Debates of Nov. 20th, 2012

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the real problem is that my colleagues on the other side are thinking that we need to make first nations accountable to all taxpayers. That is because the system we have set up right now is one that is paternalistic and racist. Essentially, it is our colonial structure toward first nations. Basically, what we have done is to make these first nations communities, which are nations with their own people, accountable to us through the structure of the Indian Act.

What we need to do is to sit down at the table and move forward as partners. That is something that the Conservatives will never do as long as they continue to see these communities as accountable to them and not as partners.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments. First, it is very disappointing to hear the member speak about this legislation or characterize himself as being disappointed to have to speak to a piece of legislation for which many first nation community members are actually calling. It is because of complaints by first nation community members that this legislation was introduced. While the member may be disappointed, I feel very privileged to be able to bring legislation like this forward to address an issue that first nations have brought forward to our government.

We have also heard members talk about the reporting burdens of first nations, and I have already spoken to this in my remarks, but I want to reassure members that there is nothing in this legislation that would require 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. Members need to stop perpetuating the notion that we are requiring more reporting, when it is actually already being done by first nations.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made some comments, but did not ask a question.

I am sorry that she is disappointed. On the other hand, I want to stress that the reporting requirements for first nations, and particularly for groups that are outside the scope of the bill, might be an excessive burden.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations live in Canada as if they were in a third world country, when it comes to access to drinking water, decent housing and something as simple as an elementary school.

In our wealthy and prosperous country, according to Conservative criteria, we accept that a community lives in third world conditions.

I would like the member for Laval to explain how the management rules to be imposed on first nations will change their economic and social status.

Will they at last have the schools they are entitled to or will they have to fill out administrative forms?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question.

I am not in a position at all to say how this bill could be beneficial to first nations. As he just explained very clearly, they already live in conditions worthy of third world countries, which today are called developing countries.

They have very limited resources and, in addition, they are expected to behave like a nation with its own efficient public service. In fact, they have such limited resources that management is not very complex. And they are generally very well managed.

Imposing a burden of useless and arbitrary red tape just makes management more difficult. They will have to spend their resources on that instead of addressing the crying need of their people for schools and infrastructure.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this House is discussing a bill of surprising relevance. In theory, a government should work in collaboration with the first nations in order to improve governance—not just administration, but the results obtained. It should not use administrative obligations as a weapon to silence anyone. Unions, environmental groups, charitable organizations, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Rights and Democracy, and Development and Peace are all facing administrative roadblocks, some of them so huge that the organizations may disappear.

The Conservatives have eliminated funding for institutions that support governance, for instance the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance and, to top it off, they are preventing many young aboriginals from getting a post-secondary education. This is a case of giving someone orders but taking away the resources needed to carry them out. It is Machiavellian. It is demoralizing to give a person an order but make it impossible to carry it out.

The minister’s power to withhold payment of any money due to a first nation or to cancel any agreement concerning grants or contributions to a first nation if all requirements have not been fulfilled is a truly excessive penalty. It turns a person’s ability to fill in an administrative form into a matter of life or death, although the form changes absolutely nothing about the service provided.

There is no mention of social housing. There is nothing about health care. Public education is missing. There is nothing about running water. In short, the means needed to overcome poverty are not there. However, there are administrative rules. This is a huge defect. It will do nothing to relieve the problems of infrastructure, but administrative rules will be imposed—the kind of rules the Conservatives themselves do not obey. They have eliminated the obligation on polluters to respond to environmental assessments. In terms of navigable waters, they have slashed so much that 95% of our bodies of water are no longer protected by the law.

On one hand, some people who no longer have to fill out forms in order to carry out a project get preferential treatment, while people the government does not like get no such favours. More red tape is added, lots more. For a government that claims it wants to eliminate red tape, it is creating a lot. It is generous with red tape for its adversaries, but not for its friends. It is a double standard.

If we apply administrative rules rigorously, then we set up a rule and apply it to everyone. That is what is called GRAP--generally recognized accounting practices. First nations, unions and businesses are applying them already, but the Conservatives have decided to use their imagination when dealing with their ideological adversaries.

We in the NDP believe that the changes in first nations financial statements do not require a law. It could be covered in the requirements under the financing agreements the minister signs with each first nation.

In short, the solution to the problem they claim to see is already there. If they have some problems now and then, the solution already exists.

They show up with their horror stories and generalize from a few back-page news items, when this government already has the solution but is not applying it. Why is it not applying it? That is an interesting question.

In one of her last reports, the Auditor General said the government was inundating the first nations with administrative problems and forms to fill out and it did not even have the staff to check them. That is the height of futility. People are being asked to fill out administrative forms and threatened with financial cuts if they do not fill them out, when there is no administrative infrastructure in place to check the reports. And the government claims to be a good manager. It is actually amazing that the country has not gone bankrupt yet.

It is quite something. The Auditor General and her senior officials gave the government instructions, but it is not listening and it is looking around for something else. It hears some back-page story, it generalizes from it, and it comes in with a club, a coercive law, and a means of eliminating a problem that does not exist. The law already gives the department the means to remedy any impropriety in first nations funding. The means exist. Why is the government not using it?

If a member of the first nations embezzles funds, the Criminal Code is available. All it takes is a phone call to the RCMP to report a theft, a fraud, or problems with management or administration. The department already has flying squads to help people deal with these administrative difficulties.

The department is getting craftier; it does not have flying squads of public servants anymore: it has consultants. It has big accounting firms that come in and tell it they are going to teach it, for a fee, how it should manage itself and deal with the administrative forms it demands. I presume that some day it is maybe going to think of hiring these accounting firms to audit the administrative reports it has demanded. That will be interesting to see.

Obviously, the problems it is facing have nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal. Let us talk about that scandal. The government has been very quick to bring in a bill to deal with these back-page cases. But the Gomery report, which called for a solution in relation to the sponsorship scandal, has still not been implemented to prevent a repeat of the sponsorship scandal.

What it comes down to is that we are faced with threats for which the government does not want to apply solutions. And for problems that do not exist, it invents solutions that are worse than the problem itself. The little bit of money that it might save has nothing to do with the orgy of spending on accountants and consultants that it is going to take to administer this legislation.

Instead of dealing with the real problems facing first nations communities, this bill contributes nothing. And that is disgraceful.

For all these reasons, the NDP will be opposing a bill that produces nothing, a bill that is typical of the government and serves only one purpose: to impose constraints on an adversary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that I reject the member's remarks with respect to Conservatives favouring or disfavouring any particular group. I have spent a lifetime working with these communities, and I think he should do the right thing and take those words back.

Whether we are talking about the Parliament of Canada Act, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act or Manitoba's Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Act, these are examples of the kinds of legislation that make it necessary for government to declare its salaries and expenses to the people to whom it answers. That is what this bill is about. It is about re-establishing the relationship, based on complaints from grassroots first nations community members to their government, and posting what the governments already produce.

That might be too complicated for the member to understand, but I want him to go on record and say if he is telling this place that he does not stand for the countless first nations community members who came forward and had been under duress at certain points in their community forums to simply ask for the disclosure of their audited consolidated financial statements and notes, which reflect the salaries and expenses. Is he saying he does not stand for any level of government? As he said, there should be one rule for everyone. That sounds as if this rule levels the playing field. What is he talking about?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for someone who has worked with first nations for a long time, I find the member especially insensitive to their present material welfare.

With this bill, I would have expected that someone who says he wants to work with first nations had actually worked with them. As for good governance, first nations have solutions and they have submitted them to the government. So has the auditor general.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can hear my colleague, but I have the floor. He can ask me a supplementary question later if he wants.

The leaders essentially agree to be accountable for their financial obligations to their constituents. They even proposed that a special auditor general be assigned to first nations, and also the establishment of an ombudsman. There are solutions.

As for the abuses you are talking about, I would suggest you call the RCMP. These days, the Conservatives are afraid they will be arrested if they call the RCMP. That is your problem, not ours. Solutions do exist, such as generally accepted accounting principles. You guys across the aisle do not understand that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind members to direct their comments through the Chair rather than directly to other members.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is one of the hardest working members of Parliament. His speech was so good, witty and full of facts that it went over the member for Kenora's head. It was too intelligent for him.

Could my colleague please comment on the fact that the current Conservative government is possibly the least accountable and transparent in Canadian history? I would like my colleague to comment on the government's irresponsibility.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the information he is entitled to. By denying an officer of Parliament that right, the government is denying all Canadians the right to receive information about government spending.

We do not know how much some people working in the Prime Minister's Office actually earn. We do not know what cuts will be made and what services will be eliminated as a result. The Conservatives do not want more clarity: they only want to silence their opponents.

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.

Report Stage

[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.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Western Arctic knows this topic very well. He has always been a good advocate for first nations. I am really proud of him.

I have seen the numbers. The different aboriginal administrations right now table more than 60,000 reports with the ministry of aboriginal affairs. That is 165 reports every day that these administrations have to give to the minister. Right now the government has no shame. It has the nerve to tell us that there is no accountability and there is not enough transparency when it is already drowning in bureaucracy and paperwork.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that subject.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the issue surrounding the paperwork that first nations are required to produce is really extraordinary. These governments are being hobbled in their work by the federal government and by the aboriginal affairs bureaucracy. There is no doubt about that. That goes on with respect to every single issue that these people work on. It requires massive change. It is not a question of stupidly increasing the accountability provisions as is happening with this legislation. It is about coming to an understanding of how governments can be accountable in good fashion.

There is so much to do for first nations. They have so much promise and potential and they are being held back tremendously by the rules that run their lives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to emphasize the fact that many first nation leaders are advocating for more financial accountability and transparency. That is nothing new. It is not as if the Government of Canada is saying that there has to be transparency and first nation leadership is saying no to transparency. That is not happening. It was recognized in small part in the Kelowna accord where first nations led the arguments as to whether there should be a first nations auditor general who would provide accountability and so forth. I would not want people to get the impression that first nation leadership is outright rejecting the whole issue of financial accountability and transparency because that is not the case.

The case today is why the government failed to consult and work with first nation leadership to come up with how best to deal with the issue of accountability and transparency. Would the member not agree?

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There will be five minutes of questions and comments when the debate resumes.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, be read the third time and passed.

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-44.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #496