Debates of Nov. 20th, 2012

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note that nothing in this bill adds to the existing reporting burden faced by first nations. Instead, this bill represents the minimum set of standards with respect to financial transparency, which are not currently being followed by many first nations.

We expect many first nations will adapt easily and, in fact, will go further than the basic requirements laid out in this bill. Many will take this as an opportunity to put into place their own practices, which aim to enhance the overall accountability of their government. In this way, this bill would serve as a catalyst for change in many communities, which would lead to greater confidence in many first nations governments.

Greater confidence and transparency result in increased opportunities for flexible multi-year agreements, which will come with streamlined reporting. Over time, as these practices become commonplace, first nations will be in a much stronger position to demonstrate that they are candidates for more flexible funding arrangements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada has made it fairly clear, not once but on several occasions, that the government needs to take some form of action to reduce unnecessary first nations reports, where it can. I listened to the member's comments, and what she fails to recognize is that there was a responsibility for the government to work in co-operation with first nations leaders in the drafting of this legislation. One thing the government should have taken into consideration was what the Auditor General of Canada was recommending, which was to find ways to reduce the number of reporting mechanisms.

I am wondering if she could comment on what I and my party believe is a lost opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I introduced a private member's bill addressing first nations financial accountability and transparency. For the last two years, there have been many conversations and discussions held regarding the requirements that would need to be put in place to ensure greater accountability and transparency. Indeed, it was due to many complaints I received from first nations members that I introduced that private member's bill in the first place.

We know that all of the reporting we are asking first nations governments to include in their reports to the government and to make public are already happening, as I already said in my answer to the previous questioner. We know that governments, with the exception of first nations governments operating under the Indian Act—provincial, federal and municipal governments—in Canada must adhere to legislation that ensures the transparency of the financial statements of the government and its entities and the remuneration paid to its elected leaders. That is what this legislation is calling for, and I believe it is what first nations members deserve.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might provide some comment on the fact that many first nations leaders across the country have also recognized the importance of transparency and accountability and would have loved to have had the opportunity to present their ideas and thoughts on the issue before the government actually drafted and introduced the bill to the House of Commons.

As I have said in this place and will continue to say, it was a lost opportunity by the government to not have consulted the first nations leaders. I wonder if the member might provide comment on that specific point.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. Indeed, we see goodwill in aboriginal communities. However, this government has taken a very paternalistic attitude towards first nations as we can see in the bills that are introduced in the House without any consultation with first nations.

Furthermore, the government does not address fundamental issues that would improve the quality of life for first nations. For example, it fails to talk in the House about the housing shortage and the lack of jobs on reserves. It ignores these communities' real needs, something we find profoundly disappointing.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is demanding more and more paperwork and justifications from first nations and from anyone who does not share its political views. On the other hand, it does not hold to account polluters, those who contaminate the environment.

Why is there such a double standard, with one set of rules for friends of the government and another set of rules for other people?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Once again, we see a double standard at work. The government is asking first nations officials to show more transparency, while the Prime Minister's office is not transparent at all when it comes to its staff's salaries.

I would like to touch briefly on the Auditor General's comments from June 2011, as they seem very relevant to this debate. She called for major structural reforms to improve the federal government's policies and practices. Unfortunately, the government ignored those recommendations.

Among other things, the Auditor General recommended establishing clear and measurable service standards, products and responsibilities. She also suggested enacting basic legislation for key services, including education, housing and drinking water. Furthermore, she suggested paying attention to uncertainties and delays surrounding grants and funding, as they make long-term planning more difficult.

I am calling on the government to consider the Auditor General's clear and meaningful recommendations.

[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--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. it may just have been a lack of clarity on the part of the member and maybe he will want to bring some clarity to it, but he did use the phrase that we are trying to strangle first nations. I do not want that to leave a bad impression that somehow there is strangling going on. The member may want to clarify what he means by that statement.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has about 20 seconds.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It is not, Mr. Speaker. Conservatives are financially strangling first nations, as they are financially strangling democratically-elected labour movements. Both of those approaches are bad and they need to walk the talk. Conservatives need to be accountable to Canadians. It is about time they actually started setting an example.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was following quite attentively what the member was saying and then he kind of lost me when he made reference to the Liberals being worse than the Conservatives. My first thought was that I would take any opportunity in any forum to talk about previous leaders of both the Liberals and New Democrats, standards of transparency and public accountability for their personal behaviour. I would challenge the member to engage in that discussion in an open and transparent fashion.

Would the member comment on the importance of consulting prior to drafting legislation, which seems to have been lacking with regard to this bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the issue. The Assembly of First Nations put forward very clear solutions. It said that there should be an auditor general and an ombudsperson for first nations communities. Those are solutions that everyone in the House should embrace. For six years, those recommendations have been festering in some backroom where the Conservatives hid them away. Instead, they bring forward this bill on which there has been no consultation at all.

Consultation is a fundamental part of democracy. It is something that an NDP government will do in 2015. It will be ensuring that it is consulting with the public, because that is normal. However, the Conservative government, whether it is Nexen, or first nations, or the labour movement or anything it decides it does not like or disagrees with, there is no consultation and it tries to impose its views and ideology on Canadians. I think that is why Canadians are losing confidence in the government.

[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, the member for Nickel Belt is a fantastic member in the House of Commons and is one of the most effective local representatives across the country. He does a great job on behalf of his community.

The difficulty is that the intent is the same. The government's proven complete lack of accountability to the Canadian public, ongoing secrecy and lack of transparency is unbelievable. It would have former Reform Party members rolling over. What it has done absolutely contradicts everything that originally brought the Reform Party to some prominence in the country. There is secrecy and lack of transparency that is incredible, mind-boggling and disrespectful to the Canadian public. At the same time, big industry lobbyists get money and there is no accountability there.

However, if people run a first nation, or run as a democratically-elected officer of a labour movement or are part of an NGO that endeavours to bring things forward, if they do not follow the line of the Conservatives, they will be under attack. That is what the government is doing. It is strangling these organizations with financial red tape and that is despicable.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster before me, who made such an eloquent and passionate speech, this is one of the motions that I would rather not have to get up to speak on. One would think that we would not have this legislation in front of us when there are so many serious issues to be addressed for our first nation communities across the country.

I have worked as a teacher for a great number of years on beautiful Vancouver Island. I have had the privilege of working very closely with the first nation communities both in Nanaimo and Nanoose. One of the things I have realized over the last couple of decades is that as a society we have a lot of work to do.

For the catastrophe of residential schools, we have had an official apology from this place. However, we need to start addressing some of the very serious issues in our first nation communities around clean water, housing, price of food and health care.

These are areas for which we have been criticized by the rapporteur of the United Nations. This was a criticism that my colleagues across the way did not take too well. Even though the rapporteur is from a well-established international organization that we are a member of, the Conservatives wanted this gentleman's resignation. It is absolutely flabbergasting.

Instead of addressing any of the real day-to-day issues and challenges faced by our aboriginal communities, what do we have? We have another bill that would create more accountability.

Who would not want more accountability? On this side of the House, we want more accountability. We want legislation to be debated and voted on in the House. We do not want time allocations to be called. We also do not want to be faced with bills that are the size of a phone book purporting to be budget bills but buried in them are devastating impacts on our environment, immigration policies and much more.

However, the Conservative government really does not believe in accountability for itself. It has a tendency to use some extreme cases in order to stranglehold those who may not agree with it. I wish I knew what the motive of the Conservatives is. I know they are very good at yelling “accountability” at others, but they have practised none of it themselves. They do not even listen to their own parliamentary officer and they definitely do not give him the information he required so he can give an informed assessment.

I was not here during the last sitting of Parliament, but I believe this legislation is based on a private member's bill from the previous sitting, Bill C-575. This new bill was introduced on November 25, 2011, with a press release that said:

This bill builds on [the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar's] bill that was introduced in the last session of Parliament, addressing the issue of financial transparency for First Nation leaders by expanding the scope of the information to be publicly disclosed beyond the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors to include a First Nation's audited consolidated financial statements.

The issue is not really accountability. Once again it is playing to their base. Once again, based on misinformation and limited information, the Conservative government has introduced a piece of legislation. What the government is doing is absolutely outrageous. Using the example of purported salaries in one province alone with one first nations group, it is putting in a kind of surveillance that goes way beyond the requirements for many of our elected officials around this country. Let us take a look at this.

While the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other Conservative-friendly groups like to talk about the outrageous salaries made by our first nation administrators and leaders, once we actually look at the facts, the reality is that the average salary for chiefs is $60,000 and the average salary for councillors is $31,000. As well, 50% of the chiefs around this country earn less than $60,000 and only 5% earning more than $100,000. This obviously has very little to do with addressing a real issue, so what is it all about?

One of the things that has really struck me since I came to the House is how pieces of legislation such as this get sent to committee, where we really hope there is some parliamentary oversight, discussion, debate and amendments. The NDP proposed 18 amendments and not one was adopted by the majority on the other side. While we were there, we were trying to do something that makes sense: to delink remuneration and expenses. The two things just do not go together. People have different expenses as they carry out their jobs, but to link that to their actual salaries and then conflate that figure is just outrageously unjust.

The other thing we tried to do with an amendment was to remove the power of the minister to withhold funds. We know the kinds of terrible conditions that exist for first nations right across this country. To think that any minister would be able to withhold funds, let us remember that funding is to provide for education, health care and to subsidize the cost of food in many cases. This could also freeze the administration in that area in a very damaging way and could actually put lives at risk.

This seems to be a new trend by the government. I have certainly seen it in the area of immigration. We are seeing it in more and more of the legislation that keeps coming through the House. More and more power is being vested in the hands of the ministers. I would say that is the antithesis of parliamentary democracy.

When so much power is vested in the hands of one minister, or two or three or four ministers, no matter which political party they belong to, I would say that is a real threat to parliamentary oversight and to parliamentary democracy. We get elected and sent to this hallowed hall to discuss, debate and then vote on issues. Under the current government, ministers have grown their powers to a degree that I would say has become very dangerous. That is one of the key areas in this piece of legislation that needs to be addressed.

We are opposing the bill because of the items I have mentioned, but also because the government failed in a fundamental rule. It failed to consult with our first nation communities and make them part of the solution. Without consultation it would be unfair to impose an unjust piece of legislation on our first nations people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I appreciated her opening remarks when she talked about speaking to the bill. I reflect on the Kelowna accord where we had first nation leaders and different stakeholders come to the table. They came up with an agreement on an accord, and then the Paul Martin government was in a position to introduce it in the House of Commons.

When a member of Parliament introduces legislation or ideas to the floor of the House of Commons and he or she has done the background work and the consulting, would the hon. member not agree that it makes it a whole lot easier to support legislation when we know the background work was done in advance of a motion or a bill being presented? In other words, we know that others, particularly the stakeholders, were involved in what is being debated. Does that not provide more comfort for members who are speaking to it and want to support it?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I believe in consultation. I believe that in order to find a solution, we need to engage the very people who are involved.

I would say that the first nations people have been disrespected in a great way. They were made to believe they would be consulted and they would be part of issues, especially on any legislation that would impact them. Here we have a piece of legislation that did not involve them in a productive way. We are always better off to consult than to go into a room and make up legislation, then use extreme cases to justify it and do the media spin. It just does not cut it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's presentation and would now like to ask her a question to which, unfortunately, I cannot foresee a positive answer. As a member of the committee, perhaps she will be able to enlighten me.

I would go back to what my colleague for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said a short while ago about the fact that we are poised to impose on first nations a set of standards that are vastly more restrictive than those to which all other elected officials are held.

Are our first nations being singled out, or can it be argued that first nations are just the first of many groups on which the government will attempt to impose similar standards?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful question. That is the one item I think is really distasteful in this.

The legislation would apply to the first nations people and would hold them to a completely different standard than many elected officials. It does not hold corporations to these kinds of standards, yet businesses owned by first nations people will be held to them. Think about the kind of impact that has on the economy within the first nations, their competitiveness and their ability to compete with others, when all of their information will be out there for the world to access by making a request. It is very unfortunate.

It also sends the message that they are one group that we have to build a very tight fence around, and if they do not behave, we will take their pennies away from them. It is just outrageous that we are debating such a measure in Parliament.

[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.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague was not here during the last Parliament so she did witness the private member's bill being brought forward by the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, when considerable consultation took place with first nations about these very issues.

I find it quite ironic that the member would stand in the House and ask for transparency from one level of government but not from what is effectively another level of government.

What kind of transparency would the member look for if she were setting something up, because we do ask for transparency when government money or taxpayers' dollars are put forward to another level of government and when every province and every municipality now puts all their statements online? I can go to my municipalities and ask them to present to me their audited statements and they are responsible for providing them to me as a taxpayer. My question for the member is, what does transparency look like?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague from Newmarket that just because I was not elected prior to this parliament does not mean that I do not understand or know what happened in prior parliaments. It is a little bit silly to suggest that I did not realize that my colleague from Saskatoon had a private member's bill on this.

If I go into Kanesatake and ask whether there have been consultations and the response is no, then I believe that not enough consultation has taken place, because that is a community that should be consulted. If first nations people are saying they have not been consulted enough, then who are the Conservatives to decide that they have been?

As for transparency, we cannot take any lessons from the Conservatives. The member said that she could go online and check for her municipality's statements there. First nations can ask that of their band councils, and it is already happening. Someone living in a community can already access that information, as it is already required.

What more do we need to do? That is quite transparent already. We only need to be transparent to those to whom we are accountable, namely the people living within our jurisdictions.

[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.