Debates of Nov. 27th, 2012

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

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

Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question.

I think I said earlier in my speech, I cannot understand why all members in this House, all Canadians, whether they are aboriginal or not, do not get behind this legislation and support the principles of accountability and transparency that are foundational to the work we do as elected officials, and that all Canadians deserve from their elected officials. I believe first nations community members, like all Canadians, deserve that financial accountability and transparency from their elected leaders.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, International Trade; the hon. member for Windsor West, Public Safety; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in terms of understanding what is in fact the difference.

If there is a prime minister of a country who says that the government wants to change a law within the immigration department, we believe that ultimately the prime minister, through his cabinet, and the minister of immigration who gets to sit around that cabinet table, will be consulted, maybe not necessarily under the current Prime Minister, and a sense of consensus would be built within the cabinet. Then the law would ultimately be proposed and brought to the House of Commons.

We need to recognize the uniqueness of what we are trying to do through this bill. There is an obligation for the Government of Canada to consult with first nations leaders. The government has not recognized that.

In responding to my question, the member said that she somewhat anticipated that I would ask this question. I was a bit surprised in terms of the answer that she provided, given that she knew I would ask it. We all need to be concerned about it.

Let me repeat a specific question that I asked a little earlier today, and then I will give the answer that followed.

The question I had asked was for the member for Kootenay—Columbia, a member from the government benches. I said, “My question to the member is this. Can he provide to the House in any fashion the names of anyone within that first nations leadership whom the government actually consulted with prior to the drafting of the legislation?” I reinforced it with “Can he list some of those first nations leaders with whom the government had consulted with to come up with the legislation or the ideas behind this legislation?”

The member for Kootenay—Columbia responded with this, “Mr. Speaker, certainly we consulted. Between January 1, 2011 and September 25, 2012, the department received approximately 250 formal complaints from people within the first nations communities of Canada saying they could not access the information that they wanted about their chiefs and their councillors. Bill C-27 will make this happen”.

That is not consultation. That is not what the government has a responsibility to do when it comes to making changes and passing laws in Canada. That is virtually any type of law. One would like to think is more than just consumer-based complaints and the government then jumps up and changes a law.

There is a wide variety of stakeholders on any given issue throughout this nation that would like to contribute to the development of public policy and there is an obligation for ministers to go out and do their homework. We know we have been let down by a number of ministers who have not gone out to do their homework when they have introduced legislation in the chamber. There have even been ministers who have gone against what the public wanted. I could give a number of examples of that, whether it is the Canadian Wheat Board or some of the refugee legislation that was introduced.

When we are passing legislation dealing with our first nations, there is that much more of an obligation for the government to sit down with the first nations leadership in order to try to improve upon the situation.

For the last number of days, we have been talking about finances, transparency and accountability. All Canadians want to see more transparency and accountability. This is not a they versus us. It should not be the Government of Canada saying that it demands that first nations leaders become accountable and transparent.

The vast majority of our first nations leaders say that they too want to see accountability and transparency. They believe in it, much like the average Canadian believes in it. However, we need to recognize that there has to be a process to achieve that.

What we have had is a very eager member of the Conservative caucus who brought forward a private member's bills in previous sessions saying after reflection and meeting with constituents, the bill was drafted. Apparently there was consultation after the bill was done. She did not say whether they supported the bill or her particular initiative. However, then we had the government of the day adopt that bill and make it a government bill. The bill is going to pass. We know that.

It is the type of thing which I suspect, if the government had done its homework, there could have been and should have been a lot more incorporated in it and maybe some aspects of it even deleted or modified if there was goodwill from the Government of Canada to sit down with some of those individuals on the front lines trying to deliver these services.

The Auditor General of Canada has made it very clear, not just once but on several occasions, that we need to see meaningful action in order to reduce unnecessary first nations reporting requirements, that we need to look at streamlining the overwhelming reporting burden currently there. The government, as opposed to reflecting on what the Auditor General of Canada has said, is advancing its ideas without doing due diligence or consulting with our first nations leadership. As a result, we find ourselves in the situation we have today, where the government ultimately has to force passage of the bill through time allocation.

What would have happened if the government had done its work, taken the responsibility and treated first nations with the respect that they are due? If that had taken place, we might have been able to achieve some of the things the Auditor General talked about that would not have taken away from accountability and transparency. We could have even had a bill that had more accountability and transparency. After all, it was the first nations that ultimately suggested that we should look at having a first nations auditor general.

Look at the benefit that not only the nation of Canada has had as a direct result of an auditor general, but the benefits that individual provinces have had by having auditors general in place. It provides a great deal of accountability and more transparency. This idea was talked about during the Kelowna accord.

However, we find ourselves in a situation where we have the Auditor General of Canada saying that there is already a heavy burden. We also have leadership within our aboriginal community, in particular our first nations community, that also want to see action on this issue. However, the government is doing it in a piecemeal fashion. If the government were genuine in wanting to really resolve the issue of accountability and transparency, there would have been a better way.

I had the opportunity to address this issue previously. One of the things I talked a great deal about at that time was the Kelowna accord. I believe the Kelowna accord is an example of the way a government should work with our first nations in order to achieve success. That is the reality of it. If we canvassed individuals, we would find wide support for the Kelowna accord,

Stakeholders, including the different levels of government, first nations leaders, members of other aboriginal communities and other interested parties sat down over a period of months and brought up issues that concerned them, including the issue of financial accountability and transparency. This is something very real. It was there.

I raised the issue the other day inside the House. Members were commenting on the Kelowna accord, so I said that perhaps we should table the Kelowna accord so members could actually read it.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

It's a press release.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member can call it what he wants, Mr. Speaker, but the bottom line is the accord was achieved, and that is a fact. The other thing that is a fact sadly, is the government that replaced the Paul Martin government deemed the accord unnecessary and ripped it up. The government did not want anything to do with it. That is the second reality. That has led to many different issues.

I said that members might like to read the accord as it seemed some had not. I asked for the unanimous support of the House to table the accord and much to my surprise someone said no. That individual did not want me to table it. I was somewhat taken aback by that because after all there seems to be a genuine lack of awareness about the Kelowna accord by members on the government benches. If government members were a bit more sensitive to what is inside the Kelowna accord, they might be a bit more sympathetic as to why they are receiving the type of opposition they are getting today on this legislation.

Once again, I managed to get my hands on this wonderful document. I commend former prime minister Paul Martin for his efforts. It is critically important that a prime minister have the ambition to achieve things of this nature. Many within and outside the aboriginal community thought the Martin government did a fabulous job on the Kelowna accord. I want to read a couple of parts of the accord that are really relevant to this debate.

A lot of the questions that I and the New Democratic Party are asking are focused on the relationship between Ottawa and our first nations communities. We have gone through all sorts of other debates over the last year dealing with first nations issues. Time and time again the issue of consultation, or the lack thereof, has come up. This has really become a problem for the government.

I thought it might be appropriate to highlight a couple of aspects of it because it makes reference to the importance of consultations.

On page 2 of the Kelowna accord it talks about a 10-year commitment to closing the gap. I am going to quote directly from it:

First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders are committed to strengthening relationships between Aboriginal peoples and federal, provincial and territorial governments. These relationships will be based on enhanced collaboration, effective working partnerships and mutual respect. In that spirit, First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders are launching a 10-year dedicated effort to closing the gap in the quality of life that now exists between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. The ultimate goal of this effort is to address the serious conditions that contribute to poverty among Aboriginal peoples and to ensure that they can more fully benefit from and contribute to Canada’s prosperity. In strengthening relationships, all parties are committed to move forward in ways that build on the principles enshrined in the Constitution including the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.

When it talks about the principles of the Kelowna accord, we should think of the whole idea of consultation and obligation. I just talked about trying to narrow the 10-year gap. In that paragraph, we get the sense of the importance of building a relationship. We have to ask ourselves what type of relationship the current government is building with first nations, when we cannot get a direct response when we ask it to tell us who it is meeting with prior to introducing bills before the House of Commons.

If Conservatives had done that, if they had met with some of the first nations leaders, I believe we would have a healthier and stronger bill today. It would have provided equal or greater accountability and transparency on reserves and beyond them. I have faith and confidence that there is already strength within the leadership of first nations that is equal or greater than the types of transparency and accountability clauses we are seeing in the current legislation. The will would have been there, and I suggest that it could have been even better legislation. The government chose not to develop that relationship, and that is unfortunate.

I will go back to the Kelowna accord, based on the importance of consulting before bringing in legislation that would impact first nations communities:

The following principles will guide how the parties will work together:

If I have one minute left, I do not have enough time to read what I wanted to, unfortunately. A member suggested I could ask for leave. I would welcome the opportunity to speak longer, if I may.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the member have leave to continue his speech beyond 20 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It appears that he does not, and he now has 30 seconds to complete his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a very good speed reader, but I would highly recommend that members read the Kelowna accord. It is good reading for all members of the Conservative caucus. To that degree, I would ask for the consent of the House to table this document so members would have clear access to it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before I have the opportunity to ask, the answer appears to be no; there is not unanimous consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peterborough.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate all day and I have had the opportunity to listen to this member on many occasions making interventions. However, today most of it is around one single subject that he cannot seem to get his mind past.

One of the things that has occurred to me, and frankly I really think it matters, is that in every Parliament every once in a while in this position one has the opportunity to do something that is truly transformational and truly important. We have had that in the time since I have been elected. I think of the Federal Accountability Act, the 2009 federal budget and the economic action plan.

I think of other Parliaments that have voted on things that were significant, such as John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights and the U.S. free trade agreement. These are things that have fundamentally transformed Canada and made a positive impact. The record of members who have supported those things is something that is celebrated today.

I wonder how this member will feel when he looks back 20 years from now and sees that he had the opportunity to provide transparency and accountability, which is something I believe will become the mainstay, expectation and right of every single first nation citizen. How will he look back at his time when he had the opportunity to make a difference, to stand up for transparency, accountability and those less fortunate in Canada, but he voted against it, the way he has indicated here today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question by posing a question.

One has to wonder how it is that the Prime Minister of Canada is going to look in the mirror when he had an opportunity to work with our first nation communities on an issue of accountability and transparency, something on which we know our first nation communities very much want to work.

The Prime Minister had the opportunity to build that relationship on something that really was not that difficult to do. However, he put a pass on working with our first nations and instead followed a private member's bill from a backbencher that excludes a significant percentage of the population of our country.

I think that if we were to talk to our first nations, their leaders and others, most people would say that, at the very least, when the will is there for more accountability and transparency, why would one not work within our first nation communities to have a bill that would pass unanimously in the chamber without time allocation being required.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen attentively to what the member had to say. I wonder if he would like to comment on what I believe to be the real problem here.

The real problem is that if one goes to a regional office of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada, there is nobody there. They have all been fired. There are a few people, but they are not taking responsibility for anything. They will not see anybody. They will not talk to any first nation people. They will not sign anything that needs to be signed. No one is taking any responsibility. If a band member has an issue, he is not getting any help from the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid point. We debate legislation, but what is actually happening in our communities?

It was not that long ago that the leader of the Liberal Party brought in a motion that recognized the need for clean running water. This is a serious issue—not for 98% of Canadians, who turn on the tap and water comes out. They get water for drinking, for the toilet, for the bathtub and so forth. When the motion was introduced, it was great because all members from all political parties voted in favour of it, recognizing the crisis that was there. However, we need to take the next step. We need to ensure the services are going to be there to meet the needs, as my colleague pointed out. We need to ensure there are the necessary resources to make a difference.

Most Canadians would be quite surprised to find there are huge numbers of people who do not have running water and yet they live here in Canada.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member speak, and the one thing that really struck me is that we keep on talking about wanting to speak and speak, and it reminds me of what the Liberals did with the emissions, when they signed onto the Kyoto protocol and did nothing with it except talk about it, until we formed government when something actually started to happen and we saw emission reductions.

The member also said it is not an “us versus them” as far as accountability goes, yet why does he want to make it that way? The member should be supportive of this. He says all Canadians, including aboriginal communities, desire accountability, yet he is talking about a bill that brings forward accountability. Does the member not believe that there should be accountability on the part of a leadership group of elected officials, to the people who elected them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the idea of accountability and transparency is something that is supported by all members of the House of Commons. Verbally it is something that is supported. Having said that, I also believe that the population as a whole supports more accountability and more transparency. That includes individuals who are leaders within our first nations.

If we take a look at the importance of first nations, treaty rights and so forth, we see there is a moral obligation and a legal obligation that we work with first nations in the development of legislation and policy. This has been agreed to in principle by governments of all political stripes in the past. It seems to have escaped the Prime Minister, and we would suggest it is probably the single biggest thing that is missing here, because there are many individuals within our first nation leadership who would have loved to have been able to participate in coming up with a better bill that would have provided more accountability, more transparency, but were denied that because of the manner in which it was brought in.

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

Mr. Speaker, why did the Liberals try to pass the First Nations Governance Act against the wishes of the first nations, which were trying to develop their own transparency measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues I brought up was that there are those who wanted to see an aboriginal auditor general or first nations auditor general. Having served inside the Manitoba legislature and now here in Ottawa, I recognize the important role that auditors general have to play in terms of the issue of accountability and transparency.

Who knows what would have happened, because we know there is significant support for that concept within the leadership of the first nations community? Had there been a consultation done, we might have actually seen something of that nature incorporated into the bill or something separate. I would suggest that is a lost opportunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, November 22, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.