Debates of Nov. 27th, 2012

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker, and I will reiterate to my colleague how important accountability and transparency has been for our government.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes or no? Yes or no?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

The salaries of members of Parliament are certainly disclosed and basic information is also provided.

The legislation would expect of first nations the very same information being disclosed that is already....

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

All of it?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Our expenses are published.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No, they are not.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Could hon. members please pay attention to their colleague who has the floor?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was being rudely interrupted and I did yield the floor to you to call order, and I appreciate your doing that, but it is unfortunate, when a question is asked, that the answer is not something hon. members are interested in hearing. The reason they are not interested in hearing it is that the answer is quite simple. We are expecting the very same accountability and transparency of first nations governments that is expected of all other governments in Canada.

I fail to understand why my colleagues in the opposition would feel that it is not important for first nations people to have accountability and transparency the same as we do.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my hon. colleague's speech, which seemed to have been hastily prepared in advance. I have a question for him. I particularly appreciated the part about the Canadian government's obligation when it comes to financial reporting in relation to its own Crown corporations.

I would like to know on what grounds he is basing his insistence that first nations communities and Indian bands in Canada have an obligation to disclose to all Canadians information regarding companies that could have interests throughout the country. I would like to know on what grounds he thinks he can justify requiring band councils to disclose potentially sensitive financial information to the entire Canadian population.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my remarks, we are talking about aggregated information. We are talking about audited financial statements. I do not believe there is anything that will harm any proprietary business interests in doing so.

This legislation is seeking to simply provide to first nations members that same accountability, that same transparency that is provided to all other Canadians.

It is very troubling to me and very difficult for me to understand why the opposition would see any reason to oppose that very basic accountability and transparency. That is the hallmark of democracy. It is something that has been very important to our government and certainly something that has been well documented and indicated in our actions as a government. Bringing forward the Federal Accountability Act, as our first act, is a very clear example of that.

It is just very unfortunate that the opposition would feel that first nations members should not have that same accountability and transparency, and the very same basic democracy that is expected for all other Canadians. It is very troubling to me.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Churchill.

I have the distinct honour of speaking against the bill on first nations financial transparency at third reading. This is a privilege for me because it allows me to put things in perspective.

My comments on this bill last week garnered some media attention. National and regional media outlets asked me for interviews. I also listened to some of my colleagues express their views on the subject. I have to wonder whether some of them are mechanical puppets—simply install updates using a USB key. Some of my colleagues expressed themselves in a machine-like, cold, inhuman and dehumanized way with no facial expression, not even a blink.

I carried out an analysis of what people said in the House and in the media. My background as a criminal defence lawyer served me well. I pinpointed a number of flaws that the government clearly finds irksome because it keeps trying to calm people down and smooth things over. When Conservatives talk to the media, those flaws come up right away and then the Conservatives immediately try to paper over them, downplay them and even mislead people.

What I am doing today is attacking. This is a principle that was instilled in me very early on. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to say that, in 2007, when I joined the legal aid office, I worked on criminal cases. I travelled with the itinerant court. In 2007 alone, I dealt with close to 400 criminal cases and a few psychiatric cases. Since I was working for the defence, I learned very early on to find the flaws in the arguments of my opponents, the north shore crown prosecutors, who are very good. Sept-Îles has a team of six or seven, and they do very good work. This gave me the opportunity to practise over the years.

Since the prosecutor introduced the case and spoke first, I had the opportunity to take notes and analyze both the prosecutor's arguments and the testimony of the witness in order to find any flaws that I could bring up during cross-examination.

Here, there are clearly flaws. As is my habit and as I was taught by my employer at the time, François Wuellart from the legal aid office that is today located in Baie-Comeau—hello Mr. Wuellart—I am going to apply the principles that have been a great help to me to date and echo what has been said.

In the House, members can feel the tension gradually building when the accountability of first nations is discussed. The disorganization of the government's official statements in this regard and the questionable choice of messengers, who mechanically deliver talking points dictated by senior Conservative officials, have allowed me to see certain flaws that are clearly affecting the bill before us.

As I indicated earlier, my first instinct is to identify flaws. And I have identified them. I got a bit ahead of myself when I asked my colleague a question a few minutes ago. The flaw here is in our communities' economic bodies and in corporate vehicles.

The rules that apply to corporations must be the same across the country, if only for reasons of competitiveness. My colleagues should agree since they have repeatedly said that economic growth is key in Canada. They must therefore know that the rules that apply to corporations must be the same across the country. Otherwise, we are leaving ourselves open to major lawsuits, which are quite likely to be successful. That is what I want to talk about today.

I am fairly certain that communities across the country, and especially their lawyers, are taking notes as we speak. I am quite convinced that the talented lawyers working for some of these communities have already discovered this and, consequently, are already preparing their case, in the event that these measures are adopted.

We cannot extrapolate. However, I know very well that legal arguments are taking shape. I am just providing the ammunition.

I do not know if this was first done behind closed doors. However, having talked to some journalists, we know that when the Conservatives went before the media, they tried to assure the journalists that this bill, this legislative initiative, would not have any impact, and that there would not be any disclosure of the financial statements of entities in which a band council may have a stake. The Conservatives assured them that this would not happen and that the enterprises, that are the property of or in which community leaders may have an interest, would not be affected.

If we carefully examine the wording of the bill as introduced, we realize—and I want to emphasize this—that first nations are being held to account not necessarily just to their communities, but to the people of Canada. I will present arguments to prove this. We are talking about the transparency of first nations. But, the truth is that these measures will, in a roundabout way, expose entities within the communities.

Circumstances forced communities to develop their own rules and procedures all by themselves because they were isolated from the rest of the world. Aboriginal nations in Canada were left to their own devices for a very long time. That is why some communities adopted innovative and alternative initiatives to meet the needs of their people, measures tailored to the adversarial nature and subtleties of life on reserves.

That is why the rules for businesses and organizations on reserves differ significantly from the rules applied elsewhere in Canada. These businesses and organizations have their own particular dynamics. That is good for us because it is an example of economic diversity as it should be in Canada.

However, the Conservatives find this frustrating, as did their predecessors, because ultimately, few government agents can make inroads on reserves. There is a lot of resistance to clumsy, heavy-handed government interference. That is why reserves are observed from afar. There is evidence that, over the past year, government agents infiltrated communities to glean bits of information. That paints a pretty clear picture of the prevailing climate and the impenetrable nature of life on reserves.

I believe I have a properly substantiated opinion about what the government is trying to do with this bill: it wants to give groups in Canada with vested interests a close-up view of the economic dynamics of these communities. That is appalling and reprehensible because it suggests that, for all types of organizations across Canada, the government is bound by this financial information and must be accountable in terms of its crown corporations and others.

Things are not as easy on the ground as some think. Auditors deployed by the government cannot even get this financial information. I have just one minute left, which is a first for me, since I only ever speak for eight minutes.

I would like to focus on the issue that, according to my analysis, is the most problematic from a legal standpoint. I would like to comment briefly on a point that was mentioned before.

During the two years that I spent working as legal counsel for my own band council, Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, I observed repeated attempts by provincial and federal authorities to interfere in the day-to-day life and economic systems of communities. That is truly reprehensible. That is why the government is at risk of being involved in major litigation, which I would support.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Manicouagan for his eloquent speech. He is always trying to get to the root of the matter.

I must admit that, in his speech, he raised some rather troubling ideas, such as the fact that accountability can go so far that it might affect the dignity of aboriginal communities across the country. We might even wonder if this is yet another attempt to subordinate aboriginal peoples in this country. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I would like to point out that band councils are accountable to their own members and not to the Canadian public as a whole.

There is a biased theory that at the end of the day, our taxes support the band councils. This disregards the autonomous revenues earned by the communities and their economic dynamics. Band councils are not accountable to the entire country. The government is simply trying to please lobby groups, very specific and marginalized groups that clearly have power and influence over the current government. It is trying to please them by saying the financial information will be provided. Since it cannot go into these communities, it will find a roundabout way to get this financial information. That is wrong and the government knows it. Take my word for it: at the end of the day, the government will be exposed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the general principle that was raised at committee by the AFN regional chief for British Columbia, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

She talked about the notion of accountability and that “our collective task is to ensure that all systems of government are accountable and are meeting certain standards”. She said that with respect to aboriginal people what it is really about is ensuring “appropriate political, legal and financial accountability as part of nation-building or rebuilding”. However, she went on to say that “The bigger issue...is really not about accountability at all; rather, it's about who should be responsible for determining the rules that apply to our governments and our governing bodies. The simple answer is that our nation should be”.

Would the member care to comment on that?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The concept of self-determination has been put forward, and the Canadian government supposedly supports that. A supposedly historic meeting and event was even held last January regarding the self-determination of peoples. That is what it was about.

This work needs to be done from within the communities themselves. It must be developed based on consensus. It must start from within. It is certainly not going to be achieved through a legislative initiative concocted by apparatchiks from who knows where in the pecking order. The Conservatives decided here in Ottawa, far from any of these communities, to unilaterally impose this legislation. That is not how this should happen. Yes, accountability is needed. Yes, a steady flow of information is not always available. Accountability is needed within the communities. However, it is a matter of identity in the communities, a matter of "Indianness”, and this needs to be addressed first and foremost by the community. A little housecleaning is needed.

Ours is a predominantly oral culture. For 20,000 years, most if not all aboriginal nations in this country were able to apply these principles of emulation. These people spoke to one another directly. This should still happen today.

Accountability needs to happen above all in the community. Initiatives created by the Parliament of Canada are certainly not the answer.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am experiencing a strong sense of déjà vu as I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-27, which I also had an opportunity to speak to at second reading. However, I am rising one more time in the House, following my colleagues, to speak to what is imposed legislation and a failure to consult properly with first nations and to address the root challenges that they, as well as Canadians, would like to see addressed. This is yet another tool of division that the government is using to deflect from its own lack of accountability to the most marginalized group of people in our country. It is using that same tool to divide us and communities. That is a sad assessment of where the government is taking our country.

I will start by speaking as the member for Churchill, as someone who has the honour of representing 33 first nations in northern Manitoba, some of whom face incredible challenges. In fact, all of them face incredible challenges, whether in terms of access to health care, housing, education, infrastructure or employment. The list goes on and on, making for what many of us would say is a third world reality existing in Canada today.

Instead of working in partnership with first nations to be able to put an end to these third world living conditions and real challenges that first nations face in Canada, the government once again has chosen to impose its own top-down approach. Its approach is very much rooted in a colonial way of doing things, that the government knows best, that first nations do not need to be heard, that capacity and human and financial resources do not matter. Rather, all that matters are inflammatory press releases and the politics of division to deflect from what the real issues are. I find that fundamentally unjust and unbecoming of what the Canadian federal government ought to be doing.

Here I would point out that the question of accountability is very pressing for all Canadians, first nations, Métis, Inuit and non-aboriginal Canadians. Certainly, when visiting the first nations I represent, it is evident that people want to make sure that funds are used appropriately and that the right kind of investments are made. However, fundamentally we all know that listening to how first nations would best approach the issue of accountability is the way to go.

I would add that this discussion about accountability is not just happening in a vacuum. We have seen the same federal government dismiss the whole notion of accountability when it comes to itself. We recall the purchases of orange juice for $16 and the use of the Coast Guard for trips that clearly had no connection to any emergency situation. We know of investigations that have taken place and are taking place around electoral discrepancies involving donations. We have heard of ministers and certainly members of Parliament who fail to come clean when it comes to serious questions that we, the opposition, have with respect to the use of finances. Perhaps the best example is the omnibus budget bills. If the government were so interested in accountability and transparency, why would it not allow us to go through the serious changes it is proposing in these omnibus budget bills? If it really wanted to be a model in terms of accountability for all Canadians, then it would be using that same tough-on-accountability stand with itself.

This is the irony of the situation we face. Once again the Conservative federal government is keen to point at first nations and approach them with a patriarchal, top-down approach that is not suitable for a Canadian federal government after all we have learned over the last few decades. We are basically seeing the clock being rolled back on fair dealing based on a government-to-government relationship with first nations. This of course should be seen in the light of the fact that the Prime Minister himself made what he claimed to be a sincere apology to residential school survivors, that it would be a new day, that there would be a new way of doing things. All we have seen, however, is a breaking of that commitment, a breaking of that promise, and nowhere is that more clearly felt than among first nations themselves.

New Democrats believe that Bill C-27 must be considered in the context of the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government has failed abysmally to address worsening conditions in first nations. In particular the Auditor General noted that the reporting burden on first nations has worsened in recent years. The Auditor General repeatedly recommended reducing the reporting burden, clearly understanding the demands on first nations and knowing that many of the reports are not even accessible.

All of this is to say that if the government only listened to the in-depth report by the Auditor General just over a year ago, we would not be in this situation. However, it is clear that the government takes issue with senior officers that Parliament ought to consult with. We have seen this in other areas. Facts and evidenced-based conclusions are certainly not what the government is interested in.

Raising the ire of aboriginal people is the government's way of dealing with things. Dividing people based on a notion of accountability that it cannot itself follow is the way the government chooses to move forward. That is fundamentally hypocritical.

The NDP does not support this bill. We believe that Bill C-27 does nothing to increase the accountability of first nation governments to their people. It also applies standards that are greater than those for elected officials in many other jurisdictions. I believe this is a very important point that many Canadians will not know about, thanks to the government's misinformation when it comes to this very bill.

I am sure that the government will criticize me and say that I opposed Bill C-27 and will not actually put out the facts as to why we in the NDP opposed it, because it is not interested in the facts. Instead, the government will riff off the politics of division and disrespect and, frankly, I am ashamed to say, the politics of hate.

When we are talking about the need to understand the double-standard that is being applied here, this notion that elected officials in other jurisdictions would have a lesser standard to live up to than first nation leaders is something worth considering. I would ask that the Conservative members think about that. I would also ask them to think fundamentally about the need to move on, to actually work with first nations to address the serious issues they face, including the desire for accountability, but in an appropriate way, and to address the third world living conditions that aboriginal people face in Canada.

That is when a federal government would actually be providing leadership, and if it is not willing to do it, then the NDP is willing to take its place.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member for Churchill has strayed into some very unseemly territory. I do not believe she should have suggested that we have been operating with the politics of hate. As an aboriginal person, I am very happy to debate her on policy issues, but as a member of this government, to suggest that I or any one of us are engaged in the politics of hate against first nations people is astounding. I would like her to clarify this.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members to read Hansard to get at what I actually referred to. The member across knows well, being from the same hometown that I am, about the kinds of ads that were placed by the Conservative Party in my campaign, and the kind of messaging, both overt and covert, that was used to turn people against aboriginal communities and the needs that they have. That kind of messaging is shameful. What we do not need is more division. What we do need is for people to come together, for the government to actually work in partnership with first nations and engage Canadians in the real challenges that they face.

The fact that aboriginal people, because they are aboriginal and live in aboriginal communities, face a standard of living that is far below average Canadians' standard of living is unacceptable. I wish the government would consider that notion and get as passionate about that point and the need to act to address those conditions with first nations people rather than changing the subject.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the idea of consulting with people. We need to recognize that it is more than just consultation. We have to recognize there is very strong first nation leadership today that is very real and has the ability to provide the guidance necessary in order to improve the living conditions on and off reserves.

A good example, in terms of how successful negotiations can be, would have been when Paul Martin, as prime minister, sat down with first nations and others, and through consensus and strong leadership from our first nations was able to come up with the Kelowna accord. I believe what is lacking today is the sense of being able to work with our first nation leaders and others in terms of being able to resolve the problems of today so we can be moving forward. That is what is really important.

Would the member provide comment on the importance of recognizing first nation leadership in dealing with issues such as this?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising a critical point on consultation. We are seeing a complete lack of appropriate consultation on one piece of legislation after the other. That speaks to the Conservative government's lack of desire to properly consult with first nations people, which is really a step backward.

I would like to read into the record the Assembly of First Nations report on this issue:

If the issue were only of transparency then, perhaps, the bill would be fine. But, as we have described, the issue is not so simple. [The precursor] Bill C-575 favours the further transfer of accountability away from First Nations, thereby only further entrenching the Indian Act and strengthening the Department of [Aboriginal] Affairs' role in this regard. This is not a solution, it is a short-sighted reaction to alarmist headlines—in fact, it takes us backwards.

The Assembly of First Nations has indicated, both on Bill C-575 but also in terms of Bill C-27, that this is the way backward. When the Assembly of First Nations says that, we do not need any clearer indication as to what is wrong with the government's practices. I am proud that we in the NDP stand with first nations and with the Assembly of First Nations.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our country's forefathers knew a thing or two about accountability. Do people remember that peace, order and good government thing? They were founding objectives of government institutions in Canada under our Constitution. The Fathers of Confederation followed the lead of our other commonwealth countries in the era that assumed these objectives, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland.

Since Confederation, the provinces and municipalities of this country have also adopted these values and principles, recognizing the necessity and value of good government. With this legislation, first nations members can now rely on these values as well and be guaranteed these principles. The provinces and territories and, by extension, municipalities, which are governed by them, have all acknowledged the need for transparency and accountability, the foundation of good government. That is why Canada's first nations people need Bill C-27.

As my hon. colleagues will undoubtedly agree, accountability requires transparency, something currently lacking in some first nation communities today. Some actually refuse to divulge information that most Canadians would commonly expect, which denies their members access to essential information about the community's affairs. It leaves them wondering just how much their chiefs and councillors are being paid and why their leaders desire to keep this information out of the public view. First nations members have the right to expect a higher standard. Indeed, they deserve the same measure of accountability and transparency enjoyed by other Canadians, who are assured of access to information about their government's activities because it is enshrined in legislation.

As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development noted in his remarks in the chamber, our government has made sure that Canadians have ready access to information they need to judge our actions as parliamentarians. The very first piece of legislation we brought to the House back in 2006 was the Federal Accountability Act, which increased public oversight into how Canadians' tax dollars are spent. We not only publish public accounts, which document every dollar that is spent at the federal level each year, we also disclose the salaries of members of Parliament, through the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act.

These two pieces of legislation lay out a transparent formula to calculate salaries. They also provide for the publication of details of both the regular incomes and special allowances added to the salaries of MPs who take on extra responsibilities. Disclosure of other income and expense information is treated under conflict of interest and ethics legislation, as well. Public servants' pay is also on the record. Federal employee rates of pay are posted on the Treasury Board of Canada website, and all senior public servants are required to disclose, on a proactive quarterly basis, all travel and hospitality expenses.

The Government of Canada is not the only jurisdiction that requires the disclosure of audited consolidated financial statements and salaries. My hon. colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will attest that their province has a financial administration act that commits the province's legislature to table public accounts each and every year. The province's transparency and accountability act stipulates that ministers must account for government entities for which they are responsible, each year, in an annual report that includes an audited consolidated financial statement, which is then compared to the funds approved by the House of Assembly.

Newfoundland and Labrador's Municipalities Act also requires that local community leaders make their financial statements and audited reports available to the public. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have similar laws. Each has a financial administration act obligating the two provinces' respective legislatures to account for public spending in the previous fiscal year, and both have municipalities acts that require the specification of the types of information that must be made available to the public.

Likewise, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all have legislation governing the duties of municipalities to prepare and publish annual financial statements. Territorial governments also uphold this high standard. The Government of Northwest Territories makes its annual financial statements readily available on its website. The Government of Nunavut's financial administration act requires the government to publicly account for its expenditures for the previous year by laying the public accounts before the legislative assembly. The precise wording of the transparency and accountability legislation obviously varies from province to province and territory to territory, but almost all Canadian taxpayers have a guarantee in law that they can have access to basic information they require in order to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions and actions.

Many governments also disclose the salaries paid to their elected officials, from premiers to legislative backbenchers, to mayors and town councillors. The salaries of the members of many provincial legislatures are set by legislation and made available to the general public. Disclosure of other income and expense information is often treated under the conflict of interest and ethics legislation.

Nova Scotia's act respecting the public disclosure of compensation in the public sector applies to the public sector as well as to not-for-profit organizations receiving over $500,000 in public funding. These groups are required to post remuneration information on their websites for employees receiving compensation of $100,000 or more, or if they do not have a website, they have to make the information available on a publicly accessible website.

Similarly, in Manitoba, The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Act requires public sector bodies to disclose to the public the amount of compensation it pays annually to each of its officers as well as employees whose salaries are $50,000 or more. Along with this legislation, The Legislative Assembly Act of Manitoba sets out that remuneration allowances and retirement benefits of members be established by a commission. Furthermore, the legislation requires that members must post expense reports on the legislative assembly website. In addition to various provincial and territorial laws, a number of municipalities have passed bylaws that require the release of information about mayors' and councillors' remuneration, as a best practice. Clearly what is being asked of first nation leaders is nothing more than what is expected in any other jurisdiction across the country.

As Colin Craig, the prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said:

The bottom line is every politician in the country—federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal politicians, should have to disclose their pay to the public.

What we are asking is certainly not onerous. In fact, in some respects the legislation demands less of first nations than Canadians expect in other parts of the country from other levels of government. Bill C-27 would focus only on the disclosure of remuneration of the political leaders of the first nation governments, not those who are appointed officials or senior staff within their organizations.

I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of the self-government agreement, are already required to prepare such financial statements and make them available to community members. That is why these self-governing communities are not included in the bill.

Why should residents of other first nation communities expect any less? We need to only look at the history books to know that developing healthier, more sustainable communities depends on good democratic governance. This still holds true today. When we turn on our televisions we see people in countries all over the world living in less desirable political regimes and who are out marching in the streets demanding that they get this very right. However, we do not need to look beyond our borders to see people calling out for more transparency and accountability in government. First nation members, people living right here in Canada, are often the most vocal in calling for these same rights.

Members of the Squamish First Nation in British Columbia, the Peguis First Nation and other first nations in Manitoba have met with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development or have appeared before the standing committee, of which I chair, and have demanded the same things. They have all expressed their concerns about the lack of accountability from the grassroots perspective.

I will quote some of the things that we have been told.

Phyllis Sutherland from the Peguis Accountability Coalition criticized the $220,000 tax-free annual salary of her band chief. She talked about people who had pressed for more details about this or who had asked for more information about the band accounts, but had been subject to harassment or had been fired from their jobs.

Ms. Sutherland said:

Bill C-27 is important to grassroots people as it will allow band members access chief and council salaries without fear of threats or reprisals. If First Nations want to govern themself they should be accountable and transparent as all other levels of government who make their salaries accessible for the public

Solange Garson from a first nation in Manitoba is an elected councillor. She echoed these very same sentiments when she said:

I want accountability for all first nations in Canada. Our politicians need to be held accountable too...Bill C-27 is something [getting] a lot of grassroots support. We want transparency like everyone else.

That is clearly not too much to ask in a country that prides itself on peace, order and good government. To deny first nation members this high standard of governance, which all other Canadians expect and enjoy, is absolutely outrageous. Passing this fair and reasonable legislation is the responsible thing to do to ensure transparency, increase accountability and ultimately more effective governance in first nation communities.

In case others have forgotten, I would like to briefly review exactly what the bill would do and explain how it would be a major improvement over the status quo.

First and foremost, the bill would allow first nation members to easily access the information that they require to assess the performance of their government to hold them to account and to make informed choices at election time.

Bill C-27 would continue to create greater accountability for first nations from their respective community members and these financial records would be provided directly to local populations within their community rather than through the minister as is currently the case when band councils choose to withhold such information.

It is worth noting that this information will be easily accessible to the broader Canadian public in the same way that such information is currently provided by other levels of government in Canada.

The publication of financial records on the first nation aboriginal affairs Canadian website could make it easier for analysts and comparisons could be made by a much wider group of people. This would include other levels of government, academics, the media, economists, investors and interested Canadians. Not only would this improvement result in clearer lines of accountability among first nation leaders, it would also create an environment to have stronger, more capable governments that would attract outside investment and partners in community development.

Aside from upholding democratic principles and the good government that most Canadians already enjoy, this greater transparency would increase confidence in first nation governments among other governments and investors. It would position them to build stronger relationships and ultimately create a better environment for development and investment.

Being certain that the government upholds standard accounting procedures and sound business practices is vitally important to potential investors. Transparency builds trust, which is an integral part of building strong relationships. It is precisely because other levels of government are open and transparent that we have the confidence and support of the business community.

We want to replicate this kind of success in first nations all across the country. Once this legislation is in place and it is clear how communities manage their money and account for those expenditures, businesses would be more willing to pursue joint ventures. They will have greater assurance that they can count on first nations to be a trustworthy partner.

There are many compelling reasons to support Bill C-27, as I have just outlined and several of my colleagues have also explained today, but few are more persuasive than the fact that our country is founded on the fundamental commitment to good government, something guaranteed in legislation at all other levels of government across our great country. Once this act becomes law, first nations communities and first nations members will find themselves in esteemed company. This will be a welcome development among many community members who have called for us to act and to act right now.

I urge all parties to give this worthy legislation their wholehearted support. Let us ensure that first nations citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges that all other Canadians do from coast to coast to coast.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain to us the thinking, as he understands it, behind clause 11 of the bill, which would provide a general right of application to “any person” in Canada to seek the disclosure of records from a court? As a matter of standing, or locus standi as we might say in legal talk, this would open it up well beyond simply the members of a first nation or a first nations community. It could allow, for example, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or the National Citizens Coalition to take on the role. I am sure some people on that side of the House might well applaud that, as I have just heard, but I would find it deeply concerning if we had crusading organizations able to use clause 11 in that way.

Could the member give us some insight?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the absolute imperative in the bill would be that first nations members would have access to this information. What my hon. colleague knows, as anybody in the House does, is that it is not just our constituents who often look at our spending as the national government or as individual members of Parliament, but it is also the media that from time to time play a responsible role in helping bring attention to mismanagement.

I know the hon. member and his colleagues often run outside to the media to disclose pieces of information that they think are important for Canadians to find out about. In the same way that individual members should have access to this information, also should the information be made available to local media, including many first nations outlets such as APTN and other organizations that would draw attention to the spending of individual first nations.

We already have examples of where this information is being disclosed and where this information and process are being lauded by the media and by investors generally. The information needs to be available to demonstrate that there is full accountability and transparency and that these folks undertake the things that most Canadians would expect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, transparency and accountability are very important principles. There is no question about that. We will find that within the first nations leaderships or aboriginal communities as a whole, that sense and desire for accountability and transparency is there and it is very real. In his comments, the member made reference to some of the hearings of his committee where members reflected on the importance of accountability and transparency from within our aboriginal community.

However, we need to put this thing in the perspective of how this bill is before us today, as opposed to capitalizing on that interest within our first nations to ensure transparency and accountability and working with them and maybe even enabling those leaders to come forward and assist in putting together the legislation. Therefore, it is not Ottawa imposing something, as if we are giving the impression that the aboriginal community is resisting but Ottawa is forcing when that is not necessarily the case.

There are a lot people within our first nations community who want and desire, but they have a role to play, not just to provide comment on but to enable them to provide direct input in the making of this legislation. Would the member agree?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. It is grassroots first nations people who are demanding this legislation. They have been bringing their ideas forward. Over the last seven years, I have heard from first nations community members who are desperate for this information. They have asked for some kind of legal framework so they can access this information. The member is absolutely right that it is grassroots first nations from across the country that have demanded this legislation. They are the folks who have advocated for it and are supportive of it for that reason.

The hon. member may have left some confusion. Let me be clear. There are first nations in the country that are operating absolutely wonderfully. They are disclosing all of the information that would be expected. However, there are some communities that lag behind and it is for those members that we have to see the legislation move forward.