Madam Speaker, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock is a riding in central Ontario that enjoys some prosperity and good relations with some aboriginal groups and some that are even better.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-222. I believe the hon. member's motion has been inspired by a sincere desire to improve living conditions in aboriginal communities and to promote greater accountability for the management of funds or to encourage the development of aboriginal self-government.
Regrettably, his rhetoric today and in the past, and his party's well-known and oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal issues, leads me to a different conclusion.
The party, formerly known as the Reform Party, opposes aboriginal self-government. It would prefer to return to the good old days when a paternalistic Ottawa managed the affairs of first nations. It does not believe that aboriginal people can be trusted to manage their own concerns, make their own decisions or determine their own destiny. When there are different reports about poverty on reserves or financial difficulties in some aboriginal communities, it seizes upon that as proof that aboriginal people cannot be trusted and should not be encouraged to manage their own affairs.
We take a different view. This government believes that first nations can be trusted, that they are responsible and that they deserve to run their own lives. Our preference is for partnerships not paternalism and for co-operation not control.
Let me remind the House how we came to where we are today, how the issue of financial management has evolved over the years and why it is so important to demonstrate our continuing confidence in first nations as they make their way through this period of transition to self-government.
Until the late 1950s, the federal government delivered most programs and services directly to first nations. By the late 1970s first nations were administering some programs in accordance with terms and conditions set out by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the 1980s the process of devolution began to pick up steam and new funding arrangements were developed. First nations were administering more programs, but still under the mandate of the Indian Act. Today 83% of our department's budget for programs is transferred directly to first nations and a further 11% to provinces for service delivery.
More importantly, in the 1990s, as we moved toward self-government, more and more first nations are assuming jurisdiction and greater responsibility for these programs. That means more and more they are planning and managing services based on the needs of their community. These new arrangements emphasize the relationship between chiefs, councils and their members.
This means that our primary role is no longer to deliver services to first nations but to design and manage financing arrangements that will allow first nations to deliver their own programs and be accountable for those programs for their memberships.
As we transfer more responsibility to the first nations, we are also working toward strengthening and building the skills and professional capacity within first nations that are needed to support these programs.
As funding arrangements have changed, so too has the issue of accountability. In the old days, when the federal government provided most of the programs and services directly, the lines of accountability were clear.
The departments involved, through their ministers, were responsible to parliament. Over time, as responsibilities devolved to first nations, efforts were made to promote local accountability; that is to say, first nations are becoming accountable to their constituents for the expenditures of funds and for the quality of programs and services they deliver.
In these times of limited resources, Canadians are insisting, quite rightly, that we manage tax dollars prudently. This is true of aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments alike. The same principles of accountability which apply to non-aboriginal governments also apply to first nations, principles like transparency, disclosure and redress. This means, for example, that first nations must disclose to their membership not only annual audits, but information such as the salaries of chiefs and councils, travel expenses and so on.
The federal government has worked with aboriginal governments to put in place financial standards that are comparable to other governments exercising similar responsibilities. The emphasis is now on making the information within first nations financial statements relevant and comprehensible to community members. Similarly, the accounting industry is starting to consider the needs of first nations when developing accounting standards.
Recently, as some first nations have assumed greater responsibilities and acquired significant assets, through land claims settlements for example, they have recognized the need for more sophisticated accounting systems. What we have seen is that first nations have gained the right to manage their affairs. They are moving to strengthen accountability and management practices.
Much of the progress in this area has not received the attention or publicity it deserves. Too often it is only the first nations communities that run into real financial problems that make it on to the news or into the papers. In fact, last year only 2% of first nations had their agreements placed under third party management. The simple fact is that most reserves are managing their finances properly. I believe this record reflects both the determination of first nations to manage their affairs responsibly and the creation of proper checks and balances.
When problems do arise, the department may intervene in a number of ways, depending on the problem. For example, we may simply make sure that the first nation is aware that there is a problem, encourage it to find solutions and offer advice. In other cases we will consult with the band more actively or hire a co-manager to address the difficulty. Only in a very few cases, the 2% I mentioned earlier, is it necessary to bring in a third party to stabilize the situation until a solution can be found. Some intervention does happen, but our favoured approach—and I am sure the House will agree it is a good one—is not intervention, but prevention.
The brief chronology I have sketched today shows the evolution of our relationship with first nations as a government. It highlights the increasing responsibility and accountability that has been assumed by first nations in recent years as they move toward exercising their inherent right to self-government. However, we must keep in mind that this is a story that is still being written. Yes, there have been growing pains along the way as we make the fundamental transitions in our relationship, but if we think that people are not exercising their judgment well, is the answer to take away their ability to choose or to inform their judgment?
The party formerly known as the Reform Party would have us take away the rights of first nations to choose, to grow and, yes, occasionally to make mistakes. Our government would rather work with first nations—