Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to you, Ms. Block, and thank you for appearing before us.
No doubt we all, around this table and in the House of Commons, share the principles of transparency and accountability, which we have criticized your own government on many times.
Your bill purports to address these principles. I would refute that. It does little or nothing to enhance transparency or accountability.
In terms of consultation, indeed I would like a list of the names and dates of individuals and people or organizations that you consulted with prior to the development of your bill. If you could produce that, I'd like to have that in written form and presented to the committee.
As you know, when it comes to aboriginal people, the duty to consult is a legal duty that we have, and we take that seriously. It's a policy the government has employed, or wants to abide by, I would hope.
There are those, Ms. Block, who say that it your bill violates the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. People say it's inconsistent with the inherent right of self-government, which the government purports to uphold. Many would say that it perpetuates stereotypes, that it is prejudicial, and that it smacks somewhat of racism.
I will only quote from the Quebec Native Women's Association from their November 29 press release, which said, and I quote,
QNW is concerned with the misleading portrait of the kind of fiscal transparency that is happening on reserves. While QNW--
--meaning the Quebec Native Women--
--believes that transparency and accountability for First Nations governments are an important part of good governance, the private members' Bill C-575, as presented by MP Kelly Block (Conservative Party) seems to be motivated by a prejudicial and racist view of Aboriginal peoples “as living off society”, by implying that the federal funds coming from “good tax payers' money” granted to Aboriginal chiefs and councillors are ill spent.
It seems to take a blanket approach to aboriginal peoples, aboriginal leadership, as all being somehow corrupt and inept. The examples you used are almost like a byline. We have this cloud of suspicion and insinuation, and then an apology saying that we don't want to spread that too far and giving the example of some first nation. If that were a byline.... It's never that there is good accountability, and the exception to good accountability and transparency is a few first nations.
In fact, the only stats provided by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation indicate that there were problems with only 7% of all elected officials.
When it comes to the issue of redundancy, I'm pretty sure you must be aware of the comprehensive funding arrangement, the national model that INAC has in place, that calls for generally accepted accounting principles and auditors general. I'm sure you're also aware of the year-end financial reporting handbook from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which has, as Annex D, a schedule of salaries, honoraria, travel expenses, and other remuneration all listed right there. It's the same thing that your bill purports to now open up. It's all there, so I believe the bill is redundant.
When we talk about consultation, one can use the words that it was unilaterally brought in, and in your own testimony speaking in the House, as noted in Hansard, you said, “I also, in speaking with my colleagues...”. That sounds like water cooler talk, sitting around talking across a few snacks and a coffee, and you bring in bills about something so fundamental to first nations people.
I want to ask you one very simple question in addition to the ones I've already asked. You've been in power for six years. Why only now did this suddenly become an issue for the government, if there were egregious issues of accountability and transparency throughout this time? Whatever happened to the collaborative efforts with first nations that were taking place in 2005 and 2006? Why was that not continued? The issue of a first nations auditor general was even being talked about in 2005-2006. Why didn't those efforts continue? Is there anything that could have stopped the minister? What legally was stopping the minister from taking this information and making it public?
Could the minister not have adjusted his policies in either of those two documents and made this information public? What was stopping him? What was fundamentally different, except that now we have this huge issue, and it's causing divisions and enhancing stereotypes?
