to government relationship. The Government of Canada does not consult with the government of the Northwest Territories and tell it what its transparency arrangements are going to be.

What are we speaking about when we speak about government to government relationships? First nations that accomplish the work for themselves, that develop their own systems of transparency, are going to be the most successful ones. That is simply the case. We need to throw off the shackles that exist between the federal government and first nations in a proper and respectful fashion.

Bill C-27 goes in the wrong direction. It goes in another direction, which is simply going to increase the aspects of what we do not want. That is the problem we have with the bill. It is a problem that the government has to recognize because it has a number of other bills coming forward that are going to do the same thing, that are going to create the same problem with the relationship between the federal government and first nations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone here who is supporting my speech. I speak to a very difficult bill that the government has brought forward, Bill C-27, ostensibly called a “transparency act”, but really it is another colonial act. That is what the bill is about. We have a bill that speaks to a very small segment of society that considers first nations to have extreme problems with accountability. It demands a system of accountability that is really unacceptable, that would not meet the needs of first nations and that would impose a burden that would, in some cases, put first nations at a disadvantage with other Canadians.

The bill would force first nations who are still under the Indian Act to publicly post their financial statements of any moneys provided to chiefs and band councillors regardless of where it is earned, including reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses, its auditors' reports on financial statements and its auditors' reports on moneys paid to chiefs and council, and to make these available on a website for a period of 10 years. All this information is already accessible to band members through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs by request. This information is available to those who want it and they make use of that service, from what we were told, upwards of 150 to 200 times a year. I do not know if that is every year or in particular years, but out of the 600 or so bands, that is the volume of requests put forward.

Once we took the bill to committee, even those who supported it said that there needed to be amendments. There were a few major supporters within the first nations who took the position of the government and said they wanted it. They made that choice. However, by and large, the majority of first nations people understood and recognized that this was not the way to do business and that this was not government to government. When the minister was in front of us I asked him whether he considers the relationship between the federal government and the band councils in Canada to be government to government. He agreed with me. He said that it is. Hence, the hypocrisy of the bill, which would treat first nations people as wards of the state.

In the Northwest Territories, another government that is set up by a bill of this Parliament, the NWT Act, the NWT government gets to choose how it discloses information. That applies to Nunavut as well as to the Yukon. We have a situation here where the government agrees it is a government to government relationship, yet it will not treat the first nations in the same fashion that it treats others. We have equality in this country. We have equality as a guiding principle of this country and the Conservatives seem to take that and ignore it.

There is a hypocrisy issue here as well because quite clearly the current government has been one of the most secretive governments in the history of Canada. International agencies that monitor access to information have taken us from fourth place in the world to 52nd place in our ability to access information from the government. In terms of the information that is given, when the Conservative government came to power, the average redaction of information was 15%. Fifteen per cent of the items that the government released to the public was redacted. It is now 47%. Why? Has the nature of government changed so much? Has secrecy become so important?

If it is so important for the Conservatives, why would they insist that first nation governments would have to show everything to everyone in this country on a website for every nitpicker in the country to look at. Everyone with a grudge against first nations could go there and go through their dirty laundry to look for something. That is what the government wants to do to first nations. That is what it is doing with the bill. What a shame.

The government could have, through incentives to first nations, enabled them to develop their own information systems. Many have. Many of the first nations that came in front of us said, “Look, here is the work that we have done. Here is how we disclose our information. We are proud of it. We did this ourselves”.

What does the government do? It slaps it on everyone. How is that government to government? Shame on the government. Shame on it for not treating first nations in a respectful fashion. That is the problem we had in Canada for 100 years. I thought we were trying to get over this problem of treating first nations with little respect. After signing treaties with them, after taking over their land, when are we going to treat them with respect?

Let us talk about the Conservative government for a while, because the bill is going to pass and we are going to end up in a situation where the first nations are going to have wait three years to get this fixed. Right now, the government has done very bad things with respect to accountability and transparency.

One of the first acts by the government was to create the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, saying this would make the government more accountable. Since that day, the government has denied information, delayed the release of information and demeaned the PBO. Most recently, the PBO has had to threaten court action to get the information he needs to provide parliamentarians with the facts we need to properly review Conservative budgets and other financial statements. This is a public government, open to every citizen of the country, unlike first nations, which are governments for specific groups of people in this country. We have a responsibility as a public government to release information to all and sundry.

When it comes to the environment, the Conservative government has shut down investigation into climate change, taken out the Experimental Lakes Area, closed Arctic research centres and has muzzled scientists from speaking in public. What is going on? What is it about science that Conservatives feel the rest of the Canadians should not know? What is it about science that the government wants to hide from us?

That is a question that perhaps we will get in the next election. That is when the Canadian public will actually decide what information they want. There is the F-35 auditor's report and the handling of the Auditor General's report. In his first report as Auditor General, Michael Ferguson said the Department of National Defence gambled on the F-35 fighter jet without running a fair competition, while lacking cost certainty or any guarantee the plane could replace the current fleet of CF-18s by the end of the decade. He went on to talk about business conducted in an uncoordinated fashion by federal departments.

What did the government do? First it said his information was all wrong, after refusing to release the information he requested. Then it tried to shut committee meetings in this boondoggle. The final attempt by the Conservative government to hide the truth has been to delay the release of the public accounts committee report looking into the debacle. These are hardly the actions of a government that supports accountability and transparency.

I could go on for quite a long time about the inadequacy of the government when it comes to accountability and transparency. The Canadian public would probably enjoy hearing about all the issues we have with that. I could talk about robocalls, the impact of the health care transfer cuts to the provinces, the cost of the ideological prison agenda or election financing schemes, but I would be here all day and I only have 30 seconds.

For the Conservatives to say that the single biggest issue for first nations people, many of whom live in third world poverty, is the need for accountability beyond what they do already is real hypocrisy.

Bill C-27—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first nations of course have asked for greater accountability and transparency from their governments, and we believe that first nations, like all Canadians, deserve transparency and accountability from their elected officials.

Thus I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Monsieur Speaker, I would like to start by saying that it is a privilege for me to address the Chair and all the members of the House.

Truth be told, my one true regret, or should I say criticism of this bill, is that it is pointless and senseless. Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations is an aberration across the board.

Let me begin by pointing out that my honourable colleagues have invested a considerable amount of time, either here in this House or in committee, debating this bill. Instead we could have been diligent and spent more time debating other more important bills, especially those for which my honourable Conservative colleagues have arbitrarily invoked time allocation.

Our caucus opposes the bill at report stage. Bill C-27 requires the annual disclosure of consolidated financial statements, a separate schedule, an auditor’s written report respecting the consolidated financial statements and an auditor’s report respecting the schedule of remuneration.

This is a great deal to ask for and it is extremely constraining, particularly for small governments such as first nation governments.

We the members of the New Democratic Party caucus are opposed to this bill because first nations would be bound by all of its provisions, irrespective of the fact that they were not consulted. I listened to what my colleague opposite had to say a short while ago. She stated that previous Parliaments held consultations. I believe that is not entirely accurate and that these consultations were conducted in a rather cavalier manner.

As far as we are concerned, the emphasis should instead be on respect between first nations and the government in power.

We do not support this bill because we feel it does nothing to improve the accountability process either. It requires the drafting of a number of reports which are probably irrelevant. Furthermore, confidential information will be widely disseminated electronically. Information will find its way online and onto websites and that is not the intent here.

The NDP does not support this bill. As I just said, we feel it does nothing to improve the situation. It also imposes standards that are stricter than those to which elected officials in many jurisdictions are held. It gives the minister the power to withhold payment of any moneys due to a first nation or to rescind any agreement providing for the payment of a grant or contribution to a first nation should it breach its duty.

This is no laughing matter, although I do find all of these constraints that have no business existing in the first place quite laughable.

The federal government has failed miserably over the last decade to address the worsening living conditions of first nation members.

This bill shows that the government wants first nations to do what it should in principle have demanded of foreign governments in its famous free trade agreements. The government does not impose on any foreign nation restrictions as convoluted and serious as the ones it wants to impose on small first nation communities in Canada which are deserving of its respect. This is a very serious situation indeed.

In our view, the kinds of changes that are being required of first nations, such as having to prepare audited financial reports, should not be consigned to legislation. They could be part of the requirements already set out in funding agreements that the department has had each first nation sign. There is already a bill stipulating that first nations with self-government agreements should not be subject to additional texts and legislation. It reminds me of comments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster to the effect that the Conservatives are attacking groups that oppose their policies or their actions, targeting all small first nation governments.

Our honourable colleague from Newton—North Delta also explained very quickly what happens when groups disagree with the funding arrangements this government is attempting to impose on first nations.

As I also recall, our honourable colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked about a double standard at play. That matter was also addressed in a question raised by our honourable colleague from Trois-Rivières. There is clear evidence here of a direct attack on any group that opposes the policies put forward by the Conservatives.

I started off by saying that it was a privilege for me to speak to this House on this bill. However, on reading the notes carefully and listening to the comments of my colleagues, I should have begun by saying that I regretted having to make any reference to this bill.

In closing, I would simply reiterate that the NDP caucus is opposed to this bill because it is arbitrary and pointless. Perhaps more time should be devoted to debating more important bills that would benefit the general public and first nations in particular.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first chance to speak to Bill C-27 in the House, I will say that I find the demands being placed on first nations disturbing, particularly in terms of time and the costs of producing these additional papers. The words just used by our parliamentary colleague of patronizing and paternalistic apply here.

I wonder if we could turn the mirror on ourselves and ask why it is that at the Board of Internal Economy all of the other parliamentary parties in this place object to the expenses of members of Parliament being placed on the public record. I wonder if we could do that before we ask the same of first nations.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-27 because the bill is incredibly problematic. As with most bills introduced by the government pertaining to aboriginal peoples, it demonstrates a dangerous misunderstanding of the concerns and issues first nations face and a misunderstanding of how the federal government could best address them.

I oppose Bill C-27 both on principle and pragmatically because insofar as its implementation goes, the bill would not accomplish what it is intended to do. It does nothing to increase accountability of first nation governments to their people and gives the ability of the minister to withhold funding to the community, while holding first nation chiefs to an impossible standard, especially compared to that of other elected officials in other jurisdictions. The bill is actually redundant if what we are looking for is accountability from first nations.

First nations, excluding those who have their own self-governing regimes, are already beholden to funding arrangements with the Government of Canada in the form of fixed contribution agreements under which first nations must satisfy certain conditions to ensure continued payment of federal funds. Audits are already provided to Aboriginal Affairs and first nation band councils are already required to release their documents and statements to their people.

According to the Library of Parliament's legislative summary on the bill:

First Nations bands are [already] subject to certain financial disclosure requirements under the Indian Act and related statutes and regulations. In particular...a band’s financial statements [are] audited annually, and that the auditor’s report [is] posted “in conspicuous places on the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band.”

Therefore, practically speaking, the bill is doing nothing but forcing a burdensome and costly hoop for every first nation to jump through annually. It is designed to make a statement that these sovereign nations, which is what they are or should be, must be transparent to us, the average Canadian, and not to their own people or to their federal funding partners.

At best, the bill is working to make it appear that native leaders are so egregiously corrupt that they require extra paternalistic oversight, far more than any of our own levels of government are subject to. At worst, the bill is a deflection from the real source of first nations financial unaccountability, which, as was repeatedly proven by the Auditor General, is the federal government.

I would like to quote Cindy Blackstock, who is the executive director at the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. When she appeared last May at the status of women committee, she said:

That is not to say that when this happens people shouldn't be held to account, but it should be no reason to deny children basic access to services. Where there are allegations of mismanagement of funding, there are provisions within the agreements to stop that and address it—and of course, there are the criminal courts, and they should be used to the fullest extent.

Introducing a bill that takes extreme, near emergency, measures to ensure that every financial statement, audit and report is made available to every Canadian and is subject to the unilateral power of the minister is simply trying to perpetuate a myth that band council chiefs are all mismanaging large sums of funding on reserves. That is simply untrue.

I am proud to be the member of Parliament for the Kanesatake Mohawk, whose band council grand chief, Serge Simon, is fighting every day to provide the best possible care for his nation. That is in spite of its massive debt and underfunding. Kanesatake is, and has been, working to build itself a sustainable economic future against the tremendous odds that the federal government has stacked against it and perpetuated until this day. Chief Simon has gone so far as to prove his commitment to the greater welfare of his community by donating his own salary back to the communal coffers in order to help pay back Kanesatake's debts.

Why should Kanesatake and all 638 band councils be targeted as being corrupt? I am certain that if we were to compare band council politicians and Canadian politicians at all levels of government, we would find more cases of corruption and mismanagement in our politics than in theirs. Yet, if we were to give a minister the power to unilaterally withdraw all federal transfers from provinces, territories or municipalities, as the bill would allow the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to do to first nations, the proposal would be met with outrage.

Would we start closing down schools and sewage systems because political corruption or mismanagement exists at the city level? Of course not, because we would not punish innocent citizens and their children no matter the crime of their elected representatives.

Again, to quote Cindy Blackstock, who contacted me specifically with her comments on this legislation:

The Auditor General has repeatedly pointed to shortcomings in the accountability of the Federal Government in its relationships and funding policies respecting First Nations peoples and governments. Instead of addressing the government's internal accountability shortcomings they are wasting more tax dollars doing something that the Auditor General specifically recommended against—implementing more reporting requirements for First Nations. I would like to see the funds being spent on this initiative re-profiled to do something that will make a difference and save tax payers millions in the long run—building safe schools for First Nations children, providing equitable child welfare funding and improving health care services.

While the government is proposing impossible standards for our underfunded first nations, it withholds information from our own Parliamentary Budget Officer on spending cuts. It seems to me that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

First nations' band councils should not be treated pre-emptively like criminals, especially not by the current government. In this case the Conservative government has no moral high ground, and my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster demonstrated that quite well a few minutes ago. When it comes to financial accountability and transparency, the Conservative government has no credibility.

The larger problem with this bill, and pretty well with every bill on first nations the government puts before Parliament, is that it is imposed on first nations without consultation. This runs counter to the Conservatives' pronouncements at the Crown-first nations gathering that they would strive to work together with first nations. However, they continue to impose legislation without the consent of the first nations their legislation would affect. New Democrats would never pass any law regarding aboriginal people without consultation, which requires consent.

This is not simply a matter of principle but one of our obligations as a signatory of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 32 of the declaration requires free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to indigenous peoples' lands or welfare. The fact that the vast majority of first nations were not consulted on Bill C-27, let alone gave consent, means that Canada is once again breaking faith with this important declaration of rights. Why would the Prime Minister ratify the UN declaration when he does not even intend to make a cursory attempt to uphold its standards?

To quote the Assembly of First Nations on this issue:

First Nation governments are arguably among the most transparent and accountable governments in all of Canada. The AFN has long advanced its Accountability for Results initiative and continues to work with First Nation organizations and leaders—and with the Auditor General of Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada--on better approaches to both governance and accountability.

We all know what the problems are—they are not exorbitant salaries—they are decades of paternalism that have placed many First Nation leaders in a position where they are responsible for implementing decisions, but where the ultimate power to make decisions rests with the federal government....

Alongside my New Democrat colleagues, I believe that we must move away from the paternalism of the Indian Act and toward a paradigm where we have a healthy relationship with first nations as partners, where they are able to maintain their own sovereignty and jurisdiction over their lands and business. This legislation is a perfect example of exactly the opposite and demonstrates that Conservatives have no genuine desire to work with first nations to find collaborative and functional solutions to problems.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading the House notes last night, the first thing that came to my mind, and I am glad the member mentioned it, was to compare Bill C-27 to Bill C-377. I am also glad he used the word “strangle”. That is the proper word to use with this bill and Bill C-377. The Conservatives are trying to strangle or choke organizations that do not agree with Conservative policies. If they cannot choke or strangle them with paperwork, they take away their funding, like they did with KAIROS. It did not agree with the Conservatives' ideology, so it took away its funding. That is the only example I am going to give.

I am going to ask my colleague this. Am I right to compare Bill C-27 to Bill C-377 and say that they are almost the same?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little saddened to rise in this House and speak to this bill, particularly in the context of what we see in first nations communities across the country. Just a few months ago, members of the NDP caucus went up to Attawapiskat where we saw the appalling state of housing. We were in communities where many families live in shoddy housing. We have seen problems of funding for first nations schools and the children are in appalling conditions. What we are seeing systematically by the Conservatives is the cutting of funding to first nations communities, those communities that depend on federal government funding in order to establish the schools and have adequate housing.

Instead of putting forward a bill that would deal with the dire shortages of adequate housing and schooling, the government has put forward, as it has done in a number of other sectors, a bill that tries to strangle first nations communities. We saw this with Bill C-377 as well. With the labour unions, which are democratically run and members have the full ability to influence their course of events, the Conservatives wanted to strangle those labour unions with red tape. We see the same thing here with Bill C-27. With inadequate resources that are the fault of the Conservative government, it is trying to strangle the first nations communities.

The government members try to pretend that they are actually concerned about accountability. Here is some accountability for them. In 2006, the Assembly of First Nations said that it wanted to establish an effective financial control system for first nations communities across the country. It wanted an auditor general and an ombudsperson for first nations so that those in the community could follow up with the ombudsperson and, at the same time, it could have an auditor general looking at the finances of first nations, most of which are extremely well run, and ensure that the moneys that are forwarded are put to adequate use. That is common sense. An NDP government would have said that it made a lot of sense and it would support it and put it into place.

Six years later, is there a first nations auditor general? No. Six years later, is there a first nations ombudsperson? No. The whole pretense of the Conservative government to somehow be interested in financial accountability goes right out the window because for six years it has not done what the Assembly of First Nations has said is a solution to this issue. We support those solutions but the Conservatives refuse to do it. Instead, they put forward a bill on which there has been no consultations with first nations at all and a bill that would strangle those already underfunded first nations with the red tape that only the Conservatives know how to impose.

We see this targeting of communities, groups or organizations that the Conservatives do not like. However, let us talk about the accountability of the Conservative government. It cut back on the Auditor General's department. It says that it wants nothing to do with the accountability mechanism that exists for it and that, through underfinancing, it will strangle the Auditor General's department so it cannot look into the expenditures of the government.

We have seen the government attack systematically the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer protects the public's interests. The people watching today understand that we need to have an impartial officer of Parliament who looks into whether the government fudges the numbers. What has the government been doing systematically? Because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been doing what is for the Conservatives the worst possible sin they can think of, which is telling the truth, he has been under vicious and unrelenting attack by the government.

The government wants nothing to do with accountability, nothing to do with actually having a system of checks and balances. The government relentlessly attacks any independent budget officer, any independent agent like the Auditor General. It does everything it can to undermine that impartial work. Those officers are working in the best interests of the public. The Conservatives are saying that they want nothing to do with accountability and transparency.

What is the result? How accurate is the financial information that we get from the Conservatives? How accurate is the information that they actually provide to Canadians? Let us take just one file, the F-35s. I think that is an adequate representation of how bad the Conservatives are at financial management. This is an untendered contract that they put forward. Originally it was supposed to cost $9 billion. We found out subsequently through the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it had gone from $9 billion to $20 billion to $30 billion. The last estimate before they tried to hide it under their cloak and let things just blow over was nearly $40 billion for the F-35s. There is no accountability there. They did not even tender the contract. Their attempt now to retreat on this issue just underscores their ineptitude and incompetence when it comes to financial matters.

As a former financial administrator, I know when one is putting together the books, one does not cook the books. We need to be honest, whether we are talking about an NGO, a business, a labour organization or a government. The Conservative government cooks the books on an ongoing basis repeatedly. The Conservatives simply do not respect the public's right to know, and the F-35 is one example.

How about the Muskoka summit? We now know, because of a variety of interventions by the NDP, that the summit cost over $1 billion. There is no accountability there. The government just decided to throw that money around and did not even have a paper trail in many cases. When it comes to accountability and transparency, the government gets an f.

Let us look at the West Block renovations that my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, has been questioning. The West Block renovations, which were supposed to cost $750 million, are now at somewhere around $1.5 billion. Again, there was no accountability and no transparency. The government throws money around like there is no tomorrow when it comes to its lobbyist friends or when it comes to its pet projects. It does not understand accountability or transparency.

Then we see the actions of individual ministers. We were all appalled by the former member for Durham, Bev Oda, the minister who decided to move to another hotel, hire limousines and pay $16 for a glass of orange juice. When knocking on doors in Durham on Sunday night, all people wanted to talk about was how the Conservatives are so egregiously bad when it comes to entitlement. In fact, one Conservative voter told me that the Conservatives were as bad as the Liberals. We can only agree. The Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals when it comes to entitlement.

What else? We had the Minister of National Defence flying around on Canadian Forces jets and helicopters. When the Prime Minister was in India, he had his limousine flown in from halfway around the world instead of renting limousines that exist everywhere in India. I have been to India and it has a lot of great limousines. We do not even know how much was spent. It could have been a half a million dollars or a million dollars. We have no idea because under the government there is no transparency and no accountability.

We have a government that is trying to strangle first nations. It has put forward suggestions that are clearly a resolution of the problem instead of looking at itself. The government is the least accountable and the least transparent in Canadian history. I . Accountability is something that the Conservatives should be embracing but they are not, which is why we are saying to them--

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are discussing Bill C-27, which claims to promote financial transparency on the part of the first nations. I am very proud to be firmly opposed to this bill, which does not enhance the accountability of first nations governments to their people.

Essentially, Bill C-27 lays the legislative groundwork for the preparation and disclosure of first nations’ consolidated financial statements and disclosure of the remuneration, in salaries and expenses, paid by the first nations to their elected leaders. The bill would apply to more than 600 first nations communities.

As I said, the NDP opposes this bill, even though we are actively working to improve transparency and accountability at all levels of governance. First, we oppose this bill because it was imposed on the first nations without consultation and because it is contrary to the commitment made by the Prime Minister in January 2012 to work with the first nations. The approach taken by the government is a paternalistic one. In fact, the Conservatives have introduced other bills in this House that were drafted without proper consultation with the first nations.

Second, we oppose measures that would add further to the burden that the first nations bear when it comes to disclosure. We know that the first nations are already buried in paperwork. The former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, in fact, came out in favour of streamlining the tasks associated with disclosure of financial information that the first nations have to complete. She thought that the paperwork had gotten worse in recent years and pointed out that the first nations were already required to file a number of reports that were not even used by the ministers of the federal government.

In 2002, she estimated that four federal organizations alone required at least 168 reports a year from first nations communities, many of which had populations of less than 500. In a subsequent investigation by the Office of the Auditor General, representatives of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada revealed that in a single year, that department alone received more than 60,000 reports prepared by more than 600 first nations. That is an unbelievable figure. Why is the Conservative government demanding more and more of these pointless forms and reports?

Aboriginal leaders need to be able to devote their energies to the urgent problems affecting their communities: education, access to clean drinking water and housing.

Much has been said about the new requirements regarding disclosure of the salaries paid to leaders of aboriginal communities. Bill C-27 requires that the first nations disclose the details of the remuneration—salaries, commissions, bonuses, fees and so on—paid by the first nation and by any entity controlled by the first nation to its chief and each of its councillors in their professional and personal capacities.

I see a lot of hypocrisy in this situation. First, in accordance with the year-end financial reporting handbook, the first nations have to submit audited consolidated financial statements to the minister annually concerning the public funds they receive, including salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected or appointed officials and all unelected senior officials of the band. In addition, the first nations have to distribute those financial statements to their members.

I say hypocrisy because, in reality, the average salary of aboriginal leaders in Canada is not exorbitant. We are talking about approximately $60,000 a year for the chiefs and $31,000 for the councillors. In addition, I should point out that in many cases, more is demanded of the leaders of aboriginal communities than of other public officials.

Consider the example of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, or his other close advisors. Although their salaries are governed by Treasury Board standards, the public has no access to information on how much they earn or the total amount they receive annually in expense reimbursements. Yet this is what is required of the elected representatives and senior officials of aboriginal communities.

How can the Prime Minister demand transparency from others and not from his own office? It smacks of a double standard. In my opinion, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

It is important to understand that under federal law, aboriginal communities already have to disclose their audited financial statements to the federal government, including the salaries, honoraria and travel expenses of the elected representatives of the band.

The first nations already publish their audit reports, and some regularly hold consultations with their members. In some respects, I would venture to say that the bill is even pointless. For example, should the government wish to change the way first nations' financial statements are presented, it could simply revise the funding agreement requirements. That is what the NDP Is proposing. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the first nations were not spared this Conservative government’s irresponsible cuts.

On this side of the House, we want to see the government work alongside the first nations in order to improve governance, which has not been done in this case. The Conservatives eliminated funding for institutions that support governance, including the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Clearly, the government pays lip service to improving governance in aboriginal communities, while simultaneously doing away with the tools required for good governance.

It is particularly ironic that the government feels the need to lecture the first nations about transparency when this Conservative government is probably the most opaque in Canada's history. How can the government talk about transparency when it has introduced two omnibus bills comprising over 800 pages in an attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny? Indeed, I would remind members that Bill C-45 reduces the powers of the Auditor General and ensures that 12 government agencies will no longer be subject to any oversight whatsoever.

Moreover, I would like to remind members that Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is having to take the Conservative government to court to force the departments to disclose the impact of the budget cuts on services and programs for Canadians.

Speaking of hypocrisy, let us talk about the Conservatives' lack of transparency around the approval process for the CNOOC-Nexen deal. From the get-go, the Conservatives have refused to inform parliamentarians and the public at large as to the impact of the takeover. We still do not know if CNOOC will protect Canadian jobs and the headquarters in Canada. Neither do we know the extent to which Canada will be able to enforce its own environmental standards. By studying this transaction behind closed doors and failing to specify the criteria they are using to determine what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, the Conservatives are demonstrating a shameful lack of transparency.

In turn, Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson is accusing both the Department of National Defence and Public Works of concealing the actual costs of the F-35 and circumventing the government's own procurement rules. Worse still, the Auditor General's report clearly states that the Conservatives knew the total costs of the F-35, $25 billion, and chose not to share that information with the House. The Conservatives can say they support transparency, but they show a great lack of transparency in the House.

If I have digressed, it is only to show how despicable it is for the Conservatives to give anyone lessons on transparency when they themselves show such strong contempt for accountability. We attempted to minimize the negative impacts of this bill in committee by bringing forward amendments, all of which were rejected by the government.

For these reasons, I am proud to oppose this bill in the House, and I look forward to answering hon. members' questions.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate today.

I want to speak directly to the motions that were brought forward. First of all, the clause under debate is clause 11 of Bill C-27, first nations financial transparency act. This clause reads:

If a First Nation fails to publish any document under section 8, any person, including the Minister, may apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council to carry out the duties under that section within the period specified by the court.

The purpose of this clause in the bill is to ensure that anyone, including the minister, could ask a court to require a first nation to publish its consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration and expenses, if the first nation government failed to act in accordance with the provisions of Bill C-27. This clause is necessary, as it would provide an avenue of redress when a first nation fails to comply with the proposed act by failing to publish its financial documents.

As we all know, governments in Canada, whether they be the federal government, provincial governments or municipal governments, must adhere to legislation, which ensures that the financial statements of the government and its entities and the remuneration paid and expenses reimbursed to its elected leaders are shared with the public. There are different means of achieving this, but the end result is the same. The financial information relating to governments at every level in Canada are available to the general public; that is, governments with the exception of first nation governments operating under the Indian Act.

Bill C-27 would simply address this gap. In doing so, the bill would also address a situation that blurs the lines of accountability between first nation councils and their own members.

As we have heard, if a first nation member cannot access the financial information relating to his or her band, he or she can ask the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to release the information. Each year, AANDC receives many such requests from first nation individuals looking for basic financial information relating to their community, which they should be able to access directly from their band. In addition to these informal requests for information, the department also receives formal complaints regarding the potential mismanagement or misappropriation of band funds and remuneration of officials.

Legislation that ensures this information is easily accessible to everyone would remove the minister from the equation in many of these cases, thereby promoting more direct lines of accountability of a first nation leader to its members. In short, the bill aims to shift the accountability bargain between first nation governments and their communities.

This is not to suggest that first nations are mismanaging their finances or are not accountable to their members. In fact, there are many examples of first nations that are not only meeting the basic expectations of a government but are exceeding them. Unfortunately, there remain many that are not, as these requests and complaints to the department demonstrate.

However, with the greater transparency that would be provided by the bill, many of these requests and complaints would likely not be necessary, as information would be publicly available. Furthermore, with the greater transparency around publication of remuneration and expenses, the speculation that currently exists on these issues would be removed, which would dispel the rumours around the salaries of first nation leaders.

All first nation leaders should be applauding this, as there are many whose reputations are unfairly tarnished by the actions or inactions of others.

Perhaps even more importantly, Bill C-27 would also mean that first nation individuals would no longer feel intimidated when they ask for financial information relating to their bands, and intimidation does indeed occur, as was described to the committee by representatives of the Peguis Accountability Coalition and others, just for challenging their governments about how their money is being spent or simply asking for copies of the band's financial statements.

Without clause 11 in the bill, first nation members who are unable access basic financial information relating to their own band would still need to challenge their chief and council for this information through the courts, creating a tense situation for many people. However, this is not the only reason why clause 11 of the bill is required.

An adequate enforcement mechanism would ensure that these documents are made available to all Canadians. Making sure this information is available to everyone would mean that all Canadians would see the reality of how first nations governments are funded.

During her appearance before the committee, Jody Wilson-Raybould of the AFN stated:

...having consolidated financial statements and disclosing revenue or investments does...actually recognize and expose the reality of what our first nations are having to bear in terms of supporting our own governments beyond the federal transfers....

Bill C-27 is a necessary piece of legislation. A key part of how this legislation would be successful is clause 11.

Bill C-27 would strengthen transparency and accountability by requiring that the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration and expenses of the first nation be shared with the members of each first nation community, as well as the general public.

The clause under debate is clause 13 of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act. This clause provides for administrative measures if a first nation fails to prepare and publish its consolidated financial statements, auditor reports and schedule of remuneration and expenses. In other words, this provision encourages first nations to comply with the act so as to avoid these measures being imposed.

Although we believe that all first nations governments will comply with this legislation, as it strengthens their accountability to their members, in the event of the refusal of a first nation's leadership to publish its audited consolidated financial statements, the first nations financial transparency act provides the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development three options.

The minister may require the council of the affected first nation to develop an appropriate action plan, ensuring the release of the financial information in a timely and organized fashion.

The minister may also withhold funding that would normally go to the first nation under active grant and contribution agreements. These withheld funds would be released immediately upon the publication of the first nation's audited consolidated financial statements.

Finally, the minister may completely terminate active grant and contribution agreements should a first nation refuse to provide AANDC with its audited consolidated financial statements.

There is nothing new here. First nations are already required to produce annual consolidated financial statements, which are audited by independent accredited professional auditors, and report the remuneration and expenses, in separate categories, paid to chiefs and councillors as part of their funding agreements with AANDC. Also, the measures being proposed in clause 13 of Bill C-27 are already available to the minister under the grants and contribution agreements.

As for clause 13(2), this clause provides that any monies the minister has withheld from a first nation for non-compliance of this act are considered a charge under the Financial Administration Act. This provision simply provides the mechanism by which funds withheld from a first nation can be paid to the first nation once compliance is achieved, even if the payment occurs in a subsequent year.

Section 37.1(1) of the Financial Administration Act states:

Subject to such directions as the Treasury Board may make, a debt incurred by Her Majesty for work performed, goods received or services rendered before the end of a fiscal year, and any amount due or owing under a contract, contribution or other similar arrangement entered into before the end of the fiscal year that remains unpaid at the end of the fiscal year, shall be recorded as a charge against the appropriation to which it relates.

Clause 13(2) of the bill is a technical administrative measure that allows for any funds that have been withheld under this act to be repaid, yet NDP Motion No. 3 proposes to remove all of these administrative measures. Without this clause, first nations individuals could continue to be subject to intimidation when they ask for financial information relating to their bands.

In conclusion, Bill C-27 is a necessary piece of legislation. A key part of how this legislation would be successful would be the provisions outlined in the clauses I have mentioned during this debate.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of motions 1 to 3.

Motions in Amendment

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-27, which requires every first nations community to provide the following: annual consolidated financial statements; a separate schedule of annual remuneration paid by the first nation, and by any entity controlled by the first nation, to its chief and each of its councillors in their professional and personal capacities; the auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statements; and the auditor's report respecting the schedule of remuneration.

The Conservatives are trying to teach the first nations a lesson about transparency. He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches. That saying is quite appropriate in my opinion because the government is very closed and not transparent and does not even want to provide crucial information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who needs it in order to be transparent with Canadians and tell them what the federal government is spending taxpayers' money on. The Conservatives are not even doing this much and they are asking first nations to do more. The first nations already have to submit more than 200 reports to the federal government, which is huge.

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it directly affects the first nations. As an MP, when working on a bill that affects a certain group, I will consult that group. However, this is something that the government does not seem to understand. What does it mean to consult someone? It is not just listening to witnesses in committee, who do not speak for very long. It means going to see the groups, the first nations, before drafting a bill. In that way, they can say what they would like to see in the bill, what measures do not work and what will disadvantage first nations communities.

Consequently, we are very disappointed because first nations should be consulted and especially because consultations are mandatory under a UN declaration ratified by Canada. It is important that we honour our commitments. It is not just a matter of will; it is about meeting our legal obligations.

Another paradox is that the government wants to reduce the paper burden. Huge cuts were made because the government wants to eliminate red tape and increase efficiency. However, all those measures that the government wants to implement will require huge resources and result in a waste of time and money.

Right now, in our own country, people are living in crises and in appalling conditions. I am thinking of communities such as Attawapiskat, which the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is defending so well in the House. These communities do not have schools, and they do not have safe housing. It is cold in northern Ontario and people are freezing in houses that are totally inadequate.

The government should tackle these issues instead. It should ensure that every young person—and I emphasize the term “every” because we are aware of the current situation—living in a first nation community can attend school. Going to school is a basic and essential need. Why are we not debating this issue? It is because this government's first bill on first nations seeks to impose transparency measures on them, without consulting them, without consulting those who will be most affected. The government is not dealing with critical issues such as drinking water and food. Incidentally, food is not available at an affordable price in northern rural communities. People must pay exorbitant prices for fresh food.

The government says it wants to eliminate red tape to increase efficiency. However, when other governments already have to file 200 reports and will have to produce more, the Conservatives do not even take into consideration the fact that this may impair these governments' ability to provide direct services to citizens who really need them.

My time is up. I will continue later.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her work on first nations issues.

Bill C-27 concerns an issue that is not very familiar to many members of this House. I must admit that there is no reserve in my riding. In matters relating to first nations, I rely on my colleagues who have experience with this issue and on my own experience gained through discussions.

Just by chance, last Friday I was on the wonderful Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg reserve in the beautiful Gatineau valley in the Pontiac, home to an Algonquin First Nation. The hon. member for Pontiac is doing excellent work there as well. As our justice critic, I discussed various justice-related issues with a number of people from that reserve.

I was able to meet some really extraordinary people, including Chief Gilbert Whiteduck who acted as both our tour guide and our spiritual guide, so that we could get a better understanding, even in that short time, of a number of things that are happening on that reserve. We also met councillors Caitlin Tolley and Bill Ottawa. I applaud Caitlin Tolley, a young woman of 22, who has become involved in governance on the reserve. I was very pleased to meet her and councillor Bill Ottawa.

We were also able to visit Waseya House and meet the front-line workers there, Lynn Buckshot and Sue Thran.

Meeting the chief of police was also very interesting. The police force is located on the reserve and controlled by band members. The chief, Gordon McGregor, and the officers are doing extraordinary work under rather difficult circumstances. We also met the director of health and social services, Robin Decontie.

Another extremely important meeting was with Bridget Tolley and Laurie Odjick, who are heavily involved in the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. They work tirelessly. One of them lost her mother in an accident that the police have still not finished investigating, perhaps because lions that escape reserves get more attention than any people there, especially first nations women. Laurie Odjick’s daughter disappeared six or seven years ago. These women will never give up until all the necessary investigations are complete. Where there is life, there is hope.

I am telling you about all this because all these meetings were held in complete transparency. These people are not afraid to show who they are. However, as a proud nation, they would certainly like to be consulted when we make decisions from on high, here in these hallowed halls but far from their lands. Here we appear to say that the first nations are as important as the anglophones and francophones across this country, but when it comes time to give them full self-determination, we constantly put obstacles in their way.

Everything I have heard in the speeches since this morning has made me shudder—it is as if I am watching the Twilight Zone, a program people from my generation might be familiar with.

The government members—in their speeches and questions—have spent the whole morning talking about transparency and accountability. This is ridiculous and surely cannot be coming out of the mouths of the members opposite—because day after day we struggle to get the Conservatives to be even the slightest bit transparent and accountable. It is as if these words are not even part of their vocabulary, except when they chose to foist them on others. It is always easier to point the finger at others.

It is not a negligible problem, nor a cop-out, as some members opposite have claimed—it is a major problem.

Everybody is in favour of the principle of transparency. Everybody is in favour of the principle of accountability. However, there is one thing that we are not in favour of—and it is not just a matter of style or appearance, it is about substance. If the first nation's right to self-determination is to be recognized, it must be respected and abided by. This also means consulting those who are affected.

Engaging and consulting are quite different concepts in the eyes of the law. We must not be taken for fools, as is this government's wont.

What frustrates me the most is that introducing this kind of bill on the financial transparency of the first nations suggests that the first nations are not being transparent. This perpetuates negative stereotypes that are bandied about on our radio stations, or among people who, like me—at least before this Friday—have never visited a reserve, have no idea what they are talking about and cannot stop mouthing off. They think that all the chiefs are lining their pockets, that people are getting the wool pulled over their eyes, that billions of dollars are being handed over, and that we have no idea what is being done with the money. They are perpetuating this kind of prejudice, these kinds of bogus and extremely negative rumours that remain etched in people's psyches.

Indeed, I would wager anyone in this House that if I ventured out into the street, I would easily stumble upon nine people out of ten who would respond negatively if asked whether they thought that the first nations on reserve are transparent. Ninety percent of those I asked would probably say that no, there is no transparency whatsoever. Why is that? It is because we are allowing this kind of stereotype to be perpetuated. It is extremely condescending.

When a government claims that a people form a nation, and in the same breath imposes its own methods, that certainly does not show a willingness to deal nation to nation with people to whom we owe a lot. In fact, as Chief Whiteduck told me, even Parliament is on their territory. People may not agree on ancestral lands, on what belongs to whom, but that said, up until now, discussions among the parties has always been Canada's method of choice.

One particular aspect of this issue is especially frightening. During our meeting last Friday, when we met to talk about human trafficking—kidnapping and prostitution—and about criminal justice on reserves, no one spoke about the lack of transparency of their band council. What they spoke about were the pressing needs, those that the Auditor General herself found a few years ago and made recommendations about. There are huge needs. Poverty rates are through the roof. There are economic problems.

On the one hand, we want transparency, yet on the other hand, we are leaving them in the poorest regions, in absolutely terrible conditions. Sometimes, these are conditions we would not even subject an animal to.

I look at the problems that the police chief raised during our visit, such as the drug problem. It worries me that the Minister of Health is authorizing certain prescription medications that will cause problems on our streets and even more problems on our reserves. However, there are other problems, such as the disappearance of aboriginal women.

I will conclude by reading something that was given to me by Ms. Tolley and Ms. Odjick.

I am writing today to express my concern over the lack of government response to the plight of missing aboriginal women in Canada. The statistics are shocking, 580 women have been lost since 1970, more than half of that number since 2000.

It goes on to say that while the Government of Canada announced $10 million worth of funds to address this issue in the March 2010 budget, families and communities are still waiting for justice. It goes on to say that it is time for the Government of Canada to respond to the needs of families of missing and murdered aboriginal women by ensuring access to healing and justice services, and that it is time for a national plan of action to end violence against aboriginal women.

I would add that it is time for the government to be transparent with first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-27.

This bill is of particular interest to me, not because there are a lot of aboriginal communities in my riding, but because I put myself in the shoes of everyday Canadians who are concerned about the problems faced by the first nations, as described by my colleague, and consider the bill from that perspective.

Once again, the government foisted legislation on us without any consultative process. There is nothing new about what we are seeing today: it is common practice for the Conservative government to fail to consult those affected by its bills.

This bill is testament to the government's inability to engage in a consultative process before imposing measures. The bill will most certainly have an impact on those concerned— people who could have brought something positive to the debate. These people are better informed than we are as legislators. A consultative process enables us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are directly affected, who work and are active in the field on a daily basis. That is why consultations are important. The government has never bothered to hold consultations before drafting legislation.

As I said earlier, this government is often driven by a populist approach. It responds to certain specific events. In this particular case, newspapers reported that a few first nations chiefs had extremely high salaries. As usual, the Conservatives are reacting to very specific issues and introducing legislation accordingly. In my opinion, that way of legislating is not good for our country and does not help us to move forward. The government is simply reacting to small-scale events that have no broad application in Canada.

In our opinion, it is unprecedented that a federal statute would prescribe the disclosure of an independent source of income. I think this will hurt the first nations. The government claims that the bill is designed to help them and that its intentions are good, but the bill could have the opposite effect.

If that much information is disclosed, a number of businesses and companies working on reserve will have to make public more information than their counterparts. These companies will have to disclose this information to the public at large. This means posting information on a website for the whole world to see. Anybody who has access to the Internet, in Canada or elsewhere, will have access to the information. It will obviously give companies that have access to privileged information regarding other companies an unfair advantage. Businesses that are forced to publish more information will lose their competitive edge.

We believe that this will actually achieve the opposite of what the Conservatives want. This will not help the communities in any way, because those businesses will not want to remain associated with first nations, since that would put them at a disadvantage in Canadian markets. We think the opposite will occur: businesses will steer clear of first nations and the money will disappear. This means even fewer resources for first nations, which is definitely not a good thing.

Judith Sayers, who holds the national aboriginal economic development chair at the University of Victoria, gives an interesting explanation:

The fallout of this is that in an effort to remove a First Nation business from the need to publish its financial statements publicly, the business is too far removed from the First Nation and has no connection or accountability to the members of the First Nation. This whole provision needs to be seriously rethought with a business perspective as well as one of equality of other companies and businesses out there that do not need to publish their financial statements for the world to see.

We are talking about entrepreneurship, which sometimes gets the Conservatives' attention. Fairness for all companies in Canada is diminishing. Some companies will be subject to certain requirements, while others will not. It is simply unfair to those businesses.

The other point I wanted to address is the fact that accountability should exist among local governments, first nations and the population. We do not understand why this information should be made public. The goal of the bill was to make this information available to the members of aboriginal communities, not to the entire world.

This measure will disadvantage these first nations. How can the goal of this bill be achieved when countless aboriginal communities simply do not have access to the Internet? The government is missing the point here. It says the information will be posted on a website, but there are people who do not even have access to the Internet. I do not have the exact figures, but a large proportion of aboriginal communities, which are often in remote areas, do not even have access to the Internet. The government is not solving a problem. It is creating a false problem and appears to be trying to solve it in order to satisfy special interests.

I would add that accountability between the first nations and their members is already covered by section 69 of the Indian Act. Measures are already in place whereby the first nations must produce reports for the department and share the information with their members. This is already included in provisions, in laws. This bill does nothing but satisfy some lobby group, probably. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation often comes up. As I was saying earlier, because of one specific incident, the government seems to be trying to change the legislation in order to satisfy a particular group that took exception to some figures a few years ago.

In my view, this bill goes against two rulings by the Federal Court. As I was saying, it has already been said that there needs to be accountability. Two rulings mention it, including the ruling in Montana Band of Indians v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), where the court found that first nations' financial statements were confidential information within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and, accordingly, were not required to be disclosed. This bill contradicts federal legislation, namely the Access to Information Act.

We have a number of questions about access to information legislation. Will this be protected? The Privacy Act might be affected as well.

There was also Sawridge Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs). The court ruled that these financial statements are not confidential vis-à-vis the members of a first nations band, since the members of a band can have access to the financial statements of their own band under the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations.

This Federal Court ruling explained that these documents were already accessible to band members. In theory, Bill C-27 is not needed to gain access to this information. Laws and court rulings have already granted this access.

The government of a first nation must be accountable to its members. This bill is merely a reaction to newspaper articles. As I said earlier, the Conservatives like to react to specific incidents in this manner.

Members spoke about the salaries of first nations leaders, lumping them all together. However, as mentioned earlier, the reality is that the average salary of chiefs is $60,000 and the average salary of councillors is $31,000. It is important to note that 50% of chiefs earn less than $60,000 and that only 5% of them earn more than $100,000. I mentioned that the government was reacting to specific incidents that do not reflect the general reality in Canada. Only 5% of chiefs earn over $100,000. Here in the House, we all know our salary: we earn over $150,000. Should these chiefs, who are responsible for their bands, be making less than $60,000 or $30,000? This raises some questions.

Of course, the NDP supports transparency and accountability at all levels of government. We oppose useless measures that will serve only to increase red tape for first nations. I spoke about red tape a little earlier when I asked my colleague a question. The government says that all red tape must be eliminated because it costs too much and it is not good. However, there are two bills before the House that will increase red tape for unions and first nations: private member's Bill C-377 and Bill C-27, respectively. A government that prides itself on eliminating red tape in this country is thus doing the exact opposite, and creating red tape for specific target groups in Canada.

Unfortunately, the government did not work with us in committee at all. I said earlier that the government never consulted the first nations. When it comes to consulting the opposition, the government is even worse. The government always refuses to work with us.

We proposed 18 amendments that the Conservatives never considered. As a result, we are going to vote against this bill. I welcome any questions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kenora has been wrong twice now. Only he and government members would stand up and say that talking about the conditions of first nations people in this country has nothing to do with a bill that deals with remuneration and disclosure to first nations people. That is something else.

The legal reality facing first nations in this country is this. We are dealing with an outmoded Indian Act, a paternalistic, ineffective vestige of colonialism. Despite billions of dollars spent by the Department of Indian Affairs, we have poor outcomes. Bands are being forced to go to court repeatedly to enforce basic rights over and over again. The government has an appalling record of violating treaties and failing to negotiate treaties with dozens of bands in Canada that have never ceded their rights, as they have in British Columbia, or signed a binding treaty nation to nation with Canada. Given all of these serious critical facts, what do the Conservatives decide is their priority to deal with when we talk about first nations? They want to go after what chiefs and councillors make.

We have done a bit of research. The average salary for chiefs of bands in this country is $60,000. The average salary for band councillors in this country is $31,000. Fifty per cent of chiefs of bands in this country earn less than $60,000 a year and only five per cent of chiefs in this country earn more than $100,000.

Fifty per cent of first nations in this country have no Internet access, period. However, the Conservatives think the priority is to require bands to post financial information of what their chiefs and councillors make on their websites instead of being concerned with the thousands of first nations that have no access to the Internet. Really?

It is absolutely appalling to hear the Conservatives talk about the accountability of first nations. They sign trade deals negotiated behind closed doors and in secret, and then talk about wanting accountability for first nation bands. The Minister of Immigration spent $750,000 of taxpayer dollars to conduct media monitoring of his own image, but the Conservatives want to crack down on first nation chiefs to make sure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. The Conservative government brings in omnibus legislation that deprives parliamentarians of our ability to properly scrutinize laws, most of which have zero to do with the budget, but the government wants to talk about accountability. That is absolutely a joke.

New Democrats are opposed to the legislation because it was imposed on first nations without consultation and it runs counter to the Conservative pronouncements at the time of the Crown-first nations gathering that they would strive to work together with first nations. The inclusion of reporting of own-source revenues under the provision of federal legislation is unprecedented. Practically speaking, the requirement to publish detailed consolidated financial statements of first nation-controlled businesses may undermine their competitive abilities and financial success.

Now while the stated aims of Bill C-27 are to increase transparency to first nation citizens, the requirement for public posting on a first nation website along with posting on the AANDC website, and the allowance for any person, not just a member of a first nation, to apply to court for the disclosure of a financial statement and salary report, is an absolute violation of privacy. The Conservative government took away the long-form census because it thought that it was a violation of privacy to ask Canadians to anonymously disclose how many bedrooms they have in their house. However,the Conservatives do not care about forcing first nation bands to publish information about their expenses on a website without any concern for their privacy whatsoever.

The NDP does not support this legislation. The bill would not do anything to increase the accountability of first nation governments to their people. It would apply standards that are greater than those for elected officials in many other jurisdictions.

New Democrats want the government to work collaboratively with first nations to improve governance. Instead the Conservatives are cutting funding to institutions supporting governance, including the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Changes to how audited statements are presented to first nations do not need legislation. It could be a requirement of funding arrangements with the department as each first nation government signs.

I want to conclude with something that the Assembly of First Nations said:

We all know what the problems are–they are not exorbitant salaries–they are decades of paternalism that have placed many First Nation leaders in a position where they are responsible for implementing decisions, but where the ultimate power to make decisions rests with the federal government (i.e., under the Indian Act). Not only does this continue to be patently inappropriate, it remains a recipe for poor outcomes.

Instead of the Conservatives playing politics and doing the bidding of their buddies at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, instead of making scapegoats of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, why will the government not bring forth legislation to address the very real problems facing first nations in this country, and bring them up to the standards that every Canadian should expect?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition tabled three motions that dealt with the substantive elements of Bill C-27. The member has not just deviated but has gone completely off the map in terms of what the House intended or contemplated speaking to today. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a determination in this regard.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost trite to say but profoundly important to remember that governing is about priorities and choices. A majority government is in a unique position in this regard. A majority government can control the parliamentary agenda and research whatever issue it wishes. A majority government has access to full information and the resources of our civil service and departments. A majority government can put whatever legislation it wishes before the House.

For all Canadians watching today who care about what is going on in Parliament, the government has put Bill C-27 before us. This is what the bill would do. It would require all first nations, except those with self-governing regimes, to produce an audited annual consolidated financial statement and a separate annual schedule of remuneration that details the remuneration, salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honoraria, dividends and expenses, including transportation, accommodation, meals, hospitality and incidentals, paid by first nations, and any entity controlled by a first nation, to its chief and each of the councillors in their professional and personal capacities. It requires an auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statements and an auditor's report respecting the schedule of remuneration. For each of these four documents, the bill would require each first nation to provide the document upon request to any of its members within 120 days, for the band to publish this information and documents on its website and to retain it on its website for 10 years.

Furthermore, the minister must publish the documents on the website of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Failure of a first nation to comply with these requirements would enable any first nation member to apply for a court order to the Superior Court; any person, including the minister, to apply for a court order to the Superior Court; and the minister to develop a so-called appropriate action plan to remedy the breach. The minister may withhold any funds to the first nation or terminate any funding agreement with that first nation.

As all Canadians can easily see, the bill deals with first nations. I ask everyone to consider all of the issues facing first nations people on reserve and in urban areas today. There are poverty rates facing first nations that are dramatically above non-aboriginals. There are incarceration rates, both men and in particular women, far exceeding the percentage of population that first nations comprise in our country. There are reserves across this country without safe drinking water. There are reserves across this country without proper housing, where multiple generations of families, sometimes 10 to 20 people, are crammed together, living in houses built for five. There are reserves without proper schools in this country. There are substandard and fewer education dollars and outcomes for aboriginals than there are for non-aboriginals.

Across this country on first nations reserves and in urban areas, there are epidemics of suicide, drug abuse and domestic violence. There are aboriginal people in Canada today who are living in third world conditions. This past summer, Canadians saw the Red Cross sending emergency aid to Canadians living on a reserve in Canada. The conditions on the ground are deplorable.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech.

With regard to Bill C-27 currently before us, as the member said, we absolutely must not impose more restrictive standards on the first nations. The thing that strikes us is the notable lack of collaboration with the first nations when it comes to this bill. What is more, as the member said, this bill does nothing to address the real problem, namely that living conditions for first nations are getting worse.

My question has to do with the findings that the Auditor General released in June 2011. In her findings, she called for major structural reforms in order to improve the federal government's policies and practices.

What does my colleague think? Can he comment on this?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North to speak on Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations.

I will speak to accountability and transparency in a moment, but I would first point out that the bill is fundamentally flawed in failing to address the real issues that we should be talking about in this House, the real issues affecting our first nation communities, including in northern British Columbia, Alberta and across the Prairies to Ontario and the rest of the country. Those real issues are housing, jobs, education and running water for our first nation young people.

It is a fundamental flaw in the bill that we are not discussing these issues that have affected our first nations for many years. We should be discussing these issues in the House to improve the lives of our first nation people. Yet, the Conservative government has failed to address any of these issues that need to be addressed.

Before starting out with a bill, it would make sense to consult the very people it would affect. We have heard in this House and at committee that the government has failed to address the concerns of first nations by listening to them, the very people the bill would affect.

It is not just about listening, but also about making changes to the bill to improve accountability and transparency. As we heard in committee, New Democrats produced a number of amendments that would have improved the bill, yet the Conservatives did not want to listen to them or make the changes.

From the Conservatives we have seen no accountability and transparency. There was no accountability by the Minister of Agriculture when it came to the XL Foods debacle. We saw no transparency or accountability from the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence when it came to the F-35s. My colleague from northern Ontario talked about the lack of accountability in Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in his speech, referring to a “black hole of accountability” there.

I think that accountability and transparency has to start with the government being accountable to the taxpayers of this country. However, the current Conservative government has failed to be accountable and transparent.

Despite hearing about transparency and accountability from the other side of the House, we have Bill C-38 and now Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bills. The Conservatives failed to properly consult on these bills and to put them into the right committees to look at the issues affecting Canadians. I am taken aback when Conservatives talk about accountability and transparency, because the current government has not shown any of that when it comes to a number of issues that have been raised in the House.

There are a number of so-called transparency and accountability issues the government brings up in the bill. I want to highlight them and look at whether there really is transparency and accountability and if things are in place already addressing some of those concerns.

The bill would require every first nation, except those with self-government regimes, to produce an audited annual consolidated financial statement; a separate annual schedule of remuneration covering the salaries, commissions, bonuses, fees, et cetera, paid by the first nation and any entity controlled by the first nation through its chief and each of its councillors in their professional and personal capacities; an auditor's written report respecting the consolidated financial statement; and an auditor's report respecting the schedule of remuneration.

For each of these four documents, the bill requires each first nation to provide it within four months upon request of any of its members, and to publish the document on its website and retain it there for over 10 years. Here is the kicker: the minister must also publish the document on the website of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Failure of the first nation to comply with these requirements of the bill enables the minister to withhold any funds to first nations, and the minister can also terminate any funding agreement with first nations.

We heard from the previous speaker about the minister arbitrarily having these powers and the ability to withhold money for the very issues that we need to address. We saw him last winter withholding money for three months from first nation schools in northern Ontario communities.

There is a whole bunch of requirements now being put on first nations to report this stuff. I think these onerous requirements are already in place, because we can get that information already. However, I do know that the Conservatives have to play to their ideological base and interest groups to make it look like they are actually addressing the issues of first nations.

Again, if they were really concerned about addressing the real issues in our first nation communities, we would be discussing housing for first nations. We would be discussing education for every child and adult in first nations. We would be addressing water issues in first nation communities.

I have listed a number of requirements of the bill that will put an onerous burden on first nations. I also want to let the House and the people who are listening know that there are certain mechanisms in place that already incorporate some of these things. The current policy based requirements include the fact that the majority of the funding arrangements between Canada and first nations are in the form of fixed term contribution agreements under which first nations must satisfy certain conditions to ensure continued federal contribution payments. The requirements for financial reporting are also set out in AANDC's year-end financial reporting handbook. Under the year-end financial reporting handbook, first nations must submit to AANDC annual audited consolidated financial statements for which public funds are provided to them. These include the salary, honoraria, and travel expenses of all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials. The latter basically include unelected positions, such as those of executive director and band manager.

Therefore, we already have in place arrangements where first nations provide this information when they sign agreements with the government for the funds available to them.

New Democrats are opposed to this legislation, as it will be imposed on first nations. We need to work in collaboration with first nations to come up with a framework to address the real issues that are of concern to them and Canadians. This has been going on for many years. We need to take a look at these issues. We should be discussing first nations' housing, education and running water. These are the real issues affecting our first nations, yet the government has consistently failed to address them.

[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—

[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, 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the time for the point of order will not be taken out of my time.

The truth can sometimes make people feel a little uncomfortable but that is the reality. It is not just about the need for more accountability and transparency within our first nations, the provincial governments or, moving on, the national government. We just need to look at this huge budget bill that we are talking about.

There are huge needs out there that need to be met around the whole issue of accountability and more transparency. We have seen that there is a need for more accountability and transparency with first nations but that is nothing new, just like it is not new for other levels of government.

This is where I will mention the Kelowna accord. Members will be familiar with the Kelowna accord. It is something agreed to under former prime minister Paul Martin, through months of discussion and dialogue with representatives and stakeholders from coast to coast to coast, which in good part was led by first nations themselves. Ultimately, a report which was agreed upon. A consensus that was achieved. Paul Martin, as the prime minister, took great effort in ensuring that our first nations communities led the dialogue in many different ways. As a result, we achieved the Kelowna accord.

People should be aware that within the Kelowna accord was an accountability framework. If we look at that accountability framework, it included a first nations auditor general. What sort of an impact would that have had?

I would argue that many of the concerns that people who live on reserves or off reserves have in regard to accountability, including the leadership of our first nations, would have been addressed through that first nations auditor general. This had support and it was encouraged through our first nations.

What did the government do when it had the opportunity to implement, for the first time, a first nations auditor general. It chose to tear up the agreement. It completely discarded what it was that the previous government had put in place, which would have taken into consideration the sensitive issues surrounding financial transparency and accountability.

Let us look at the whole issue of reports. The government seems to want to place the burden for reporting on first nations. On the surface one would say that there is an obligation for some sense of accountability and that part of that accountability means providing reports. However, what we also need to recognize is that the Canadian Auditor General has seen that the federal government has already put the burden on first nations in the number of reports it continues to demand that the first nations surrender.

If the government were genuine in wanting to achieve what it hopes to achieve with Bill C-27, it should have listened to what the Auditor General of Canada said in terms of easing the burden of some of the reports that are being requested. It should have taken that report, sat down with the leadership of our first nations people and come up with legislation that would have factored in what the Auditor General said. If it had listened to what our first nations leadership was saying, it could have brought forward better legislation for which the government would have received not only the support of all parties in this chamber, but would have had a much better base of support from the many different stakeholders.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-27. One of the things that I like about the bill is that it demonstrates very clearly the difference between two governments: a Conservative government and a Liberal government. In the Liberal government we saw a different approach to dealing with the important issues facing our aboriginal and, in particular, first nation communities. In the Conservative government we see an approach that the government knows best and that there is no need to do any sort of genuine consultation.

When I posed the question to the Conservative member on what sort of consultation was done, the member made reference to a previous bill and said that at committee we heard hours of debate. I believe he made reference to the fact that there were chiefs who made presentations at committee. I suspect that many members of the Conservative caucus have received a great deal of feedback on Bill C-27 or the bill that Bill C-27 is replacing because the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament a couple of years ago.

In the answer the government member continuously talked about post-introduction of the bill. Therein lies the difference between a Liberal government and a Conservative government. The Liberal government recognized the importance of working with first nations before we even introduced the legislation. Therein lies the difference.

If we look for leadership within the first nations prior to introducing the legislation or even prior to the drafting of the legislation, it is there. It needs to be emphasized that there is very strong leadership in our first nation communities. If the government chose to capitalize on that leadership, we would have better legislation than we have today. Unfortunately, we have the legislation, but it enables individuals like myself to demonstrate the difference between two ways of governing. One way has demonstrated far more success, that being for example the Paul Martin government in the creation of the Kelowna accord, which I will get to in a few moments.

Transparency and proactive disclosure are something that Canadians love and most politicians talk a great deal about. It is nothing new. It is something that is advocated but it is not only for first nations. I was a provincial MLA for many years and I tried to get to the bottom of how much money the NDP provincial government was paying the chair of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. At last count, I tallied over $500,000 for one individual working within the civil service. The numbers we were hearing were well in excess of that. I remember trying to find out how much the provincial government was paying in pensions for that position. If we want to talk about challenges, there are huge challenges in terms of trying to draw out how much money is being allocated for one civil service position. Trust me, I could talk a great deal. The issue is accountability, not just for first nations—

[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.

[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.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to explain how Bill C-27 would improve sound fiscal management when first nations empower community members to hold their leaders to account.

To begin, I would like to respond to the hon. member's first motion to delete clause 1 of Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act. The clause reads: “This Act may be cited as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.” Essentially, the member's motion goes to the very heart of Bill C-27, so I would like to speak about the purpose of this legislation and why it is necessary.

In accordance with the provisions in their funding agreements, first nation governments are already required to provide to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses of all elected officials. These agreements also require that the audited consolidated financial statements be made available to first nations membership in the communities. These agreements do not, however, stipulate the manner or timing of disclosure.

Many first nation governments have put into place sound accounting practices that ensure transparency and help to build confidence among members and other stakeholders. Many prepare annual reports that are distributed to members' homes or made available in board offices or posted on the first nation's website. Many first nations governments strive to be accountable to their communities, their membership and to the federal government for the funds they receive.

Why then is the bill necessary? Some first nations governments have not yet consistently adopted these practices. As a result, questions occasionally emerge about the financial decision of first nations leaders and how first nation moneys are being spent, questions that can undermine the confidence of the public in all first nation governments, including those who are working hard to be transparent in their leadership.

Ensuring the public disclosure of financial information would help clarify the actual situation. By explicitly stating the expectations of first nations in law with respect to accountability for the financial management of their governments and transparency in the remuneration and expenses of their leaders, a minimum standard would be established and many of the aforementioned inconsistencies would disappear. Greater transparency of financial information and remuneration and expenses would remove the speculation that currently exists and dispel the rumours around the management of funds by first nation government and the salaries of first nation leaders.

The bill would ensure that first nation community members have the information necessary to make informed decisions about their leadership and are better prepared to hold their governments to account.

The bill and the easier access to financial information it promotes would also support better policy development as it relates to first nation peoples. As John Graham of Patterson Creek Consulting, one of the witnesses who appeared before committee, pointed out, “public policy is always better if there is essentially good information”. While this information is currently provided to the department, it cannot be shared in any meaningful way to promote this kind of public discussion.

The public disclosure of financial information of first nation governments would also increase the confidence of potential investors. With more complete and accurate information about potential partners, investors would be in a better position to make informed decisions about investment opportunities, possibly contributing to improved economic well-being of first nation communities.

Most of the issues surrounding the bill were aired or debated in the context of private member's Bill C-575 in the previous Parliament. It also echoes the commitments made by the Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly in their December 2010 resolution. In it, the chiefs say they:

Choose to lead by example and demonstrate to other orders of government processes for accountability, including...Itemizing and publicly disclosing salaries, honoraria and expenses associated with the operations of Chief & Council' [and] Ensuring information about community finances and decision-making is easily accessible, and available via the internet where applicable.

The government is not only confident that the bill will be supported by most first nations members seeking to improve the transparency and accountability of their band governments, but also that first nations' elected officials will welcome the bill as an important tool to demonstrate how they are accountable to their members.

To summarize, Bill C-27 is a necessary piece of legislation and I support it fully. I therefore do not support the motion currently being considered.

This necessary and advantageous legislation fulfills the commitment of the government in the 2011 Speech from the Throne. Not only is this a promise fulfilled, it is also an important step forward strengthening governance at the community level, another in a series of building blocks brought forward by our government to support economic and social development in first nations.

This is indeed a worthy cause and is clearly necessary legislation, deserving of all-party support. I urge my hon. colleagues to back Bill C-27 to ensure that first nations members enjoy the same opportunities as all other Canadians.

To appreciate the importance of this legislation, we first need to acknowledge that the current system fails to meet the transparency test. It is no secret that there have been reports of questionable financial practices in some first nations and that community members cannot get answers to their questions about these practices.

There is also no question that in some instances there appears to be a genuine need for greater scrutiny of how public funds are being spent. We have heard complaints by first nations members who were unable to access information about spending in their communities. They want to know how their chiefs and councillors are spending band funds and the salaries of their elected officials publicly disclosed. The problem is not necessarily what first nations leaders are being paid, but the fact that their community members have no way of knowing what the compensation really is. Neither do community members currently know how such decisions are arrived at.

With any other level of government, a number of factors determine the level of pay and benefits for officials. These include such things as the nature of their responsibilities and duties, the size of the community, the complexity of operating the community and the level of its revenues.

In some situations, first nation budgets are almost entirely reliant on federal tax dollars. As part of the funding allocated to first nations every year, a portion is an unconditional grant known as band support funding. This money is intended to help cover costs such as salaries for elected and non-elected officials, telephones and fax machines and other office equipment.

In addition to federal transfers, a number of first nations generate some of their own revenues through band-owned businesses or funding arrangements with other orders of government. This extra money can be used in a variety of ways, including paying higher salaries for elected officials.

There is no reliable way for first nation members to verify they are getting value for money. That is why Bill C-27 is essential. It will enable first nation citizens to confirm whether the compensation levels of their leaders are reasonable and proportionate to the required duties and responsibilities.

All other Canadians are able to hold their leaders accountable in this way. The same standard should be guaranteed in law to first nations members. If the first nations financial transparency act is passed, it will guarantee these standards.

In conclusion, the first nations financial transparency act will enhance financial accountability and transparency. It will require the proactive disclosure of audited and consolidated financial statements, enabling first nations members to see first hand how funds received by first nations have been spent.

This necessary and advantageous legislation fulfills the commitment by this government in the 2011 Speech from the Throne. Not only is this a promise fulfilled, but it is also an important step forward in strengthening governance at the community level, another in a series of building blocks brought forward by our government to support economic and social development in first nations.

This is a worthy cause, and clearly this is necessary legislation, deserving all-party support. I urge my hon. colleagues to back Bill C-27 to ensure that first nations members enjoy the same opportunities as all other Canadians.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening this morning to the debate on the motions brought forward by the NDP members. I am surprised they are trying to delete the important accountability clauses that are contained within the legislation. I am not surprised at the Liberal Party, which goes further. It wants to delete every single clause in the bill. Accountability and the Liberal Party generally do not go hand in hand.

When I went to law school, we were told an old joke. It was: “If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you don't the facts and don't have the law, bang your hand on the table and shout louder”. That is what we are hearing from both of the opposition parties today. They do not have the law on their side, they do not have the facts on their side, so they bang their fists on the desk and argue about process. That is what they are left with.

They are going to say there was not enough consultation. That is not true. They know it is not true. In fact, the great member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar had extensive consultation on her Bill C-575. It was through the consultation with first nations that she brought forward the first incarnation of this legislation on financial transparency. There has been extensive consultation on this legislation.

In fact, it is first nations that want this to happen. I sat in committee and heard the stories from members of our first nations who said that when they had asked for information, it was not produced and they had been subject to intimidation and threats just for asking for the information. That is not acceptable.

By deleting clause 11, which is one of the proposals by the NDP, we would remove a very significant piece of accountability that is in the legislation. Section 11 states:

If a First Nation fails to publish any document under section 8, any person, including the Minister, may apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council to carry out the duties under that section within the period specified by the court.

How can anyone be opposed to that? It is an accountability mechanism that will be there for first nations in order to compel their council to produce information. How is someone against that? If a council is not publishing the salaries and remuneration of chiefs and councils and there is a mechanism here that is going to help them get that information, how can people in that small corner of the House stand and say that they are against it? I do not understand. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that anyone could require a first nation to publish this information. It provides an avenue of redress for first nations.

We have also heard that many first nations have made complaints directly to the minister. The opposition parties say that is a perfect system, that they should just make the complaint to the minister and have the minister answer that question. That is not about transparency or accountability. The accountability has to come from the first nation itself, and a lot do it. I do not want to be accused of standing and saying that none of our first nations communities provide this information. That is not true. Many of them do a fantastic job of providing the information to their members and being accountable to their members for the money that is spent. That is not what the legislation is designed to get at. There are some members, some communities, that are not providing this information and that is what the legislation targets.

First nations residents deserve and expect transparency and accountability from their elected representatives when it comes to these issues. In fact, in December 2010 the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution at its special chiefs assembly, affirming the need to publicly disclose salaries and expenses to their members. They also agreed to make this financial information available on the Internet, where applicable. Nearly two years later, just over half of the more than 600 first nations have a website. Of those that have a website, less than 20 had posted their salary and remuneration on the website and on the Internet.

This proves in and of itself that voluntary compliance is not the answer. We also know that complaining to the minister is not the answer. We want to give the power back to first nations community members to get this information so they do not have to go down those roads. Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, would guarantee that all first nations members would be able to hold their elected governments to account.

In addition to the informal requests from the members to the minister to get the information, the department also receives formal complaints regarding the potential mismanagement or misappropriation of band funds and remuneration of officials. This legislation would ensure that the information would be easily accessible to everyone and it would remove the minister from the equation in many of these cases. That would promote direct lines of communication and accountability from first nation leaders to its members because it would take the minister out of the equation. It should not be a triangular approach where a first nation member complains to the minister's office, which then goes down and asks the first nation to produce it and the first nation then moves it across to the member. It should be a direct approach from a member directly to band council.

I want to make this clear as well. This is not to suggest that first nations are mismanaging their finances or are not accountable to their members because in many cases there are many examples of first nations that are doing exactly that. With the greater transparency that is offered here, many of the complaints to the minister would actually not continue because they would have the necessary information.

I listened to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She suggested that producing a financial statement was not the answer because it would not state how many houses were built or what progress was made on the school, and that is true. The financial statement will not say that. However, imagine trying to understand what is happening with the finances in a community without the financial statement, the salary, remuneration and benefits of the chief and council. It is a logic first step. Once people have the financial statement and know the remuneration, they can question where all the money went. For instance, if all this money had been received, why were houses not built?

It is false for the New Democrats to suggest that this is not the answer. It is the first logical step toward putting the power back into the hands of the people. That is what good accountable government is all about. We have that kind of accountability at the federal level. Our public finances are absolutely disclosed. Individuals can make all kinds of requests for information. However, that is not what is happening with our first nations.

I am proud to stand today in support of this legislation, not only because it is good legislation but because I personally heard the stories at committee of community members saying that enough was enough, that they needed help and they needed the problem solved.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in response to the last minute report stage amendments by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. What the member is trying to do is admirable in attempting to delete clauses 1, 11 and 13. I would also propose that we delete clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as well. Bill C-27 is a bad bill from a bad place.

The minister went to the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to announce the legislation, but shortly thereafter Chief Darcy Bear had to write a letter to all members of committee, particularly the member whose bill this was based on, to express his complete dismay at being misled about what the bill was really all about.

Chief Darcy Bear, and all first nations, totally support the principles of financial transparency and accountability. That is the main objective of Bill C-27. However it is totally unacceptable for the bill to have come forward without any consultation with first nations. On that basis alone the Liberal Party has been very clear that it does not want to discuss in this chamber anything that has not already been subject to full consultations with first nations. The minister was clear that no consultation took place on this legislation. There was perhaps some consultation on the concerns raised by the private member's bill that preceded this legislation, but as the government has learned the hard way, this legislation goes way beyond the private member's bill. Therefore, Chief Darcy Bear was quite surprised to see in Bill C-27 the kinds of things that have necessitated the government amendments. Unfortunately, the government has refused to accept any opposition amendments dealing with some of the other concerns expressed by first nations.

Deleting clauses 1, 11 and 13 would at least remove the bill's draconian punishment of first nations that do not adhere to its provisions, and the situation would revert to one in which the minister could use his existing powers regarding compliance with contribution agreements and future funding based on that. First nations have been concerned about this kind of consequence being written into the bill. It removes the minister's discretion in the very complex and difficult issues raised by the bill.

On the Liberal side, we are still very concerned about what Chief Darcy Bear thought was the intention of making mandatory the release of the budgets and revenues and expenditures of first nations to their members.

This bill codifies the paternalism of the Indian Act in an even worse way. The minister already has the power to compel a first nation to release its documents to its band members. The minister has been totally unable to explain to us how often this happens or any commitment that this has been measured in a real way. The problem the bill is trying to fix has been very poorly articulated by the government. We know it is the responsibility of the chief and council to report to their people. When it is a democratically elected chief and council, then it is up to their people to turf out a government or a chief and council who are not complying with the need for transparency and fiscal accountability.

It is again with sadness that we continue to hear from first nations across this country that it has not even been a year since the Crown-first nations gathering, where the Prime Minister promised to reset the relationship. When the government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it agreed to free, prior and informed consent, yet this bill and so many others have come before the House without any consultation with first nations.

We in the Liberal Party believe that the principle of consultation is inherent to a government-to-government relationship. The government has no idea and is still treating first nations like little children that need a governess. It is totally insulting that the government has yet again refused to consult and is insisting on this kind of legislation and did not even have the courtesy of explaining the far-reaching nature of this legislation compared to the previous private member's bill to the very chief whose first nation they announced this legislation to.

We are grateful that the government has tried to improve this bad bill by clarifying the difference between salaries and expenses. We are pleased that it has tried to rectify the issue of band owned enterprises, but we still think that this is a bad bill and we hope that the government will at least support the initiative of the New Democratic Party by deleting clauses that impose draconian and insulting measures on first nations.

I look forward to debating the bill in full later, but the Liberal Party will support the last minute report stage amendments by the New Democratic Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to represent the concerns of my constituents from the great Kenora riding. That includes 42 first nations, 25 of which are isolated or not accessible by road.

I want to speak on just two things for the purposes of my 10 minutes.

First, on Motion No. 1, that Bill C-27 be amended by deleting clause 1,

If I have time, I will address the reporting requirements, the second issue raised by the opposition member.

Under debate is clause 1 of Bill C-27, first nations financial transparency act. The clause reads:

1. This Act may be cited as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

Essentially, Motion No. 1 goes to the very heart of Bill C-27 and so I would like to speak about the purpose of this legislation and why this is necessary and therefore its title.

In accordance with provisions in their funding agreements, first nation governments are already required to provide Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses for all elected officials. That deals with the redundancy piece that the member opposite keeps raising.

It is also a provision of these agreements that the audited consolidated financial statements be made available to the first nation membership in the community. On a large scale, this has not occurred. However, these agreements do not stipulate the manner and timing of disclosure. Many first nation governments have put into place sound accountability practices that ensure transparency and help to build confidence among members and other stakeholders.

I have said repeatedly at committee that, as often may be the case, the simple process of making these documents publicly accessible, in my respectful and humble view, will demonstrate that a great number of chiefs and councils are actually in full compliance and very competently managing their financial affairs, despite any challenges we hear. However, this bill is necessary because some first nations have not yet consistently developed and adopted these practices.

We have heard from first nations' constituency members and organizations with substantive and substantial concerns. As a result, questions have emerged about the financial decisions of first nations leaders and how first nations' monies are being spent; questions that can undermine the confidence of the public in all first nation governments, including those who are working to be transparent in their leadership. Indeed, at committee we heard from several witnesses who strive for that.

Ensuring the public disclosure of financial information would help to clarify the actual situation by explicitly stating the expectations of first nations in law with respect to accountability for the financial management of their governments and transparency in the remuneration and expenses that they incur in their roles as chief in council and any other activities with which they are involved. Greater transparency of financial information, including these notes for remuneration and expenses, would remove the speculation that currently exists and dispel rumours around the management of funds by first nation governments and the salaries of their leaders.

The bill would ensure that first nation community members have the information necessary to make informed decisions about their leadership and are better prepared to hold their government to account. The bill, and the easier access to financial information it promotes, would also support better policy development as it relates to first nation people.

One of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, John Graham of Patterson Creek Consulting, pointed out, “...public policy is always better if there is essentially good information”.

However, while this information is currently provided to the department, it cannot be shared in any meaningful way to promote this kind of public discussion. We want that conversation to occur between community members and their government. We, as a department or a minister, would prefer not to get involved in it. This goes to the very essence of self-governance, that conversation taking place between those two constituents and not having the department and/or minister involved in it.

The public disclosure of financial information of first nations governments has another benefit of increasing the confidence of potential investments. That level of transparency, with more complete and accurate information about potential partners, joint ventures that we are hearing about and exciting business development on reserve can flourish when these kinds of building blocks are put in place in the first nation people around the concepts of governance in an effort to put it out there to their community members and to the public.

In particular, I am thinking of the potential for business parties to engage in what we know has the potential to be flourishing new relationships in all kinds of first nations communities, particularly in the isolated communities of the great Kenora riding and Timmins—James Bay. Some of these communities are landlocked by good economic opportunities. They are finding ways to do that. We are working in partnership with them, with small business centres across our vast region. We look forward to a more integrated level of participation by first nations communities in our resource sector and the likes. These kinds of businesses want to understand what the financial positions of their first nations governments are and build on the strength of that relationship, from things like that.

We see this as an opportunity to further develop relationships with the private sector in addition to strengthening the relationship with the private sector to strengthen their economy.

The second thing I would like to say on the subject of reporting requirements, which was mentioned earlier, is that there is no mention in this bill of the burden currently facing first nations when it comes to reporting. First nations already have to produce consolidated financial statements each year, which are audited by an independent, accredited professional auditor as a requirement of their funding agreements with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, or AANDC.

The bill's objective is to increase transparency and accountability, requiring that these financial statements be disclosed to members of the first nations community as well as the general public. Once these practices become the norm, first nations will be in a much better position to prove that they deserve to benefit from more flexible funding arrangements. The purpose of the bill is to increase the financial transparency of first nations government, although we do expect this to reduce the reporting burden for many first nations in the medium and long term. This is not an immediate priority.

Bill C-27 is going to deal with the residual issues we have heard from some important stakeholders. We have heard from grassroots citizens across the country, the Peguis First Nation, first nations communities out in Nova Scotia and community members from the great Kenora riding, to name a few.

The private sector is excited about new relationships with first nations communities. We appreciate the critical mass of first nations communities that have chosen to lead by example and demonstrate to other orders of government processes for accountability. This includes furnishing these documents by way of public access, typically on the Internet for their members, disclosing salaries, honoraria and expenses associated with the operations of the chief and council specifically and ensuring information about community infrastructure and decision making would be easily accessible and available via the Internet and elsewhere as applicable.

Our government is not only confident that the bill will be supported by most first nations members seeking to improve the transparency and accountability of their band governments, but we also believe that first nations elected officials will welcome this opportunity, through the bill, to demonstrate that they are already operating as accountable governments. The next important step is simply to supply that information to their constituent members.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Mr. Speaker, for the public watching, Bill C-27 would:

...[provide] a legislative basis for the preparation and public disclosure of First Nations' audited consolidated financial statements and of remuneration, including salaries and expenses, that a First Nation or any entity that it controls pays to its elected officials.

Also, it would require that this information is published “...on a website maintained by or for the First Nation,...”. This is from the legislative summary prepared for this House.

I have proposed three amendments to this bill and I will speak specifically to those three amendments. One of them would delete the short title because, as always, the titles are often misleading. When we are talking about financial accountability and transparency, one would expect that the government would provide resources so first nations would have the ability to do some of the things that are being requested of them, and that there would have been adequate consultation before this bill was put forward.

The two sections of the bill that I propose deleting include clause 11. This clause of the bill allows “...any person...may apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council to carry out the duties under that section...”. Through the bill, an additional burden is being placed on first nations by allowing members of the general public to take a first nation to court if they do not feel that the information is published as required under the legislation. Nobody would argue that leadership in first nations should not be accountable to their own members but the bigger concern is having anybody being able to put this additional burden on first nations.

The third clause that I suggest we delete is the administrative measures clause. It would vest far too much power with the minister. This would allow the minister to “...withhold moneys payable as a grant or contribution to the First Nation...” if they are in breach of the legislation, and that the minister would be able to “...terminate any agreement referred to in paragraph (b)“. We would see more power being vested in the minister, which is a dangerous trend that we see throughout the current government.

I will touch on where this legislation came from and why we as New Democrats have some serious problems with it. In the legislative summary, it is pointed out that currently first nations communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and that in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required by the federal government. In December 2006, the Auditor General pointed out that “...AANDC alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations, [and the Auditor General] concluded that the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.

Any of us who have first nations communities in our ridings can attest to the fact that we have serious problems in many communities, whether it is housing, drinking water or education, and we continue to see these problems grow. The government has not committed the resources, the attention or the building of the relationship to ensure some of these problems are dealt with.

The reporting burden on first nations is not new information. In 1996, the Auditor General issued a report dealing about the reporting, and that has gone on report after report. It is not just first nations and the Auditor General who are talking about the problems. We also have a Conservative blue ribbon panel from December 2006 which wrote a report entitled, “From Red Tape to Clear Results”. In that report, the panel devoted a special section to the first nations, Inuit, Métis and other aboriginal organizations.

The report states:

The panel is of the view that mechanisms other than grants or contributions for the funding of essential services such as health, education and social assistance in reserve communities are needed....

It went on to say:

[W]e were reminded that the current practice of treating these kinds of transfers to First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Aboriginal organizations as more or less standard contribution arrangements is fraught with problems and leads to a costly and often unnecessary reporting burden on recipients.

That was the Conservatives' own panel and we have not seen the kind of action needed to deal with these reporting requirements. The assistant auditor general appeared at committee with a prepared statement on October 29, 2012. He stated:

At that time, we met with first nations and were told that they were willing to explore ways to ensure that the information needs of Parliament were met, and they stressed the importance of internal accountability. From their perspective, accountability is non-hierarchical and is based on shared objectives. They stated that the reporting framework was of limited value to them, was onerous, and did little to enhance accountability to the community.

That is a very important point because the bill is being sold as enhancing accountability in communities. If I have an opportunity, I am going to read a statement by the Canadian Bar Association about why simply posting numbers on a website does not necessarily enhance reporting accountability within communities. I am sure many people in the House could speak to the fact that we also need resources provided to communities so that community members actually have the knowledge to interpret the financial statements.

Financial statements, in and of themselves, do not speak to whether people are getting good results for their dollars. They are not talking about benchmarking the number of houses built, the number of children attending school or the number of people who now have access to clean drinking water. A financial statement does not provide that information. People say that by putting numbers on a website, accountability is somehow miraculously going to occur.

First nation leadership and community members would all agree that it is important to have accountability between chiefs and councils and their membership. The Assembly of First Nations back in 2006 produced a position paper entitled, “Accountability for Results”, which contains numerous suggestions about how accountability could be improved both from the federal government to first nations, because that is one accountability measure that is currently not in place, and second, from chiefs and councils to their memberships. It was an amendment the NDP proposed, but of course, it was voted down.

One of the proposals that the Assembly of First Nations made was that there should be an ombudsperson. The proposal stated:

[First Nations]-led and [First Nations]-specific institutions will be needed, as First Nation citizens must be empowered to hold both their local government and the Government of Canada to account. Such institutions include an Ombudsperson's office, so that individuals have a trusted venue to pursue accountability concerns outside of either the local or federal governments. They would also include a First Nations Auditor General who could both provide ongoing advice to assist [First Nations] governments in providing accountability and, at the same time, improve accountability by exposing problems and recommending solutions.

First nation leadership across this country has been at the table consistently proposing solutions to the government and the government has failed to act on any of them. One of the big sticking points about this piece of legislation is the fact that there was not appropriate consultation. I would be remiss if I did not quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Once again there is a piece of legislation before the House that does not have that free, prior and informed consent. One would think, given that the government almost a year ago committed to a new relationship, that it would have that free, prior and informed consent before bringing legislation forward. We are seeing bill after bill being introduced in the House without that kind of consent.

In fact, an official from the department yesterday talked about omnibus Bill C-45, clauses 206 to 209 in division 8, and said that it was fine for the government to go ahead without that free, prior and informed consent because, after all, they were just technical amendments. That is simply not good enough in this day and age. If the government is committed to a new relationship, it should make sure that it goes beyond engagement and consults with first nation communities across this country and ensures that legislation is what first nations are asking for.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-27. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-27, entitled “First Nations Financial Transparency Act”. The committee has studied the report and has decided to make amendments to this report. Therefore, I report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It is so moved, and unfortunately, we may not see.... It may be less predictable, because I have a ruling on this particular motion.

Bill C-27 enhances the financial accountability and transparency of first nations. This amendment proposes to restrict public access to certain disclosures to members of the first nations only.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the creation of a restriction to the act is contrary to the public principle of the Bill C-27; therefore, it is inadmissible.

Amendment NDP-13 is the next that we'll consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

NDP-8 and LIB-7, colleagues, are pretty well identical. As a result, I have a ruling that relates to both of them.

Bill C-27 enhances the financial accountability and transparency of first nations. This amendment proposes to create an exemption in the application of the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that is referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In my opinion as the chair, the amendment would create an exemption in the application of the act where it does not currently exist and is contrary to the principles of Bill C-27. The act should apply to all first nations. It is, therefore, inadmissible.

That deals with both NDP-8 and LIB-7.

There being no additional amendments to clause 4, I will call the vote.

(Clause 4 agreed to [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, it would be helpful in the future if you'd indicate by showing your hand if you are in fact in favour or opposed.

(On clause 5—Accounts and consolidated financial statements)

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Well, if there's willingness to work together in this way to consider all three together, I then can make a ruling, and that will save us some time.

Seeing that generally everyone is willing to move forward in that direction, here is my ruling.

Bill C-27 enhances the financial accountability and transparency of first nations. The amendment seeks to create the office of the first nation ombudsman. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, as stated on pages 767 and 768:Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In my opinion as the chair, in seeking to create the new office of first nations ombudsman, this amendment would certainly infringe on the financial initiative of the crown, and therefore I rule that this amendment is inadmissible. There certainly would be a financial consideration to it.

That is my ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I call this meeting back to order. We are now going to move into clause-by-clause study of Bill C-27.

Colleagues, before we get started, we have some housekeeping. Any deck distributed before today's meeting should be taken off the table and discarded, because we don't want people using other materials as reference in the numbering of the amendments. I say that as a point of clarification because I know other decks were distributed earlier.

There was a circulation of an amended amendment. I think you will have received it. It's in regard to amendment G-1. There was a technical glitch in the printing of the original one in the deck, and therefore the corrected one has been included there. To clarify, the G-1 that's part of the deck can be removed and replaced with the one just distributed. I'm hoping that I'm not muddying the waters more than I need to before we get started, because it's going to get muddy as we go.

Colleagues, we now move into the clause-by-clause portion.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), we postpone clause 1 as the final clause to be considered because it is the short title. What we do with the bill in the ensuing hours will determine whether it's the correct short title. We then move to clause 2.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

I believe the government had an amendment, amendment G-1, that was recirculated independent of the deck. It’s the two pieces of paper that were distributed separately from the deck.

Mr. Rickford, go ahead.

[Brenda Kustra]

As you know, Bill C-27 started as a private member's bill, Bill C-575 under Madam Kelly Block. In the Speech From the Throne, the government indicated its intention to bring it forward as a government bill. There was no additional external consultation that took place prior to the introduction of Bill C-27.

[Brenda Kustra, Director General, Governance Branch, Regional Operations Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Over the last few weeks, the committee members have heard from a number of witnesses who have shared a variety of perspectives on Bill C-27. These presentations have been reviewed, and this afternoon, I would like to address some of the issues and comments that emerged.

To begin with, this afternoon I would like to remind the committee of the overall objective of Bill C-27, which is to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations.

As the committee has heard from witnesses, first nations governments are certainly seen as governments by their own members. They are to be treated as governments for the purposes of financial reporting, as you have also heard from the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association.

As we all know, governments in Canada, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, must adhere to legislation that ensures that financial statements of the government and its entities, including those regarding the remuneration paid to its elected leaders, are shared with the public—governments, that is, with the exception of first nations governments, which operate under the Indian Act.

Bill C-27 will simply address this gap. In doing so, this bill also addresses a situation in which the lines of accountability between first nations councils and their own members are also blurred.

As the minister stated in his opening remarks to this committee, if a first nations member cannot access the financial information relating to his or her band, that individual can ask the department to release the information, and each year, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada receives requests such as this from first nations individuals looking for basic financial information relating to their community.

They should be able to have access directly from their band. Although, as the minister indicated, the department does not formally record statistics on the number of requests we receive, some of our regional offices have as many as 25 to 30 such requests each year. Legislation that ensures this information is easily accessible to everyone will remove the minister and the department from the equation in all of these cases, thereby promoting more direct lines of accountability between first nations leaders and their members. In short, Mr. Chair, this bill aims to shift the accountability bargain between first nations governments and their communities.

In addition to requests for documents, the department receives formal complaints regarding the potential mismanagement or misappropriation of band funds and remuneration of officials. Since January 2011, there have been approximately 250 such complaints. There are also more serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing with respect to financial management.

This is not to suggest in any way that first nations are mismanaging their finances, or are not accountable to their members. In fact, there are many examples of first nations—some of whom you have heard from as witnesses over the last few weeks—who are not only meeting the basic expectations, but also exceeding them.

Unfortunately, however, many remain who are not, as these requests and complaints demonstrate. With greater transparency provided by this bill, many of these requests and complaints would likely not be necessary, as information would be readily available to the public.

The transparency around publication of remuneration and expenses will remove the speculation that currently exists and dispel the rumours around the salaries of first nations leaders. This bill would also mean that first nations individuals would no longer feel intimidated, in a manner graphically described to you by the representatives of Peguis Accountability Coalition and others, in challenging their governments on how their money is being spent or simply asking for copies of a band's financial statements.

The transparency as a result of this bill will advance the discussion around accountability between a first nations chief and council and its members. This bill would also mean that all Canadians would see the reality of how first nations governments are funded. As Jody Wilson-Raybould stated in her appearance before this committee, and I quote: ...having consolidated financial statements and disclosing revenue or investments does, for the most part, actually recognize and expose the reality of what our first nations are having to bear in terms of supporting our own governments beyond the federal transfers....

This would promote the kind of public discussion about the ways in which first nations governments can be supported in the future.

As another of your witnesses, John Graham of Patterson Creek Consulting, pointed out, “...public policy is always better if there is essentially good information.” While this information is currently provided to my department, it cannot be shared in a meaningful way to promote this kind of open discussion.

One important element needing to be underscored is that this bill would address the existing gap in transparency without increasing the number of reports a first nation must produce. This committee has heard about the reporting burden that first nations continue to face. The minister, during his appearance before the committee, described the efforts the department has taken in recent months, and will continue to take in the months ahead, to reduce this burden. It is therefore critical that the approach taken to ensure financial transparency of first nations government does not add to this problem.

Mr. Chair, this bill does not add to the problem. Instead, this bill simply ensures that some of the critical documents already submitted to the department as part of the first nations funding agreement are made available to the public. Some of your witnesses—for example, Mr. Harold Calla—from the first have suggested that other documents, such as annual reports, would be more appropriate to be publicly available. Certainly there is nothing in this bill that precludes doing this.

While first nations are not currently required to prepare annual reports to the department, many first nations do prepare them and share them with their community members. Nevertheless, applying this approach to all first nations would represent, for many, an increase to the number of documents they are required to produce.

However, Mr. Chair, I must advise that the department is examining ways to move forward on an approach that can be characterized as “one application, one agreement, one report, and one audit”. This approach would involve transforming the department's transfer payment system to ensure that it focuses on the recipient, reduces administrative burden, and integrates sound management practices. Specific elements of this work include continuing the advancement of our approaches to risk management; exploring opportunities to develop common, simplified transfer payment administration systems; standardizing contribution agreements among federal departments; and having a common reporting framework and single-recipient audits. Bill C-27 would complement this work.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-27 may be seen by many progressive first nations as an opportunity to put in place or expand upon their own practices, which aim to enhance overall accountability of their government. In this way the bill serves as a catalyst for change in many communities, which will lead to greater confidence in first nations governments. Greater confidence and transparency result in increased opportunities for flexible, multi-year agreements, which come with opportunities for streamlined reporting.

Finally, Mr. Chair, much has been said about the treatment of band-owned businesses in this bill. To be very clear, the intention of the bill has always been to put into legislation the same practices with respect to the treatment of band entities as are currently in place in the funding agreements. It is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nations members as owners of those businesses but others as well, to see summary statements that capture the activities of their government.

While we would encourage first nations to provide as much detail as possible to their membership about the specifics of band-owned entities, the overall objectives of the bill do not require it. The financial information of those entities that are considered to be part of the first nation's overall economic activities will be aggregated. We believe this will be enough, albeit a minimum.

Both the determination of which entities are to be included and the manner in which their financial information is presented will be established not by the department but by the standards set by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, as well as by those of the Public Sector Accounting Board. This ensures that the same standards that apply to businesses owned by other governments in Canada will apply to first nations governments in precisely the same way.

The challenge, however, has been to find language that balances both the need for precision in legislative drafting with accounting concepts that are both complex and dynamic.

We understand that the committee has received suggestions from witnesses with respect to how these provisions could be made clearer, and we look forward to seeing the results of your consideration of this matter.

I would now be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I call the meeting to order.

This is the 49th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our study on Bill C-27.

Today we have officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have Ms. Kustra, Mr. Jacques, and Mr. Francis.

Thank you for joining us again. We appreciate your willingness to come.

We are going to turn it over to you for your opening statements, after which we will turn it over to our colleagues for questions. Thanks so much again for being here and for taking this time out of your day.

We'll listen to your opening statements, and then I'm certain there will be questions.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

In your opinion, what was the core objective of Bill C-27? What target group was meant to benefit from this bill?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

And remuneration as well. Okay.

Further to that, because Bill C-27 would require the public disclosure of financial information, including personal information, am I correct that once this information is publicly available, the personal information would no longer be subject to the use and disclosure requirements under sections 7 and 8, respectively, of the Privacy Act and that other parts of the Privacy Act would continue to apply?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

You alluded to this in your statement, Ms. Stoddart, but I'm just going back to it. Section 8 of the Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information unless an individual consents. Then you went on with regard to paragraph 8(2)(b), where disclosure is authorized by a federal statute or regulation. In other words, if this bill were to pass, the minister would be allowed to disclose specific salaries for the purposes set out in Bill C-27. Part of that disclosure will be through a website. I'm going to suspect that is part of it.

I wonder if you could expound a bit more on that. I believe that what you've said is correct, but the disclosure of specific salaries would not only be to the ministry, but also to the public. Is that correct?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks for coming today.

I really respect the role you play. As a retired member of the RCMP, I recognize the privacy issues that come up from time to time and the importance of ensuring that certain information is protected, to protect those you may be putting in harm's way from time to time, but I also recognize the importance of being accountable to the public. Bill C-27 aims to do that.

I am curious: in what way does the Privacy Act apply to first nations governments? Is there anything that applies to first nations governments through the Privacy Act now?

[Patricia Kosseim]

Under our contribution program, we funded research that was conducted out in B.C., I believe. It had to do more specifically with electronic health records in the context of aboriginal groups, and it explored this concept of group privacy as it could be applied to aboriginal peoples. Of course, our laws are silent on the concept of group privacy and are founded on the notion of individual privacy.

To go back to the question of different stakeholder groups, one of the fundamental principles, really, is the need to know and the need to divulge information necessary for the objective of the bill or of the program or of the initiative. The framework the commissioner presented allows you that flexibility to look at the kind of distinction you're making between different stakeholder groups: what they need to know, for what purposes, what are the broader policy objectives, and what are the least privacy-invasive ways of achieving those objectives.

Although we've presented it for Bill C-27 as it exists, there are many subtleties and distinctions that, in your wisdom, you may choose to make that will give you at least the framework, the tools, to deal with those questions.

Coming back to the concept of different stakeholder groups and different measures of accountability, depending on the ultimate purpose, those are the kinds of formulae that, as I said, in your wisdom parliamentarians could apply in a flexible way.

[Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting me.

Honourable members of the committee, I am here today to speak to you regarding Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations.

As you know, Bill C-27 will require that first nations chiefs and councillors provide an audited schedule of remuneration every year to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This schedule will underline moneys paid by the first nation, or any entity it controls, to its chief and each of its councillors, acting in either their official or their personal capacity. The bill would require that first nations publish this schedule on their websites and make copies available to anyone upon request. Additionally, the minister would be required to publish this schedule on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's website.

While I understand that there are existing reporting arrangements in place for many first nations, C-27 would effectively harmonize all reporting to the department and provide a legislative basis for proactively disclosing this information publicly on the Internet.

Our office's own mandate is the Privacy Act, which applies to federal public sector organizations. While the Privacy Act has been considered quasi-constitutional, some of its provisions may be superseded by other acts of Parliament. For instance, as a general rule, personal information under the control of a government institution cannot be disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom it relates. As the law stands today, specific salaries are considered personal information within the meaning of the Privacy Act, and they cannot be publicly disclosed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development without consent. However, the Privacy Act does exceptionally allow for disclosure of personal information without consent where authorized to do so by another act of Parliament. In other words, if the bill before you were to pass, the minister would be allowed to disclose specific salaries for the purposes set out in Bill C-27.

The privacy issue before you is therefore not one of lawfulness, but one of principle. Bill C-27 invokes two equally important democratic principles—accountability and privacy. The question is, how should these two values interplay to minimize adverse impacts and maximize democratic capital for Canadians?

I will now discuss existing salary disclosure regimes.

Transparency and accountability are principles that my office takes very seriously. I have, along with Canada's other federal, provincial and territorial Access to Information and Privacy Commissioners, signed a joint resolution endorsing and promoting open government as a means to enhance transparency and accountability. These are essential features of good governance and critical elements of an effective and robust democracy.

In considering this bill, I note that there is a distinct trend in Canada towards publicly disclosing the salaries of elected officials along with other senior officials paid from the public purse. When money comes from taxpayers, the expectation of transparency increases as the level of responsibility or salary associated with a position increases.

At the federal level, the precise salaries of elected officials such as the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament and other positions are disclosed every year by the Parliament of Canada on its Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances Internet page. Furthermore, pay ranges for public service positions are also made public.

Similarly, in Quebec, the salaries of elected officials are published by the National Assembly. The specific salaries of Quebec's public servants, by contrast, are not disclosed to the public although those of high-ranking officials can be made available through access request.

In Ontario, the specific salaries of elected provincial officials are made publicly available; while only public servants paid $100,000 or more per year have their name, salary and amount of taxable benefits disclosed in yearly reports. Other provinces, including British Columbia and Manitoba, also use salary thresholds as a basis for triggering public disclosure requirements of senior elected officials.

There are no comparable regimes that currently cover all first nations across Canada. Bill C-27 would put in place a uniform standard for publicly disclosing remuneration of elected officials, among other public reporting requirements, in more than 600 first nations. Its impact on the privacy of these officials therefore requires careful analysis and consideration.

In the final part of my presentation I will speak about the appropriate privacy analysis framework.

Along these lines, my office has a long-standing practice of examining the privacy risks posed by a particular initiative by applying a privacy analysis framework, and its elements can be summarized by four key questions: One, is the measure demonstrably necessary to meet a specific need? Two, is it likely to be effective in meeting that need? Three, is the loss of privacy proportional to the need? And four, is there a less privacy-invasive way of achieving the same end?

The first question evaluates whether the proposed measure is required to achieve a particular policy object. In most cases, the answer to this question is positive, and the current case is, at first sight, no exception to the rule. Financial transparency of public moneys paid to elected officials and senior government officials is an important objective that may very well warrant a legislative measure to ensure more uniform reporting requirements than is currently the case and ultimately enhance public accountability and transparency.

The second question considers whether the proposed measure will be successful in achieving the stated policy goal. There may be instances where the proposed measure may not be particularly effective in achieving the objectives for which it was designed. Given the complexity of the native governance architecture, I would respectfully submit to this committee that I may not be the right person to answer this question. In this instance, I would rather defer to the discerning assessments of experts well versed in aboriginal issues.

The third question, which focuses on proportionality, is critical to assessing the privacy impact of a proposed measure. It essentially functions as a sort of balancing test to help determine whether the potentially harmful effects on privacy of individuals is outweighed by the salutary effects of the proposed measures. At this step it is important to identify all the potential privacy implications of the proposed measures, the number of affected individuals, and the extent of the privacy laws. Then one can make a more enlightened determination as to whether or not the public policy benefits of the proposed measure, in this case greater and more uniform public disclosure requirements of first nations, outweigh the adverse privacy impacts on individual chiefs and councillors.

As parliamentarians, you may find that proactive disclosure of exact salaries, in addition to all of the other public reporting requirements, exceeds the incremental benefits this may yield in terms of enhanced public accountability and transparency. On the other hand, if disclosing salaries of elected officials is becoming a widely adopted trend in Canada, as appears to be the case, it may well be considered reasonably in line with public expectations and proportionate to disclose the salaries of chiefs and councillors as well.

The fourth and final step seeks to determine whether the proposed measure can be substituted by another measure that might have a less adverse effect on privacy. This is a time to consider whether there are different options that could yield similar results, but in a less privacy-intrusive way. For instance, disclosing salary ranges or aggregate salary amounts for relevant groups, as opposed to specific salaries of individuals, could prove just as effective in achieving enhanced transparency and accountability without incurring the corresponding loss of individual privacy.

To conclude, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the importance of these considerations in the proposed legislation. Finding the right balance between achieving stated policy objectives and the protection of privacy can be a complex and difficult undertaking. I hope this analytical framework I have presented is useful to you in your deliberations.

I and my senior general counsel will be happy to try to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we're going to call this 48th meeting to order, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue our review of Bill C-27.

We have the privilege of having two witnesses from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We have the Privacy Commissioner herself, Jennifer Stoddart. Thank you so much for joining us. Joining her will be Patricia Kosseim. I hope that's somewhere close to the pronunciation of your last name. We do apologize when we get those wrong.

You're no stranger to committees, Ms. Stoddart. We'll begin with your opening statement for approximately ten minutes, and then we'll start our questioning for the next little while. I will turn it over to you.

I must thank you for making your time available to our committee.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you very much for your input.

I think it's fine for the other side to talk about accountability and transparency, but that's all they've been doing. Again, if there have been 200 complaints, there hasn't been any indication of whether this was from one person, two people, or three people. To say we're acting on all of these complaints without really being transparent as to how many people have made that complaint I think is not really going in the right direction. It's not providing the proper information for people to make a decision on a bill that's so important.

You answered one question that I had, which was whether Bill C-27 would result in reductions in reporting requirements. If I remember correctly from your initial report, you indicated it would actually add to the administrative burden.

Mr. Clarke mentioned all of these expenses that had been incurred, and some that may have been reimbursed. However, I think when you're looking from first nation to first nation—and it would depend from chief to chief, or council, as to whether they are actively involved in doing other things—you can't really say, “Oh my gosh, he spent $30,000 and this one only spent $10,000.” One chief may have been very active. I think we have to be careful as to how these expenses are done up.

There is a piece in here about the fact that they could be denied funding if they don't divulge this information and they don't have it on the website. For someone who has provided all the information to a department that they have actually used the money wisely, I wonder whether they should be denied that funding in order to continue the business of the day for their first nation. Have you seen this occur on a municipal basis, for example, where a municipality has not put down the breakdown of whatever on their website. Should they be denied funding? Do you think that is equal?

Based on the information you've provided, it's almost as if this is not equal to what is already happening out there, and it's kind of discriminatory.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Goodtrack and Mr. Soonias, for attending here.

Actually, it's kind of ironic that Soonias is your last name, as it means “money” in the Cree language, and here we are talking about first nations transparency and governance, and about money, trying to be good government and trying to make first nations accountable in terms of how the money is being handled, for one.

Mr. Goodtrack, having a first nations background myself, coming from Muskeg Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan, and, too, having a background in the RCMP, I have seen the worst of the worst and I have seen the best of the best in terms of transparency and accountability. Some try but don't succeed. Others just blatantly reject all notions of being transparent and being accountable.

I find that very frustrating, with today's technology. For instance, in my first nation community of Muskeg Lake, they do their yearly report on their band website. They take added measures to have a meeting on their first nation community with their band membership. I live off reserve, and I don't have access. But they also try to make arrangements to meet with individuals in Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Prince Albert to tell them what is going on with the financial aspect of the day-to-day business on the first nation lands and the money spent.

I understand that the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association started back in 1999. You currently have 1,500 members, with 136 aboriginal certified financial managers. But there are 633 first nations out there. It's a tough void to fill and to get the proper training, for one.

I was reading an article from the Globe and Mail, going back to February 26, 2012, where it quotes you as saying that your members were fine with Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. It quotes you further:

“We're all for that,” he said. “We believe in accountability.”

I agree with that sentiment, but you look at issues, and....

I've had to investigate first nations reserves. It's not fun, for one, trying to understand the practices and the.... I'm not an auditor. I'm not a profound...to say I'm good at it, but to look at financial audits....

But I look at an incident in the interior of British Columbia back in 2004, 2009, with the Anahim First Nation. Over five years, an amount of $284,000 in wages and bonuses and contract fees was spent by the chief; $111,000 was spent on wage reimbursements for travel, some without proper documentation; $28,000 was paid to relatives of the chief; $21,000 was used in band funds for the chief and council to purchase vehicles; and $10,000 in rental fees was paid back for the rental of the vehicles that the band purchased, back to the council.

This is where I'm coming from. You mentioned, and it was already mentioned by Mr. Seeback, that you have first nations individuals coming forward asking for the information that the chief and council have refused to release. They try; they go through the access to information and privacy acts. But under section 10 of the Indian Act, they have to release their identity.

They're afraid for their well-being, for their safety, because of reprisals—such as for homes—or repercussions through other measures—such as for potential jobs—or their family could be punished, or there could be physical challenges to their safety.

I look at this and I.... It's confusing. This is a very, very sensitive issue where, yes, your testimony here today could hopefully add some insight.

In what ways, if any, might Bill C-27 modify existing first nations accountability relationships?

Hopefully, I can get some clarification on that.

[Terry Goodtrack, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada]

First of all, I would like to thank the Auditor General's office for presenting. Certainly, at AFOA Canada, we believe in many of the things the Auditor General said. We appreciate following the Office of the Auditor General.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chair, committee members, colleagues, and friends for this opportunity to speak on the substance of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

My name is Terry Goodtrack, and I am the president and chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada, or AFOA Canada. With me is Dana Soonias, who is the AFOA Canada chair.

It is the views of the AFOA Canada membership and these views alone that I express.

The Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada is a non-political, not-for-profit organization. Our mission is to contribute to aboriginal social and economic prosperity by building a professional workforce that supports effective governance and administration. The bill before this committee speaks to goals that are at the very core of AFOA Canada's mandate. AFOA Canada not only agrees with the principles of transparency and accountability, but has spent over a decade developing capacity development tools and products to advance these principles in all aboriginal communities across Canada, including Inuit, Métis, and first nations communities.

Our resources and products include education, certification programs, and the development and promotion of aboriginal finance and management credentials, including the certified aboriginal financial manager, or CAFM, designation. The CAFM designation is based on rigorous competency and ethical standards and a combination of education and experience requirements. It is quickly becoming the preferred designation for aboriginal finance and management professionals. We're very pleased to be able to say this, and pleased also to have been approached by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants to weigh in on the CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook as it relates to first nations reporting.

As mentioned by the Auditor General's office in 2009, a number of AFOA Canada professionals were part of a study group on financial reporting by first nations. This group of AFOA Canada professionals and other interested parties, including the Office of the Auditor General, recommended to the CICA that the common government reporting model described in the CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook should apply to first nations governments.

Unfortunately, this is the first opportunity AFOA Canada has had to participate in Bill C-27. From AFOA Canada's perspective, the underlying principles of Bill C-27 are laudable. Canadian citizens may view this proposed act as primarily a financial issue associated with fundamental principles of transparency and accountability. However, we feel as though this proposed bill touches upon broader issues, some of which have been raised here by first nations leaders. We would like to discuss these and related issues from a slightly different perspective. One question our members are asking is why this proposed bill is necessary.

The requirement for consolidated audits and disclosure of salaries, honoraria, travel, and other remuneration has been within the funding agreements between first nations and the federal government for over 15 years. It is included within an AANDC document entitled the Year-end Financial Reporting Handbook, with which first nations must comply. Failure to comply means that the federal government withholds funding from the first nation. When we examine the requirement for preparing and disclosing consolidated audits, a question arises when these audits are considered under the lens of accountability. That question is this: accountability to whom, and for what?

We've heard our members working in first nations communities clearly state that they have no disagreement with providing consolidated audits and salary disclosures for their members. This is the primary accountability of first nations. In terms of the accountability relationship between first nations and the crown, our first nations members have no issue with providing financial information on the funds provided by the federal government. Why is it necessary to disclose to the federal government, or to the general public, including potential competitors to first nations businesses, those funds that are not provided by federal government transfers, such as own-source revenues?

It should be noted, however, that first nations do provide consolidated audits to the federal government because it is a requirement within the funding agreement and in the year-end reporting handbook. However, the federal government cannot disclose this information to the general public because it is protected as confidential under another piece of government legislation called the Access to Information Act.

I bring to your attention the Sawridge decision, which may have some bearing on this issue.

In terms of comparability, I ask, does this act hold first nations to a higher standard, a lower standard, or to the same standard as other like entities?

The schedules of salaries, honoraria, and travel of different levels of government have different models. Some, such as those of the Province of Ontario, have a threshold where salaries must be disclosed over $100,000, with taxable benefits, or there are the municipalities within the Province of British Columbia, where the remuneration over $75,000 is disclosed.

In terms of when audits are due, first nations are required to finalize and submit their audits 120 days after the fiscal year-end, which is July 29. Yet the Province of Ontario tables their public accounts before the assembly 180 days after year-end, except in extraordinary circumstances. The federal government must lay the public accounts before the House of Commons on or before December 31.

The current bill reads that the requirement is that a first nation's consolidated audit shall remain accessible to the public on an Internet site for 10 years. We are uncertain why this length of time was chosen.

We would like to discuss another issue, the issue of administrative burden. As stated earlier, consolidated audits have been a requirement since the mid-1990s. This is a generally accepted accounting principle in accordance with the CICA handbook. As mentioned earlier, AFOA Canada was part of recommending to the CICA's Public Sector Accounting Board that the first nations adopt the common government reporting model.

There is, however, a second document produced by AANDC that further defines additional administrative financial reporting, entitled the Year-end Financial Reporting Handbook, as amended from time to time. The additional schedules are introduced through this document, and many times at the very last minute, to accommodate the different funding mechanisms used by the federal government. The last introduction of these schedules was released May 2012 and applied retroactively to the previous year. This caused confusion among our members on what was actually required.

AFOA Canada was not involved in providing input to these financial schedules. When I review the requirements of the schedule of salaries, honoraria, travel, and other remuneration for the first nation or by any entity it controls, I can see that this will add to administrative costs.

Further clarification is required on what “including their personal capacity” actually means within the proposed bill, or whether this is an audited schedule. The act does not specify that it should be an audited schedule, yet the AANDC's year-end reporting handbook requires that it receive an auditor's attestation.

These types of reporting lead to increased costs. Who pays for these additional costs?

To further complicate matters, these types of administrative burdens are being introduced at a time when the government is cutting tribal council advisory services in financial management. Who will provide advisory services to first nations if and when required?

We have also noted that there is much discussion on comparing first nations to other governments. Minister Duncan mentioned first nations governments in his testimony here as a witness, yet the words “first nations governments” are not stated within this proposed bill. We ask, why are we comparing first nations to other governments when even this proposed bill does not acknowledge first nations as governments? Without this clarity, we are concerned that this proposed bill may be wrongly construed as requiring a group of Canadians to do more than what is asked of any other group of Canadians.

Is this act necessary? Without addressing the concerns that we have raised, AFOA Canada cannot support the current Bill C-27 as written. If it is to go forward, here are some recommendations.

AFOA Canada recommends that the committee undertake the following amendments: view this proposed act through the lens of accountability, to whom and for what; ensure that first nations are not required to do more than truly comparable entities; ensure that the requirements of this proposed legislation do not increase administrative burden without ensuring that funding of these costs is a factor; ensure that AFOA Canada is involved in any changes to the year-end reporting handbook that affect first nations financial statements and that it is resourced accordingly to undertake this work; and state within this proposed legislation the word “government” after the words “first nations”.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on a very important matter.

[Jerome Berthelette, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman

I would like to thank you for inviting the office to speak about Bill C-27, an Act to Enhance the Financial Accountability and Transparency of First Nations.

With me is Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, who was formerly responsible for first nations' audits.

Since 2000, the office has tabled 16 chapters that address first nations and Inuit issues directly, and another 15 chapters that deal with issues of importance to first nations people.

In 1996, we tabled a study entitled “Study of accountability practices from the perspective of first nations”. We noted that the relationship between the first nations and the federal government had evolved from direct service delivery by the department to service delivery by first nations. As a result of this evolution, the issue of accountability presented difficulties for both parties. In particular, the accountability of that government to Parliament became more complicated as departments were no longer directly responsible for the delivery of programs at the community level.

At that time, we met with first nations and were told that they were willing to explore ways to ensure that the information needs of Parliament were met, and they stressed the importance of internal accountability. From their perspective, accountability is non-hierarchical and is based on shared objectives.They stated that the reporting framework was of limited value to them, was onerous, and did little to enhance accountability to the community.

In 2002, based in part on what we had learned from the 1996 study, we proposed our definition of accountability: a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate, review, and take responsibility for performance, both the results achieved in light of agreed expectations and the means used. We defined five principles that support an effective accountability relationship: clear roles and responsibilities; clear performance expectations; balanced expectations and capacities; credible reporting; and reasonable review and adjustment.

We noted that delivery of programs through partners creates new and complex accountability relationships. In these arrangements, accountability is shared. With respect to reporting, we suggested the need to be clear about the measurement strategy as well as the required information and how it is to be collected, verified, and analyzed, and by whom and when.

In this work, we also stated that transparency is the sustaining element of accountability; transparency implies that one can see clearly into the activities of government. Transparency and accountability mean stronger institutions and more credible government.

Also in 2002, we tabled a study on first nations reporting. We stated that reporting needs to provide meaningful information to first nations and to the federal government and that fundamental change was required to reduce the burden on first nations.

In 2011, we identified four structural impediments that limit the delivery of public services to the first nations and hinder improvements in living conditions on reserves: lack of clarity about service levels; lack of a legislative base; lack of an appropriate funding mechanism; and lack of organizations to support local service delivery.

We strongly support the principles of accountability and transparency. We hope this background on accountability will be useful to the committee as it reviews the proposed legislation.

Mr. Chair, we do not feel that our office can comment on the merits of Bill C-27. That being said, we would like to make a few remarks on some technical aspects of the bill.

First, subclause 5(1), on how first nations are to maintain their accounts, contains the expression “generally accepted accounting principles” and a reference to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants handbooks. There are currently no accounting standards in Canada that explicitly mention first nations. Although the handbooks referred to in subclause 5(1) are generally pertinent to the activities of first nations governments, they have not been designed or amended to take those particularities of the first nations situation into account.

Second, under subclause 5(2), when auditing the accounts of first nations having transactions that do not easily fit a particular standard, the auditors must assess the acceptability of the accounting framework, including the reasonableness of the accounting policies adopted by these first nations. Different auditors may come to different conclusions for similar transactions.

Third, in clause 6, the requirement for an audited or reviewed schedule of remuneration is unique. This information is normally provided as a note to the financial statements or as supplemental information in an annual report. There are no accounting standards made applicable to the preparation of this schedule of remuneration or to the auditor's report or review engagement report. Also, it is not clear who would decide, and on what basis, whether the schedule is to be audited or reviewed. This ambiguity increases the risk of confusion and inconsistent practices.

Finally, the definition of remuneration in clause 2 combines both salary and reimbursement of expenses. When other levels of government report salary and reimbursement of expenses, they do so separately. Among other things, this ensures a clear distinction between official salaries and wages and the reimbursement of travel and other expenses. For example, at the federal level, there are separate disclosure requirements for salaries and for travel and hospitality expenses.

Mr. Chair, this completes my opening remarks. We would be glad to answer any questions the committee members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I call to order this 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our review of Bill C-27.

For the first hour, we will have representatives from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. With us today are Mr. Campbell and Mr. Berthelette.

Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. You know the process. We'll turn it over to you for your opening statement of approximately 10 minutes, and then we'll turn it over to our colleagues to question you.

Mr. Berthelette, we'll turn it over to you.

[Harold Calla]

Well, first what I'm going to say is that you're making a choice, as government, through this legislation, on how you're going to approach the issue. You've chosen a bill, Bill C-27. You might have chosen to suggest that maybe everyone should pass a financial administration law that's been certified by the Financial Management Board. That's within your purview, isn't it? I think that's more encompassing.

When I look at this, it doesn't respond, I think, to the increasing need of members to understand what's going on. Never mind what happened; it's what's going on today.

[Chief Roland Twinn]

We are not a member of the Financial Management Board. What we've done, we've done under our section 35 Canadian Constitution rights, and we have done this for ourselves. Our laws are not static, they're not set in stone, and as the sophistication of membership and their requirements happen, there will be amendments. As far as we're concerned, there are several items. We have probably six or seven amendments to Bill C-27 that could allow us to do our business as we have for the last 30 or 40 years. They're in my submission here.

As far as slowing other first nations down is concerned, it's my opinion that we have to allow first nations to do things for themselves. We cannot be dictated to and say this is great for everybody. We cannot be painted with that single brush that Canada likes to paint first nations with. I'm not speaking against the Financial Management Board and the financial management act. If that is the choice of the first nations, they can do so. However, some of the things in Bill C-27 may be contrary and create an opposing interpretation, even within the nation.

I believe if we allow the membership to deal with accountability in terms of what they want, as evidenced by what's happened with our nation, they will require a high standard of accountability and transparency. When it comes to hockey tickets, I can't even get a pair of hockey tickets from a company without going to them and saying, hey, look what I've got, and offering it to the membership. That's how accountable they want us. I think our accountability standards are so much higher than what Bill C-27 does, because we also offer remedies.

[Harold Calla]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have five copies or 50 copies, but I'm going to leave with you an annual report of the Squamish Nation. It contains the audit. It does not contain, in this edition, the version that will have salaries in it, but it is prepared and the membership does have it.

This is a much more meaningful document for a member and stakeholders to look at. It's proactive. It's not reactive to a historical record of transaction activity. It talks about what you want to do for the future, what investments you've made, and what successes you're enjoying. One of the things we don't talk about is performance.

The complaints you have heard from time to time, and we hear them all the time, are: What have you done for me lately? Are you making wise investment decisions? How are you managing your risk? Do you have too much debt? But, more importantly, where are we going and what are we doing?

I would like to ask the question, and I'm going to ask it here because this is really where it has to be asked. What is the end game for Canada on the aboriginal file? What do we want? We have to sit down as aboriginal people and figure out what we want, and it might not be different in all of the places.

I think this is a much more meaningful document that can get to the membership. Yes, you can look at this financial statement, but I always like to tell the story about my great aunt. When I said I was coming to Ottawa to talk about fiscal relations, she looked at me and said, “Which one of our relations is named fiscal?” That's the gap you're dealing with between two generations. So that reality has to be faced as well. I think this kind of thing is important.

What we'd like to see is not Bill C-27; we'd like to see every first nation in this country pass a financial administration law under our standards. Those standards were developed and they're COSO standards. They're consistent with the COSO framework, which is an international framework on control management of finances that was developed after all of the fiascos in the last 15 years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. So these confidentiality agreements are exposed now, according to Bill C-27?

[Chief Roland Twinn]

Although I'll try to be brief, it's not a simple answer.

It could give competitors an unfair advantage when it comes to some of our businesses. We have a company that does brushing and clearing. I'm sure some of the larger companies that are competitors would love to be able to see where we are financially so they could put their bids in place based on that.

As well, even if Bill C-27 does make these public, so what? There are no remedies in C-27 for any wrongdoing. It's information. Basically, somebody could complain about improper business or remuneration, but there are no remedies for that. There's where we also have a problem.

Some of the things that we do as first nations, especially now with the right for consultation within the traditional territories.... We enter into agreements with some of the pipeline companies, the resource development companies, and they require us to sign confidentiality agreements as to what we are getting through the agreement. This would make it public knowledge.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Chief Twinn, this will be a bit of a lengthy introduction to a question, but I'm going to try to get through it as best I can.

Mr. Calla spoke earlier about being functional in the mainstream economy and how Bill C-27 addresses this.

There are two things. There's the Montana decision and your own decision regarding—I'll just go into it briefly:

...confidentiality of financial statements is protected because they are often consolidated statements that contain reports on private businesses owned by First Nations.

I think, Mr. Calla, you were referring to those just little while ago:

In that case, the Court held that audited financial statements, in particular statements dealing with band generated revenues, provided to the government under the Indian Act constituted confidential information within the meaning of paragraph of 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and therefore need not be disclosed to the public.

I guess you know what I'm getting at. What kind of a situation does Bill C-27 put you in as far as the sensitivities outlined here vis-à-vis privacy?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Feeding off that, with regard to that first question, what kind of information related to first nations finances would help build this trust and confidence, in your view?

Does Bill C-27, by making the audited consolidated financial statements and the schedules of remuneration more accessible to the private sector and capital markets, help achieve this?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you for your explanations.

My next question is for either one of you, or whoever feels he can best answer the question.

Would you like to see Bill C-27 amended in any way? Are there any marked improvements which should be brought to the attention of committee members?

[Shayla Point, Senior Manager, Legal and Corporate Services, First Nations Financial Management Board]

If I could just add, in my view, the difference between Bill C-27 and the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act is simply that a first nation that chooses to participate with the legislation does so by requesting to be scheduled, as Mr. Calla has indicated. This is entirely optional legislation.

We are working with several first nations. There are 633 first nations in Canada, and 98 of them have requested to be scheduled to this legislation, so it is an option that many of the first nations wish to proceed with. But Bill C-27 would apply to all first nations without having first nations wanting to make this governance decision on their own. I point that out as a major threshold difference between the two.

I want to draw your attention to the chart. I created it, so I can understand it, but for you, the first column here, Bill C-27, simply sets out every provision in Bill C-27. I endeavoured to take a look at all the standards we have created.

We have standards for the Financial Administration Act, standards for the financial management system, and we have a set of documents that are available on our website. I have looked at the specific standards from our documentation and tried to link them to what Bill C-27 is asking for. That's what the first column is: what Bill C-27 requires. Column two shows where FMB requires similar objectives for legislation.

Of course, they are not going to be identical, and as Mr. Calla pointed out, there are instances where our standards go further than what is required in Bill C-27 There are also instances where our standards do not go as far as Bill C-27.

Mr. Calla pointed out remuneration. On my chart, on page 7 under the schedule of remuneration, I've referenced certain standards for you to look at and consider later. This is where we go further. Where we don't go as far, for example, is with respect to disclosure and publication of documents on the first nations Internet site. Our standards do not require publication of these documents on the Internet site. So there are several differences where FMB standards go further and some where they don't go as far.

I invite you to look at this chart. I put considerable effort into aligning these two pieces of legislation and our FMB standards.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Calla, I will ask you several questions at once which deal with the interaction of Bill C-27 and the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

In your opening presentation, you indicated that a certain number of communities support the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and had passed laws in that regard. Could you tell us exactly how many communities did just that?

In fact, I would like to know whether, in your view, Bill C-27 would apply to first nations which have endorsed the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and which had passed laws in that regard.

Further, do you think there is a risk of inconsistency between the application of Bill C-27 as worded and the application of the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act? This is another question to find out whether there is any potential inconsistency in the application of these two pieces of legislation.

I also have questions regarding the true scope of the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act and Bill C-27. Again, in your opinion, does the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act go farther than Bill C-27?

[Chief Roland Twinn]

So even as far as a couple of $100 tickets go, I have to present that to the membership.

The members of the Sawridge First Nation have provided themselves with standards of accountability and transparency that go far beyond those available to the people of Canada. We have gone far beyond what the bill before the committee calls for. It is ironic that representatives of the Canadian people now are going to impose requirements telling Sawridge how to provide good governance.

Our chief, council, and officials are paid from the first nation's own money. No so-called taxpayers' money goes toward our governance. I say “so-called taxpayers' money” because our business generates far, far more tax revenue—which goes to both federal and provincial governments—than the much smaller amount we receive from them.

Proud as we are of our own accomplishments, we say that we have done nothing that any first nation can't do. The potential is there. The realization of that potential is the real accountability that we as leaders owe to our people. The way the federal government can enhance that potential is not by requiring disclosure; it can help reverse the history it has caused over the decades by providing encouragement, rewarding initiatives, and promoting best practices.

The approach taken by Bill C-27 simply reinforces the “great white father knows best” syndrome, rather than releasing the potential of our people. It will cause resentment rather than building relationships. But worse, it could place us at a serious competitive disadvantage. The bill would make legal something that the courts have ruled is illegal. The bill before you is not a step toward accountability and transparency, but rather is a regrettable step backwards in having good governance by first nations.

Thank you.

[Clarence Paupanekis, Councillor, Norway House Cree Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, thank you on behalf of Norway House Cree Nation for this opportunity to present on the proposed legislation, Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

My name is Councillor Clarence Paupanekis. I'm the finance portfolio holder for Norway House Cree Nation. Chief Ron Evans was unable to take part in today's proceedings; however, he thanks the committee for the invitation and sends his regards to each of you.

As one of many progressive and forward-moving first nations, Norway House Cree Nation, through its chief and council, has worked diligently over the past year and a half to develop an accountability framework, establishing sound financial management and administrative practices and providing good governance, accountability, and transparency. In doing so, Norway House Cree Nation has undertaken strategic planning, internal reorganization, centralization of finances—including the implementation of financial processes to ensure accountability—human resources and capacity building, and social and economic development analysis as well as assessments.

These exercises have been extremely critical in ensuring that we have the human and financial resources necessary to accomplish the many tasks and goals set out by our leadership as part of our strategic planning process and in response to the mandate for Norway House Cree Nation that our membership has given us.

That being said, we have secured the necessary professional capacity, with the necessary skills and experience in the areas of finance, strategic planning, policy, and external relations, to move our community forward.

It is imperative to note, however, that we did this on our own. We have brought in our own team and developed our own financial and strategic plans and have already made great strides, both in social and economic development and in putting our financial house in order.

Chief Darcy Bear, in his presentation to the standing committee last week, reiterated these same sentiments, stating that it is absolutely necessary that first nations obtain their own human resources and professional capacity. The accomplishments of his community speak to the importance of doing so.

These measures ensure that first nations establish sound financial and administrative management so that we can move forward in implementing social and economic development initiatives, including business ventures and partnerships as well as capital projects, that will allow us to generate own-source revenues and meet the needs of our community.

Furthermore, they allow us as first nations to move forward in establishing our own financial management laws, in enabling us to enter into the First Nations Land Management Act under which we have our own certified land managers, to develop land codes, and to negotiate self-government agreements, among other important initiatives.

In order to do any of the latter, a first nation must have both financial and political stability as well as credibility.

It has been recognized that one of the major setbacks for first nations is the constant turnover in leadership, which not only causes instability in our communities, but also causes setbacks in both social and economic development opportunities because of the constant need to re-establish relationships and partnerships, which are critical to providing strong leadership and governance and to accomplishing the tasks before our leaders as well as to establishing opportunities for our membership.

We are hopeful that Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, which is a community, grassroots-led initiative that first nations across the country were engaged in and were consulted on, will be passed by the House of Commons this session so that we can begin to remedy these ongoing issues.

The elements of this bill will establish the necessary foundations to assist us in developing strong accountability frameworks pertaining to elections held for those first nations who are governed by section 74 of the Indian Act—one step further in moving away from the Indian Act—as well as in implementing the mechanisms needed to address issues surrounding election processes and concerns among the membership about ineffective leadership. Further to this, Bill S-6 will remove the authority from the minister of AANDC to oversee first nations elections and appeals.

With respect to Bill C-27, although the intent of the bill with respect to enhancing accountability and transparency for first nations is good, we cannot support the bill in its current form. Like others who have come before the standing committee, we agree that several amendments are required before the legislation can proceed in the House of Commons.

Furthermore, consultation with first nations on the development of this bill has not occurred. However, this is our opportunity to provide input and address our concerns regarding the current reading of the bill. It is imperative to note that first nations members across the country have been asking for greater accountability measures from their governments, and this bill is seen as a response by the Government of Canada for those who have not yet implemented and demonstrated accountability and transparency to their membership.

We agree that accountability and transparency, both of which are pillars of good governance, are important. We as first nations government, as any government, should be required to have mechanisms in place to ensure financial accountability. However, we should be responsible for constructing our own accountability frameworks.

Bill C-27 has received much criticism from first nations as it currently reads, not because of its accountability and transparency implications, but rather due to certain elements of the bill, which would see first nations reporting much more information above and beyond the expectations of public sector accounting principles and standards.

Yes, the reality is that first nations communities receive federal funding, and as such, we have an obligation to be accountable for such funding. However, the reporting mechanisms currently in place continue to overburden our communities, as was articulated by the Auditor General in her 2006 report. This could potentially risk delivery of programs and services our communities are responsible for.

We as first nations should retain the right to choose our priorities and define our financial accountability mechanisms. Our focus should be on ensuring that the funding is in fact used in the most effective way to deliver the programs and services for our people and not spent on the numerous reports that are required to justify the funds we receive, which barely meet the needs of our community.

Furthermore, we should not be held more accountable than federal, provincial, and municipal governments are, and we certainly should not be forced to publicly disclose our audited financial statements on the Internet. It should be left to the individual communities to decide how their audited financial statements should be disseminated and to which of its stakeholders, and not for the government to dictate.

Our practice in Norway House Cree Nation is to hold a community meeting to share our audited financial statements and explain in simple terms what the financial statements read. This information is put in a format that is easily understood by our committee members. Furthermore, our membership can request a copy of the audited financial statements from the band office and members of our council and our CFO. They are all accessible to answer any questions and address any concerns regarding the statements.

Furthermore, we have implemented stringent internal financial approval and reporting processes that ensure that all directors, program managers, and administrators are accountable to our management team and CFO, who in turn report to chief and council on all financial matters. These reports are made on a regular basis to the chief and council at our monthly council meetings, and in turn are reported at our community meetings.

With respect to the disclosure of salaries for chief and council, we agree this information should be disclosed to our members. Like Whitecap Dakota First Nation, we have also done a review of all salaries across our organization and have implemented a competitive and equitable salary grid to keep our people employed within our community.

The expectation to provide a separate annual schedule of remuneration that includes the details of salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honoraria, dividends, and expenses paid by the first nation, and any entity controlled by the first nation, to the chief and/or council in their professional and personal capacity should remain internal information. Internal financial accountability with respect to prohibiting double-dipping with respect to travel and honorarium regarding committees, boards, and businesses should be at the discretion of the community. Thus, remuneration should remain consistent with the definition as outlined in the Income Tax Act.

It should also be noted that travel, and expenses related to travel, should not be associated with one salary, or wages, as it is a separate matter. Travel, especially for those who live in remote and isolated communities, continues to be costly, especially to urban centres where business meetings are most often held. Where possible, our community finds every opportunity to hold meetings within the community to reduce travel-related expenditures.

With respect to the public disclosure of private enterprises or band-owned business entities, we also agree that the public disclosure of this information could jeopardize potential partnerships and business ventures by inadvertently scoping in entities. Again, generally accepted accounting principles should be followed here, and first nations should not have to publicly disclose any more information than is the public standard.

Lastly, with regard to alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution, as well as enforcement, this should also be left to each individual community to determine and implement. Our funding agreements in their current form already contain provisions to deal with these matters. What this bill should do is support community-driven processes and provide the tools and mechanisms to support capacity development. This is what our communities and leaders should continue to seek: fairness, equity, and respect through government-to-government relationships.

We all need to be reminded that if our first nations communities prosper, we all prosper. If we work together, we can achieve great things for our communities, provinces, territories, and for our country as a whole.

Thank you again for this opportunity to address Bill C-27.

Ekosani.

[John Paul, Member, Membertou First Nation]

I'm good.

It's a pleasure to be here. I'm very pleased to come here today to represent our chief, Chief Terrance Paul, from our community of Membertou, which is my own community. Accountability, transparency, and disclosure of information to our people is very important to our leadership and all members in the community, whether it be elders, youth, young mothers, or children. Over decades our community has provided full disclosure of our complete audit, and more recently on our website, at www.membertou.ca, the complete details of compensation to all the members of council.

We do this because we believe in informing and maintaining a strong trust relationship with the entire community. Such information is essential so that all members, both on and off reserve, clearly understand what our council is doing to make their lives better and benefit all the members of our community. The legislation, Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, will have no impact on our community because we already make these disclosures as a matter of practice. We provide all this information on our public website, which is accessible to our community members and to the general public.

I do have concerns that the process will be imposed on me and others, even though we already do this. I think such strong action does impact the relationship between our community and the federal government, in particular the fairness of treatment, where everybody states that we are first nations and have a government-to-government relationship.

Secondly, I wonder about the degree to which such actions will ensure supporting our efforts to achieve self-reliance and economic independence for our community and our people. For the communities that have made this disclosure as a matter of practice for at least five years and that have strong governance and accountability, has any thought been given to perhaps exempting them from the provisions of this new act?

Another key issue is the considerable work our community has done, beyond certain land section provisions of the Indian Act, to move under the First Nations Land Management Act to further control our future. On finances, our community continues to be ISO certified, and additionally, our first nation has made further efforts to be certified by the Financial Management Board and thus to move on to access long-term financial capital from the First Nations Finance Authority.

All of this work we have done as a first nation I believe clearly demonstrates our high standard of governance and accountability. I feel we are a government and do all the things needed to build trust, credibility, and confidence in the way we work for the best interests of our community.

In addition to what we do publicly, our first nation community must also still comply with all the detailed reporting requirements as decreed by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reporting handbook, developed by AANDC alone, as per the conditions of the five-year multi-year funding agreement that we have signed with AANDC. The time my staff has to spend to complete these obligations is significant and is done at our own first nation's cost. These reporting requirements and the need for documentation seem to have increased, even though a few years ago the Conservative government committed to an improved funding relationship. The continual and increasing reporting burden on our first nation must be addressed.

This act addresses only issues of audit disclosure and disclosure of compensation of councils. Nowhere does the act help address the short two-year timeframe of councils under the Indian Act system or the issue of providing pensionable earnings for first nations leaders who have dedicated their entire lives to the service of their communities.

All the information required by the new act is already being provided by the first nations in Canada to AANDC, as per their existing funding agreements over years and decades. Only last year the issue was pushed to the forefront, and now a bill will require all first nations to comply or INAC or AANDC will release the information, and as a last resort, all funding will be stopped.

Has anybody fully looked at the implications of stopping all federal funding and the implications of cancelling a funding agreement for a first nation, or at the people in the community who are depending on these basic services, such as educational, social, infrastructure, and health services?

From my perspective, the real issue that needs action is the urgent need for full recognition and implementation of our aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights, not addressed, will continue to be real liabilities to governments.

From the starting point of our rights, our first nations communities and people would, I feel, have the needed tools to move over time from the current heavy reliance on federal funding and programs towards real economic self-reliance, at a pace that they would decide as a government. It is clear that in many of our communities high levels of poverty persist, and the lack of hope and no clear future is what all first nations leaders have to deal with every day.

The existing reserve system was created a very long time ago. The reserves were supposed to be temporary solutions to the Indian problem; we were supposed to migrate and be assimilated into society. This did not happen, and we continue to thrive and grow as a community and a people.

In our community of Membertou, we must look inward and beyond our community to get enough skilled and educated employees to do all the work that is required for the delivery of services and to pursue many aspects of business and economic development. In Membertou, we support all the community members who have pursued lifelong education and training for employment, to give each person the much-needed knowledge and skill set to succeed.

To the community of Membertou, building economic self-reliance and having a strong, accountable government are keys to ensure that we achieve the long-term goal of ensuring the well-being and continued improvement of the lives of all our people.

Thank you. Wela'lin.

[Harold Calla, Chairman, First Nations Financial Management Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

You may recall that the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act was passed in 2005 with all-party support. It was a bill that was designed to create an opportunity for first nations to access long-term public debt, to increase their revenue rates and capacity, and to be in a position where they were certified for their financial management practices and financial performance.

The world that the first nations find themselves in today is considerably different from that of previous years. Changes in generally accepted accounting principles, the need to engage the capital markets, and the opportunity to consider more complex business opportunities, both on and off reserve, require first nations to utilize skill sets that may not be currently present within the administration of many of the communities. Financial and business acumen are playing a significant role in the success or failure of engagement with the economic mainstream. Moving to the process-based decision-making model contemplated in FMB standards supports the community in the pursuit of its goals and objectives.

We have reviewed Bill C-27, and Shayla has worked over the weekend to prepare a schedule that looks at the provisions of the bill and at FMB standards.

I realize you may have just received that, but it would be appropriate at some point—at your leisure, if you're trying to get to sleep at night—that you read that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I call this 46th meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we are undertaking the continuation of our review of Bill C-27.

For my colleagues' sake, as well as for those who are attending here today, I want you to be aware that we have been notified that there is a possibility of a vote in the House of Commons, which will require all members of Parliament to return to the House of Commons for that vote once it begins.

To accommodate that vote—and, Dennis, if you would just jump in here and maybe listen—I would seek the consent of committee members to undertake something that is a bit unusual. We would hear the testimony from our first witnesses, have 10 minutes of that, and then we would bring to the table the remaining witnesses who have arrived for the second hour, just to ensure that we get on the record the testimony of all the witnesses we have here today. It would be unfortunate if we didn't at least get that on the record, considering the fact that many of our witnesses have travelled a considerable time to be here. I will see if there is consent to undertake that type of a set-up.

We will begin the questioning before the bells, if that can happen. If not, we'll possibly come back after the vote, depending on what the timeframe looks like. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Is there consent to move forward on that?

[Joseph Richard Quesnel]

One question I was asked earlier, I guess by Mr. Wilks, was about the benefit to leaders, to members, and to Canadian taxpayers. That's something that I can quickly remember that I was kind of....

The relationship we're looking at right now is not what some would term the ideal situation of self-government. That's why, when we talk about government to government, or nation to nation, when we start using that language, are we talking about what exists now or are we talking about a theoretical future?

It's important to know that Bill C-27 specifically excludes first nations who have a self-government agreement, so we can't talk about those communities that have these kinds of measures in place. Under the current Indian Act, the lines of accountability run from the chief and council to the minister and the ministry. Looking at that situation, you have to recreate relationships between members and leaders. That's what John was talking about with the tax relationship.

But on a basic level, having some kind of disclosure does try to recreate some kind of governance relationship that doesn't exist fully under the Indian Act so that band chief and council can be accountable to their members directly. That's the benefit to them. They have that sense that they're accountable, and they can go to their members and say that.

To members, same thing: it recreates that relationship that the Indian Act doesn't have and that the Indian Act undermined when it was first introduced.

When it comes to the Canadian public, it goes back to the thing about the funds—namely, are they being well spent? If you have a certain proportion of your money going towards salaries and whatnot, that's an issue that a lot of members want to know about. There are scarce funds on first nations reserves, so they want to know that information.

First nations do, and also taxpayers; we have a moral responsibility, as Canadians, to first nations, to the indigenous inhabitants of this country, and we want to make sure that the money we're sending is being well spent and is actually going to help. That's the benefit to them.

I'm just kind of.... Maybe the question came to you while I was speaking. Sorry.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I've met Chief Hudson—he's a great guy in many regards. I know your community is doing a number of large-scale projects you're having some success with. It sounds to me like there is some tension amongst community members, and that's something this committee needs to hear. There's a bit of a communication exercise we have to go through—I see some heads nodding at the panel there—so we can build on that. It's an important point for us to take.

Beyond specific information, which I think you answered in your speech, I have a couple of other important questions. First of all, does Bill C-27 address your concerns? If the answer is yes, and perhaps even if it's no, what kind of financial literacy steps have to be done for a band member such as you or anyone else to go to a given website? What would they need to see? What steps would they have to go through to be able to understand it? Not everybody can read a consolidated audited financial statement, necessarily.

I'll get that answer from you, and if there's enough time, maybe Joseph will get a minute to chime in, given his enthusiasm.

[Joseph Richard Quesnel]

The whole idea of first nations independent dispute resolution mechanisms is usually used in the context of elections and governance. The argument is that if a first nation removes itself from the Indian Act, as far as elections go, and adopts its own custom code, it can adopt its own constitution. It can actually enact accountability measures. The problem with that is that in order to enforce when there is a conflict, often one of the parties has to go to Federal Court.

Look at the Roseau River First Nation in Manitoba, where there were two elected chiefs at one point. There was a problem, and the custom council wasn't empowered to actually remove the chief who was elected under the Indian Act. That wasn't in their constitution. The Federal Court said that if they were following their own procedures, this should happen. He validated the decision of that body to remove the chief and council.

The problem is they would have to go through court in all of this. The idea is that if there is some kind of independent body before you have to go to court, then it comes from the first nation community. It's independent from that community. It's given funds to do that job.

The idea I was thinking of is that instead of...looking at this, Bill C-27, if you're trying to get a disclosure, there would be some kind of body, a regional or a national dispute resolution mechanism, first nations-led, where members could go, kind of quick and easy, to find out the information.

What might be more feasible would be an ombudsperson at the local level. There are first nations now that are setting up ombudsperson offices. Siksika Nation in southern Alberta, close to where I live, worked with the University of Lethbridge, and they set up an ombudsperson office—the independent appeal process. If there were housing disputes, hiring disputes, all these kinds of things, you could go to that.

It's independent, and it avoids all this kind of litigation and costliness.

Hopefully that answers your question. I hope the committee would be able to look into that as an alternative.

[John Graham]

No, of course, it doesn't.

That's why I'm saying in my introductory remarks that this is a fairly modest initiative. Don't get your hopes up that suddenly by passing Bill C-27 there's going to be light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, there won't be light at the end of the tunnel. These are monumental social policy issues, perhaps the most important that Canada faces, and they are very difficult. No committee, no Parliament of Canada, is going to resolve them.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

We know there are many chronic problems in many first nations communities, and in your paper entitled, “First Nation Communities in Distress: Dealing with Causes, not Symptoms”, you discussed distressed communities on the extreme end of the well-being continuum. These communities exhibit characteristics such as high levels of social pathologies, high levels of dependency on social assistance, poorly functioning government services, poor housing, rundown public infrastructure. It goes on to note problems relating to governance, little in the way of cultural activities.

My question to you again is, does Bill C-27 address these problems?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

My next question is also for you.

First nations communities in my riding and across Canada are often short on resources, and there's no secret about that. One of the main themes of Bill C-27 has been to reduce the reporting burden. In your view, how does Bill C-27 reduce the reporting burden for first nations communities? Among the first nations communities that I speak to and that are in my riding, I don't think I've had one of them say they have an easy ride when it comes to reporting. If anything, they say there's a lot of red tape they have to go through and a lot of hoops they have to go through to try to get funding, and their accountability for that to the department is quite high. I'm just wondering if you could respond to that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

That's great.

Phyllis, with respect to my question talking about salary disclosure, do you think Bill C-27 is going to adequately address that issue?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

So far, I've been quite pleased with the dialogue we've had on Bill C-27. All of the groups that have come forward have come with ideas and suggestions for this committee. That's what they are: ideas and suggestions.

The input we have received so far has promoted and fostered a good working relationship with a number of these groups, and everyone here is passionate about Bill C-27. That said, Mr. Chair, my questions will be directed toward Mr. Craig. I have a couple here, so we'll try to get through them in the seven minutes.

I wonder if you could explain to the committee how organizations such as yours can help first nations members access the financial information of their elected officials and why this legislation is important.

[Phyllis Sutherland, President, Peguis Accountability Coalition]

Thank you for having me here today.

I am here to talk about financial accountability and transparency. I would like to start by looking at the issue of access to financial information and our experiences. First, we support the legislation, Bill C-27, based on the fact that every first nations band member has a right to access financial information and it should be given in a reasonable timeframe. Information should be provided free of charge, and penalties should be put in place if first nations do not comply.

I will tell you our experience and the reality of trying to access information. ATIP forms from me and from other band members have been ignored; requests for information have also been ignored by trustees of our treaty land entitlement; and members are subjected to intimidation tactics such as fearmongering, public attacks, and attempts to destroy a person's credibility.

We make a number of recommendations. The legislation must have statements that include the protection of individual freedom to access financial information without persecution from the chief and council. An annual audit should be distributed no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year. The federal government should be present during the presentation of annual audits. A framework for financial information should be created that is accessible on the website and is easily understood by band members.

We have looked at chief and council remuneration and income from other sources. We support legislation that will put into law the requirement that chief and council be held responsible to fully disclose sources of income, not only from the band, but from other sources. We call for a full disclosure by all federally funded organizations in regard to honorariums, travel, bonuses, and per diems paid to chief and council. Chief and council should be held responsible to disclose all expenditures made on their behalf. Failure to do so should be classified as red-collar crime.

On the issue of band council resolutions, BCRs, in 2009 the chief and council signed a BCR that stated that other sources of income were to go to band support, but the evidence says otherwise. This form of corruption has to stop.

We have looked at the subject of remuneration of boards. Boards are all appointed by the chief. The injustice is that the chief controls all of these boards on the reserve.

Accountability must include proper expenditures of federal funds that are allocated for band programs. The minister must ensure that education and housing moneys are spent for intended purposes. The chief and council, according to the last audit, took over $2 million of education funding to offset the band's deficit. Once the audit comes in for this year, it's going to show I think that the band took over $4 million.

Our first nations people do not have a redress mechanism in place to call for accounting of expenditures of education and housing moneys. First nations people do not have a redress mechanism in place to question and change this practice. We call for a national, federal hearing on the treatment of first nations people by their government, chief and council.

We call for national, federal public hearings to provide an opportunity for first nations to voice concerns.

We have looked at the use of band funds for partisan politics. The chief on our reserve used band funds to pay a personal legal bill in the amount of $22,772.76. Court costs were paid on behalf of members who stole furniture during the 2007 election. In 2008, a position was made up for a Peguis School Board trustee that added $26,000 on top of her salary as trustee. There is no evidence of any work done. Federal funds were used for personal media coverage to promote the chief. Legislation should be enacted to make it illegal to use band funds for these types of political favours. This type of spending is clear malfeasance and should be treated as such.

There needs to be accountability in the election process for chief and council. Electoral officers should be appointed by a third party who has no vested interest.

I will now summarize financial matters and transparency issues.

Presently, in many situations, there is no voice for the grassroots people. There needs to be an advocacy group that they can enlist for help in calling for financial accountability and transparency.

The chief uses band funds to persecute/prosecute his own people. First nations people do not have the funds or the ability to defend themselves because in most cases they have lost their jobs for speaking out.

Those who agree with the chief's leadership are well taken care of. In some cases, they have salaries or honorariums from three or four different sources. One example is former Councillor Lloyd Sinclair, who collected a yearly salary of $64,000 as the arena manager, even though we've had no arena since March 2007, when it burned down. He also sits on various boards and as a trustee on our TLE and our surrender claim.

Lawyers and consultants are charging the band exorbitant fees. This type of corruption must stop, and those in power must be held responsible for the blatant misuse of federal funds. It has been the practice of Aboriginal Affairs to allow first nations to pay back funds that were deemed to have been misspent. In the end it is the people who are powerless, who end up feeling the brunt of the mismanagement of funds.

Leadership has to be held accountable.

Thank you.

[John Graham, Senior Executive, Patterson Creek Consulting]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think everybody has a small PowerPoint that I've prepared, so I'll just go down these six points.

The first point is that accountability appears to be a universal norm of good governance. I have never seen, in any measure of good governance, anyone dispute the notion that accountability should be right up there. Certainly in the aboriginal world, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the National Centre for First Nations Governance, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development in the United States—all of these organizations mention and highlight accountability as a measure of good governance.

Increased transparency, a key ingredient to accountability, is a trend affecting all institutions, and by that I mean in the private sector, in the NGO sector, in the charitable sector, of course, as well as in the public sector.

The second point is that despite heightened attention to accountability, complexities abound in any government in trying to realize sound accountability. One of the problems, and there are several in trying to actually implement good accountability, is essentially trying to have a good accountability story based on results. Accountability used to be focused on propriety—propriety in expenditures of money—but now accountability has clearly moved into the results arena, and that is a much more difficult, much more challenging accountability story to present.

The third point is that this, trying to have a good accountability story, is especially true for first nations, given the highly dysfunctional first nations governance system. This system is a significant barrier to realizing improved levels of well-being in these communities. I won't go into these dysfunctions, but I'm happy to answer any questions about them.

Point four is that achieving governance reform has proved to be an uphill struggle across the world, with one notable exception, at least, which may have relevance for first nations. Again, I won't go into this, but this evidence is really based on the World Bank, which monitored some 200 countries across the world over a 10-year period. Over that time, despite billions of dollars being spent on trying to improve good governance, it concluded that the overall quality of governance in these countries, on average, had not improved. That's over a decade.

Because of this record, and because Bill C-27 is a very modest initiative, expectations about what it might achieve in the way of better governance should be equally modest. Trying to effect good governance is a very difficult undertaking, especially if you're looking for sustainability, and that is clearly the key.

Finally, one important issue, and perhaps the elephant in the room, is own-source revenue. Getting better information on own-source revenue is reason enough to support the bill. The reason I say this is that I think public policy is always better if there is essentially good information. Issues around funding and funding modalities, which are a centre point in most of the relationships with aboriginal peoples and their government, the federal government, often revolve around money, and therefore having some better sense of own-source revenue has to be a good thing, I think.

I'll conclude on that note and pass it to our colleague, Phyllis.

[Joseph Richard Quesnel, Policy Analyst, Frontier Centre for Public Policy]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to address Bill C-27. I rise in support of this bill, but will express some concerns later.

My name is Joseph Quesnel. I'm a policy analyst of Métis descent with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, an independent western Canada–based think tank.

I'm lead researcher on a project that we call the aboriginal governance index, or the AGI, which is an annual consultation of average first nations members in the prairie provinces on their perception of the quality of governance and services in their communities. This past year's AGI reached over 3,000 average residents on more than 30 first nations in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

The AGI seeks an understanding of the views and expectations of first nations people about what constitutes good, effective governance, and provides an assessment of the extent to which those expectations are being met.

The highest-scoring bands in our index are the most transparent and adopt the practice of posting financial information, including salaries, online already. The best bands adopt open-book policies where members can view any information from the band office at any time. I'm familiar with many of these communities.

We have been surveying members since 2006, and it is clear, despite the policies in place, that the disclosure of salary and financial information is still absent in many communities. This is why we support Bill C-27 in providing a legislative base for these policies, not just policies, and some enforcement mechanisms to make the policies real for members.

We argue that first nations should not have to wait for local leadership to grant transparency that citizens should already be receiving. We also believe that band members feel they shouldn't have to wait either. First nations, despite their unique cultures, have clear expectations about governance. They desire and expect highly transparent local governance.

Our prairie-based data confirms this observation. When asked whether they thought all residents should be able to learn how much money is paid to band chief and council members, 77% of all respondents said definitely, yes; only 9% of respondents said this information should definitely not be fully available to anyone who wants it. These are randomized surveys of people from all factions on first nations.

When we asked if in practice everyone in the community who wants information is allowed to learn how much money the band chief and council earns, we were encouraged to find that 35% of respondents told us that the information is definitely available to everyone. However, a troubling minority of 25% gave the opposite answer; that is, the information is definitely not available.

The public disclosure requirements imposed by Bill C-27 would advance transparency in the communities where it is not already practised, which is what we're trying to do. Average members are victimized within a system they did not create, and find themselves unable to change it. They have no well-funded lobby groups. With some exceptions, first nations citizens often lack major independent media sources that can scrutinize band affairs. First nations citizens should not have to pay for ineffective checks and balances on many first nations. We feel that Bill C-27 would fill that gap.

Having this information posted online could also help avoid conflicts in some first nations. Increasingly, communities are resorting to confrontation where disclosure is not forthcoming. A few years ago, members from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, a Manitoba band near Brandon, Manitoba, operating under a custom election and band constitution mandating financial disclosure, demanded full financial disclosure from their chief and council when it was not coming, and they had to actually physically confront the chief and council to get that information. Luckily, in that situation it worked out. Other communities must resort to Federal Court, which is very costly and divisive in the community. This information being available would potentially avoid these kinds of situations.

As well, band-owned entities must come within these disclosure requirements. According to a 2011 study by TD Economics, economic development corporations are one of the fastest-growing components of the emerging aboriginal economy. If proprietary information is protected, as the minister has reassured us here, band-owned entities should be included in this.

Increasingly in our surveys we are hearing more and more complaints from average band members about lack of information about band-run entities, especially those run off reserves, such as gas bars and casino revenues. People want to know where the money's going and how much people are making. It's important to get the complete picture of how band entities are helping or hindering indigenous progress, and that includes financial information.

In terms of some specifics on the bill itself, members must have access to real enforcement, which in this case involves a superior court. Perhaps this committee could explore using first nations-led independent dispute resolution mechanisms or community ombudspersons for this role, instead of more costly and divisive litigation. That's just something to think about.

Lastly, under the administrative measures—this is more of a question—I'd recommend the language be altered, if I'm correct on this, to require the minister to develop an appropriate action plan before proceeding to any kind of denial of funds to a community. As is, the language, as I'm reading it, reads that the minister could proceed directly to withholding the funds as one of his or her options at the get-go.

I think this would place the government in a potential confrontation with the first nation government much too easily. We don't want to get into a situation like in Attawapiskat, where the courts ruled that Ottawa prematurely adopted punitive measures before exhausting more cooperative measures. We'd encourage that, a more cooperative relationship, perhaps even working towards incentivizing disclosure as another remedy.

On that note, thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chief Bear, Ms. Dunville, and Mr. Long. I appreciate you all being here and sharing with us your experience.

Certainly from my understanding of what I've heard from you here today, and from what I've heard from other committee members as well, you're a shining example of the success you can see when you really work hard to develop businesses and opportunities and economic development on a first nation. My congratulations for the work you've done in creating transparency and accountability on your reserve, but also in terms of your economic development and what you've done to encourage that.

I'm new to the committee, so I wasn't there when the committee visited your community in May, but I understand from other members that they certainly discovered that one of the big parts of your success has been working on partnerships with other first nations and with non-first nations businesses and trying to develop your economic opportunities that way.

So I just want to congratulate you on that. I think it's just a great example for other first nations and other communities across Canada of what you can do when you set the stage to allow business to thrive and succeed. You might even say you're creating jobs, growth, and prosperity on your first nation.

But I do have some questions related to that, I think, to tie in with our subject matter today, Bill C-27. I'd like to just ask you a few of those questions. Hopefully we have time to get to all of them.

I'd like to get a little bit of a sense, in terms of the experience you've had, of the economic implications for band-owned businesses in terms of disclosing their financial information. What kinds of economic implications are there in that disclosure?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Just to clarify, then, the proposed amendments that are being circulated right now would fully address the concerns you would have with Bill C-27.

I know as well, Chief Bear, that Whitecap Dakota has had 21 straight unqualified audits. I know that you've shared that information in other venues and that you present your audits to your community members every year, and that you do this without any legislation requiring disclosure.

You've already shared with us your commitment to financial accountability and governance, and I just want to get your sense of how this legislation that's being introduced would enhance financial accountability and governance.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome you here, Chief Bear, and Murray and Lisa. It's good to have you here.

In January 2011, you announced your support of my private member's bill, which you referenced. Then in November 2011, Minister Duncan and I had the privilege to announce Bill C-27 at the Whitecap Dakota First Nation.

Every time I hear your story, from the time that you became a chief—it's a compelling story, it's an inspiring story, and I just want to commend your commitment to transparency and accountability. It seems to me that you would say that financial transparency and accountability actually build the capacity in a first nation to move forward and to fulfill the dreams they have of being successful as a community and as a first nation.

I also want to thank you for raising the concerns you have regarding the current drafting of Bill C-27, and for sharing your proposed amendments with us.

My question is, are the issues you just outlined Whitecap Dakota's only concerns with Bill C-27?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I heard you suggest there was an understanding that this bill was seen to be shoring up the Indian Act, and at some point you talked about the need to bridge first nations who are in the process of nation building, who perhaps don't have the capacity to provide the information to move forward at this point. When you talk about Bill C-27, you talk about the fact that it places higher standards for first nations governments that surpass those for other elected officials in many other jurisdictions.

I would ask that you go back to the answer you gave to my colleague across the way when you talked about those higher standards, because that's not our understanding of Bill C-27. When you look at the fact that a resolution was passed in 2010 that there still are concerns about the level of information that is being given to first nations members when they ask for it...I would like to understand why you believe these higher standards might not be appropriate to put in place at this time.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Regional Chief, British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for allowing me to appear again, this time on Bill C-27. As was stated, I am the regional chief for British Columbia and the national portfolio holder for first nations governance at the Assembly of First Nations. I am glad to be joined here today by Karen Campbell, who I work closely with within the assembly.

As I have said here before, and as the committee is well aware, I think first nations are in an exciting period of transition and are moving towards increased autonomy and self-government. This is good for first nations and good for Canada.

Increased autonomy is occurring in those nations that are considering and supporting the foundations of good governance, in order to transition our nations from essentially administering federal programs and services on behalf of Canada, or self-administration under the Indian Act, to self-government, with appropriate accountability to our citizens.

There is no issue that the governing bodies of our nations must be transparent and accountable. The vast majority are, of course, and they continue to demonstrate this to their citizens. In December 2010, the chiefs, in assembly, passed a resolution affirming the commitment to transparency and accountability, in part in response to a private member's bill, Bill C-575.

Chiefs were clear in their assertion that these proposed measures—in Bill C-27—are both heavy-handed and unnecessary, and they suggest that first nations governments are corrupt and our leaders are not transparent and consequently need to be regulated by Ottawa. It is not surprising that many of our chiefs have resented this approach and are turning the lens back on Canada, suggesting that it is Canada that needs to develop more stringent accountability frameworks for their governing bodies, that it is Canada that needs to be held more accountable for the treatment of first nations.

However, rather than getting into an unproductive debate on whose government is more accountable to those whom they are supposed to serve, our collective task is to ensure that all systems of government in Canada are accountable and are meeting certain standards, while understanding that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial accountability cat and, with respect to our nations, to ensure appropriate political, legal, and financial accountability as part of nation-building or rebuilding.

The bigger question before you today is really not about accountability at all; rather, it's about who should be responsible for determining the rules that apply to our governments and our governing bodies. The simple answer is that our nation should be; however, the answer to this question is more complicated, given the evolving relationship in Canada between first nations and the crown under the current Indian Act reality.

On Monday, this committee heard from the minister of AANDC, and my MP, Minister John Duncan, who was asked if he thought it was appropriate for the minister to be telling first nations how to be accountable to their own citizens. It was pointed out to him that Canada does not do this for other provinces, so why does Canada do it for first nations? In response, the minister suggested that as a senior government, it was the government's responsibility, but added that when a first nation is self-governing, it is different—first nations control accountability themselves.

Herein lies the dilemma for you as lawmakers. Whether it be with respect to financial transparency and accountability, matrimonial property, or safe drinking water, and so on, what rules and laws—if any—should you be making for our people until such time as our nations are once again self-governing? Also, if you do legislate, how do you ensure that such laws are appropriate, have our consent, and support the long-term vision of self-government and do not in fact hinder it?

It is troubling during this period of transition, as we move away from governance under the Indian Act, that the federal government seems to increasingly want to design our governance for us, in spite of the fundamental need for our nations to undertake this work ourselves in order for it to be legitimate. In my own community of We Wai Kai on northern Vancouver Island, when Bill C-575 was introduced about a year and a half ago, we had a discussion about it. We had discussions about the piece of legislation addressing only one aspect of accountability. It really highlighted the need for my own community to take back control of the agenda and to establish our own laws with respect to financial administration and accountability to our citizens.

From my work in my own community as a council member, it was clear that it was not well understood among our citizens that in the absence of our nations taking control of our own financial administration and establishing our own rules, there is very little, if anything, governing the financial administration of our nations. There is nothing in the Indian Act, as you know, that speaks to first nations government budgeting processes and accountability and/or reporting to our members on how we invest, borrow, and use our moneys and so on. For sure, when our communities sign funding agreements with Canada, we contractually agree to audits, reports, and so forth, but there is nothing above this or nothing governing our own sources of revenue unless we take control.

As a result of this conversation in my community, we chose to develop a financial administration law, or FAL, under the first nations fiscal management act. Our law is as directed and ratified by our nations, it is far more comprehensive than Bill C-27, and, more to the point, it is legitimate in the eyes of our people. Similarly, for Indian Act bands that have implemented sectoral governance arrangements, the accountability framework is built into those arrangements.

Moving further along the continuum of governance reform, for those former Indian Act bands that are already self-governing, the accountability framework is typically built into the nation's laws, as developed and ultimately approved by their citizens. The accountability framework varies from nation to nation depending on a nation's conventions, types of government structures, and the range of jurisdictions exercised.

What we really need to do is increase the options or the tools for our nations to develop their own governance, including accountability frameworks, so they can build their own future within Canada rather than being legislated from above. We need to speed up this process so that where a nation is ready, willing, and able to proceed with reform, it can move, and Canada does not act as gatekeeper.

If Canada insists on pursuing and passing Bill C-27, notwithstanding the strong objections of many first nations leaders, there are some specific questions that must be answered and responses that are needed for problems that have been identified with it. On this note, it is unacceptable that there have not been any consultations—that I am aware of—with our first nations on this bill.

First, I would like to reiterate the commitment to accountability and transparency demonstrated by first nations. Most of the accountability measures in the bill are similar to those found in any first nations constitution or its laws. In fact, first nations are already required to report on matters covered in the bill, through contribution agreements with the federal government. Whether an Indian Act band or not, our nations follow the handbook respecting public sector accounting, as prepared by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

This does not negate the fact that there are serious issues with how this bill has been drafted, specifically, one, in the treatment of government business enterprises; two, in disclosure to non-members; three, on enforcement of provisions; and four, on conflict with other statutes and first nations law-making authorities.

First, while public sector accounting standards do deal with government business enterprises, Bill C-27 seems to go further by adding definitions of “consolidated financial statements” and “entity”, as well as its own interpretation of what it means for an entity to be controlled by a first nations government under subclause 2(2). It is not clear what the intention is here. Why not just make the public sector accounting standards apply? We would like clarity, and we need to ensure that this bill does not inappropriately modify the rules that currently apply to other governments in Canada with respect to government business enterprises

Second, a bigger but related issue for many of our first nations is the proposed new disclosure requirements, which would require the audited consolidated financial statements of each first nation to be made public by posting them on a website. This is not the case today unless a nation has chosen to do so. There is, of course, no concern where those receiving the audited consolidated financial statements are our citizens. This is, however, not the case where there is a requirement for public dissemination.

This is a material departure from what was proposed in Bill C-575 and the precedent set under the first nations fiscal management act. For some first nations, and in particular those with significant government business enterprises, this poses a number of concerns.

As we understand, Chief Darcy Bear will be here to speak about those concerns and potential amendments to this bill.

Third—and I'm getting close to finishing—with respect to enforcement, the provisions seem costly, and it's mostly unnecessary legal proceedings wherein the minister is authorized to apply to superior court for enforcement. Within their own accountability frameworks, first nations use different enforcement mechanisms, including the first nations law that my community has developed. These include calling community meetings, internal appeal processes or other alternative dispute mechanisms, as well as, in some cases, recall provisions for officials who breach a nation's law. Where outside courts are used, our nations may choose to use a superior court. In some cases, it is a provincial court or the Federal Court.

Fourth, with respect to the conflict of the laws, the bill correctly does not apply to first nations that are self-governing. However, it appears, perhaps unintentionally, that it does apply to first nations with financial administration laws made under the first nations fiscal management act. To have Bill C-27 apply will create issues if there is ever a conflict between a FAL and the bill. Politically, it also sends the wrong message to a first nation such as my own, which has developed a financial administration law, that it will still be regulated by Her Majesty. Nations that have enacted FALs or land codes need to be recognized and respected for the hard work they have done, which represents a level of community engagement resulting in political legitimacy of their institutions and their laws. It should be made clear what happens in the event of a conflict between the proposed legislation and any other federal legislation or laws of a first nation developed in respect of the sectoral governance initiative.

Finally, I want to remind the committee of work that was conducted by the AFN and the Government of Canada in 2005, the “Accountability for Results” initiative. This led to promising work that was halted in 2006. As part of this initiative, the AFN and Canada agreed to a number of common principles for furthering the accountability relationship. These were: one, the primary accountability is to our citizens; two, for policies, programs, and services to first nations, the primary objective is to improve results for first nations citizens; three, accountability is a shared responsibility, a mutual responsibility; four, there is a shared vision of adopting and adapting the five principles for accountability of the Auditor General of Canada as part of a collaborative process to develop a new model accountability for results that support the aspirations of communities while assuring everyone has effective management of resources.

In light of the reviewed commitments for actions stemming from January's crown-first nations gathering, particularly the review of financial arrangements as part of pursuing a renewed relationship, there is an opportunity to revisit and move forward on these principles as we support our nations. The solutions that are working are being found by working together, by creating the space and tools for communities to rebuild and to move beyond the Indian Act, to decolonize, and to rebuild government.

I would urge you to pursue approaches that truly support first nations governments. One proposal, as directed by our chiefs, is to create an office of the first nations auditor general.

I would encourage you to continue to visit first nations communities directly to understand how their governments are struggling with and addressing the constraints under the Indian Act, and how those communities are moving beyond it and are accomplishing this by taking a classic community development approach. They are the ones who have the solutions, and I urge you to consider how you can support those mechanisms. Instead of further sandbagging or shoring up the archaic and inadequate framework that is the Indian Act system of governance, such an approach lets us build a bridge together and support first nations in the work towards self-determination and what I hope is our collective vision for Canada.

Gilakas'la.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'd like to call this 44th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to order. Today we are undertaking the continuation of our review of Bill C-27.

Today we have the privilege to have, in the first hour, the regional chief of British Columbia, Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould, as well as Karen Campbell, a policy analyst joining the regional chief.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould, we'll turn it over to you to begin. I know you've been here many times, and we appreciate your willingness to come again today. As is the custom, we'll begin with your opening statement. We'll follow that up with some questions, if that works for you.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you for the question.

On the question of clarification, yes, to clarify, I mean that it will require amendments to clarify.

On the question of tribal councils, one of the things that became very clear—more clarification here—is that we had not actually looked at the overall spending for our aboriginal regional organizations or our tribal councils for essentially three decades.

We did that; there's been a lot of change during that timeframe and there's been a direction towards more and more community-based decision-making.

In terms of the ability of small communities to meet the intent of this legislation, I don't think there's any question that they can meet the requirements of Bill C-27 because essentially they already are, as I've said in my remarks.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much for those questions.

On your first question, regarding the bill and what you're calling unilateral action, we had, in the last Parliament, Bill C-575, which of course received considerable debate and also considerable public discourse. This led to a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations that was an endorsement of the principles behind Bill C-27, as I read it in hindsight. Transparency, accountability, and reporting to the membership were all principles endorsed positively at the AFN assembly.

To take it a little bit further than that, the United Nations has stated that good governance flows from accountability and transparency.

All of these things lead us to the position that this legislation has received considerable exposure in terms of the rationale for it. It has received considerable support. It's a measure that all governments are subscribing to and that all citizens of Canada deserve.

Given all of that, I think that responds to your question about why this legislation is before the Parliament of Canada.

In terms of adaptation measures, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any degree of reporting that isn't already reported. The difference is that this reporting is now public information and there's a legislated requirement that it be provided to the members of the first nation. It doesn't require adaptation. As I said in my speech, those requirements we can facilitate, if there is no website. They are very simply to address at the local level.

No new financial resources are actually required here. No new financial literacy is required, because all of this is information that is currently provided to the department on an annual basis.

In terms of the Privacy Act, I could respond to the question, but I think Karl can actually put it in words better than I can.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's been one of those days, so I do apologize for the ten minutes that I kept you waiting.

I'm pleased to be joined by Karl Jacques, who is from our justice department; Brenda Kustra, the DG for governance with my department; and Andrew Francis, who is CFO in corporate accounting for the department.

I'm happy to speak to Bill C-27 and to respond to your committee's questions. As I indicated when Bill C-27 was first introduced last fall, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act is one of a series of initiatives that will help to build stronger, more self-sufficient first nations communities. It complements Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act. Both are important pieces of legislation that will strengthen transparency and accountability in first nations governments and will help to empower first nations people.

The first nations residents want and expect transparency from their elected representatives. Like all Canadians, they want assurances that funds are being used to improve their communities' quality of life and economic opportunity. We believe that first nations citizens should have access to the financial statements of their governments and information on the salaries of their elected officials, as do other Canadians.

Democracy depends on citizens being able to call their elected leaders to account to ensure they represent the community's best interests. Under current Indian Act policy, first nations community members may ask for financial information relating to their band. However, the first nation is currently not legally required to release this information. As a result, each year my department receives requests from first nations individuals looking for this basic information, which we believe they should be able to access directly from their band. I would much prefer not to be the middleman in responding to these requests.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-27 would directly address this issue by requiring first nations governments to publish annual audited financial statements and a schedule of the salaries and expenses of their chiefs and councillors. This would ensure that first nations community members have the necessary information to make informed decisions about their governments. It is important to note that this bill would not set salary levels for chief and councillors, rather it will remain the responsibility of the first nation to set the appropriate level of remuneration for elected officials. Bill C-27 will simply provide for the public disclosure of financial information that would allow the membership to decide if levels of compensation are appropriate.

A real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability from first nations leaders can also erode investor confidence and impede a community's ability to take full advantage of economic development opportunities. Ultimately, this delays or destroys job opportunities and economic progress for the first nation community and its members. On the other hand, we know that increased transparency and improved financial reporting leads to increased investor confidence and ultimately a stronger economy. That is why it is essential that such information be easily accessible, not only to first nations residents, but also to the broader Canadian public.

The publication of financial information will make it easier for analysis and comparisons to be done by a wider group of people, including academics, the media, economists, investors, and the general public, as is the case with information provided by other governments in Canada.

A question that came up during second reading of this bill was whether the public disclosure of financial statements of band-owned businesses would undermine their competitiveness. The simple answer to this is no. Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. Instead, Bill C-27 would require the publication of the audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole, which would include any entities controlled by the first nation, including band-owned businesses. I emphasize that this is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and rules that already apply to government-owned businesses across Canada. These statements are highly aggregated and should not reveal any proprietary information that would undermine their competitiveness.

We are reviewing the language of the bill and are receptive to clarification, consistent with matching the spirit and intent of the bill.

I also want to take this opportunity to be absolutely clear on the fact that this proposed legislation would not create any additional paperwork for first nations governments. They already produce audited consolidated financial statements each year, which are audited by independent, accredited professional auditors, as a requirement of their funding agreements with my department. This bill is not requiring anything new.

Similarly, what we are asking of chiefs and councillors is no different from what we ask of ourselves as parliamentarians. For example, the Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Internet, and all of us, as members of Parliament, now fully disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public, as required under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act. Canadians can easily access this information and more, since the Federal Accountability Act has increased the public's access to information about government activities.

Provincial and territorial governments have adopted similar practices, and the vast majority of them have legislation that requires municipal governments to make these documents public as well.

In short, first nations governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make basic financial information public. This bill proposes to address this gap.

Now, many first nations are already posting their financial statements. I'm familiar with a number of first nations that are practising financial transparency and accountability. However, not all first nations communities have taken these steps. This bill will ensure that all first nations citizens can expect the same access to financial information in their communities.

As an example, since the private member's bill on this issue, Bill C-575, in the last Parliament, my department has been monitoring how many first nations post their financial information on the Internet. In March 2011, for example, 291 first nations had community websites, and only 13 of these disclosed salary and/or honoraria information. In September 2012, there were 403 first nations with websites, and 19 of those disclosed salary information. This demonstrates that a growing number of first nations see the benefits of being open about this information.

We expect that once this bill becomes law, and posting financial information becomes the norm for first nations, as it is for all other governments in Canada, many first nations will not only meet the expectations of the legislation but will surpass them. These are the communities that will benefit most from this legislation.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-27 fully addresses the point that not all first nations have websites. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of this bill. If a first nation were not able to publish the information electronically itself, it could ask another organization to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask my department to post the information on its behalf. However, we should be clear that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial information available to its members. Although we continue to make progress on increasing Internet connectivity in first nations, many first nation members still do not have easy access to the Internet. As a result, first nations will need to find ways to make this information available to their members who do not have Internet access. Many already do this either by distributing printed copies to households or by making the information available in readily accessible locations in the community, including band offices.

As I mentioned at the outset, my department receives many requests each year from first nations members seeking assistance in obtaining basic financial information from their own government. First nations citizens should not have to go to the minister for this information. It would be more appropriate for first nations citizens to obtain this information directly from their band councils. This bill would provide first nations with the tools they need to access this information and ultimately lessen my role as the minister, which is consistent with my desire to lessen ministerial intervention in what should be community-based decision-making.

Mr. Chair, this bill does not propose radical measures. They are the minimum that citizens should expect in a democracy. First nations residents have the same expectations in this regard as other citizens, other Canadians.

Bill C-27 will result in increased public trust, both from community members and Canadians at large. This will translate into increased business opportunity. This bill will help to assure potential investors that they can safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This will contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nations members.

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to have had this opportunity to speak to the committee. Bill C-27 is a landmark bill that is long overdue. It will bring many benefits to first nations communities and encourage self-sufficiency.

I would be pleased to answer questions at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I would like to call this 43rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to order. Today we are undertaking a review of Bill C-27. Today we have with us the minister, as well as his officials from the department, INAC, and also a representative from the justice department.

Minister, thanks so much for being here. We know you have a hectic and busy schedule, but we certainly appreciate the time you've taken for us today. We'll turn it over to you, and then we'll begin the rounds of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford. I know that committee members in general will appreciate your willingness to undertake that.

In anticipation that Bill C-27 will be something the committee will be considering in the next number of months, I suspect, I leave the committee to determine when and how we undertake these reviews. The analysts have undertaken to do a legislative summary of Bill C-27, and I'm going to ask them to circulate that to committee members as well. That will be at your disposal.

Three documents will be circulated to committee members: two as they relate to the study that we were undertaking prior to the break, and then the legislative summary as it relates to Bill C-27. It will be circulated to committee members. You can anticipate that. If you have any additional questions, we would ask that you bring those to the attention of those coming to the steering committee on Monday.

We'll see everybody back on Wednesday. If there is no further business, Mr. Clarke has moved a motion to adjourn.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Notwithstanding the steering committee meeting on Monday and any direction they may get consensus on, there is somewhat of a preliminary schedule with respect to Bill C-27, because it may very well come up in the business of the House rather quickly. To that end, we have provided for briefings from the department on Tuesday of next week. That will be, or can be...I booked my office for that to occur, and I would encourage all colleagues to make their best efforts to attend. It is from 4:45 to 5:45.

Can you send somebody, Carol, or did you—

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-27.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

To begin with, the title of this bill is all wrong. It would have been better to call it “Do as I say, not as I do”. This bill is asking aboriginal communities, the first nations, to do what the government is not prepared to do. I will give two examples, but there are many more.

The first example concerns the government's intention to eliminate 19,200 public service jobs, in accordance with the budget tabled this year. Since the budget was tabled in the House, more than 20,000 people have already received a notice indicating that their jobs may be affected. People are trying to figure out how many jobs will disappear.

The President of the Treasury Board is hiding behind a so-called requirement to abide by a provision in collective agreements to maintain his silence. This provision allegedly requires him to notify the incumbents of affected positions before making the information public.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada even asked the President of the Treasury Board to release the overall figures. PSAC representatives understand this provision but are still asking the President of the Treasury Board to disclose this information. However, he still refuses to do so, even though the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada made the same request.

According to an article by Manon Cornellier in today's Le Devoir, the president fully supports the full disclosure of this information, as long as it does not identify the members concerned. The President of the Treasury Board could easily give an overall figure, but he refuses to do so. He even refuses to disclose this figure to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

So the government is asking the first nations to fully disclose the figures concerning specific people, yet it is not prepared to obey Parliament's own laws, this country's own laws, by disclosing information. However, this information is necessary to understand the scope of the measures in the budget. As I mentioned earlier, the bill we are discussing this evening should instead be called “Do as I say, not as I do”.

The other example is that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is asking for information that he is authorized to have by law, but that the Treasury Board secretary refuses to give to him. We are headed for an interesting showdown. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose very position was created by this government at the beginning of its mandate in 2006.

I have had the opportunity—on more than one occasion—to carefully examine the piece of legislation that created that position. Perhaps you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we examined it very carefully during a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. Indeed, the problem we had was knowing where the Parliamentary Budget Officer should fit in. So, having a good grasp of this piece of legislation, I want to share the legal opinion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made public at the beginning of the week: the law does give him the right to have this information, which the government refuses to provide.

Here we have two examples of the government's refusal to be transparent. And yet one of the primary duties of parliamentarians on both sides of the House—not only on this side, but also on the government side—is to ensure that we have the information we need in order to verify that the government is in fact doing its job.

It is impossible for us to do this work when there is no transparency. Asking parliamentarians to support a bill that imposes draconian transparency on the first nations that the government is not even prepared to consider itself borders on hypocrisy. Parliamentarians have a constitutional mandate to verify the government's actions and figures. They have to have this information before they can support the plans that are presented to them.

Other aspects of the bill are very troubling to me. One of my colleagues spoke at length earlier about the simple fact that aboriginal communities have been encouraged for some time now to take charge, to develop businesses, to move forward and to create jobs, wealth and capital. Many have done just that.

If we approved the legislation before us without making any changes to it—I am going to take a few minutes because I am on a roll—we would be asking the first nations who took the advice they were given to disclose all their trade secrets. The government itself refuses to do so, and rightfully so, for crown corporations that have to remain competitive.

The bill that the Conservatives are asking us to pass does not protect companies belonging to first nations and would require them to fully disclose to all competitors all the information and secrets that allow them to operate in a competitive world. We cannot support that.

I would also like to quickly address the fact that the government is adding to their burden. This was mentioned earlier: 60,000 reports are submitted to the department each year. There are approximately 600 aboriginal bands. That means that every year, each band has to submit an average of 100 reports, or approximately one report every three and a half days. And now the government wants to add to that. This would create an administrative burden that would prevent them from meeting this obligation. And the government is asking us to support this as though it were no big deal.

In less than 10 minutes, I have pointed out three glaring inconsistencies in what the government is asking others to do but is not willing to do itself. Since I have 20 minutes, I could go even further. This does not make any sense. If the government really wants to go ahead with this, it should at least agree to some amendments.

I would be remiss if I failed to bring up the last point because all my colleagues mentioned it. I have been here for quite a while now. I have had the opportunity to work in seven Parliaments since I was first elected, and this is the first time that I have seen the government completely refuse to conduct any consultation. They do not consult us at all.

We are the elected representatives of the people, and the government decides and dictates everything: process, dates, what we are going to do, when and how. It has no intention of consulting the official opposition, the third party or the people who are concerned about its bill—in this case the first nations. It is absolutely shameless. I was in cabinet when this agreement was being negotiated. There was our colleague at the time, Andy Scott, who was the Minister of Indian Affairs; the hon. member for St. Paul's; and other colleagues.

It took a year and a half to negotiate the agreement with aboriginal peoples. There were respectful and structured consultations that produced results and made progress. Solutions were found in this place. The government has decided to impose a bill requiring full disclosure.

The first nations themselves had agreed to the creation of the position of auditor general. It was in the Kelowna accord. Contrary to what we will be told and what has been constantly repeated, funding of $5 billion over five years was allocated. It was in the fiscal framework, as the member for Wascana would say. It was in the budget envelope. It had been negotiated. The weekend before the government fell, in Kelowna, every premier, without exception, and all first nations chiefs, without exception, supported the Kelowna accord, which would have eliminated the gap in the circumstances and quality of life that existed between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. There was still a gap in terms of education, housing and health.

The Kelowna accord would have helped eliminate this gap within five years. We finally would have had something to be proud of in our relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples. What did the government do when it took office? The first thing it did was tear up the Kelowna accord claiming that there was no accord, that it was some agreement scribbled on a napkin somewhere and that no funding had been allocated. That is not true.

I was in cabinet at the time. I know what was negotiated. I know that everyone agreed. If we had had the Kelowna accord, our first nations would not be in the situation they are in today. If the government has a modicum of respect for Canada's first nations, then it will go talk to them. Let the government go talk to them before imposing this type of bill. This is no way to go about things. We live in Canada and as far as I know, we live in a democracy. However, I am starting to have some doubt about that given everything I am witnessing in this Parliament and in the committees.

I cannot help it; I have the time and I am going to use it. There is a phenomenon in this Parliament that is very indicative of what this government does with regard to first nations and other groups it does not agree with. It does everything behind closed doors.

Committees are struck and instead of debating in public, instead of being transparent as the government wants the first nations to be, what do the Conservatives do? They come to the committee meeting, they move that it be held in camera and, because they have a majority and the decision cannot be debated, the meeting is held in camera. I call that the new definition of a black hole. Everything that is said in camera remains sealed forever. Consequently, all discussions are held in camera instead of in public. The voters, the people who sent us here to represent them and to work for their well-being, can no longer follow the work done in committee. That is shameful.

I hope that one day, perhaps when an election is looming and the members across the floor are beginning to feel the heat, they will come to their senses and put an end to this crap. This really is crap. They treat the members of this House, who are duly elected by their constituents, like people who are incapable of public debate, when they are the ones who are afraid of it. This just is not working anymore.

When the time comes to vote on Bill C-27, I invite my colleagues to allow it to go to committee, but we probably will not have a choice, since the Conservatives have a majority. Let us hope that in committee, an ounce of common sense will prevail and the most shocking, hypocritical and contradictory elements of this bill will be amended and removed to ensure that the first nations are treated with the respect they deserve.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I usually say it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to certain bills, but today I am ashamed. I am ashamed to stand here and speak to a bill that is so offensive to Canada's aboriginal people. It is pretty unbelievable, and today of all days, the day before National Aboriginal Day.

Tomorrow the government will send its representatives out to wish aboriginal people a happy National Aboriginal Day instead of saying that they are there to work with aboriginal people, instead of saying they want to listen to aboriginal people, instead of saying that not only will they work with them but they will refrain from playing the nasty, dirty politics of division that this very legislation is all about.

I will take it one step further. Let us flip Bill C-27 around. Maybe we should be talking about a federal government fiscal transparency act. What would it look like with that crew? Would we talk about the F-35s and how that was bungled? Would we talk about the orange juice that cost $16 in London? Would we talk about the helicopters that have flown ministers around? Would we talk about the Senate appointments, the kickbacks, the breaks for friends who have given the Conservatives money?

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a government that is so eager to change the channel and play the politics of division with some of the most marginalized people in our country instead of looking at its own complete disrespect for, frankly, legislation that governs this place and also the ethics that the Conservatives seem to be following.

If we talk about an accountability act when it comes to the Conservative government, then let us talk about aboriginal people and how the government has broken that accountability time and time again.

Some years ago the Conservatives apologized to first nations when it came to the residential school tragedy. Some months after that they cut the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the only decentralized program so successful that it was a world model. It provided cultural healing for aboriginal people across the country. Report after report and accolade after accolade indicated how important it was. However, the government cared so little about its own commitment to residential school survivors that it got rid of that program.

How about the deadline that is approaching on the IAP? The IAP, as many aboriginal people know, is the application people, those who were abused so badly in residential schools, have made that requires to go to another level. Where is the accountability when so few supports have been put in place to support the healing of those people who are applying for the IAP? Where is the work that needs to be done to talk to people like those in my own constituency, in places like Tadoule Lake and Lac Brochet? People of the generation who were abused at residential school do not speak English in the way that may be needed in this process. They need the support for translation and for healing. It is nowhere to be found.

Let us talk about health and how out of the 33 first nations that I represent only 1 of them with a community of 6,000 has a hospital.

Let us talk about the fact that I represent four communities in Island Lake. Over 10,000 people do not have running water, that in Canada in 2012. These communities were among the hardest hit with H1N1. Many health professionals said that it had nothing to do with some sort of genetic predisposition. It had to do with the fact that people did not have running water.

Let us talk about education and the lack of accountability we see in the government in funding first nations education. Aboriginal children, because they are aboriginal, are systematically underfunded because of who they are. They receive less than half in some cases of what provinces will pay for that same aboriginal child to study off reserve. We know that means generation after generation are being left with the legacy of inadequate support and failure when it comes to the federal government.

We could talk about the mould in schools. We could talk about trailers. We could talk about the fastest growing population in Canada having a government that not only is not there to support them, but with a bill like this, insults them.

Let us talk about housing, third world living conditions. I represent communities that have a waiting list of 500 houses, not 5, not 50, but 500.

Let us talk about the way the government has lost its accountability when it comes to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Many people came together and said it is right for Canada to show leadership, to stand up for aboriginal people at the United Nations, to maybe join other countries that are leaders around the world when it comes to working with their aboriginal people. After months of pushing and prodding, and I am proud that our party was at the forefront of saying Canada should do this, yes, the government signed the declaration. It boasted about it, but it has broken the commitments it has made every step of the way.

Most recently, where it is most apparent, is in Bill C-38. The national chief came to the committee and said, “Where is the duty to consult?” By eliminating all of the legislation, the environmental legislation, the lack of protection for fish habitat, the first nations treaty right to fishing is at risk and first nations territorial lands are at risk.

Bill C-38 also proposed changes to employment insurance that would have a disproportionate impact on aboriginal people. Where is the accountability there, when so many aboriginal communities depend entirely on seasonal work? This is not a question of moving on where there is something else.

The Conservatives know very well because they know the statistics and have tried to prevent the rest of us from seeing them. They know that people will turn to provincial welfare. People will turn to the increased social turmoil that unfortunately government after government, and this government is right along with them, not only turns a blind eye to, but frankly encourages. This kind of societal breakdown is unfortunately the legacy of government after government, and this government is no different.

The bill is absurd. It is offensive and it speaks to the government's approach. We have heard about the backward policy of the Conservatives when it comes to refugees and the comment that “Canadians want this”, as though refugees who come to Canada are not Canadian.

Aboriginal people were the first Canadians. The bill seeks to divide people and to pit people against each other and their communities. It seeks to change the channel from the government's failure to live up to its fiduciary obligation, not “it would be great if it did”, but a fiduciary obligation, an understanding that there is a commitment in the Constitution to first nations.

The Conservatives loves to talk about the War of 1812. Let us talk about who allowed us to build a country like Canada. It was first nations people, aboriginal people. In their relationship with the Crown, aboriginal people have always been at the other side with an attitude of respect and an attitude of co-operation and they have only been spat in the face. They have been subjected to third world living conditions in a country as wealthy as ours, followed with legislation like this.

I have a prediction here. I am sure I will be digging this quote out in the next few days. The government has its press releases and robocalls ready to go. There are issues around the robocalls. However, the Conservatives have their lines about what side they are on and what side everybody else is on.

Canadians see through this. Canadians are increasingly sick and tired, and frankly disgusted, with the politics of division, these games the Conservatives seek to play with people in our own country, pitting us one against the other. Somehow because we are of this background, we have to have an issue with aboriginal people in aboriginal communities. It is not like that.

I am proud to come from a part of the country and to represent a part of the country where people know that we have to work together, where people know that the legacy of residential schools and of colonialism impacts all of us. People know that it would be nice to have a federal government that stood on the side of eradicating the third world conditions people in Canada face.

I wish I could say there was a good chance of that prediction not becoming true, but I have seen it before. I saw it in the last election.

The government brought up a private member's bill, which again speaks to its two-sided approach. The government says that just one member brought it up so it is not where the government is at. It is a similar story with the private member's Motion No. 312, which seeks to reopen the abortion debate. We hear all sorts of stories from the government. On this one, there is no hiding the fact that the government has been behind it all the way. We might be able to say that for Motion No. 312 too. I certainly would.

After its commitments to sit down with the first nations gathering in January to continue that conversation, the government's wish is to leave this Parliament as one of its lasting legacies one of the most offensive, absurd bills that seeks nothing more than to divide Canadians, to pit Canadians against each other, and most importantly, to pit people against aboriginal people.

This is not fitting of our Canada. This is not in line with the kinds of values that we seek to realize. I am proud to be part of a party that has been at the forefront of standing with aboriginal people: first nations, Métis and Inuit. I am proud to belong to a party that so many people in my part of the country see as the party that has stood for them. I know that is the case among so many aboriginal people across the country. Many of them are looking to us tonight and will be looking to us tomorrow on National Aboriginal Day, to hear that we are willing to work with them; willing to respect our Constitution, the historical framework that is based on a relationship of respect between the Crown and first nations; and that we are willing to say that we can build a better Canada.

I say these words, thinking about the elders who have supported me on a personal level, about the leaders who support their communities, about the young people who are looking to us to show leadership. They are not seeing this from the government, but that is another sign of where the government is at.

I am proud to be part of a party that believes that our Canada means working with aboriginal people every step of the way, that our Canada is one in which third world conditions for anyone, including for aboriginal people, will not be tolerated and that our Canada lives on this side of the House and will continue to live on as we fight for it.

[Member spoke in aboriginal language]

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud and thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands because she underscores the fact that there is a strong potential, probability even, that much of this act will be subject to judicial review after the fact.

First, there is a duty to consult. There is also a duty to respect the inherent right of first nations to engage in business practices in a way that is not arbitrary and not subject to uniquely them and not to anyone else in terms of the conduct of regular business. Quite frankly, I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a more than probable reality that there will be a legal challenge under an arbitrary provision of law that actually imposes a different standard on a band-owned business than any other type of business.

In return, I ask the government this question. Before we get into any sort of judicial or legal review, since it is the one that suggests the Auditor General of Canada should review its performance on red tape reduction, will it allow the Auditor General to review whether Bill C-27 is consistent or contrary to its own expectations of itself before passage of the legislation? I think we already know the answer.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague. She is absolutely correct. The government has already done that, not just through aboriginal business but also with what happened at Attawapiskat. The government engaged in a public relations smear campaign against the band council at Attawapiskat to enforce an opinion or point of view that money spent on education was in solution to a housing crisis. It compiled and aggregated all the funds that were given to a particular band and displayed that to the entire nation and to the world press to make a sleazy suggestion that this band was rich and was abusing its funds, when in actual fact the money that was appropriated and dispersed was for health care and education. The money was spent on health care and education.

Therefore, the government already has a track record of doing exactly what the hon. member has just suggested. It integrates these incidents into a communications strategy.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are aboriginal communities and first nations, the Innu and Inuit, who are involved in multi-million dollar business enterprises that are benefiting the community at large. They are engaged in those businesses for the benefit of the community at large.

If I were a competitor, I would want Bill C-27 because I would find out all about those businesses and actually move in and hone in on that because they would be unable to do the same for me, which is a shame.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the comments that were expressed by my colleague regarding the reduction of red tape and how this particular initiative either feeds into or from the government's propensity to institute red tape. Specifically, I want to talk about the impact this legislation may have on aboriginal businesses.

Bill C-27 would force aboriginal businesses on first nations to disclose financial information related to those businesses to the public, including to the competitors of those aboriginal businesses. I am not simply talking about remuneration paid for out of federal supply, but all activities of those businesses would have to be reported to the public. That is a burden that does not exist for other businesses.

This measure could potentially make band-owned businesses extremely vulnerable to predatory practices and put them at an obvious competitive disadvantage. Non-aboriginal private corporations, for example, are not forced to publicly disclose consolidated financial statements. However, aboriginal businesses, whether attached to the federal government or not, would. Any band-owned business would have to disclose information that would-be or potential competitors in the private sector will not.

It is very interesting, not only because it would be extremely inconsistent with the principle of first nation self-governance, but it is also obviously very inconsistent with the government's much ballooned and ballyhooed referral to the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

At a cost of several million dollars, the Conservative government instituted a Red Tape Reduction Commission to travel all over the country conducting meetings and hearings as to how exactly the federal government could reduce the paper burden on businesses. I guess it did not conduct very many hearings with aboriginal businesses. If it did, it would have a serious problem with this legislation.

I will read directly from the report that the member for Beauce, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, produced. It reads:

...the Commission's first task was to “identify irritants to business that stem from federal regulatory requirements and review how those requirements are administered in order to reduce the compliance burden on businesses, especially small businesses.”

At a cost of several million dollars, this commission had that task in mind.

Somebody was asleep on the front bench on this proposed legislation which would increase the regulatory burden on aboriginal business. In order to allow this bill to proceed without actually considering the impact on aboriginal business, somebody was not taking care of their fiduciary responsibilities to speak up for aboriginal people.

Where was the member for Beauce, who is such a strong believer, at least in theory, of anti-regulation, when this was going through?

The compliance burden on small business would be huge. We have already heard in the chamber that there are already 60,000 reports that must be filed with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on an annual basis. Can members imagine the compliance burden that would be placed on aboriginal businesses, a burden that does not exist on any other business? Can members imagine the regulatory red tape that would be imposed upon that important section of our economy, our aboriginal businesses, that does not apply anywhere else?

Let me put this into perspective. Federal crown corporations on lists specifically included in the Access to Information Act do not have to comply. They are not under the jurisdiction of the Access to Information Act. If a band-owned business, however, wants to establish itself and promote the economic best interests of the band, it has to do something a federal crown corporation does not have to do.

During the course of its multi-million dollar discussions, the Red Tape Reduction Commission—which I guess might have been actually for the purpose of creating more red tape instead of reducing it, but the actual title of the commission was the “Red Tape Reduction Commission”, so I guess that would not necessarily apply—gave specific direction to the Government of Canada. It gave specific recommendations to individual government departments. It even made recommendations to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada as to how it could participate in reducing the red tape burden.

Do members know what it recommended to the minister and to the department? It made two main suggestions specifically for this department. One was this:

To improve service standards and streamline program requirements, we recommend that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada establish streamlined application and review processes to support small business growth and development.

I do not think anywhere did the red tape commission say, “By the way, we should also impose the equivalent to the Access to Information Act on every aboriginal band-owned business”. They said, quite frankly, the opposite.

It further recommended:

To facilitate service standard improvements, streamlined processes and the integration of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada programs with those of other federal regulators, we recommend that the department develop a simplified approach for land processes and economic development projects.

That was not a recommendation for an expanded approach, not one for the regulatory burden to be exponentially increased to the point that every minute of every day that the band-owned business operates, its lead managers must be filing compliance reports. That was not the recommendation of the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

However, if we look at this, that is what the government is suggesting.

Now, the MP for Beauce went even further. In his final recommendation report, he said again and again,

...to deal with the long-term aspect of regulatory growth

—which he viewed as a serious negative—

we are recommending that a substantial part of the bonuses of senior public servants be directly related to their success

—or, conversely, their failure—

in implementing the decisions that ministers make on the One-for-One Rule.

What is the one-for-one rule? I will tell members what the one-for-one rule is. It is a commitment that the Conservatives made in their 2006 election platform, just above their commitment to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an independent officer who could get whatever material he or she needed in order to perform his or her function as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In the Conservative platform for election in 2006, entitled “Here for Canada”—I guess not all Canadians, just some Canadians—the would-be Prime Minister's low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth promised to implement a new standard for regulation:

We will legislate a One-for-One Rule—every time the government proposes a new regulation, it must eliminate an existing one.

If we look at what is happening at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we see there are a lot of new regulations coming into play. There do not seem to be very many reductions. If we are to judge this based on bonuses paid to senior bureaucrats as to whether they are complying with the one-for-one rule, the government just saved an awful lot of money because there will not be one dime in bonus paid out to the minister's senior mandarins, not a dime. I guess the government is saving a few bucks there, is it not, unless of course it is going to circumvent that rule and pay out bonuses without any compliance or consideration of its own rules.

The government would never do that, though, would it? It would never actually ignore its own rules. Okay, it probably will. That is what is happening right now. We have a government that is absolutely intent on saying to everybody else, “Do as we say, but just do not do as we do”, because that is exactly what is being asked. People are being told, “Do as we say, but not as we do”.

There was also some discussion about the Auditor General and whether there should be a first nations auditor general, a proposal that received widespread support, not universal but widespread support. It was a key proposal within the Kelowna accord. When the government was proposing its Red Tape Reduction Commission, except for aboriginal communities, it suggested in its report that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada should be mandated with reviewing and reporting on the government's progress. The Auditor General should be mandated to review the government's progress in reducing regulatory administrative burden through its one-for-one rule aimed at cutting costs to businesses, as well as implementing its overall red tape reduction plan.

That was a suggestion of the government. It has never actually done it or tasked the Auditor General to do that, even though there were recent amendments to the Auditor General Act. I am wondering, since it does indeed believe that the Auditor General should be involved in red tape reduction, whether it would allow the Auditor General to come in and see whether Bill C-27 complies with the red tape reduction recommendations, as adopted by the government. Will it allow the Auditor General of Canada to do an assessment before or during second reading of whether the government is consistent with its red tape reduction promises and do so in a very public way? Will it have the Auditor General do an assessment as to whether Bill C-27 is consistent with that? Is it a do as I say government and not a do as I do government? There is one way to find out, is there not?

This is very serious. It is very serious because we are actually imposing a higher standard on a core of small businesses, band-owned aboriginal businesses. Not only would the government not impose it on other sectors of the economy, other types of privately held non-aboriginal owned businesses, but it is a standard that the government will not even impose upon itself for its federal crown corporations. Why? Because if we suggest that certain federal crown corporations should be liable and held accountable under the Access to Information Act, the very first thing the ministers responsible will say is that it could put the crown corporation in jeopardy and expose the federal crown corporation, which benefits from federal tax dollars and federal oversight, to potential competitive impacts.

The competitors of the federal crown corporation might actually know what the crown corporation was doing, and that could jeopardize the revenue stream of that federal crown corporation.

No problem, though, for band-owned aboriginal businesses. Their competitors will have a great way to find out about what they are up to and where they are going. They would just have to apply under Bill C-27. The provisions of Bill C-27 would lay their business dealings out bare. That is reason enough, if for nothing else, to want to have this bill go before committee to have witnesses come forward to establish what the impact would be, because there has been no consultation whatsoever.

There has been no consultation with the aboriginal community on this issue, because if there were, there would be a lot of senior mandarins, a lot of highly paid executives within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who would not be getting a bonus for an awfully long time. If they tie a substantial part of the bonuses paid to senior public servants directly to their success or failure in implementing the decisions that ministers make on the one-for-one rule, the government just saved an awful lot of money. There will not be a darn bonus paid out in Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada for a long, long time if Bill C-27 gets passed.

That is a relatively snide way to tell the government to think through what it is doing. There are checks and balances that do exist and there are checks and balances that can be improved. There is no doubt about it.

First nations are embracing those changes. There is not always universal support. I do not think anyone should expect or assume that there will be. However, there is a solid core of support within our first nations. They have nothing to hide. They are prepared to engage in full accountability. They want to be participants. They do not want to be spoken to and they do not want to be spoken at; they want to be spoken with.

In this chamber right now, instead of talking to first nations, we are simply talking about them. Why did the government not just take the time to talk with first nations, to realize the consequences and the legal ramifications of its actions.

Some might consider it another snide way for the government to play it tough. Sometimes tough actions are required, obviously, but sometimes toughness is also the sign of a bully, and bullies need to understand that what they say and do can hurt. It can hurt self-esteem and it can also hurt the economic well-being of first nations and aboriginal businesses owned by bands.

The government is sticking its nose in a place where it really does not belong. Tighter accountability rules are always something we strive for. The aboriginal community is no stranger to that. It is not a reluctant witness to that. It is creating its own higher accountability standard without the Big Brother approach from the Government of Canada. It is acting on its own behalf and increasing its accountability standards.

The government here seems to want to take a parochial approach, saying that it is “us” and them”, and that it is going to tell “them” how to run their businesses.

Why? The member for Beauce, the junior minister, spent millions of dollars on a Red Tape Reduction Commission. Why did the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development sit in cabinet and allow Bill C-27 to pass through cabinet without any examination as to the consequence to this important community?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Dream on I shall, as we all do. If there were not a certain degree of dreamers, then we would not be here.

The summary continues:

In 2008, AANDC advised funding recipients that, effective 1 July 2008, funding arrangements would be amended to include audit clauses.

It goes on to say:

When a First Nation community is unable to meet the terms and conditions set out in funding agreements, AANDC may intervene to address this deficiency

Therein lies some power for the department for this situation.

I have some more background information regarding Bill C-27.

While First Nations receive funding from several federal organizations, the majority of federal funding is administered by AANDC. In 2011–2012, Parliament approved approximately $7.4 billion in appropriations to AANDC to support the provision of such services to First Nations communities as education, housing, social support and community infrastructure.

This certainly was the focal point of a debate that took place in the House, given the situation in Attawapiskat. The situation and argument were degraded to the point where there were many false claims. Many people were using it for political purposes from all corners of the House, and some of it was just blatantly false. That is the unfortunate part of it, because if we get into that part of debate within the House, then we lose sight of coming up with the best solution.

First Nations and the federal government are both subject to various policy-based and legal requirements....

Through decisions of the band council, management of council affairs, delivery of programs and services, and disclosure of annual financial statements, First Nations generally are accountable to their community membership for the use of public resources.

Again, this is from the legislative summary put out by the Library of Parliament.

Through various federal reporting requirements, First Nations are also accountable to AANDC for the federal public funds they receive.

In turn, through the annual audit cycle and program reports, AANDC is answerable to Parliament and the Canadian public.

We get ourselves into this situation. When we had a private member's bill the last time, the principles that surrounded the bill were certainly those accountability and transparency. Therefore, in principle, of course we support that.

Whether the government is practising what it preached many years ago, such as the Federal Accountability Act, remains to be seen. We will leave that to the electorate to decide.

However, in that debate on the private member's legislation, falsehoods were put out there that there was a degree of unaccountability that really did not exist. In other words, the impression was given to us that there was no accountability whatsoever. That is not the case.

If we are going to enact legislation here, Bill C-27 would go further than what that private member's legislation was about to do, to the point that it would put many bands and their money, in the sense of the corporations, in a bad place. It would put them at a disadvantage in many cases.

What is dispersed to the public could be used against them, but not in a political way, such as by calling a talk show or downgrading a particular community.

However, let us say that a band wants to invest. It is incorporated and it pays salaries. It invests in its people and in infrastructure to help develop its young people to become entrepreneurs, or lawyers, or doctors, all surrounded by an idea within a band that it will invest in something for its future. There are business plans, audited reports.

However, if all that is dispersed to the public, even members of the government have to admit that it would put first nations at a disadvantage. Therefore, without particular amendments, the legislation would become something that could be used against their future ability to improve their communities and their bands, to improve and educate their young, to be a part of global commerce and to identify themselves as world players on the stage, and they certainly can be.

Let us take a look at the communities in northern Quebec that protested against major hydro projects. They went down the Hudson River to make their point, and they made a very good point. Since then, protests have been followed by action, action followed by investment and investment followed by smart, educated young people in aboriginal communities. The average age is very low in aboriginal communities, to the point where we have lots of young people who would benefit greatly from the investments of some of these band communities.

The proposed legislation's desire to be more accountable and transparent is wonderful. It is what every organization, whether government, NGOs, or business corporations should aspire to. These great ideals of what we consider to be transparent are what any company should aspire to so that others are not held at a disadvantage. However, with Bill C-27, let us be careful with what it would do.

If we go after the ideal of transparency, we may overreach to the point where it becomes a disadvantage and would work against the future plans of a band or community that wanted to better itself and invest in its social structures, not just business investments, but in the infrastructure of the community.

We are sent here to do the mature, decent examination and analysis of policy within the House. Following the House, the bill would go to committee where it would face more scrutiny, and that is where the amendments would come into play. We hope in this situation, despite the fact that there is a majority government, the Conservatives will practice what they used to preach and do this in a reasonable way.

There are certain elements of governance that the Conservative government feels should not be as transparent, whether that is for national security or in certain interests of our nation. In many cases I agree, but in many cases I do not. We agree that there are certain amounts of information that should not be disclosed to the public. Therefore, would the Conservatives not agree that amendments should be considered honestly and openly to attain the best legislation?

We can have the best legislation that would do two things. First, and most important, it would provide that transparency, which, in principle, I support. Second, with amendments, it would create responsible legislation so communities would be able to invest in their future and their children.

There are many aspects of the bill that we could speak about that go beyond what was debated in the last session of the House on the private member's legislation. A private member's bill usually does not go in-depth like government legislation does. When there is a full department behind it, that makes the legislation larger. However, Bill C-27 overreaches in many areas.

Let us take a look at the consultation process, which is also involved in this situation, and another problem that the government has put forward. This is not just about legislation from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I will use Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the copyright legislation as examples to illustrate my point about consultation.

When consultation is done, it has to be done both ways. It goes there and it comes back. The message is there and the message has to come back. In many situations that message did not come back from the base degrees by which we set legislation.

Therefore, what the consultation process brought forward was not one that I would consider to be beneficial to the debate within the House. Despite what the Prime Minister has said about recent Crown-First Nations Gathering resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people.

The Supreme Court of Canada established that both federal and provincial governments had a duty to consult aboriginal people before making decisions that might adversely affect their aboriginal rights and, in some circumstances, accommodate aboriginal people's concerns.

Further, let us not forget what the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada signed, obliges Canada to obtain “free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples” for matters affecting rights, territories and resources.

Let us go back to the resources aspect again. Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I can honestly say an investment in a resource certainly provides employment and more money in the coffers for provincial governments and therefore a better ability and more capacity to deliver social assistance programs when needed, as well as health care spending and education spending, the primary spending goals.

Looking at this in a particular way, we can see that the consultation process, when it comes to the resources aspect, did not bear fruit in the sense that if a particular band or community, or in other situations a province, invests in these resources, it has to be able to partake in the world of global commerce. As members know, when investing in larger resources, the world is where the market is. It is no smaller than that. Whether it is minerals or gas and oil, the world is certainly the ballpark we play in when it comes to investing in our resources.

This legislation will put some of these investments at a disadvantage because some of this information has to be dispersed to the public.

The expenditures and the direct subsidies into particular communities is a principle which we can agree on, but in this situation the government needs to take a second look at some of the changes that are necessary within this bill.

The Conservative government is imposing major changes to first nations financial reporting requirements, with no significant prior consultation with those who will have to implement these changes. Again, we go back to the idea of the consultation process. Certainly, we do not live up to that standard.

Let me repeat what is said in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “free, prior and informed consent”. That does not mean they have to put out a press release to say what they are doing. It means consent, meaning that there is a two-way flow of information, communication. I think it went one way, but the way it came back was not satisfactory to this debate. It is certainly not germane to this debate.

We have seen the same flawed approach on drinking water and matrimonial real property, with no discussions on the specifics of the bills with stakeholders before that legislation was tabled.

When the Prime Minister announced major changes to our pensions, he did so to a foreign audience. It was never discussed in the campaign itself. There was no consultation process.

On the existing reporting burden, Bill C-27 would do nothing to streamline the current overwhelming reporting burden, especially for small first nations with limited administrative capacity.

Coming from a riding that has over 200 small communities, the burden for administrative purposes weighs heavy. For those who live in a town of only 20 or 30 people and who are required to do report after report, it gets tiring after a while. I am not saying they should not do it, but at least the government could provide the capacity to help these people fill out these reports in a timely manner, in a way that is efficient and accurate.

In her 2002 report, the Auditor General recommended that, “The federal government should consult with First Nations to review reporting requirements on a regular basis”. That is sadly not within this legislation.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I was reading through the legislative summary for Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations. I want to thank Tonina Simeone and Shauna Troniak at the political affairs division for doing this superb legislative summary. Sometimes we do not give enough credit to our people at the Library of Parliament, and they deserve it.

For the sake of a bit of history, let us take a look at the legislative summary and its discussion of this particular piece of legislation. At one point it states:

First nations bands are subject to certain financial disclosure requirements under the Indian Act and related statutes and regulations. In particular, section 69 of the Indian Act provides that the Governor in Council may, by order, permit a First Nations band to “control, manage, and expend” its revenue, and may issue regulations giving effect to that permission. Accordingly, the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations require, in part, that a band's financial statements be audited annually, and that the auditor's report be posted “in conspicuous places on the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band”.

The preface here from some of the debate seems to be that there is not enough accountability, or practically no accountability, when it comes to this, but as the legislative summary points out, there is a degree of transparency here that we must acknowledge before we advance into this debate.

It also talks about federal access to information and privacy legislation setting additional statutory rules respecting disclosure of first nations bands financial information. I mention two sections in particular, section 19 of the Access to Information Act and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

With respect to the current policy-based requirements, the summary states:

The majority of funding arrangements between Canada and First Nations are in the form of fixed-term contribution agreements, under which First Nations must satisfy certain conditions to ensure the continued payment of federal funds. Requirements for financial reporting are also set out in AANDC’s Year-end Financial Reporting Handbook.

Once again we see a layer of transparency involved here that must be acknowledged before we advance into this debate.

I will now talk about some of the criticisms that I have with this bill and how the bill can be fixed.

In the spirit of things, let us face it, we all want transparency in the House. This is sometimes followed, and as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North pointed out, sometimes it is not, or at least it is talked about but is just not followed to the letter of the law.

The summary continues:

Under the Year-End Financial Reporting Handbook, First Nations must submit to AANDC annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to 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. In particular,

section 6.4.1 requires First Nations to disclose, both to their members and to AANDC, compensation earned or accrued by elected, appointed and unelected senior officials; and

section 6.4.2 stipulates that the amounts of remuneration paid, earned or accrued by elected and appointed officials to be disclosed “must be from all sources within the recipient’s financial reporting entity including amounts from, but not limited to, economic development and other types of business corporations”

The summary continues:

Reporting and disclosure requirements are further set out in various provisions of First Nations funding agreements, which must be read in conjunction with the Year-End Financial Reporting Handbook.

It states:

Section 2.4.3 provides that Council must prepare consolidated financial statements, to be audited by an independent auditor, and delivered to the Minister within 120 days of the Council’s fiscal year end.

Section 3.1 provides that Council must make available the consolidated audited financial statements, including the auditor’s report, to First Nations members upon their request.

Section 2.2.3 provides that the Minister may withhold funds otherwise payable under the agreement if the Council fails to provide to the Minister the audited financial statements required under the agreement.

Once again, there we find a situation where there is a layer of transparency that does exist, perhaps, in many cases—a level of transparency that the government can aspire to in certain instances, as the member for Winnipeg North—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand to speak to what I believe is a very important bill. In fact, I thought what was most interesting was the title, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations.

When I think of financial accountability and transparency, I must admit that one of the first things that comes to my mind is the Minister of International Cooperation. Members will recall the $16 cup of orange juice. I think it was orange juice from concentrate. Canadians were quite upset about that issue. Then we found out about the limousine services. This minister, after getting caught, seemed to admit that maybe she did do something wrong and would repay the taxpayer as a result. Therefore, it is with a little bit of irony that I approach the bill and I see across the way on a daily basis that particular minister who has incurred some fairly outrageous expenditures. I think the $16 glass of orange juice is one of them.

I say this because there is no doubt that there are issues with tax dollars being used in one form or another. With Bill C-27, we are talking about public tax dollars that go toward our first nation community in the sense of wanting more accountability and transparency. I do not question the importance of that. However, equally, it is important for us to highlight that, through different forms of sensationalism, an issue can be brought to the public's attention with fairly significant repercussions.

One of those repercussions, which I made reference to, was from the $16 glass of orange juice. That does not necessarily mean that every minister is out there buying a glass of orange juice at $16, at least I suspect not. I have not asked through freedom of information or with an order paper question, but I am going to assume that the vast majority of cabinet ministers are not ordering $16 cups of orange juice and then billing the taxpayer.

However, with Bill C-27, the government is trying to paint with a very wide brush many individuals, leaderships and others within our first nations. The government is trying to give the message as if the whole group of them are in need of some sense of being held accountable and ensuring there is more transparency.

The reality is quite different. We find that in many cases our first nations have a higher sense of accountability than we would find in the government. First nations do that in good part by their own will by using the Internet and the public meetings that they have on the reserves as an example.

This is where we really need to be concerned. It is the approach in which the government tries to address issues of this nature that has to cause a great deal of concern. The government does have a choice: working with our aboriginal community, or trying to force things onto our aboriginal community. If it does the latter, one would expect the stakeholders to be quite offended, and justifiably so.

To what degree has the Conservative government made any genuine attempt to sit down with the stakeholders before even presenting this piece of legislation?

I challenge the government members to stand in their place and tell us exactly what form of consultation they had with the stakeholders on this particular issue before drafting the legislation and bringing it into the House of Commons.

I would argue that is the difference, in essence, between the Liberal Party and the Conservative/Reform Party: there is a great deal more respect toward our first nations, toward our aboriginal people, coming from the Liberal Party than we will see from the Conservative Party.

We look for the type of actions the government takes in order to be able to show it is taking an issue seriously. The best example, an example that I think speaks volumes and one of the most significant actions that has been taken in the last 10, 15, 20 years was when Paul Martin was the Prime Minister and he was able to bring the stakeholders together. The stakeholders came together and came up with what was known as the Kelowna accord. The Kelowna accord addressed a wide variety of issues. What I like the most about the Kelowna accord is that it was an accord that was achieved by working with the different stakeholders. That is what made the Kelowna accord an agreement that was worthy of the support of the House of Commons.

Imagine the disappointment back in 2006, when the Conservatives ultimately got rid of the Kelowna accord. It is one of the sad stories of the House of Commons, when the New Democrats and the Conservatives voted against the Paul Martin government and ultimately ended a lot of progressive ideas and actions that were being taken at that time.

There are many of us who will not forget that. Whether it was child care, health care reforms that ensured more health care dollars going into the system, or the Kelowna accord, we valued these programs and felt they were worthy of support. We were quite disappointed when the government, in its wisdom, made the decision to get rid of the Kelowna accord, at a great cost.

Last year we had the incident out in Attawapiskat, which garnered a great deal of attention nationwide. The types of issues that were being discussed in the media, in the one-on-one discussions with those individuals who went to the reserve, and in many discussions having taken place here in Ottawa, were in fact a part of the Kelowna accord.

The Kelowna accord was not just an agreement; it was an agreement that brought in cash resources and good will, not only from the Government of Canada but from the other stakeholders. It had in place, within that accord, issues dealing with accountability. It included a mutual accountability framework, which would have addressed many of the issues this bill is trying to deal with.

Upon reflection, I look at this issue and recognize it as a very important issue. I can recall a former colleague of mine from the Manitoba legislature who came to Ottawa and ultimately became head of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock. Reg had a very strong passion for the aboriginal people and believed we needed to do more.

I made reference to Paul Martin and his efforts. We could talk about the interim leader. When the interim leader was the premier of Ontario and there were concerns related to water, our current interim leader made the decision that this is an issue that has to be dealt with. He was not prepared to wait for Ottawa to try to resolve it. He felt this was something we needed to get directly involved in, even though many would argue it was a federal responsibility.

We need to recognize that, in order to deal with the many different aboriginal issues, there needs to be a high sense of co-operation from all of the different stakeholders. We need to recognize that the tribal chiefs and councils have an important role to play in this and that it cannot work without their support going forward. In fact, they need to provide, and have provided in many ways, the leadership on the issue. We need to recognize that it goes beyond that in the sense that the federal government needs to treat the issue and the leadership from within the first nations community more seriously, provide more respect and start working with people on how we can facilitate what needs to get done in order to improve opportunities for all people.

If the stakeholders do not get directly involved, the chances of success are greatly diminished. When that is diminished, we are really saying that we are prepared to sacrifice the lives of many children. That is why the Liberal Party looks at this issue and says that we are losing time by not being more aggressive on this file. We need the Reg Alcocks, the Paul Martins, the Phil Fontaines and the many other leaders from within the first nations community to feel that there is a high sense of willingness to move forward on these important issues, to get engaged, to start talking about it and to have the dialogue.

The bill itself is all about financial accountability. What is the message the government is trying to convey to Canadians, in particular first nations, about how it feels on this particular issue? Given its lack of consultation and willingness to work with the first nations leadership, I am drawn to the conclusion that it wants to send a political message that is of a very negative nature, which causes a great deal of concern.

Members should be very much aware, as I cited earlier, that a $16 glass of orange juice got a fair number of Canadians upset. If every minister were as abusive in terms of buying orange juice, I believe the public would be exceptionally upset with the government. That is the reason that I believe the message it is trying to send is that of a negative nature. It is saying that there is not enough transparency and accountability on reserves and that is the reason it is bringing forward this legislation. Then, no doubt, the government provides stories in the background about why it is justified.

There were alternatives. The primary alternative would have been to work with the stakeholders to see how this legislation could have been brought in with the support of all members of the House of Commons.

I ask members to imagine that the Conservatives had the support of the NDP and the Liberals on Bill C-27 and that they were able to garner that support because they went to the stakeholders with their primary concern being the children living on and off our reserves.

A vast majority of the first nations leadership want accountability. They are not fearful of accountability or transparency. I know my constituents want accountability and transparency but that applies to the government and what the government is doing, such as the $16 orange juice. They want the Government of Canada to be accountable. They want accountability at the provincial level and the city level. They want accountability of all tax dollars that are being spent. They want to ensure there is transparency.

I can assure members of the House that there is a willingness, even, I suspect, from some of the backbench Conservatives, to see more transparency within the federal government. If there were a free or maybe a secret ballot vote we might see some of them saying yes to it.

I can assure members there are many individuals who are part of the stakeholders I am referring to who support accountability and transparency. I believe they would not object to a bill that affirms those beliefs but it should have been done in co-operation. Instead, we have a bill that has been brought forward to score some political points. I do not agree with the political points they are attempting to score here, but I believe that is the reason they are bringing the bill forward.

What will happen as a direct result? The legislation does have some serious problems with it. Our critic for aboriginal affairs is a lady who has been exceptionally passionate about a wide variety of aboriginal issues and has consistently been there and listened to what individuals on or off reserve have had to say about it. She has consistently, on behalf of the Liberal Party, raised issues that are impacting our first nations to the floor of the House of Commons. These are the types of issues we have been raising. Bill C-27 is no different. Nothing will change. We will bring forward amendments to try to make the bill more sellable and more fair.

Some of it is almost a no-brainer. For example, why would we obligate a business that is on a reserve to open its books when it might be competing with other businesses outside the reserve, or even if it is a business that is located outside. The point is that there are many issues within the bill that need to be addressed.

At the end of the day, we are hoping that the government will be open to amendments. Ideally, from the Liberal Party's perspective, how wonderful it would be if the committee itself actually made the decision to go out to a reserve and listen to a reserve first-hand on the bill. Why not identify half a dozen reserves, sit down as a committee and listen to what the reserves have to say about the bill, if a bill of whatever nature is something that would be acceptable? It would be a bold move by the government but I would suggest--

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to start my speech on the financial transparency of first nations.

From the various speeches I have been regularly putting online, my constituents will be aware that I tend towards lifting the veil of darkness surrounding a number of issues specific to the first nations of Canada. These issues must be made public. After 500 years of a shared existence, the entire Canadian population is ready and able to learn about these realities that are too often ignored and forgotten.

There is a growing anti-establishment movement around the world. I am talking about international politics, but this is also evident at the local level. Just look at Quebec, where the public has been mobilizing. Of course, it is an international movement, since we are also seeing an anti-establishment movement in Europe, where people are questioning their government's actions and measures. What I will try to show here is that, of course, this increased assertiveness is universal, and that aboriginal communities are also experiencing the same problems and the same type of public mobilization.

Over the past year, we have discussed many topics related to my riding. My riding even received media coverage, which has rarely happened in the past, other than once, about 10 years ago, when the community mobilized and became more assertive.

A few months ago, the newspapers covered a specific situation involving a protest and the presence of the riot squad in my community. A roadblock had been set up on Highway 138. The situation did not last long, but it required police intervention.

People were protesting a hydroelectric development project promoted by the provincial authorities and supported by the community's management organization, the band council. And so, the people took action. Their actions at that time showed that they were rejecting certain policies and decisions made at the local level. The members of a first nations community were making a new socio-economic and political statement and questioning the action taken by government and local authorities with regard to decisions made locally.

When we analyze the changes and the political turmoil happening in the communities we can infer that there is a socio-political awakening and a mobilization among aboriginal people. This wave of assertiveness is invariably accompanied by internal pressure on community administrative bodies and demands for accountability in the management of the community's shared heritage. When I talk about shared heritage for the Innu people, I am talking about the land and the fisheries and wildlife resources.

As I have said many times, my riding covers over 200,000 km² and is the traditional territory of the Innu and Naskapi people. I make special mention of this because it is important to understand that the band councils, the community management organizations, are a creation of the Indian Act. Under this act, the authority and jurisdiction of aboriginal people extends only to reserve lands. For example, my reserve is perhaps only 2 km in diameter, which is not very big.

The reason people are protesting more and joining forces has to do with land and resource management. Band councils, community management organizations, are also concerned about traditional territory and they are acting as interlocutors with both federal and provincial governments with respect to resource development initiatives. What we are seeing now is that the people, as individuals, as aboriginals, as Innu and Naskapi, are taking a stand and making their point.

The problem is that Aboriginal Affairs has imposed a cookie-cutter approach that requires every community across Canada to have a band council with a chief and councillors.

The same model exists in the United States and other colonies. This blanket approach has been applied across Canada. My ancestors were a fundamentally nomadic people who migrated across the land for several months of the year—as many as six months a year—in small family groups of about 10 individuals. Five or six hundred years ago, my community's culture made for minimal contact with other groups.

Within those groups, there were elders, and decisions were made within each separate group. There were no chiefs or counsellors per se other than the fact that, come summer, the Innu regularly met at the river's edge to take advantage of the wind that chased away mosquitoes. It is likely that consensus decisions were made then, when many Innu got together, but most of the time, people lived in isolated groups.

That is why we have this problem now and why people are no longer supporting some of the decisions made by band councils made up of chiefs and councillors. This model is not necessarily applicable to all communities.

Based on that observation, it is possible to consider that the circumstances favouring a healthy questioning of the ruling power, combined with the current political zeitgeist in the communities in my riding and across the province, can only be a sign of innovative ideas laying the foundation for a new social contract to benefit the masses, rather than just special interest groups.

And now I will get to the heart of the matter.

Although the stated purpose of Bill C-27 is to enhance the transparency of first nations people, it is up to the people, as individuals, to take the necessary action to ensure transparency and accountability at all levels of governance in their respective nations.

What I am trying to emphasize here is that this is a contentious issue that must be addressed internally, from within these communities, concerning the management of both financial and natural resources. These decisions must be made within the communities themselves. In the past, Innu communities had a process we call “émulatoire”; it was a consensus process. When a problem arose within the clan, you simply confronted your adversary, the person with whom you had a conflict, and told that person the simple truth.

This is how things are still resolved today, and that is why the people of my community—and I will speak for all communities in Manicouagan, including Uashat, Unamen Shipu and Kawawachikamach—are able to confront their leaders and ultimately discover the truth about how resources are managed within the community.

The Conservatives are hardly in any position to demand accountability right now, since they have a very hard time sharing financial information themselves, concerning the management of this country.

I submit this respectfully.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we are extremely concerned that this bill not only ignores a simple solution, but is overly punitive as well. The punishments spelled out in Bill C-27 are extreme and as bitter as the prescription itself. Consider that bands which do not comply with the demands could have their funding withheld or have a funding agreement terminated by the minister. How would that improve education, housing or the infrastructure challenges that many of these communities face? New Democrats do not see the need to divert more money to a new level of bureaucracy to reproduce much of what has already been done in a new format.

One of those demands is that information be made available online on a website. As someone who represents a northern rural constituency, I can tell members that this is not always possible. People in my riding know that it is enough of a challenge to get service to relatively accessible areas like Manitoulin Island and can see that website reporting could become a hurdle that some bands might not pass.

As we already know, non-compliance could see a funding agreement terminated or funds withheld. We see this as an overly harsh punishment that would do nothing to help those first nations who depend on these funding arrangements to provide safe water, keep their schools operating and pay social assistance for individuals who need it. When viewed that way, the punishment is far too extreme.

Again, New Democrats believe that there are already sufficient reporting processes in place and funding agreements could be modified to address the handful of worst-case scenarios the government seems to be intent on basing this heavy-handed, red-tape-filled legislation on. The government would do well to go back to the drawing board with Bill C-27, beginning with the full consultation of first nations, which is the biggest and most glaring omission in the entire process to date. The government should consult, reflect on the advice of the Auditor General and remember the more pressing needs of Canada's first nations communities.

We have heard over and over again on this side of the House that this is a piece of legislation that should not be implemented. There are already safeguards in place to address this issue and this is just duplication.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

The member from the other side is chastizing me. Obviously, we can see that those members know full well that we are talking about them and how awful they have been.

The Conservatives are setting out to force first nations to do what they themselves refuse to do. They are seeking to impose standards that are greater than those applied to politicians in many other elected jurisdictions in a way that creates more bureaucracy without really increasing accountability of first nations governments to their communities.

These standards and the costs associated with them are even more unrealistic when one considers the entirety of the circumstances, especially the recent budget cuts to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

We also cannot ignore the narrow scope of talking points that are the driving force behind this legislation. The maxim that worse case scenarios make bad legislation should be considered as we debate Bill C-27. Time and again we hear about a handful of overpaid first nations politicians, which leads to assumptions that are based far more on opinion than fact. Those scenarios, while unfortunate, are in no way among the most pressing the government faces with respect to our first nations communities. However, we are debating an unnecessary piece of legislation instead of working on ways to address more pressing needs, and that is a shame.

From the outset we know there is a problem because the intention of the bill is to duplicate something that already exists. To hear proponents of the bill speak, one would think that first nations report nothing about the funding they receive or the salaries and compensation provided to their leadership, when we know the opposite is true.

First nations produce year-end reports that include annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to them. These reports include salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials.

First nations are also required to release statements to their membership about compensation earned or accrued by elected, appointed and unelected senior officials, and the amount of remuneration paid, earned or accrued by elected and appointed officials, which must be from all sources within the recipient's financial reporting entity, including amounts from economic development and other types of business corporations.

That is not being made widely known or acknowledged by the government. Instead, it is imposing a bill that goes out of its way to force a different method of financial reporting and the costs associated with that onto first nations.

The New Democrats do not share the government's view on the urgency of this issue. We believe that Bill C-27 must be considered in the context of the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General, which stated that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government had failed abysmally to address the worsening conditions for first nations.

That report tells us that the money just is not flowing to the problems but that it is not for lack of audits or reporting processes.

The Auditor General pointed out that the reporting burden on first nations had actually worsened in recent years despite that office's repeated calls to reduce the reporting burden. Worst of all, the findings showed how many of the reports were not even used by federal government departments and were not serving anything but bureaucratic processes. They are white elephants and the government is eagerly seeking to increase them.

This is a non-turn in the road for a government that has said that it is so dead set against red tape. Perhaps it is only red tape when it frustrates the goals of its main lobbyist friends and not so much when it comes to frustrating the efforts of people it does not spend as much time with.

However, the New Democrats are convinced that changes to how audited statements are presented to first nations do not need heavy-handed legislation. Any changes deemed necessary could be a requirement of funding arrangements that the department has each first nation government sign. We are concerned that this bill not only ignores the simple solution but is overly punitive as well.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the bill so that the government can hear again how wrong-headed its approach is, not just for Bill C-27, but for much of what it has been hanging its hat on lately.

At the outset, the bill is unnecessary in that it ignores some simple ways to address the problems it seeks to solve. Bill C-27 is overly punitive and amounts to a real waste of valuable and much needed funds by duplicating efforts and increasing the bureaucratic burden on those first nations that do not already have self-governing regimes. It sets the course for costly legal battles and ignores the advice of the Auditor General to reduce the reporting burden placed on first nations. Worst of all, the bill was created without the consultation or involvement of first nations.

Bill C-27 is similar to a private member's bill the government is championing these days. The member just spoke to that. Bill C-377 is similar in that it seeks to force other bodies and organizations to do what the Conservative government is so thoroughly incapable of doing, which is to behave in a publicly accountable and transparent fashion. It is nothing short of ironic that we are debating the bill in the shadow of the ominous Trojan Horse budget bill, a budget that amounts to a leap of faith when put to the same test that Bill C-27 would force on to first nations.

We have just witnessed the government throttle the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer by refusing to provide the information needed for that office to report to parliamentarians in the manner that we have asked of him, in the manner that the Conservatives supported as opposition members and so thoroughly frustrate now that they are in government. We all welcomed how accountability and transparency were to be the hallmarks of the government and yet those principles are more notable by their absence than anything else when it comes to its actions.

The Accountability Act was the Conservatives' first piece of legislation after replacing the tired and corrupt Liberal Party in government. Only six years later, it is nothing more than a shell of broken ideals crushed under the weight of parliamentary bullying, influence peddling, lobbyists and allegations of electoral fraud.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-27.

I would like to thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for his support of my private member's Bill C-575 in the last Parliament and for his continued interest and leadership in the area of first nations financial transparency and accountability. When I introduced Bill C-575 in the last Parliament, I received overwhelming support for my private member's bill from both first nations community members and Canadians across the country.

If there has been a consistent theme running through our policies and programs with regard to aboriginal affairs since forming government, it is to support aboriginal people in achieving economic success so they can maximize the benefits of self-sufficiency and prosperity.

Since 2006, this goal has been emphasized in every throne speech, as was powerfully reinforced most recently in the 2011 Speech from the Throne. It committed the Government of Canada to support transparency for first nations communities by requiring chiefs and councillors to publish their salaries and expenses.

Being certain that a first nation government upholds standard accounting procedures and sound business practices is vitally important to potential investors in first nations communities. In fact, one of the most compelling reasons to support this legislation is its potential to have a positive impact on first nations economic development.

Transparency builds trust, and trust is integral to building strong relationships. Once it is clear how a community manages its money and how it accounts for expenditures, businesses interested in pursuing joint ventures will have greater confidence that they can count on a first nation to be a reliable and responsible partner.

The requirements under Bill C-27 would enable first nations to demonstrate best practices in their financial operations. This is crucial to create an environment conducive to investment. Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation also agrees with this concept, and said:

Transparent and accountable First Nation governments support a strong environment for investment leading to greater economic development.

If a first nation can inspire confidence among prospective investors, it can attract economic development, leading to greater self-reliance and a better standard of living for its members. That is the ultimate goal of Bill C-27.

However, the immediate objective of first nation members is simply to find out how their leaders spend the first nation's money and how much money chiefs and councillors are receiving for their services.

As other speakers have already explained, there have been repeated calls for greater transparency and accountability when it comes to the remuneration of chiefs and councillors. Accountability is a fundamental principle of Canadian political life.

Certainly some first nations governments already make this financial information readily available to their community members, but current practice related to disclosure is inconsistent. In some cases, first nation governments only make available information on spending and reimbursement of expenses when requested to do so. Others refuse their members access to financial information, forcing people to turn to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to have this information released.

First nations band members should not have to ask to find out what their elected representatives are earning. It should be publicly available information, just as it is for all other elected officials across the country. Other Canadians are not asked to tolerate such a situation, and first nation members should not be asked to do so either.

First nations are already obligated to produce audited consolidated financial statements and details about chief and councillors' pay, as has already been noted, and submit them to the federal government as a condition of their funding agreements.

However, at the moment, there is nothing in law requiring first nations governments to provide this information to their members or when and how it should be disclosed. This uncertainty, coupled with the shear unavailability of information in so many cases, is unfair to first nations members. It is patently undemocratic. Equally worrisome, it can be a major deterrent in attracting potential private sector investment opportunities.

The first nations financial transparency act would enhance transparency and certainty, making reporting requirements mandatory. It would open up a first nation's books so its members could see how funds were used by their government. Following the passage of this proposed legislation, there will be a consistent, reliable, predictable and transparent approach to disclosing such information. The bill clearly places the accountability on first nations governments to release information about financial compensation to elected representatives in a manner similar to that of other governments across Canada.

Under Bill C-27, band councils would be required to prepare audited, consolidated financial statements each year. These documents would be accompanied by a schedule of remuneration paid to chiefs and councillors, would make this information available to members of their community and would publish these documents on a website.

The proposed act also requires the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to publish the same information on the department's website so it can be easily accessed in one location for the information of all Canadians, including potential investors.

Making audited, consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration widely available will also help to promote investment on reserves. Anyone looking for strong first nation partners for financial ventures will be able to access basic financial information from a single source. Strong, capable and accountable first nations governments will be in a position to attract business investments that will lead to increased economic development and job creation in first nations communities.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could argue with that. Anyone taking an objective look at the facts can only conclude that Bill C-27 is equally good for first nations members, their local governments and Canada's business community.

Therefore, I call on all members of the House to get behind this very necessary and beneficial act. Not only first nations members but all Canadians are counting on parliamentarians to do exactly that.

I move therefore:

That this question be now put.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has its own challenges with accountability and transparency. The latest incident in a long string of incidents has to do with the PBO speaking truth to power and about the hiding of information from Parliament.

Accountability and transparency is a two-way street. Bill C-27 would apparently call first nations to account. How would the bill help with the other side of the street, which is calling the government to account for its handling of what is quite a significant amount of money?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for St. Paul's to comment on a couple of things.

She mentioned in her speech about the volume of reporting that is already in place that requires chiefs and councils to reveal their salaries, honorary expenses and audited financial statements. I wonder if she could comment, first, on the reporting that is already in place and why it is not sufficient.

Second, the government claims that somehow or other Bill C-27 would enhance economic development. I wonder if she can see any way this would enhance economic development.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, transparency and proactive disclosure are important goals for all governments, including first nations governments, and these are goals that the Liberal opposition supports.

The Conservatives have a duty to work with first nations to improve mutual accountability, not just impose made in Ottawa legislation.

First nations are willing partners on issues of governance but the government must stop treating them as adversaries. The Conservative government's recent decision to cut the National Centre for First Nations Governance is hardly a promising start.

Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric at the recent crown-first nations gathering about resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people.

The Supreme Court of Canada established that both federal and provincial governments have a duty to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that might adversely affect their aboriginal rights and, in some circumstances, accommodate aboriginal peoples concerns.

Further, we must not forget that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada signed, obliges Canada to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples for matters affecting rights, territories and resources.

The government now defends its lack of progress toward implementing the declaration by claiming that it is merely aspirational in nature.

Now the Conservative government is imposing major changes to first nations financial reporting requirements with no significant prior consultation with those who will have to implement these changes.

The government has used the same flawed approach on drinking water and on matrimonial real property.

The government did not hold any discussions on the specifics of these bills with stakeholders, never mind the opposition, before tabling them.

We have seen the Conservative government explicitly exclude aboriginal participation from their government's hunting and angling advisory panel despite the fact that they are the only Canadians with constitutionally protected hunting and fishing rights.

The Conservative government is a government that seems to have a pathological aversion to consultation with those impacted by their decisions.

When major changes to employment insurance and health care were recently introduced, it was done without any prior consultation with provincial governments, leaving them to sort out major structural changes in their jurisdictions with no federal-provincial dialogue.

When the Prime Minister announced major changes to our pensions, he did so to a foreign audience without having raised it during the federal election only months before or discussing the proposals with experts, stakeholders or Canadians.

The government’s approach violates the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult with first nations before changing laws or policies that affect first nations people, institutions and rights.

The previous Liberal government worked with first nations to develop a broad-based and comprehensive mutual accountability framework. This framework was included in the Kelowna accord, which the Conservatives tore up in 2006. The accord established a first nations auditor general, an independent body funded to oversee the accountability framework. This was broadly supported by aboriginal people. It was creative. It was the way forward in terms of building accountability and transparency. The Conservatives cancelled this initiative in 2006.

First nations funding arrangements are currently subject to annual allocations, changing program parameters and reporting obligations, as well as unilateral realignment, reductions and adjustments. We lack a legislative framework for predictable federal fiscal transfers based on the actual cost of delivery of services.

This will require transforming the fiscal relationship with the federal government to respect first nations rights and appropriately align responsibilities. Any effort to improve accountability and transparency must be mutual and should include both enabling provisions for a first nations auditor general and a commitment by the federal government to be accountable for its spending on first nations programs.

Bill C-27 does nothing to streamline the current overwhelming reporting burden, especially for small first nations with limited administrative capacity.

The Auditor General has repeatedly called for meaningful action to reduce unnecessary first nations reporting requirements that shift limited capacity from community programs.

In her 2002 report, the Auditor General recommended that the federal government should consult with first nations to review reporting requirements on a regular basis and to determine reporting needs when new programs are set up. Unnecessary or duplicative reporting requirements should be dropped.

As recently as June 2011, the Auditor General reported government progress toward achieving this needed rationalization as unsatisfactory. The government has failed to make meaningful progress on this issue.

First nations provide a minimum of 168 different financial reports to the 4 major funding departments: INAC, Health Canada, HRSDC and CMHC. That is three per week. The majority of these communities have less than 500 people. AANDC alone receives 60,000 reports from first nations annually as a requirement under existing funding agreements. Legislation that adds additional reporting requirements for first nations must also deal with this overwhelming and often outdated and unnecessary burden of existing reporting requirements.

As I have indicated, the Liberals fully support the principle of proactive disclosure of financial information for first nations chiefs and council to band members. Clearly, cases of first nation citizens being denied access to this information are unacceptable and it may be that existing legislation provisions should require proactive disclosure.

However, as the courts have ruled, this right of access to information does not extend to the general public. Therefore, the proactive disclosure provisions in this legislation must be changed so they provide proactive disclosure to first nations citizens alone.

There are existing models from first nations that already have strong governance models which can be adopted. There are examples of bands that are already proactively disclosing financial statements on password protected websites. These are the types of creative solutions that result from thorough two-way consultations when the government does not just speak but listens and internalizes what stakeholders have to say.

Bill C-27 would force first nations to disclose financial information related to band-owned businesses to all Canadians, not simply remuneration paid out of federal grants and contributions. This is inconsistent with the principles of first nations self-government and contravenes the Privacy Act, as well as a ruling by the Federal Court.

This measure could potentially make band-owned businesses vulnerable to predatory practices, and put them at a competitive disadvantage.

I am very concerned about the double standard that would be applied under this legislation. Non-aboriginal private corporations are not forced to publicly disclose consolidated financial statements. This could very well defeat the government's stated goal of stimulating economic development on reserves, as my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan has said.

I will also point out that paternalistic lectures about accountability are a little rich coming from the Conservative government. It is a government that has decided to rule by ideology, blind to facts, blind to the reality of everyday Canadians and free from accountability offered by access to reliable statistics. To facilitate this, it has muzzled scientists, bullied non-governmental organizations and slashed programs focused on gathering and analyzing evidence-based data.

In the 2006 election, the Conservative Party of Canada was fined by Elections Canada for overspending its campaign limit by $1.3 million and to have tried to inappropriately collect $800,000 from taxpayers in rebates.

In 2011, Conservative senators, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, as well as senior campaign officials, Michael Donison and Susan Kehoe reached a plea deal for misleading Elections Canada. It also seems increasing likely that there was a coordinated effort to keep Canadians from the polls last year. Elections Canada is currently investigating these allegations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is now facing a serious investigation by Canada's independent election authority for spending irregularities. The same individual is shockingly the government's spokesperson on election fraud. So much for accountability.

What about transparency? Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioners have publicly stated that while other nations are moving toward more open and accountable federal governments, our government remains one of the most unaccountable and secretive in Canada's history.

Bill C-38, the recently passed 425 page budget implementation bill, amends over 70 different acts and could end over 50 years of environmental oversight in Canada. Not only were these changes put forward without proper consultation, they were pushed through Parliament in a way to circumvent democratic scrutiny.

First nations have little to learn about accountability and transparency from the government.

As I have stated, the Liberals support the underlying goals of the legislation but are very concerned about how it was brought to the House.

The bill, as written, is inconsistent with the principle of first nations self-government.

It is inconsistent with the new approach to relations between the Government of Canada and first nations which was supposed to have resulted from the residential schools apology in 2008.

It is inconsistent with the Conservatives' belated and half-hearted support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Prime Minister's commitment at the crown-first nations gathering to reset this relationship.

We also have deep concerns about some of the unintended consequences of the impact on local capacity and first nations owned businesses. This legislation will need significant improvements and much further consultation with first nations.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006 the Assembly of First Nations put together a detailed position paper that outlined some of the key principles—principles that were actually developed by the Auditor General—that would have set the table for a respectful relationship and dialogue. The Crown-First Nations Gathering in January would have been an opportunity to kick off a committee of representatives from the Assembly of First Nations and the government to look at implementing some of the principles in that 2006 position paper.

We know that many times the government has switched to terms of “engagement” rather than “consultation” because consultation includes the notion of free, prior and informed consent. Without those elements of free, prior and informed consent, there is not true consultation, and there has not been true consultation on Bill C-27.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations. I will declare at the outset that New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.

I will read from the legislative summary and I want to thank the analysts for the very good work they did in providing a good background on this bill.

The summary states:

The proposed legislation...applies to over 600 first nations communities defined as “Indian bands” under the Indian Act, provides a legislative basis for the preparation and disclosure of First Nations' audited consolidated financial statements and of remuneration, including salaries and expenses, that a First Nation or any entity that it controls pays to its elected officials.

I will come back to the entity because it is an important reason for us to oppose the legislation.

I want to start, though, by reminding the House and people who may be listening about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the government indicated it would support and take some steps in implementing it in Canada. Of course, we have seen no action on that.

Article 4 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that 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. This is an important aspect in that this is about the right to autonomy and self-determination. This bill was not developed in consultation with first nations and it certainly does not reflect that right to autonomy and self-determination.

I will provide a bit of background. When we listen to the Conservatives, sometimes we think that first nations do not do any reporting. I have to point out that first nations governments currently do all kinds of reporting and audited statements.

I want to refer to a couple of pieces out of the legislative summary. It states:

First Nations and the federal government are both subject to various policy-based and legal requirements regarding the management and expenditure of federal public funds...

Through various federal reporting requirements, First Nations are also accountable to AANDC for the federal public funds they receive.

In turn, through the annual audit cycle and program reports, AANDC is answerable to Parliament and the Canadian public.

AANDC's expenditures are listed in the Public Accounts of Canada, as are contribution agreements signed with First Nations.

The summary goes on to talk about current legal requirements and states:

—the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations require, in part, that a band's financial statements be audited annually, and that the auditor's report be posted “in conspicuous places on the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band.

There have been some questions about the whole issue around access to information, and there is an analysis. I want to touch on one point on the Access to Information Act. This is an important piece of what first nations are being asked to disclose versus what other non-public sector organizations are being asked to disclose.

The summary goes on to state:

Section 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act prohibits a government institution from disclosing financial information provided to it by a third party who consistently treats this information as confidential. In Montana Band of Indians v. Canada...the Federal Court held that First Nations' financial statements are confidential information within the meaning of section 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act, and therefore are not subject to public disclosure. However, in Sawridge Band v. Canada...the Federal Court of Appeal held that these financial statements are not confidential vis-à-vis the members of the First Nations band, since band members may review their own band's financial statements under the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations.

This is important because these court cases indicate that first nations have a right to have this information disclosed to them, but it is not the right of the general public to have access to what could be confidential information.

Under the section titled “Current Policy-Based Requirements”, it states:

Under the Year-End Financial Reporting Handbook, First Nations must submit to AANDC annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to 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 the executive director, band manager, senior program director and manager. First Nations are also required to release these statements to their membership.

We already have rules in place that govern the release of this information. We heard the minister say that this was policy but now the government needed legislation. I would argue that the minister already has the authority, and in fact the minister admitted he has the authority, to request this information when it is not being submitted.

In December 2006, we had a report commissioned by the Conservatives called “From Red Tape to Clear Results: the Report of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs ”. This report recommended a couple of general principles around grants and contributions, which included:

1) Respect the recipients—they are partners in a shared public purpose. Grant and contribution programs should be citizen-focussed. The programs should be made accessible, understandable and usable.

The key thing in that is “Respect the recipients”.

The second guiding principle states:

2) Dramatically simplify the reporting and accountability regime—it should reflect the circumstances and capacities of recipients and the real needs of the government and Parliament.

Further in the report, the authors specifically dealt with first nations, Inuit, Métis and other aboriginal organizations by saying:

Fiscal arrangements with First Nations governments are complex, reflecting not only the varied circumstances of the 630 First Nations in Canada but also the fact that payments to First Nations governments are (or ought to be) more like intergovernmental transfers than typical grants and contributions.

Intergovernmental transfers would actually respect that nation-to-nation status that I believe Canada has agreed to through the negotiation of treaties.

The report goes on to say:

The panel is of the view that mechanisms other than grants or contributions for the funding of essential services such as health, education and social assistance in reserve communities are needed...

Then it went on to say that it was outside of its mandate.

The report did say:

Nevertheless, in all our consultations...we were reminded that the current practice of treating these kinds of transfers to First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Aboriginal organizations as more or less standard contribution arrangements is fraught with problems and leads to a costly and often unnecessary reporting burden on recipients.

I come back to the fact that an auditor general looked at the kind of reporting that was required from first nations communities and, over and over again, the auditor general continued to talk about the fact that first nations were required to do all kinds of reports.

The minister spoke about the Whitecap First Nation, and I will refer to that for one second. It came up in a question. The aboriginal affairs committee was fortunate enough to visit with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation and look at the economic enterprises. The minister has argued that part of this would lead to better economic development. The Whitecap Dakota has a very different take on that, and it has raised concerns with the other entity that I referred to in section 6(1) of the act. There are many first nations like this, but Whitecap is an example of a first nation that has in place stellar reporting requirements.

The letter states:

—that ensure the members of Whitecap are fully apprised of Whitecap's financial position. In this regard, Whitecap has approved 20 unqualified audits and has implemented a system of public review of the audits. In addition, as you are aware, Whitecap has also created the Whitecap Council Compensation Commission that has the specific mandate of ensuring that the compensation received by the Whitecap Council is fair, equitable and accountable.

The letter goes on to say that there are some concerns about the fact that salaries or expenses are lumped into a definition of remuneration which would have the potential to mislead people as to what his salary actually was. Of course members in the House have salaries and expenses reported quite separately.

It further states:

Bill C-27 on the other hand goes beyond the reporting related to funds received from the Federal Government. It would also appear to extend beyond the requirement for public sector reporting under generally accepted accounting principles as consolidated reporting of remuneration would include any business entities controlled by a First Nation.

The minister said that would only be salaries paid by these entities, but why would the federal government be interfering in a business project where a band member would be receiving remuneration from that business entity? If the Conservatives were truly concerned about economic development, they would focus on providing first nations the tools and resources they need to do that economic development, rather than looking at what a chief or council member was paid from another business entity. I am not clear why the minister is thinking that enhances economic development.

Many of the first nations that we visited, these were business partnerships. A private sector company works with a first nations company in a business partnership relationship, and some of these businesses may not want some of this information published for competitive reasons. Therefore, I would urge the government to take a hard look at this.

It was also interesting to hear the minister talk about openness and accountability. In his speech he said, “open accountable government is a stable government”. The Conservatives are setting up a double standards. On the one hand, they are saying that first nations have to do more, report more, be more open and accountable, despite the fact that they file almost 200 reports every year to the federal government. The Auditor General has identified that. On the other hand, they will not come clean when it comes to releasing their own facts and figures about the budget implementation act, Bill C-38, its costs and what the impact will be on that. In fact, in an article dated June 19, the PBO said that the Conservative government was fighting him on access to information. He said that government-wide budget cuts would impact federal agencies.

If open and accountable government leads to stable government, why is this government not willing to cough up the facts and figures itself? Why does it have two different standards?.

Further on in this article, Mr. Page said, “What does this even mean? Someone has to explain that to me. Does he mean”, referring to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “we're having too much impact?” He goes on to say:

Well I ain't apologizing for that. I'm not apologizing for the work we did on the F-35s, on crime bills, or on the fiscal sustainability reports. Those are all papers the government has not produced, that I produced with help from a group of people you could fit around two dinner tables.

For months, Page has been asking for detailed information on the Conservatives' plans for implementing $5.2 billion in government-wide cuts. Although the overall figure was revealed in the March budget, Canadians remain in the dark in terms of how the cuts will affect programs and services they use.

Page published a legal opinion this week, solicited from a leading constitutional lawyer, that concluded that 64 agencies were withholding information and breaking the law by denying the information.

Later in this article, “Following Page's initial request for information, only 18 of 82 federal organizations came through”.

Surely anybody who is looking at this information would recognize that we have an inequality and an injustice here. On the one hand, the federal government refuses to tell Canadians about the taxpayer money it is using. It is refusing to give that information through the Parliamentary Budget officer. On the other hand, the government is saying that first nations have to be subject to a different set of rules that the government itself does not respect. Why would they ask anybody in the House to support that bill?

There are a couple of other points I want to raise on this issue. I refer back to the Auditor General's report of 2002, entitled “Streamlining First Nations Reporting to Federal Organizations”. According to the legislative summary for this bill, this 2002 Auditor General's report:

...described existing federal reporting requirements as a “significant burden” on First Nations communities. It estimated that an average of 168 reports—200 in some communities—are required annually by the principal federal bodies that provide funding to First Nations for the delivery of various programs and services. The report suggested, among other things, that federal departments and agencies better coordinate their reporting requirements by streamlining their program authorities, thereby reducing the number of audits and reports required of First Nations.

The legislative summary goes on to say:

In a December 2006 status report on the management of programs for First Nations, the Auditor General found that meaningful action by the federal government was still needed to "reduce the unnecessary reporting burden placed on First Nations communities.” Noting that AANDC alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations, the report concluded that the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities.

Surely, with 60,000 reports and the authority that already resides with the minister, there is sufficient reporting going on. I would refer back to the report from the independent blue ribbon panel as well, which also highlighted the excess reporting required from first nations, Métis, Inuit and other aboriginal organizations.

Again, nothing has happened with this 2006 blue ribbon report. Nothing has happened in terms of looking at the nation-to-nation relationship. Nothing has happened in moving toward intergovernmental transfers instead of the grants and contributions process that is in place.

There is no doubt that at times community members have difficulty in getting the information they need, but the minister has already acknowledged that he does have the authority to get bands to release that information. The question again becomes one of why the minister does not exercise his authority.

In his speech, of course, the minister indicated that exercising that authority is paternalistic. However, it is a bit odd that on the one hand he is saying it would be too paternalistic for the minister to require the reports that are already in the policies under AANDC, while on the other hand the Conservatives have included an administrative measure in Bill C-27 under proposed paragraph 13(1)(b) that the government could:

withhold moneys payable as a grant or contribution to the First Nation under an agreement that is in force on the day on which the breach occurs and that is entered into by the First Nation and Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister, solely or in combination with other ministers of the Crown, until the First Nation has complied with its duty

If that is not paternalistic, I do not know what is.

It sounds to me that on the one hand the minister is saying that he does not want to interfere, but on the other hand, he is making sure that he could interfere with proposed paragraph 13(1)(b).

Another question I asked the minister was on proposed subsection 6(1), which says:

The First Nation must annually prepare a document entitled “schedule of remuneration” that details the remuneration paid by the First Nation or by any entity that it controls, as the case may be, to its chief and each of its councillors, acting in their capacity as such and in any other capacity, including their personal capacity.

The minister indicated that this was just about whatever this entity may pay a chief and councillors. However, that is not as clear as it could be, and it still does not solve the issues around the impact this may have on business relationships.

In sum, there are a couple of very key points in this piece of legislation that certainly raise concerns.

The minister mentioned the Assembly of First Nations in one of his responses. Back in January 2006, the Assembly of First Nations put together an “Accountability for Results” position paper. It outlined a number of principles that, working in conjunction with the federal government, would have helped bolster the accountability and transparency piece.

Part of that was based upon work that the Auditor General had done, which set out five principles: clear roles and responsibilities, clear performance expectations, balanced expectations and capacities, credible reporting, and reasonable review and adjustment.

The Assembly of First Nations and chiefs across this country have indicated a willingness to work with the government on accountability measures, but again, how were first nations included in the drafting of this piece of legislation?

In conclusion, on June 15 there was a press release from the minister saying that the government was strengthening fiscal management and accountability. This press release would indicate that the government already has the power to do many of the things that are included in this legislation, so the big question then becomes why the legislation is needed at this point in time.

It sounds to me as though it is continuing to play a game, saying first nations are not responsible and are not accountable. That is just simply not true.

Rather than bringing forward this piece of legislation that does not address some of the underlying problems with lack of adequate funding and lack of ability to develop some of that capacity, the government brings forward a bill that continues to play to a stereotype in this country.

I urge all members in this House to oppose the legislation.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, good governance is the cornerstone of healthy and progressive societies. It is a prerequisite to achieving both social and economic success, so today I am proud to speak in support of new legislation that will foster strong and accountable first nation governments.

With this proposed legislation, community members will know what their leaders are being paid. As well, they will have clear information about the financial decisions made by their leaders so that they can make informed decisions about the future of their community at community meetings and elections.

This transparency will also provide potential investors with the confidence to enter into economic development investments with first nations. Economic development brings jobs and revenues that the community can then use to invest in activities, programs and infrastructure to improve the well-being of all its members.

Under this proposed legislation, first nation governments will be required to prepare consolidated financial statements and post them on a website each year, along with the salaries and expenses of the chief and councillors. This will provide easy access to important information about the first nation by its members and by entities interested in working, investing or partnering with the first nation.

Before I elaborate on both the necessity and the benefits of the first nations financial transparency act, I would like to assure my hon. colleagues that what we are asking of first nations is nothing more than we ask of ourselves.

Nothing better exemplifies our commitment to openness than the way we disclose salaries of elected officials paid from the public purse, everyone from the Prime Minister and members of cabinet to members of Parliament. All of us as parliamentarians fully disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public. Canadians can easily find all of these facts and figures, since the Federal Accountability Act also increased the public's access to information about government activities.

The Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Finance Canada website. Individual federal departments and agencies disclose travel and hospitality expenses for executives on their websites as well.

We are not alone in making such information available to the public. Most provinces and territories release such information. Salary levels for members of their legislatures as well as supplementary amounts paid for taking on additional duties are posted on their websites, and in some cases, such as Manitoba and Ontario, public sector compensation in excess of $50,000 and of $100,000 respectively is also disclosed to the public.

Many municipalities across Canada post their financial statements and disclose information about compensation to their employees on the Internet as well.

While many first nation governments have put in place sound accountability practices that ensure transparency, there is no legal requirement for them to release this information to community members, and many do not. While many governments in Canada post this information on the Internet, recent research by my department found that as of February 2012, only a limited number of the more than 350 first nations that have their own website have done so.

Clarity about government expenditure and results is vitally important to securing public trust. Visible evidence of effective first nation accounting practices would reassure community members and potential investors that first nation leaders are spending their community funds prudently and appropriately.

Under current funding agreements, first nations councils are already required to provide my department with audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration for all elected officials, so we are not creating additional paperwork that would add to their reporting burden.

At the moment there are no statutory or regulatory guidelines related to transparency for first nations governments; consequently, community members cannot easily hold their leaders to account. The manifestation of democratic rights that other Canadians take for granted is not in place for many first nation members.

Currently the only recourse for community members who are denied access to a first nations audited consolidated financial statement is to appeal to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We receive many complaints.

Some first nations do not willingly release such information when requested. In these cases, the only option for complainants at the moment is to bring the issue to my attention. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has sole authority to compel a first nation to release financial information. This puts me in the position of perpetuating a sense of paternalism that both first nations and our government are working to overcome.

As it is now, when first nation members raise concerns about the non-disclosure of financial information, we respond. My officials work with the band governments to have it released, and if these efforts fail, the department then provides the information directly to the individual member who is requesting it.

The current system is unnecessarily complicated and, quite frankly, undemocratic. It is entirely reasonable for first nation members to expect their governments to meet the same basic accountability standards as other governments in Canada.

I have no doubt that most first nations strive to be accountable to their members and to the federal government. Some first nations go to great lengths to inform members and the public about the operations of their governments, displaying the information on their community websites or posting it in band offices. However, others have not developed and adopted accountability practices. This erodes the stability of their governments and communities. It also tends to undermine Canadians' confidence in first nation governments generally.

In addition, such cases give potential investors reason to hesitate when debating whether to enter into business arrangements with first nations. Before signing a partnership, the private sector wants assurance it is dealing with a reliable and reputable government. If there are doubts, a business may well decide against a joint venture, denying communities the possibility of new jobs and increased prosperity.

Our government is committed to putting in place the legislative frameworks that will foster strong, self-sufficient and accountable first nation governments. We also want to provide the information to first nations members that is available to other Canadians. This will help to build stronger relationships and ultimately create a healthier environment for investment and economic development.

We have developed Bill C-27 in fulfilment of our pledge in the 2011 Speech from the Throne. It will fill the current legislative gap and rectify the many shortcomings I have outlined.

The first nations financial transparency act builds on the excellent work of my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, whose former private member's bill, Bill C-575, was introduced in the fall of 2010 to enhance the financial transparency of first nation governments. It called for the publication of information regarding chiefs' and councillors' pay.

Bill C-27 goes further. It expands the scope of information to be publicly disclosed to include first nations audited consolidated financial statements. The act would entrench in law a financial accountability framework for first nations consistent with the standards observed by other governments across the country.

A further improvement is the clear requirement that first nations adopt the rules established by professional accounting bodies, such as the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Effective the first financial year after the act comes into force, first nation governments would be required to prepare audited consolidated financial statements and post them on a website each year along with the salaries and expenses of their chief and councillors.

First nations would have 120 days following the end of the financial year to post this information either on the first nation's website or the website of a tribal council or partner organization.

Audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration details for more than 600 first nations would also be published on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's website.

Easy access to this important information would ensure fairness and accountability, something community members quite rightfully expect.

Apart from making financial information readily available to community members, it would also simplify the process for potential investors to acquire the information they need to make business decisions. Data collected from first nations would also be posted on our departmental website. This would allow firms to go to a single source to compare one community with another when considering a potential joint venture.

Another new requirement under Bill C-27 would give first nation members better remedies if their governments fail to honour their obligation to open the books to the public.

If a first nation does not post the required financial data as required, anyone would be able to apply to a superior court to compel the first nation to publish the information. Once the information is released, it would also be posted on my department's website. This provision would allow a first nation member to hold the leadership accountable.

First nations governments have long advocated for more flexible funding arrangements. They want greater autonomy in allocating the money received under federal funding transfers. This legislation would build upon and recognize the capacity of first nation governments, enabling them to demonstrate that they are accountable governments that respect the basic principles of financial transparency.

This would be a key factor for my department in determining which communities are the best candidates for more flexible funding options. Building upon a first nation's demonstrated abilities and increased accountability, there would be greater opportunities to move from contribution funding to grants in some areas of programming.

I should point out that these same accountability requirements already apply to first nations that have signed self-government agreements. For example, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement requires that the first nation develop a financial administration system with standards comparable to those generally accepted for governments in Canada. The Nisga'a Financial Administration Act stipulates that the first nation make its financial statements available for inspection by members, including posting the statements on the Internet.

Because self-governing first nations are already demonstrating this high standard within the context of the self-government agreements, they are exempt from Bill C-27.

When first nation governments manage their finances in line with practices in other jurisdictions, it instills confidence in the business community and can provide economic development opportunities in the community. An open, accountable government is a stable government, removing uncertainty that might discourage investment.

This is being proven repeatedly in communities with settled land claims and self-government agreements. Increasingly, they are entering into joint ventures with the private sector to create jobs and generate economic growth in their communities. We are confident that Bill C-27 would help to make this happen in a broader way.

This proposed act would guarantee to community members as well as other levels of government, the business community and all Canadians that first nation governments are effective and transparent in their business dealings.

Once Bill C-27 becomes law, first nations citizens would be able to participate more fully in the democratic process, receive information they require and have the assurance of redress where required.

In conclusion, I am asking all parties to stand behind this very necessary and overdue legislation.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal year 2011-12 and the main estimates for fiscal year 2012-13 for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This committee has an important role in reviewing the department's expenditures.

The amounts listed in both sets of estimates represent investments that support this government's larger approach to improving the quality of life of aboriginal peoples and northerners.

I will touch on other aspects of our government's approach in a moment, but I'd like to begin by addressing a few items in supplementary estimates (C) for 2011-12. These estimates include initiatives totalling slightly more than $70 million.

The largest single amount, $47.4 million, involves the emergency management assistance program. These funds are needed to reimburse costs incurred on reserve by provincial, territorial, and emergency management organizations. These organizations provided response and recovery services on reserves following floods in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta, and wildfires in Ontario and Alberta.

The second-largest item included in supplementary estimates (C) is $5.1 million for acquisition of fisheries licences by Maa-nulth First Nations and commercial crab licences by Tsawwassen First Nation. This investment honours commitments by Canada during the negotiations that led to the Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen final agreements. Those are British Columbia treaties.

The main estimates for fiscal year 2012-13 forecast department expenditures of approximately $7.8 billion. This is a net increase of $429 million, or 5.8%, over the main estimates for 2011-12.

This is partly accounted for by an increase of $286 million in the cashflow for the negotiation, settlement, and implementation of specific and comprehensive claims, primarily for the settlement of the Coldwater-Narrows specific claim. As you are aware, our government has prioritized addressing the backlog of such grievances, some having been unresolved for decades. We've made excellent progress in this regard.

The details of forecasted expenditures for the main estimates are available to you. I can also assure you that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada will continue to make strategic and targeted investments that respond to the needs of aboriginal people and northerners, while at the same time ensuring that resources are aligned with priorities. We will continue to actively monitor resource pressures and demographic growth pressures.

Mr. Chair, the investments listed in both sets of estimates represent only one of the means this government has to support northerners and aboriginal peoples in improving their quality of life and achieving their significant potential within a strong Canada. Legislation is another important tool, as the members of this committee understand very well.

This government has a number of legislative initiatives under way, both in the House of Commons and the other place, and I look to the members of this committee to advocate for passage of these important proposals.

For instance, last November we introduced Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. This proposed legislation supports democratic, transparent, and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses.

On December 6, Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, was introduced in the Senate. This legislation addresses long-standing issues with the current election system under the Indian Act and is nearing the end of a thorough review by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, has passed through the Senate and is now awaiting second reading in the House.

Just last week we introduced Bill S-8, legislation proposing a mechanism to safeguard the quality of drinking water in first nation communities, and committing in the bill to work with first nations on the development of the regulations.

Also as part of our legislative agenda, we are continuing to move forward with legislative and regulatory changes to modernize the federal regulatory system for project reviews through the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Partnership, whether legislative, policy, or program, is another key component of this government's approach. The shared goals prioritize supporting northerners and aboriginal peoples to participate more fully in Canada's prosperity.

I'm pleased to report significant progress. Through ongoing devolution and self-government negotiations, Canada continues to work with partners to create practical, innovative, and efficient governance models. For example, negotiations continue between the Government of Canada and Government of the Northwest Territories towards a final devolution agreement. This will be an important step in the political and economic development of the Northwest Territories.

International Polar Year is another example of a successful initiative that has created important partnerships for Canada with an emphasis on our north. The strength of these relationships will be demonstrated when, between April 22 and 27, the Government of Canada will welcome the world to Montreal for the International Polar Year closing conference. Over 2,500 participants will attend, including leading polar scientists, aboriginal leaders, Arctic community members, industry representatives, and policy- and decision-makers in order to review the work that has been undertaken and to discuss the way forward for advancing Arctic science.

Partnership, of course, takes many forms. We are also continuing to work alongside the Assembly of First Nations through the Canada and first nations joint action plan. A growing spirit of collaboration was evident during the crown and first nations gathering held earlier this year, in which all participants declared their intention to go beyond the joint action plan and set the context for change. This spirit is also reflected in a series of practical agreements that address specific issues, such as on-reserve education and child and family services.

Seven tripartite education agreements are now in place across the country. The most recent agreement was concluded in British Columbia earlier this year, and builds on existing partnerships in that province. It will provide first nations students in British Columbia with access to quality education programs, whether they attend school on or off reserve.

To inspire further progress, on June 21 last year the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched an independent national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education. The panel's role was to lead an engagement process and provide recommendations on how to improve first nations elementary and secondary education. On February 8, the national panel released its final report. We are reviewing the recommendations in the report carefully and are considering the next steps on education reform.

Mr. Chair, there can be no doubt that our government recognizes the importance of a sound education for all Canadians. We recently demonstrated our commitment to progress on education through our support of the honourable member for Manicouagan's opposition day motion on first nation education.

Improving education outcomes is crucial to making progress on a critical issue: economic and social development. The reality is that barriers continue to hinder the full participation of aboriginal people in Canada's economy, so we are also continuing to turn to willing partners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in both the public and private sectors, to find workable solutions to these obstacles to economic development.

The federal framework for aboriginal economic development introduced in 2009 is a case in point. Developed in partnership with stakeholders, the framework is a business-oriented opportunity and results-driven policy approach.

By means of the framework, we are working toward a more systematic identification of economic opportunities for aboriginal people, a greater leveraging of partnerships, and a modernization of land management regimes. As this committee is aware through its ongoing work, that is why, in budget 2011, our government took action to reallocate $20 million over two years to respond to the growing interest from first nation leaders in participating in the first nations land management regime.

As a result of this investment, we recently announced that 18 additional first nations will be participating in the regime. New signatory first nations will be able to opt out of the land-related sections of the Indian Act and consequently manage their land, resources, and environment according to their own land codes, laws, and policies. They will now be able to take advantage of greater economic development opportunities at the speed of business.

Ultimately, this government aims to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live—north or south, on or off reserve—can share in and contribute to Canada's prosperity. Both estimates support existing programs, partnerships, and legislative projects. I am confident that the items under review will lead to further progress for aboriginal peoples, northerners, and all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to answer any questions that members of the committee may have pertaining to supplementary estimates (C) and the mains.

Government Priorities

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last spring Canadians elected a government that is listening and keeping its promises.

Canadians told me they wanted a government that would make keeping their children and communities safe a priority. As promised, within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament, we will pass Bill C-10.

Farmers in my riding told me that they wanted the freedom to market their own wheat and barley. We are delivering by passing Bill C-18.

I regularly hear how wasteful the long gun registry is. I am very pleased that the government is passing Bill C-19 to end this discrimination against law-abiding citizens.

People across Canada have also told me of the need for increased transparency and accountability for first nations governance. I am proud that the government has introduced Bill C-27.

We have listened and we have acted.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm pleased to be here today in this committee room, which I think I've spent a little bit of time in before.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the supplementary spending estimates of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I appreciate the role that the committee plays in reviewing the department's expenditures.

The investments included in supplementary estimates (B) support the Government of Canada's plan to improve the quality of life of aboriginal peoples and northerners across Canada. As members of this committee recognize, this plan includes strategic and important investments in infrastructure, funding for programs and initiatives, and the implementation of agreements such as the Indian residential schools settlement agreement.

I'll do my best to answer your questions in a few minutes. First, though, I'd like to provide details about a few key items listed in supplementary estimates (B). The allotment of $179.4 million to the independent assessment process for the residential schools settlement is the largest single item on the list. This amount includes $136 million in new funding, and $43.4 million reprofiled from last year.

This investment supports the Government of Canada's commitment to respect the terms of the court-ordered Indian residential schools settlement that was agreed by all parties. The additional funding will respond to the increased application levels to the independent assessment process.

The Government of Canada remains committed to concluding agreements with former students and their families. Continuing the implementation of the settlement agreement builds on our government's commitment to moving towards healing, reconciliation, and resolution between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

The second largest item in the supplementary estimates is $109.1 million for the assessment, management, and remediation of federal contaminated sites. The Government of Canada is committed to the health and safety of all Canadians. This money will support our government's ongoing efforts for safe and timely environmental cleanup. Our government continues to work closely with first nations, Inuit, and northern communities to remediate contaminated sites. Budget 2011 allocated $68 million over two years to the federal contaminated sites action plan. Most of this investment focuses on priority sites in the north such as the Giant Mine in Yellowknife and the Faro mine. In the past two years, the Government of Canada has committed more than $330 million to projects at hundreds of sites in the north and on reserves across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to highlight a few other items listed in the supplementary estimates and explain how they relate to this government's broader goals. Improving the quality and availability of first nations child and family services is a case in point. Significant improvements have been made in recent years as a result of a series of tripartite agreements between Canada, first nations, and provincial governments. The services delivered under these agreements focus on prevention and early intervention, leading to better outcomes for first nations children, youth, and families.

Two items in the estimates support this goal. There is $6 million to fund an agreement in Manitoba, and $1.2 million for a dedicated database to track results. Agreements are already in place in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. This means that nearly 70% of all first nations children who live on reserve have access to services delivered under the new model. We hope to complete agreements with other jurisdictions in the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to highlight a few other items that are listed. Bill C-22, for instance, which I'm happy to note just received royal assent yesterday, completes an agreement to establish the Eeyou Marine Region and authorizes first nation groups to co-manage and protect islands in James Bay and southeastern Hudson Bay. Bill S-2 proposes to close the legal gap that exists in matrimonial rights and interests on reserve. And Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, is part of the government's commitment in the 2011 Speech from the Throne to support democratic, transparent, and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses and audited consolidated financial statements.

I'm also committed to reintroducing a bill that will propose a mechanism to set standards to safeguard the quality of drinking water in first nation communities.

A goal of these and other legislative initiatives is to create the accountability mechanisms needed to foster economic and social development. This committee will have an important role in moving the agenda forward. I believe the study currently under way on sustainable economic development will be valuable and pertinent.

In June, the Auditor General's status report analyzed why so many Government of Canada programs fail to deliver the intended benefits to first nation communities. The key factor cited in the report is that many programs have no legislative base. Should a program fail, no one can be held accountable. To ensure that programs and investments achieve their goals, this government will continue to develop and implement appropriate legislative remedies in collaboration with our stakeholders.

Another element of the Government of Canada's strategy to promote economic and social development among northern and aboriginal communities is working with willing partners. I'm proud to note that this past June, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and I announced the Canada-first nations joint action plan to improve the lives of first nation people across Canada. The action plan expresses our joint commitment to work together to improve the long-term prosperity of first nation people and all Canadians.

Strategic partnerships with provincial and aboriginal groups that continue to improve education outcomes in a growing number of first nation schools are another instance of the work that we do with willing partners. Collaborative initiatives to improve the educational outcomes of first nation students are now under way in seven provinces. Engagement sessions were held last year, helping to inform improvements to aboriginal economic development programs, including efficiencies in program delivery. Strategic partnerships have also inspired significant progress on specific claims and first nation access to safe drinking water.

The Beaufort regional environmental assessment is another example of a strategic partnership, among Inuvialuit, the oil and gas industry, territorial and federal governments, regulators, and academia, to prepare for oil and gas activity in the Beaufort Sea. Together they have supported research and actions that will provide information and data in support of efficient and effective regulatory decisions.

The larger goal of the government's plan is to ensure that all citizens, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can share in and contribute to Canada's prosperity. The investments included in the supplementary estimates are designed to complement existing programs, partnerships, and legislative initiatives. I'm confident that the items under review will lead to further progress for aboriginal peoples, northerners, and all Canadians.

Thank you very much. I'll do my best to answer any questions the members of the committee may have about supplementary estimates (B).

[Peter Dinsdale]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have that particular list here for you today, but that's exactly the sense we're trying to talk about when we say “a relationship”.

In December 2010, the Prime Minister wrote to the National Chief about wanting to work on these issues. In the spring, he committed to a joint Canada-first nations action plan that is really meant to, in these next number of years, look over what the specific deliverables are that we can deal with together. I think you've touched on them. We've talked about education being the primary priority. You mentioned housing, of course...well, I don't know if you did mention housing, but housing and water are usually also referenced with respect to infrastructure issues.

Economic development is very important as well, and we have a number of real structural barriers with respect to treaties and the claims process—both comprehensive and specific claims—which require examination and some modernization. If you do those things, I think we're coming a long way to beginning to address the conditions so that first nations themselves can be active partners in the federation. We may have some disagreement under the goals and objectives of Bill C-27, but accountability and transparency itself are important, naturally, and improved governance is important, naturally; there are just different pathways to get there.

Those are some examples without specifically saying that we need to raise the education rate to a certain percentage of the national average. In some communities, less than half of first nation children are graduating from high school. I guarantee that if half of the children in your ridings were not graduating from public education, there would be royal commissions, inquiries, and a massive national call for action, but that's the reality in first nation communities, so we as a country need to come together around that particular priority. The others are important as well, but if we were to focus on something, I'd say education is it.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Peter Penashue, Conservative, Labrador, NL]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)