Debates of Nov. 27th, 2012

Likewise, the Chair believes that it is not unreasonable for members submitting a written question to expect that the government would make an attempt to provide as much information as possible in response in the time available.

If, perhaps due to a request for a reply within 45 days, all of information being sought cannot be produced in time, it is also always open to the government to return later with a supplementary reply to a question already answered.

However, on careful examination of written Question No. 873 and the reply it received, it would seem to the Chair that both the member asking the question and the government might yet find a way to achieve a result that would satisfy both parties. Is it possible that a differently worded question, resubmitted, could elicit a substantive reply about the government's disaster management activities and policies? The Chair would like to think so. This would help allay the fears expressed by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie that answers, such as the one provided to written Question No. 873, could recur and become a standard response. In the meantime, I can assure the member that having looked into the matter, the Chair can report to the House that this is not at present part of a pattern that it can find in responses to written questions.

Meanwhile, in the case at hand, the Chair does not find that the rules that apply to the content of replies to written questions also apply to responses given during oral questions, even if the oral question relates to a written question. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find that the reply by the Minister of Public Safety during oral questions is out of order or has in any way offended our practices as they relate to written questions.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the third time and passed.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Western Arctic.

I am keen to speak to this bill one more time. The path of this legislation seems to be predetermined, and any sense of debate or committee work should be viewed with that in mind.

Had Parliament been working in a collaborative manner, I believe we would have significantly changed this legislation. Had the government done its due diligence, we would be discussing an entirely different bill. Instead, by ignoring its duty to consult, we have arrived at a point where the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is wondering aloud if the government is headed toward a conflict with first nations over the way it is unilaterally ramming through legislation that will impact them. National Grand Chief Atleo is accusing the Prime Minister of pushing through a fragmented legislative agenda that he knows first nations communities will oppose. He said this is eroding trust between natives and the government. I think it is important that we listen.

It is instructive to see that the will to meet and consult, as expressed by first nations leadership, has not been reciprocated. Instead of pulling up a chair and working with those leaders, the government has instructed Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development bureaucrats to state that they have no mandate to negotiate.

Yet, much is being asked of first nations in terms of resource development on their land. We certainly hope the government is paying attention to the Grand Chief, who wrote the Prime Minister and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last month stating:

We have been patient and reserved judgment. Neither that patience nor that demonstrated goodwill is infinite.

The government's response has been to fast-track legislation like Bill C-27, which remains largely unnecessary. Instead of addressing a multitude of better known long-standing problems that persist on many first nations, the government is creating an unnecessary reporting mechanism. The bill is overly punitive, duplicates efforts and increases the bureaucratic burden on those first nations that do not already have self-government regimes. It sets the course for costly legal battles and ignores the advice of the Auditor General to reduce the reporting burden placed on first nations. Instead, it adds to that reporting burden.

This bill imposes standards that are greater than those applied to elected politicians in many other jurisdictions, in a way that creates more bureaucracy and does nothing to increase accountability of first nations governments to their own communities. It has been created in a vacuum and reeks of bureaucracy. Initiatives like this that are implemented without consultation are bound to fail. It is guaranteeing the reaction that the government has received from first nations. It is as if the government is itching for a fight.

From the outset, we knew there was a problem because the intention of the bill is to duplicate something that already exists. To think that first nations report nothing about the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have to interrupt. The translation is not working. It seems that there is no channel two.

To advise the House of the situation, the speech by the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was unable to be translated in total. I am going to invite her to continue now, as I am advised at this point that the technology is functioning properly.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to continue, we knew from the outset that there was a problem because the bill intended to duplicate something that already existed. To think that first nations report nothing about the funding they receive or the salaries and compensation they provide to their leadership is false and misleading.

In fact, 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 moneys 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.

We should not be so quick to dismiss the June 2011 findings of the Auditor General, which noted that despite repeated audits recommending numerous reforms over the last decade, the federal government had failed abysmally to address the worsening conditions of first nations.

The report tells us that money is just not flowing to problems and that it is not because of lack of audits or reporting processes. Indeed, the Auditor General pointed out that the reporting burden on first nations had actually worsened in recent years despite repeated calls to reduce the amount of red tape on these communities. To add insult to injury, the Auditor General tells us how many of the reports are not even used by federal government departments and serve nothing but bureaucratic requirements. They can be seen as white elephants, and with Bill C-27 the government is eagerly seeking to grow that herd.

I stick by my assertion that the government is more concerned with creating more red tape to accompany the core funding cut it has made to organizations important to first nations. Their communities 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, but those budgets have been slashed.

In fact, at the same time the government is creating more and more work for tribal councils, it is telling them that they will have to perform their job with even less resources. Funding cuts like these show that the government is not working with a coherent plan.

I am reminded again of the comments of National Chief Shawn Atleo, who wondered if the government's intentions were good but its policies were unfocused, or if the government knows full well what it is doing as it piles on the work while pulling back the resources that facilitate these tasks. The latter speak to intentions that could never be described as good. The national chief's opinion could well be based on the apparent absence of an overall plan when significant cuts are accompanied by increased expectations.

There is no playing to strengths or even acknowledgement of interplay between variables. In fact, cuts to the tribal council funding program limit the significant assistance those bodies could provide bands, which will now be forced to comply with the technological bureaucracy the bill would set in play.

Tribal councils provide advisory services to their member first nations and administer other Indian and northern programs. Here, core funding cuts speak to the Conservative government's desire to limit their ability to do that job, which again is ultimately related to the requirements of Bill C-27.

Tribal councils are institutions established voluntarily by bands. In 2006-07, the program funded 78 tribal councils that served 471 first nations for about $45 million. This is money well spent when we consider the good work that tribal councils do.

Five advisory services have been devolved to tribal councils: economic development, financial management, community planning, technical services and band governance. Certainly, cutting core funding will affect the output of many first nations.

We have to acknowledge that the work of tribal councils on advisory services dovetails with the demands that Bill C-27 would place on first nations. Whether for technical services, financial management or band governance, tribal councils have an important role to play in this process. However, the government saw fit to claw back their budgets ahead of the bill.

We understand that there is not an infinite amount of resources. That is why New Democrats would never make the kind of cuts and demands the government has been making, all the while pretending that one does not affect the other.

We also understand 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, then it might make more sense. Instead, this just amounts to the creation of more red tape for first nations.

New Democrats remain convinced that changing the way that 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 is overly punitive and ignores the simple solution. Indeed, bands that do not comply with the demands of the bill could have their funding withheld or have a funding agreement terminated by the minister. How would that address critical challenges like education, housing or infrastructure?

New Democrats do not see the need to divert more money to a new layer of bureaucracy that would reproduce much of what has already been done.

We understand that there can be problems associated with reporting on websites that are not apparent to everyone. As someone who represents a northern rural constituency, I can tell members that Internet connectivity is not always possible. With that in mind, website reporting could become a hurdle that some bands might not easily jump over, especially those in more remote communities.

Again, we believe that there are already sufficient reporting processes in place and that funding agreements could be modified to address any gaps. If the government had fully consulted with first nations, Bill C-27 would have been more complete and legitimate.

The Conservatives should have remembered the commitment they made at the Crown-first nations gathering; they should have consulted with first nations in the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; and they should have reflected on the advice of the Auditor General and kept the pressing needs of Canada first nation communities in mind as they determined their legislative priorities. That would have served all involved much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the remarks that were just made that the NDP really wants to ensure that those first nations leaders who prefer not to provide their members with access to basic financial information will continue to have the right to do so. Indeed, during the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-27, which I participated in at committee, one of their amendments proposed removing the word “public” from before the word “disclosure” in clause 3.

Clearly, the NDP does not believe that first nation members should have the right to easily access basic financial information that is needed to hold elected leaders to account. The NDP members want to keep things private.

For example, at committee they also wanted to remove any reference to entities. They argued that information on band-owned businesses should not be included in the bill. Apparently the NDP does not believe that first nation members have the right to know the activities of their government and the businesses of which they are the ultimate owners.

The NDP believes it is okay for first nation members to continue to be denied access to basic financial information from their elected leaders who do not believe in transparency. Would the member care to comment on that?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do want to comment on that. I was at committee as well and I also heard the testimony. I also have a lot of first nations in my riding, and the issue the hon. member raised with respect to the band-owned businesses speaks competitiveness. That is the key point.

She also talked about the word “public”. For the government to want the public to know all the ins and outs of first nations is unheard of. She is asking them to be more accountable than the current government is.

It is fine to be accountable. First nations have basically said they are not worried about being accountable to their members, because that is what they want to be. The issue is that they are also being forced to put the finances of bands on a website, a website that some of them may not have access to.

The Conservatives say that first nations could put it on a different website, on anyone else's website, that they could go to their neighbour and put it on their website if their neighbour has connectivity. However, to put it on a website, they must have access to a website.

Does the hon. member expect first nation members to drive hundreds of miles to put the finances of the band on a website? It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I arrived in Canada in 1995, I found it very surprising that there was talk of two founding peoples, as though the first nations did not exist before the arrival of the Europeans.

Now, the House has before it a bill that deals with the financial transparency of the first nations. What does that mean? Does creating a bill on transparency mean that we think there is no transparency? I am getting the same message that I got in 1995, and that is a sort of contempt for and lack of understanding of Canada's first nations.

I would like my colleague to talk about her thoughts on the prejudices we have about the first nations.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. When it comes to transparency, the first nations submit more reports to this government than any other organization or government. The first nations are therefore very transparent.

I would conclude by referring to the national chief's comments to the Prime Minister. He went on to say that there are only two conclusions to draw from the legislation that is being put forward, and not just this legislation but a lot of the legislation being put forward with respect to first nations. He said that that either the Prime Minister understood but did not care, or he was allowing and supporting the behaviour to occur and did not understand but did care. Which one is it?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, today we have before us Bill C-27, the so-called first nations financial transparency act. This is another example of how the Conservative government tells Canada's aboriginal people to do as it says, not as it does.

At committee witness after witness spoke of how accountability and transparency are vital concepts to effective governance. First nations have accepted that and they want to implement that as well on their own, as nations and as governments. I think of the first nations in my own community. Salt River First Nation has gone through the process of developing transparency. It has it together and it put it together itself. The pride this first nation takes in what it does comes from the fact that it has self-actualized in this regard.

Bill C-27 falls short in allowing first nations to stand for themselves as governments. It fails to develop workable government-to-government relationships. Instead, the bill treats aboriginal Canadians as wards of the state rather than being capable of governing themselves.

The Canadian Bar Association in a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated:

The [Canadian Bar Association's National Aboriginal Law] Section believes the proposed Bill would not improve the capacity of First Nations to assume control over their own affairs. By focusing only on the expenditures of First Nations, the proposed legislation fails to address larger systemic issues of funding and responsibility for those issues.

The CBA goes on to say:

Given First Nations’ inherent right to self-governance, dictating reporting requirements without sufficient consultation with First Nations is problematic. It fails to recognize the unique constitutional arrangements between First Nations and the federal government, and does little to move away from the paternalism which has historically defined this relationship.

It adds:

Ultimately, the Chief and Council should be accountable to the members of the First Nation, as those members are best positioned to say whether the salaries of Chief and Council are “reasonable” given the work they do in the particular context. Remuneration should be disclosed annually to the members of the First Nation....

Instead of working to encourage first nations to develop their own accountability and transparency protocols, the Conservatives have chosen to impose a system of reporting of which the Canadian Bar Association says:

—the consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration allow a far more detailed inspection of expenses than those released by provincial or territorial governments.

Speaking for the Assembly of First Nations, B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould told the committee:

Chiefs were clear in their assertion that these proposed measures...are both heavy-handed and unnecessary, and they suggest that first nations governments are corrupt and our leaders are not transparent and consequently need to be regulated by Ottawa.

As to who should be developing accountability and transparency protocols, Chief Wilson-Raybould was clear, saying:

—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....

In closing Chief Wilson-Raybould said:

It is troubling during this period of transition, as we move away from governance under the Indian Act, that the federal government seems to increasingly want to design our governance for us, in spite of the fundamental need for our nations to undertake this work ourselves in order for it to be legitimate.

Another shortfall with this legislation is the requirement to post financial information on the Internet for 10 years. Many first nations are located in very remote areas of Canada with little or no Internet access. Creating a website and maintaining it for years would be an additional cost to these first nations.

The Canadian Bar Association observed:

Most First Nations’ communities consist of fewer than 500 residents, many in remote areas, which impacts both service delivery and operating expenses. Most communities do not have funding to build the infrastructure necessary for Internet access, or the resources to create and maintain their own websites.

In addition to the technical problems with posting on the Internet, as the Canadian Bar Association observes, there is an issue of cost. However, this is not the only additional financial burden this act would place on first nations who are already seeing reduced funding for program delivery.

Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation told the committee:

One of the biggest problems for first nations is a lack of professional capacity, because of the way our communities are funded, through band support funding. A lot of our communities are funded and we have financial clerks. But a financial clerk cannot keep pace with the onerous reporting requirements of the federal government.

First nations, with their limited professional capacity, are already struggling to meet their reporting burden. First nation communities have an estimated average of 168 reports and in some communities that goes up to 200 reports that are required yearly by the federal government.

In December 2006 the Auditor General pointed out that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs “alone obtains more than 60,000 reports a year from over 600 First Nations”. The Auditor General concluded that “the resources devoted to the current reporting system could be better used to provide direct support to communities”.

The comment from the Canadian Bar Association is particularly telling. It states:

The legislation will not increase the capacity required to facilitate best practices of First Nations’ governments. Financial statements alone do not provide a meaningful measure of performance, nor are they a fair reflection of community priorities. In addition, non-compliance with onerous reporting burdens can lead to disastrous consequences, such as those flowing from the recent housing crisis at Attawapiskat First Nation. Withholding funds for non-compliance might result in the federal government failing to meet its constitutional obligation to provide essential services to all Canadians.

The Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada raised a key question about these increased costs, saying, “These types of reporting lead to increased costs. Who pays for these additional costs?” It is clear who would pay. The aboriginal people of Canada would pay through reduced government programs and services on their reserves and in their bands. Funding that should be going to improve the lives of Canada's aboriginal people would instead be spent on more red tape and paperwork.

Then there is the requirement that first nations must be accountable to more than their membership. Chief Wilson-Raybould addressed this in her testimony. She said:

There is, of course, no concern where those receiving the audited consolidated financial statements are our citizens. This is, however, not the case where there is a requirement for public dissemination. This is a material departure from what was proposed in Bill C-575 and the precedent set under the first nations fiscal management act.

The last area I want to address is the impact that the bill would have on the economic development of first nations. The Conservatives pretend the bill would improve economic development when it would be likely to drive business away. Chief Darcy Bear warned the committee that the bill would result in the private sector deciding not to invest or partner with first nations. He said:

—we want to make sure that this bill is not going to scare away businesses from our community. You have the private sector off reserve and they have certain reporting requirements, but if they go on reserve and they have to disclose their competitive information to all of their competitors, they're going to say they don't want to go on reserve, that it's not right for them.

In her testimony, Chief Wilson-Raybould wondered why the bill would not be in line with public sector accounting standards when it came to business information.

The bill has little to do with transparency and accountability. The bill would not increase economic development of first nations, rather, it would make first nations less attractive to business. The bill would not move first nations toward self-government, rather, it would go back to the days when aboriginal Canadians were treated as wards of the state. The effect of the bill would be to go back to paternalism and colonialism.

As Lloyd Phillips, who sits on the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake near Montreal observed, in part, “It seems like (Bill C-27) is really about blaming aboriginal poverty on fiscal mismanagement instead of chronic underfunding”.

Can we not start to treat first nations in a fashion that deserves their respect, that makes their way in this country acceptable? They need to build their institutions. That is clearly obvious. We do not need to tell them how to build their institutions. We do not need to instruct them every step of the way on how they are going to do things. They need the independence and the strength that comes from independence to build successful communities and governments, and make them really a part of this great nation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute to read into the record some comments on my hon. friend's speech.

First, it is important to note that nothing in the bill adds to the existing reporting burden faced by first nations. Instead, the bill represents a minimum set of standards with respect to financial transparency, which is not currently being followed by many first nations. We expect many first nations will adapt easily and in fact will go further than the basic requirements laid out in the bill. Many will take this opportunity to put into place their own practices that aim to enhance the overall accuracy and accountability of their governments. In this way, the bill will serve as a catalyst for change in many communities, which will lead to greater confidence in many first nation governments.

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

Let me just share with the House what the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has been doing over the past while. Back in July 2010, it launched a reduced reporting initiative to address the various issues raised by the Office of the Auditor General. It also responded to recommendations from the 2006 independent blue ribbon panel on grants and contributions, and the policy on transfer payments released by the government in 2008.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am going to interrupt. The member has already used up a minute and a half of a five-minute question and answer period and has not gotten to his question. I will have to direct the member to ask the question immediately.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will just pose it this way. In 2011-12, the Atlantic region put in place a two-year pilot project that simplified reporting requirements. Can the hon. member tell us what has happened with that arrangement, that pilot project, and where it stands today?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what my colleague said in his discourse, which I think was great but perhaps he should take the time to make a speech, or perhaps he cannot because time allocation has been put on him.

The member said the bill is a catalyst for change. The bill is not a catalyst. A catalyst is something that assists the process. The bill is very heavy-handed. The bill tells first nations what they have to do. If the bill were a catalyst, it would have incentives for behaviour. It would try to work through consultation to come up with an agreeable system that we could all work together on.

This is not a catalyst. There is no way it is. A basic understanding of that word says that the bill is not that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that Canada's Auditor General has actually been talking, for a while now, about the excessive amount of paperwork in terms of first nations having to report. In fact, the Auditor General's office has been calling on the government to take action to reduce unnecessary first nation reporting requirements.

When we take a look at Bill S-8, which should have had a great deal of discussion prior to its introduction, or even its drafting, one could question whether or not the government is fair in saying that it will not increase reporting requirements. We know Bill S-8 is going to do nothing to address that particular issue of reduction.

I wonder if the member of Parliament would like to provide comment on that important issue, which the Auditor General has raised.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the whole problem with this type of legislation goes back to its beginning.

We can talk about how it may or may not be implemented, but the problem lies in its conception. If we do not deal with that, we will never come to grips with the basic principles that should guide our relationship between the first nations and the federal government. We need to work very hard to get to those principles.

I am sure that the Auditor General, in her desire to see information flow correctly, has come to some conclusions that the member will probably share with us at another time. I want to stress that the importance here is in the principles that guide the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, members would be hard pressed to find anyone who is more aware of the need for and proud of this legislation than I. As my hon. colleagues know, I have been championing this issue for a very long time. It is almost two years ago now that I introduced Bill C-575, the first iteration of today's first nations financial transparency act. I believed then, as I do now, that first nations residents, like all Canadians, deserve transparency and accountability from their officials.

Indeed, more than just saying they are accountable in terms of their salaries and the reimbursement of expenses, these officials need to demonstrate they are absolutely transparent when it comes to reporting their earnings. This is what people in many first nations communities are demanding. That is why I originally brought forward my private member's bill.

In a nutshell, the purpose of Bill C-575 was to ensure that public funds that flow to first nations leaders are publicly disclosed. There is an existing process for band members to request financial information from their leaders. At the moment, if those requests are not met, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development must step in and release the information.

My bill would have simplified the process, making disclosure automatic instead of going through this time-consuming and onerous process, which puts the minister in an awkward position and which undermines democracy, as first nations members cannot exercise their democratic rights without access to adequate information.

While some chiefs and councillors routinely release such financial information to their community members, unfortunately not all first nations achieve this standard. Those that do achieve this standard recognize the value in ensuring that their decisions and actions are clearly visible for all to see. They respect that their members have a fundamental right to know how public money is being spent. They know this information is vital to making wise, informed decisions about activities in their communities. They also understand that sharing this knowledge encourages an atmosphere of openness and trust between band councils and the community members they serve.

The problem is that not all band leaders see it that way. Current practices are uneven across the country. Some first nations will only release information about spending and the reimbursement of government officials' expenses on request. Others outright refuse to do so. It is precisely because some first nation leaders will not release this information that community members are forced to ask Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to provide them with the details on their behalf.

I heard from individual members of first nations communities who complained that their local governments refused to release financial information. They have told me that access to this information is important and necessary for their communities. I know they are not alone in feeling this way. There was enormous support all across Canada for Bill C-575 when it was working its way through Parliament.

Indeed, many first nation band members have been complaining for years about the lack of accountability among their political leaders and their unwillingness to provide details about the band's finances and management.

Jo-Ann Nahanee, an advocate for transparency and accountability, is reported in the press as saying:

...for self-government to be successful, you need to have your members of your community—the participants of your government—be involved by informing them. My band does not do that.

She went on to explain:

There is an underlying fear on the reserve because there is a reliance on chief and council for welfare, for income. You are taking about people in poverty...and they are scared to speak up because they are scared to have these things taken away, so nobody speaks out.

That is just one example. There are similar complaints coming from other corners of the country, such as those brought to our attention by the Peguis Accountability Coalition. The coalition was formed by community members who are frustrated because they cannot access salary or other financial information about their band. They insist that those in power must be held accountable.

I can assure the House I am not implying that all first nations are reporting such problems or that the activities of all band leaders should be suspect; far from it. In fact, I am extremely proud of the many successful first nations in my home province of Saskatchewan whose leaders are wonderful role models in this regard. A perfect example is Darcy Bear, Chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. Chief Bear is one of the biggest proponents of this legislation. He is on the record as stating:

This bill will mean more accountability of First Nation leaders to our people. Transparent and accountable First Nation governments support a strong environment for investment leading to greater economic development”.

Leaders like Chief Bear know that, in addition to better serving their community members, increased transparency and accountability pave the way to greater private sector investment and economic prosperity for first nations. As encouraged as I am by first nations chiefs and councils that recognize this reality, the fact remains that others do not. A sizeable proportion of first nations residents are not satisfied that they have access to the information they need to hold their officials to account. This has been substantiated by research produced by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. It found that 25% of first nation individuals surveyed as part of its aboriginal governments index say that salary information for public officials is not available to band members. Thanks to the legislation before us, that will soon no longer be the case.

As we are aware, Bill C-575 died on the order paper when the last election was called. However, that may have been a blessing in disguise because its replacement, Bill C-27, builds on my original private member's bill and makes it even better.

While my private member's bill was unable to pass through the House of Commons before the election, by reintroducing it this fall, our government has reinforced its commitment to transparency and accountability at all levels of government. The new first nations financial transparency act would fulfill the 2011 Speech from the Throne commitment to support strong, democratic, transparent and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses.

This act goes beyond what I had originally envisioned in Bill C-575. The new legislation would expand the scope of the information to be publicly disclosed over and above the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors. This bill also includes first nations' audited consolidated financial statements. This financial information would be made available to community members and the Canadian public on the individual first nation's website or on the website of a tribal council or partner organization. In addition, the audited consolidated financial statements and schedule of remuneration would be published on the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada once they are made available by the first nation. These steps would ensure that first nation community members have the information they need to make informed decisions about their governments.

What we are asking band councils to do is only what municipal, provincial and federal governments are already doing. They would retain all the rights and responsibilities they currently have. For example, the act would not set salary levels for chiefs and councillors. Decisions such as these would remain the responsibility of the first nation. It would be up to communities to determine the appropriate level of remuneration for their officials. All that Bill C-27 would change is that this information would be publicly disclosed to ensure that community members have the information they need to decide if levels of compensation are reasonable and justified.

All members of first nations have a right to know how much their chiefs and councillors are being paid. It is this knowledge that helps eliminate controversy over compensation and focuses the public discussion where it really belongs: on fundamental quality of life issues such as housing, health care and education. All Canadians, not only members of first nations communities, should be able to access detailed information on how much first nations chiefs and councillors are being paid. Accountability is a fundamental principle of Canadian political life that we all know to be true. This is the basis of laws that legislatures across Canada have passed to clarify how much elected officials and senior executives in governments earn each year.

All other levels of government across Canada, including ours, have also established rules to fully disclose the amount and nature of expenses being reimbursed to elected and unelected officials of government. We in this House abide by such rules. Therefore, we are certainly not asking anything of first nation leaders that we do not expect of ourselves.

Another major element of Bill C-27 is that it would ensure we achieve the goal of greater transparency without increasing the reporting burden for first nations. The bill would simply make public some of the documents that are already being prepared by first nations for submission to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada as part of their obligations under their funding agreements.

As proud as I am of my earlier efforts to address these issues in the last Parliament, I have to admit that the new legislation before us is even better than Bill C-575. Bill C-27 would ensure that the remuneration and expenses paid by a first nation to its political leaders would be disclosed. This includes individuals working in their capacity as chief and councillors, as well as their personal capacities, for instance, if they are also employees or contractors with the first nation.

The act would also ensure that a first nation's audited consolidated financial statements and schedule of remuneration and expenses would be disclosed to the public. It would ensure that this information is posted, both on a first nation website and on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's website for a minimum of 10 years.

The bill would have improved enforcement powers. It contains a provision that would guarantee a first nation member, a member of the general public or the minister could apply to a superior court for an order requiring the council of a first nation to publish the information. In addition, in cases where first nations are not compliant, the minister would have authority under the act to assess remedies that exist in grant or contribution funding agreements with the first nation. These range from requiring the first nation to develop an appropriate action plan for disclosure, to withholding funds from a grant or a contribution or terminating a grant or contribution agreement.

These mechanisms are already available to the minister under the funding agreements. However, with greater powers being placed in the hands of first nation members, we would expect these mechanisms would only be used as a last resort. Indeed, there is no need for it ever to come to that. All the band councils need to do is release the basic information that all other governments across the country already do.

As I have noted, many first nation leaders currently provide such information because they know it is in the best interest of their community. They recognize it is good for public relations and building trust between electors and their governing officials. They understand it is good for business, as successful communities like Whitecap Dakota First Nation, in Saskatchewan, have proven. Ultimately, they realize it is good for democracy. Indeed, it is vital to ensuring that the democratic rights of first nations people are upheld.

It is beyond me why anyone, aboriginal or otherwise, could possibly have a problem with this legislation. First nations members who have been calling for these improvements would undoubtedly like to know the answer to that too. Actually, I am sure they would prefer that we simply pass this legislation so they can get on with building strong communities and stronger economies.

I urge all hon. members do just that and vote with us to make Bill C-27 the law of the land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her speech. I have to say that this government's slogan seems to be, “do as I say, not as I do.”

Unfortunately, we are once again being muzzled in the debate on Bill C-27. A time allocation motion was adopted for about the 30th time. I just wanted to point that out.

My first question for the member opposite is the following: the first nations asked the government to work with them to develop better transparency and governance measures on the reserves. Why is the Conservative government ignoring this opportunity to work together?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it was over two years ago that I introduced my private member's bill. That bill was introduced as a result of many first nations community members contacting me, contacting my colleagues, with a desire to access this sort of information and with an inability to do so.

With the exception of first nation governments operating under the Indian Act, governments in Canada, provincial, federal and municipal, adhere to legislation that ensures transparency of the financial statements of their governments. This is something that first nation members are calling for. We had a robust debate at the time that my private member's bill was making its way through the House. I believe we have had another good debate on this issue, and I would encourage the member to support this legislation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar developed her private member's bill in reaction to complaints from members of first nation communities who could not access the financial information needed to hold their leadership to account.

Would the member share with us what she heard that led to the development of her private member's bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced Bill C-575, it had become apparent that there were many members in first nations communities who were wanting to access information about the expenses of their chiefs and councillors and how things were being managed in their communities, and they were not able to do so.

As I mentioned, some were given the information; some were outright refused, and others proactively gave this information before it was asked for. I heard many stories from first nations community members about the concerns in their communities, and I continue to receive letters, phone calls and emails from first nation members who are now asking where my private member's bill is and when that piece of legislation will be enacted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would acknowledge that there is a difference between a private member's bill and a government bill. When the Government of Canada introduces a bill, there is an obligation that the government work in co-operation with and consult with first nation leaders prior to even the drafting of the bill.

However, there are concerns on the part of a large number of people. The member has a right, as we all have rights, to introduce private member's bills, but given that her private member's bill was converted into a government bill, could the member share with the House who it is that she consulted with, in particular, first nation leaders? Could she say that first nation leader x sat down and talked with her, so we have a sense that she actually met with, consulted and had that first-hand uptake prior to introducing her private member's bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been asking this question over and over again as we have been having this debate. I spoke with Chief Atleo when I introduced my private member's bill. I spoke with Chief Darcy Bear. I spoke with many members of first nations communities who wanted access to this kind of information.

Does it mean that everyone supported my private member's bill? No, but most of the community members on first nations definitely support the bill. They are calling for this bill. They definitely want to see the ability to access this information be enacted in legislation. It provides a road map to first nations' elected officials for accountability and transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on that last question and answer, I wonder if the member would be prepared to table in this House the names of the people she did consult, the band members and the first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that when a member of Parliament meets with individuals to talk about their concerns, about issues they have, those conversations need to be kept confidential.

There are privacy issues that one would have in tabling the names of first nations members who, as I have explained in my speeches, not only today but in prior debates, are very concerned about the repercussions they face when they even ask for this information.