Scott Simms

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands brought up that which is germane to this debate, the preaching of one thing and the practising of another.

By way of illustration, my colleague who sits in front of me here from (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and I voted in the last session of Parliament. There was a minority. The majority of the House voted to reject the idea of signing onto a NAFO agreement, the international body that governs fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic. The majority of this House said no by way of votes. The very next day the Conservative government signed on to it. Prior to that, in the campaign, the Conservatives said that they would bring international agreements to the House. What was the point of that? The very next day they turned around and did the exact opposite of what they said they would do. At what point have they practised what they used to preach?

Going back to my friend's illustration, she brings up the point of the UN declaration. Every indicator in the language within this declaration said that transparency would be there and, certainly when it comes to communication, informed opinion. We get the statistics. It is a cut. We also get the level of transparency that they talk about here going way beyond—to use the term, they have been gobsmacked in this particular situation because they were absolutely surprised because they went counter to what they said.

Here is another illustration. The government stood up in the middle of the Alps of Switzerland and said that it may want to change the age of eligibility for old age security. It was said in a way that led people to believe that it was already known. I do not remember the Conservatives ever talking about that in the campaign. I remember hearing about the extra money they wanted to put in the guaranteed income supplement that was only one-third of the way to alleviating poverty.

Let us go back to that declaration once again. The indicators were definitely there. It was preached about. Back home it was practised in the opposite direction.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a valid point. I remember dealing with an organization in my riding. One of the gentlemen there called it “regulation creep”. Basically, he was tired of being regulated to the point where he was constantly filling out these forms that in many cases he felt he has done before. Sixty thousand reports is an illustration of just what kind of a burden is being put on these smaller communities. The administrative capacity for many of these places just cannot keep up.

However, let us look at the example of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The government recently cut core funding to regional economic development boards. Our opinion of the boards may vary, but their function was a good one. Full-time employees on the boards used to help out smaller communities with administrative capacity. They would help them file applications or audit reports, and help them fill out activities reports that were required of them.

That is certainly what is needed here. Imagine the extra amount of capacity that is needed just to provide the information required of the smallest bands and communities with the passage of this bill. It is a situation where I suspect that they would be forced into doing something because the outcry is just way too much. The reason why there is an outcry is because the people who are complaining about it are saying that, had they come to them before the legislation was introduced, they might have been able to do something about it or had an answer.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a point I did not get to in my speech. I am glad she did. I almost feel like she read my speech beforehand.

I want to talk about the statistical aspect. It is a good illustration of what I talked about earlier in my speech, the lack of information and the two-way flow of communication. Again, I go back to that UN declaration which called for informed opinion, decisions made for first nations that are informed. “Informed” and “consent” require two-way communication. If we cancel programs, such as the statistics that are gathered and acquired for fundamental decision making, then we are not that informed.

For example, we go to a foreign body, such as the United Nations Assembly, we sign agreements, then we come back and cancel the statistics program that gives us all that vital information on which we are basing these decisions. Ergo, we could go somewhere else, preach, come back and practise something entirely different.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Dream on I shall, as we all do. If there were not a certain degree of dreamers, then we would not be here.

The summary continues:

In 2008, AANDC advised funding recipients that, effective 1 July 2008, funding arrangements would be amended to include audit clauses.

It goes on to say:

When a First Nation community is unable to meet the terms and conditions set out in funding agreements, AANDC may intervene to address this deficiency

Therein lies some power for the department for this situation.

I have some more background information regarding Bill C-27.

While First Nations receive funding from several federal organizations, the majority of federal funding is administered by AANDC. In 2011–2012, Parliament approved approximately $7.4 billion in appropriations to AANDC to support the provision of such services to First Nations communities as education, housing, social support and community infrastructure.

This certainly was the focal point of a debate that took place in the House, given the situation in Attawapiskat. The situation and argument were degraded to the point where there were many false claims. Many people were using it for political purposes from all corners of the House, and some of it was just blatantly false. That is the unfortunate part of it, because if we get into that part of debate within the House, then we lose sight of coming up with the best solution.

First Nations and the federal government are both subject to various policy-based and legal requirements....

Through decisions of the band council, management of council affairs, delivery of programs and services, and disclosure of annual financial statements, First Nations generally are accountable to their community membership for the use of public resources.

Again, this is from the legislative summary put out by the Library of Parliament.

Through various federal reporting requirements, First Nations are also accountable to AANDC for the federal public funds they receive.

In turn, through the annual audit cycle and program reports, AANDC is answerable to Parliament and the Canadian public.

We get ourselves into this situation. When we had a private member's bill the last time, the principles that surrounded the bill were certainly those accountability and transparency. Therefore, in principle, of course we support that.

Whether the government is practising what it preached many years ago, such as the Federal Accountability Act, remains to be seen. We will leave that to the electorate to decide.

However, in that debate on the private member's legislation, falsehoods were put out there that there was a degree of unaccountability that really did not exist. In other words, the impression was given to us that there was no accountability whatsoever. That is not the case.

If we are going to enact legislation here, Bill C-27 would go further than what that private member's legislation was about to do, to the point that it would put many bands and their money, in the sense of the corporations, in a bad place. It would put them at a disadvantage in many cases.

What is dispersed to the public could be used against them, but not in a political way, such as by calling a talk show or downgrading a particular community.

However, let us say that a band wants to invest. It is incorporated and it pays salaries. It invests in its people and in infrastructure to help develop its young people to become entrepreneurs, or lawyers, or doctors, all surrounded by an idea within a band that it will invest in something for its future. There are business plans, audited reports.

However, if all that is dispersed to the public, even members of the government have to admit that it would put first nations at a disadvantage. Therefore, without particular amendments, the legislation would become something that could be used against their future ability to improve their communities and their bands, to improve and educate their young, to be a part of global commerce and to identify themselves as world players on the stage, and they certainly can be.

Let us take a look at the communities in northern Quebec that protested against major hydro projects. They went down the Hudson River to make their point, and they made a very good point. Since then, protests have been followed by action, action followed by investment and investment followed by smart, educated young people in aboriginal communities. The average age is very low in aboriginal communities, to the point where we have lots of young people who would benefit greatly from the investments of some of these band communities.

The proposed legislation's desire to be more accountable and transparent is wonderful. It is what every organization, whether government, NGOs, or business corporations should aspire to. These great ideals of what we consider to be transparent are what any company should aspire to so that others are not held at a disadvantage. However, with Bill C-27, let us be careful with what it would do.

If we go after the ideal of transparency, we may overreach to the point where it becomes a disadvantage and would work against the future plans of a band or community that wanted to better itself and invest in its social structures, not just business investments, but in the infrastructure of the community.

We are sent here to do the mature, decent examination and analysis of policy within the House. Following the House, the bill would go to committee where it would face more scrutiny, and that is where the amendments would come into play. We hope in this situation, despite the fact that there is a majority government, the Conservatives will practice what they used to preach and do this in a reasonable way.

There are certain elements of governance that the Conservative government feels should not be as transparent, whether that is for national security or in certain interests of our nation. In many cases I agree, but in many cases I do not. We agree that there are certain amounts of information that should not be disclosed to the public. Therefore, would the Conservatives not agree that amendments should be considered honestly and openly to attain the best legislation?

We can have the best legislation that would do two things. First, and most important, it would provide that transparency, which, in principle, I support. Second, with amendments, it would create responsible legislation so communities would be able to invest in their future and their children.

There are many aspects of the bill that we could speak about that go beyond what was debated in the last session of the House on the private member's legislation. A private member's bill usually does not go in-depth like government legislation does. When there is a full department behind it, that makes the legislation larger. However, Bill C-27 overreaches in many areas.

Let us take a look at the consultation process, which is also involved in this situation, and another problem that the government has put forward. This is not just about legislation from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I will use Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the copyright legislation as examples to illustrate my point about consultation.

When consultation is done, it has to be done both ways. It goes there and it comes back. The message is there and the message has to come back. In many situations that message did not come back from the base degrees by which we set legislation.

Therefore, what the consultation process brought forward was not one that I would consider to be beneficial to the debate within the House. Despite what the Prime Minister has said about recent Crown-First Nations Gathering resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people.

The Supreme Court of Canada established that both federal and provincial governments had a duty to consult aboriginal people before making decisions that might adversely affect their aboriginal rights and, in some circumstances, accommodate aboriginal people's concerns.

Further, let us not forget what the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada signed, obliges Canada to obtain “free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples” for matters affecting rights, territories and resources.

Let us go back to the resources aspect again. Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I can honestly say an investment in a resource certainly provides employment and more money in the coffers for provincial governments and therefore a better ability and more capacity to deliver social assistance programs when needed, as well as health care spending and education spending, the primary spending goals.

Looking at this in a particular way, we can see that the consultation process, when it comes to the resources aspect, did not bear fruit in the sense that if a particular band or community, or in other situations a province, invests in these resources, it has to be able to partake in the world of global commerce. As members know, when investing in larger resources, the world is where the market is. It is no smaller than that. Whether it is minerals or gas and oil, the world is certainly the ballpark we play in when it comes to investing in our resources.

This legislation will put some of these investments at a disadvantage because some of this information has to be dispersed to the public.

The expenditures and the direct subsidies into particular communities is a principle which we can agree on, but in this situation the government needs to take a second look at some of the changes that are necessary within this bill.

The Conservative government is imposing major changes to first nations financial reporting requirements, with no significant prior consultation with those who will have to implement these changes. Again, we go back to the idea of the consultation process. Certainly, we do not live up to that standard.

Let me repeat what is said in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “free, prior and informed consent”. That does not mean they have to put out a press release to say what they are doing. It means consent, meaning that there is a two-way flow of information, communication. I think it went one way, but the way it came back was not satisfactory to this debate. It is certainly not germane to this debate.

We have seen the same flawed approach on drinking water and matrimonial real property, with no discussions on the specifics of the bills with stakeholders before that legislation was tabled.

When the Prime Minister announced major changes to our pensions, he did so to a foreign audience. It was never discussed in the campaign itself. There was no consultation process.

On the existing reporting burden, Bill C-27 would do nothing to streamline the current overwhelming reporting burden, especially for small first nations with limited administrative capacity.

Coming from a riding that has over 200 small communities, the burden for administrative purposes weighs heavy. For those who live in a town of only 20 or 30 people and who are required to do report after report, it gets tiring after a while. I am not saying they should not do it, but at least the government could provide the capacity to help these people fill out these reports in a timely manner, in a way that is efficient and accurate.

In her 2002 report, the Auditor General recommended that, “The federal government should consult with First Nations to review reporting requirements on a regular basis”. That is sadly not within this legislation.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was reading through the legislative summary for Bill C-27, an act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of first nations. I want to thank Tonina Simeone and Shauna Troniak at the political affairs division for doing this superb legislative summary. Sometimes we do not give enough credit to our people at the Library of Parliament, and they deserve it.

For the sake of a bit of history, let us take a look at the legislative summary and its discussion of this particular piece of legislation. At one point it states:

First nations bands are subject to certain financial disclosure requirements under the Indian Act and related statutes and regulations. In particular, section 69 of the Indian Act provides that the Governor in Council may, by order, permit a First Nations band to “control, manage, and expend” its revenue, and may issue regulations giving effect to that permission. Accordingly, the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations require, in part, that a band's financial statements be audited annually, and that the auditor's report be posted “in conspicuous places on the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band”.

The preface here from some of the debate seems to be that there is not enough accountability, or practically no accountability, when it comes to this, but as the legislative summary points out, there is a degree of transparency here that we must acknowledge before we advance into this debate.

It also talks about federal access to information and privacy legislation setting additional statutory rules respecting disclosure of first nations bands financial information. I mention two sections in particular, section 19 of the Access to Information Act and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act.

With respect to the current policy-based requirements, the summary states:

The majority of funding arrangements between Canada and First Nations are in the form of fixed-term contribution agreements, under which First Nations must satisfy certain conditions to ensure the continued payment of federal funds. Requirements for financial reporting are also set out in AANDC’s Year-end Financial Reporting Handbook.

Once again we see a layer of transparency involved here that must be acknowledged before we advance into this debate.

I will now talk about some of the criticisms that I have with this bill and how the bill can be fixed.

In the spirit of things, let us face it, we all want transparency in the House. This is sometimes followed, and as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North pointed out, sometimes it is not, or at least it is talked about but is just not followed to the letter of the law.

The summary continues:

Under the Year-End Financial Reporting Handbook, First Nations must submit to AANDC annual audited consolidated financial statements for the public funds provided to them. These include salaries, honoraria and travel expenses for all elected, appointed and senior unelected band officials. The latter includes unelected positions such as those of executive director, band manager, senior program director and manager. First Nations are also required to release these statements to their membership. In particular,

Section 6.4.1 requires First Nations to disclose, both to their members and to AANDC, compensation earned or accrued by elected, appointed and unelected senior officials; and

Section 6.4.2 stipulates that the amounts of remuneration paid, earned or accrued by elected and appointed officials to be disclosed “must be from all sources within the recipient’s financial reporting entity including amounts from, but not limited to, economic development and other types of business corporations”

The summary continues:

Reporting and disclosure requirements are further set out in various provisions of First Nations funding agreements, which must be read in conjunction with the Year-End Financial Reporting Handbook.

It states:

Section 2.4.3 provides that Council must prepare consolidated financial statements, to be audited by an independent auditor, and delivered to the Minister within 120 days of the Council’s fiscal year end.

Section 3.1 provides that Council must make available the consolidated audited financial statements, including the auditor’s report, to First Nations members upon their request.

Section 2.2.3 provides that the Minister may withhold funds otherwise payable under the agreement if the Council fails to provide to the Minister the audited financial statements required under the agreement.

Once again, there we find a situation where there is a layer of transparency that does exist, perhaps, in many cases—a level of transparency that the government can aspire to in certain instances, as the member for Winnipeg North—

[Petitions, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of 50 residents of Regina, Saskatchewan who want to save the essential services of their public broadcaster the CBC/Radio-Canada.

The petitioners state that the public consciousness of this country and the dialogue that we have from coast to coast to coast is maintained by the CBC. They want the government to invest--

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us try this again with the example of Tim Hortons in Fort McMurray. The government would provide it with domestic workers not foreign workers. These domestic workers would come from the government's category of frequent users of the system. There is no other place to get these workers, according to the government.

I do not know where these people would come from. If people come from Port Union and decide to work at Tim Hortons in Fort McMurray, the government is not even going to help pay for the move. What if these people cannot afford to move? What happens then? They would go to the province and go on welfare. That is downloading on a province if I have ever seen it.

The government might say, “We are not going to bother with them, we are going to go to someone else.” Here is what the government is not providing: who is that someone else if it is not temporary workers or foreign workers, or it is not the people in seasonal work? They do not just appear out of nowhere.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the provisions in the budget regarding EI are fraught with contradictions. The member has a point. Let us think for a moment about taking someone out of a seasonal industry that is the main industry of a smaller community and having that person deliver pizza. The pizza store only exists because of the fish plant. Therefore, money that is being generated, money that is coming into the community, goes to smaller retail outlets that are now running the day according to the Conservatives. If they keep taking seasonal workers out of this particular area, the pizza store will not exist anymore.

This is the problem with it. There is a lack of understanding. I wish, I pray, I hope that the government will stop treating people like they are repeat offenders whose only intention is to not work that part of the year. These people would love the opportunity to put in 12 months, but the markets right now do not dictate that to happen and never will if the government policy is implemented.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

A Trojan elephant, if it exists. It is 400-plus pages plus. It is unbelievable.

This is like looking for steak and ending up with about 200 tonnes of Spam that is shoved right through the system because everything is in here, clause after clause, change after change to this regulation and that regulation. One of the fundamental things the government has done to EI when it comes to the rules and regulations about employment insurance is to bring the decision making from the legislature to the cabinet table. It makes it much easier.

When we brought in pilot projects in 2005, we were faced with the prospect of an EI system that was falling down in seasonal industries, so we changed it. We went to the best 14 formula, which at the time was a pilot project, but it was voted on in the House under a minority Parliament. How is that? The idea of actually doing that is foreign. It is passed off as something that has been done before, something that is necessary, but yet it was only back in 2005 and even prior to that when it was considered sacrosanct to the validity of the chamber, the heart of democracy as it were.

When we look at this bill, one of the biggest changes is to old age security. Many of my colleagues have talked about this quite a bit, whether it is OAS or language. One those members, I am honoured to say I will be splitting my time with, is the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I look forward to his speech. He is a hard-working employee of the people who he represents and a fantastic member.

I will go back to the OAS changes. One of the fundamental things about old age security is that the government had talked about upping the GIS payments before it won its majority. I I would argue that only one-third of it was covered at the time. It could have upped it by more, probably closer to $700 or $800 of total expenditure. That would have raised the income level for the poorest of our seniors to a much higher level, taking many more people out of poverty.

Not once during the last election did anybody on that side of the House, whether it was Conservative propaganda or not, or even through ministers at the time, say that in no way, shape or form would this program meet the brick the wall. In no way, shape or form will this run itself into trouble 20 years down the road.

Shortly thereafter we found ourselves in a situation where the Conservatives decided that it would be a tough program to maintain at the current funding levels in 20 or 30 years from now. I could understand if the Conservatives had been in opposition and then went to government and decided that the program was not feasible in the future. However, when they had been in government since 2006 right up until 2011, certainly to God they had to know at some point that this program would need to be looked at.

The chief actuarial officer of the OECD, the organization that the Conservatives brag about quite a bit, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer all agree that this change is not necessary as Canada's old age security program is already sustainable.

A lot of people would say that it is only two years, but we should think about that two-year period. Some people say that it is well down the road and that we should not worry about it. In other words, we should not worry about it. We should let our kids deal with it because we will not around. That is pretty short-sighted and it goes against everything else when it comes to things like investments that we make.

Given the situation we are in and the fact that experts are saying that this does not need to be changed, even at that particular year down the road, why would the Conservatives be doing this? That is two years. To me, that represents a downloading to the province. People who are in a situation of extreme poverty may rely on the provincial welfare system and there is supplementary health care involved. Now, all of a sudden, that has to be extended for two years because at 65 they were able to claim old age security and if their income level was at a lower level they could have also qualified for the guaranteed income supplement.

That two years will be downloaded to the province, something the Conservatives said that they would never do. It has to be done that way, according to them, because it will save the system. However, time and time again we are hearing more people say that it is not really serious.

I will now go to employment insurance. What I am hearing time and time again is a fundamental misunderstanding of what seasonal work is to areas of the country. The mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Mayor O'Keefe, had a point when he said that if these changes occur, the downgrading of services like search and research, the downgrading of other services, do we centralize outside of the island?

EI changes that affect seasonal work, where frequent users, under the government's category, represent 80% in my area of people on EI. They are not repeat offenders. It is the industry they work in. If there is one company across the street, as the minister heckled earlier, with full-time work and the person leaves the fish plant to go to that store and work all year round. That is one job to be filled by approximately 100 or 150 fish plant workers. Then the government says that maybe they can go from the fish plant over to the tourism sector because it is a newer industry and it is hoping to expand it. All that does is take one seasonal worker and put him in other seasonal work. That does not help seasonal workers at all.

What are these fish plants going to do? The plant that I spoke of earlier in Port Union wants to diversify its plant. It wants to attract industry, except now it will have nobody to work in the plant. It will shut down and will have little hope of opening because of the workforce problems. It is not workforce problems in the sense of getting temporary workers but in the sense that people will be shuffled around. They will not have the opportunity to fend for themselves or to get something else. The proverbial vacuum will suck all the skilled labour out of these smaller communities. If that is what the Conservatives want why do they not be honest?

My colleague from Essex earlier talked about how nothing was hidden in this budget, yet everyone has questions about seasonal workers. If people are within an hour's drive, they have to go to these jobs. What happens if a person lives on Fogo Island and there is ice in the harbour and the person cannot make it on the boat? What happens if someone does not have a car? What happens, what happens, what happens?

I am hoping that at some point the government will answer these questions, that it will take this into a full debate in the House. It is unfortunate that the government did not do that.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, following the last comment that was made, that is a pretty bad stereotype and a dangerous thing to say. Anyone who is considered to be using EI on a frequent basis may be in a circumstance of seasonal work and would love to be working year round. The stereotype that is being put out is a pretty sad one.

I went to the town of Port Union just two weeks ago and was told about how people hoped the plant would be sold to someone diversified enough to provide double the amount of time throughout the year to allow them to work that many months. The people agreed. I hardly consider that to be something akin to repeat offenders.

I will talk about EI in depth in just a few moments, but I have another point to make about the bill. I first came here, like other members, in 2004. At that time the contentious issue was the Atlantic accord. The negotiations were back and forth between the then prime minister, Paul Martin, and then premier, Danny Williams. To say it was heated is quite the understatement. When we finally settled on a deal that was satisfactory to both the province and the federal government, we knew the best mechanism by which we could establish it was through the budget. In other words, it was affixed to the budget as one lump sum payment with changes that would affect the equalization formula.

Here is the issue. When we brought this to the House to debate within a budget implementation bill, the anger from the Conservative side of the House was vehement. It was like watching Pavlov's dogs. Every time a member mentioned that there was a budget implementation bill, the Conservatives were incredibly angry. They asked how dare we slip this through. They said it was like some kind of”, is everyone ready for this term that I have heard, Trojan Horse. The Conservatives said that we had produced a Trojan Horse. That Trojan Horse was a miniature pony compared to what we have now. This thing is the size of an elephant.