Welcome to the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
According to today's agenda and pursuant to the order of reference for Wednesday, March 16, 2011, we will be studying Bill , An Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act (borrowing limits).
And we would like to welcome Dennis Bevington, the Member of Parliament for Western Arctic.
[English]
Mr. Bevington, we have you in a different spot at the table than we are accustomed to.
You'll know, members, that Mr. Bevington is the sponsor of the bill.
You know the general routine here, Mr. Bevington. We'll go ahead with your opening presentation and then we'll go directly to questions from members. Go ahead.
I very much appreciate being in front of your committee, although I have to say that a panel of peers is always a difficult situation. I expect no less careful scrutiny than any other witness who might come before you, and I'm sure that's what I'll get.
I want to thank those who have helped get this bill to this point and all parliamentarians who recognize the importance of the development of the north, and I think that includes everyone in Parliament. I had hoped we could have full support for this bill, because to me this bill represents a very important principle for the Northwest Territories, that of responsible government.
When we examined the Northwest Territories Act, which I did in conjunction with people in the Northwest Territories, at one point I had a meeting with the Premier of the Northwest Territories at which we discussed what would be their interest in amendments to the Northwest Territories Act going forward. Out of that discussion I had a number of amendments on the order paper in Parliament, and I chose this one because it was the most relevant to the current situation. It's also relevant to that concept of responsible government in which the ability to make choices on the part of a government is driven not only by the rules but by its capacity to invest, to grow, and to develop, and without fiscal capacity the territory that I represent is very limited.
As a person who has grown up and lived under the NWT Act in Canada my whole life, I know the nature of it. I know we are, compared to other parts of this country, less endowed with responsible government and less endowed with the ability to make choices for ourselves. Improving that situation for the Northwest Territories has been a goal of mine my whole life, so I'm very pleased to be here today.
I think changing the borrowing structure is a very small change within the NWT Act. At the present time, any increases to the borrowing power for the Government of the Northwest Territories have to be put through the cabinet of the Government of Canada. In the time I've been in Parliament here, over five years, we have already seen two requests for increases to the borrowing limit go forward to the cabinet of the Government of Canada.
We have a situation in which there is a problem for the Government of the Northwest Territories because it must come cap in hand to Ottawa. That relationship is not correct. That relationship can cause pressures that are not seemly for a government, pressures that can put a government in the position of having to acquiesce in other ways in order to get what it needs to be able to perform as a government.
My Bill would change that relationship so that the borrowing limit for the Government of the Northwest Territories would be set at 70% of the total revenues of the government in any one year. We feel that 70% is a very fair accommodation. It fits very well with the present fiscal policy of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the financial policy they enacted, whereby at no time can the debt interest payments exceed 5% of their gross revenues.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has set their fiscal policy very strictly, and that has provided them with an AA-plus rating from Moody's. That's higher than many provinces have; the Government of the Northwest Territories as it stands now has achieved a rating with its fiscal policies that's superior to that of many provinces. This act will give the government an ability to work their borrowing limit to a particular formula.
Why do we need to borrow more money in the Northwest Territories? Well, we're very much a developing territory, and in some years over the last decade we've seen the highest GDP growth of any region in the country. We need infrastructure terribly, and I appreciate the work that this committee has done in establishing a report on northern development. Within that report I think there is much knowledge, and there is an understanding of the situation in the Northwest Territories and in the other territories as well.
We must move away from this colonial structure that we have. It's not seemly. It's not right that the Government of the Northwest Territories has to go cap in hand to Ottawa for legitimate borrowing purposes, for legitimately moving ahead with its agenda as it sees fit. That is the nature of responsible government.
A number of issues were raised in the debate on the bill. I would just touch on them now.
Consultation was something that was questioned. I would just like to refer to a letter that was sent to me by the Premier of the Northwest Territories in October of last year, before I submitted this bill for second reading. He says:
Thank you for your letter of October 5, 2010, in which you lay out the provisions of Bill C-530, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act. The bill would amend the Northwest Territories Act to allow the Commissioner to borrow money up to a certain limit....
I appreciate your concern and efforts with respect to the borrowing limit, and your offer to involve and coordinate with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
He goes on to say:
...the Minister of Finance...has advised me that he has asked his officials to undertake a review of the operation of the NWT's borrowing limit.
That would be the third review undertaken in the last five years.
He goes on to say:
This review will also include the Yukon and Nunavut governments. It is expected that the review will be concluded by the end of the fiscal year.
Well, there is still no movement on that review. At the same time, this clearly this shows that I have consulted with the government. The government knew about my plan.
The territorial government as it stands now has a need for increased fiscal capacity. It can't put all its eggs in one basket. It certainly couldn't put its eggs in my basket. It must continue to work to get the fiscal capacity from the Government of Canada in order for it to continue business.
My bill would change it, but they can't rely on my bill, because of course it has to go through a very long and rigorous procedure as a private member's bill, unless all parliamentarians consent to allowing it to move forward in a more expeditious fashion.
So consultation has taken place. That's the position of the Government of Northwest Territories, which is interested in the proposal because it sees it as being one that is ultimately stronger than what they can get simply by going to cabinet.
Another question was around the issue of negotiating the borrowing limit with all three territories together. I think that's really inappropriate, because we are three unique territories. It's very clear, with the movement on devolution, that this is the way we're going ahead. We're not going ahead as a single unit. We are three separate jurisdictions, and I think the respect for that reality has to be there. Each unique territory will have its own requirements and move in its own fashion.
The Government of Northwest Territories has a very strong fiscal policy. I would certainly be willing to share what I have on that with you.
In a letter from the Parliamentary Budget Officer it was indicated that this bill will not have an impact on federal government finances. That request was initiated by MP Mike Wallace to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That letter was dated December 13, 2010.
All of this information is available to the committee, and I'd be willing to provide it if required.
:
My other question is related to the royal recommendation. As you very appropriately said, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there was no cost, so there's no.... I can't conceivably see how anyone would even suggest there's a royal recommendation. Has anyone suggested that?
Because the federal government, by the Constitution, has to provide an equal level of living standard to all Canadians, to me this would reduce federal costs, because now the GNWT would be taking up part of that responsibility. They'd be building infrastructure and doing things that the federal government might otherwise have to do, such as the big dams; taking that away, if anything, would save the federal government money.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, it wouldn't cost the federal government anything for sure. Allowing the GNWT to borrow more, just as if you allowed Ontario to borrow more, has nothing to do with the federal government.
Has anyone suggested to you any possible reason that it would need a royal recommendation?
I would hardly call it offensive when I said before that the Bloc Québécois was going to vote against your bill. It is certainly not what we would do—and that is what our party was trying to tell you in the beginning—despite your position on Bill regarding the change to the development of Gatineau Park. Quebec would have really liked to be able to count on your support when the committee you were on was dealing with that bill. That being said, clearly, we will be supporting your bill. We asked our Bloc Québécois colleagues to respect your position, which we do not share, on Bill . However, Bill , which you put forward, is extremely important, and we will of course support it.
Furthermore, Mr. Bevington, I would like to know what will happen with the taxes and all the royalties. For instance, who gets the taxes payable by a mining company operating in the Northwest Territories? Does the part of the country you represent, the Northwest Territories, get a share or does it all go to the federal government?
Thank you, Dennis, for coming and for laying out pretty clearly the case for this bill.
You raised a couple of points around responsible government and still having NWT grounded in a very colonial approach in the federal government's relationships with the territorial governments. I think this case of the borrowing capacity is a good example of that.
I have a couple of points.
I just want to put on record the exact quote out of this letter of December 13 from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because I know this has come up with the estimated costs. He says, “With respect to Bill C-530, our review indicates that there would be no incremental cost arising from adoption of these legislative amendments.”
I think it's important for that to be on the record, because I know it's a concern that people have raised. That's just a comment.
The second piece that I wanted to have you address is this: have you heard of any arguments against this bill, and if yes, what are they? I'd like you to present your counter-arguments. Have you heard any criticism of the bill, anything that you think is a legitimate concern that's been raised with the bill?
:
I think the answer I gave to Mr. Bagnell was that there was some concern about one area in the actual bill itself, and that was the determination of the gross revenues, but I think that staying below the 70% of gross revenues is a responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
We haven't taken out the provision within the act that if this is not adequate, in the end the Government of the Northwest Territories can go back to the cabinet. That provision within the bill would allow some discretionary move as well, if for some reason there was a very large requirement for fiscal capacity that went far beyond this. We have left it like that so that there is some flexibility.
I had a conversation with the finance minister, and he indicated to me that he thought this bill was moving in the right direction. My point to the government would be that I've got a bill that amends the NWT Act; it's in place, and we've gone through second reading, so if you want to accomplish this job, just take the bill over and finish it. It's there for you.
This is not a partisan issue. I really didn't want it to be a partisan issue, because it's all about something that all Canadians and everyone on both sides of the House can support--that is, giving people of the north the tools to do the job they need to do for all of Canada.
That's where I'm coming from. I reject the idea that this is in any way a partisan bill. It's not. It's just something that has to be done. If this is a convenient tool for Parliament to accomplish good work, then let's all get behind it and make it happen.
:
First of all, Mr. Bevington, I want to be clear: as you well know, there's a process in place. We're working collaboratively and in consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories. In fact, discussions are well under way around the borrowing limit issue, and our thought, fairly confidently, is that they will be completed by 2011. That seems to be the way that federal, provincial, and territorial governments ought to carry out their business. I make that point because I'm a bit concerned about your use of “we” and “you” in your testimony, and indeed in answers to my colleagues.
It seems a bit unilateral when we see you here voting against the Northern Economic Development Agency. You voted against tax relief for your constituents when you voted against increasing northern residents' deductions, and today's proposal was apparently developed without the Northwest Territories government having its voice heard.
I can only go on quotes to substantiate that. Let's listen to what the Northwest Territories finance minister, Michael Miltenberger, said:
...we have indicated to the Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic that it's his right to pursue a Private Member's Bill...But we have made it clear that we have embarked upon a process with the federal Finance department and the other two territories to review our borrowing limit. That's the process we're engaged in. That's the process we are committed to. That's what we are paying attention to. That's where we see the issues with our concern of the borrowing limit being addressed and it's the one we're fully engaged in...The member of Parliament has a track that he's on but we're not involved with that.
Dave Ramsay, MLA for Kam Lake, said:
...I'm surprised that our Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic is down in Ottawa trumpeting Bill C-530.
The residents of this Territory would like to know who gave him his marching orders or...is he marching to the beat of his own drummer?
To my knowledge, our government has never talked about a percentage of expenditures as a debt limit.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is currently analyzing and reviewing the debt limits of all three northern territories. Please, let's let them do their work.
Robert Hawkins, MLA for Yellowknife Centre, said:
...Who had given the Member of Parliament marching orders to act on our behalf?...Who has he talked to in this particular government? My concern is, of course, he has not talked to me and I've looked around and only heard of one person he has specifically spoken to, and I'm not sure if that was any more than water-cooler talk at the time.
Forgive me, Mr. Bevington, but this doesn't sound like overwhelming support from the territorial government. It certainly doesn't sound like your counterparts in the territory want you acting so unilaterally and paternalistically, and then you have a record down here that doesn't support a lot of the superordinate goals and interests of the constituents.
I'm going to ask, Mr. Bevington, first and foremost, can you provide this committee with the dates, names, and feedback for all formal consultations that you allege have taken place as part of the pre-emptive work you have done on this proposal? Can you answer in the yes or the no?
:
Thank you, Mr. Rickford.
Mr. Bevington, thank you for your appearance this morning.
Members, we're going to suspend briefly while we just change the table here and welcome our next witness.
Just for your benefit as well and to pick up on an earlier point, we will resume consideration of this bill on Thursday, March 24. We have the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of Finance, and the Government of the Northwest Territories as the three witnesses Thursday, March 24.
Mr. Bevington, as an associate member of the committee you may want to join us for that as well.
We hope at that point, by the way, that we may be able to get to clause-by-clause consideration. We will be available for that, if the committee wishes to do that. That's on the 24th.
Let's suspend for a few minutes, and then we'll begin our next segment.
:
Welcome back, everyone.
We are taking up the second part of our meeting this morning. This is pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 2, on Bill .
We welcome, much like the earlier witness we had, the sponsor of the bill. Ms. Kelly Block is the member of Parliament for the riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. Of course, Ms. Block, you know the drill here. We will do an opening presentation of up to 10 minutes, and then we'll go to a seven-minute round for questions.
Members, just for your benefit, Ms. Block can only be with us until no more than about 20 minutes after the hour, so we'll see how our questions go and try to suspend no later than that.
Go ahead, Ms. Block, with your opening comments.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here to speak to my private member's bill, the .
First and foremost, I'd like to thank my colleagues for their support in getting this far. The bill addresses a very important issue. I'm glad that my Conservative colleagues and 15 members of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of giving the right to more effective governance to all first nations communities. The MPs deserve to be commended for supporting grassroots aboriginal Canadians.
Allow me to share a few facts about Saskatchewan. There are 70 first nations in Saskatchewan, and 61 are affiliated to one of the nine tribal councils. The majority are members of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. As of February 28, 2009, the total registered population of Saskatchewan first nations was 129,138 individuals. There are five linguistic groups represented in Saskatchewan: Cree, Dakota, Dene, Nakota, and Saulteaux. Treaties 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 cover the province of Saskatchewan. Finally, the First Nations University of Canada is in Regina, Saskatchewan.
Knowing that my time was coming up on the order of precedence, I took the development of my private member's bill very seriously. It was important to me to address an issue that I believed all Canadians, and indeed all parliamentarians, would be able to support.
The issue of transparency and accountability is very important to me as a member of Parliament. I believe that members of first nations, like other Canadians, deserve transparency and accountability from their elected officials on the disclosure of remuneration derived from public funds.
would ensure this and would level the playing field for all first nations communities. There is no consistency right now. Some first nations proactively disclose the information, some provide it when asked, and others outright refuse. It is clear this has been a long-standing issue for first nations community members trying to access the information.
is a straightforward bill. If passed in its current form, it would require first nations to proactively disclose the salaries they earn and the expenses they have been reimbursed when the funds come from federal tax dollars.
To be honest with you, I find it quite perplexing that has been met with as much resistance as it has. Elected officials across the country disclose this information as a matter of due course. As I stated earlier, aboriginal Canadians deserve the same level of disclosure from their politicians.
The bill does not increase the burden of reporting on first nations. The information is already collected, audited, and submitted to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. This straightforward legislation mandates the proactive disclosure of the information and allows the Minister of INAC to disclose it in the community profile section on the INAC website.
I'd like to briefly address the accusations that have been made surrounding this bill.
It has been suggested that somehow makes troubling insinuations about first nations politicians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill C-575 makes no insinuations or judgments about the salary levels that first nations governments have the duty and indeed the right to set for themselves. It is my hope that Bill C-575 will be used as an effective tool to dispel some of the unfair generalizations that have been made.
Neither is redundant or somehow unnecessary. If that were the case, I would not be getting letters, emails, and phone calls from first nations band members thanking me for introducing this bill.
I want to quote from a letter that I received on January 11. The quotation is as follows: “I am in total support of passing the and I will/have been speaking to the grassroots people in the past few weeks. The only support to kill the act is from the leadership who do not favour the figures to be made available to band membersas well as to the mainstream public at large. It is just a given that the bill should have been there a long time ago. I am very happy you are doing this for the average band member of the first nations land.”
On October 3, I received another letter from a first nations member, who wrote, “I have felt compelled to email you my support for the first nations bill you have introduced. It is so long overdue and needed. The situation on my reserve is the former chief and council...”--and all names have been redacted, I would add--“...have to account for a whopping $1.3 million in oil moneys missing, yet no one ever hears about this, nor do the media care. With a bill of this nature, it could have been prevented, in my opinion. Please do all you can to have this bill passed and implemented immediately so that our future, the children, never have to go through this, as we have allowed through ignorance and deceit.”
Regardless of the facts behind these letters, one thing is clear: if passed, Bill will ensure that all first nations members know what their elected officials earn. I suppose it could be asked why this is important. I would like to point to just one example of excellent leadership.
Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation has taken his reserve from a 70% unemployment rate to a 4% unemployment rate. This is what he has to say about the issue and the bill, and I quote: “...I fully support Mrs. Block's private member's bill. Our prudent, ethical business-like approach has been vital to achieving that dramatic turnaround.”
He went on to say, “How can you attract banks and business partners into your community without being accountable and transparent to your own members? You can’t.”
This supports my belief that enhanced accountability will help spur economic development, create jobs, and fuel overall growth and success for first nations communities.
There are very good examples of transparent and accountable first nations governments. There are those, however, that are not. Bill will ensure transparency and accountability for all first nations communities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, this is a very important issue, and this is a very important committee dealing with these very important issues. I urge you to have a broad, open dialogue on the issue with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Amend Bill , if necessary, and ensure that this legislation is passed.
Good morning to you, Ms. Block, and thank you for appearing before us.
No doubt we all, around this table and in the House of Commons, share the principles of transparency and accountability, which we have criticized your own government on many times.
Your bill purports to address these principles. I would refute that. It does little or nothing to enhance transparency or accountability.
In terms of consultation, indeed I would like a list of the names and dates of individuals and people or organizations that you consulted with prior to the development of your bill. If you could produce that, I'd like to have that in written form and presented to the committee.
As you know, when it comes to aboriginal people, the duty to consult is a legal duty that we have, and we take that seriously. It's a policy the government has employed, or wants to abide by, I would hope.
There are those, Ms. Block, who say that it your bill violates the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. People say it's inconsistent with the inherent right of self-government, which the government purports to uphold. Many would say that it perpetuates stereotypes, that it is prejudicial, and that it smacks somewhat of racism.
I will only quote from the Quebec Native Women's Association from their November 29 press release, which said, and I quote,
QNW is concerned with the misleading portrait of the kind of fiscal transparency that is happening on reserves. While QNW--
--meaning the Quebec Native Women--
--believes that transparency and accountability for First Nations governments are an important part of good governance, the private members' Bill C-575, as presented by MP Kelly Block (Conservative Party) seems to be motivated by a prejudicial and racist view of Aboriginal peoples “as living off society”, by implying that the federal funds coming from “good tax payers' money” granted to Aboriginal chiefs and councillors are ill spent.
It seems to take a blanket approach to aboriginal peoples, aboriginal leadership, as all being somehow corrupt and inept. The examples you used are almost like a byline. We have this cloud of suspicion and insinuation, and then an apology saying that we don't want to spread that too far and giving the example of some first nation. If that were a byline.... It's never that there is good accountability, and the exception to good accountability and transparency is a few first nations.
In fact, the only stats provided by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation indicate that there were problems with only 7% of all elected officials.
When it comes to the issue of redundancy, I'm pretty sure you must be aware of the comprehensive funding arrangement, the national model that INAC has in place, that calls for generally accepted accounting principles and auditors general. I'm sure you're also aware of the year-end financial reporting handbook from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which has, as Annex D, a schedule of salaries, honoraria, travel expenses, and other remuneration all listed right there. It's the same thing that your bill purports to now open up. It's all there, so I believe the bill is redundant.
When we talk about consultation, one can use the words that it was unilaterally brought in, and in your own testimony speaking in the House, as noted in Hansard, you said, “I also, in speaking with my colleagues...”. That sounds like water cooler talk, sitting around talking across a few snacks and a coffee, and you bring in bills about something so fundamental to first nations people.
I want to ask you one very simple question in addition to the ones I've already asked. You've been in power for six years. Why only now did this suddenly become an issue for the government, if there were egregious issues of accountability and transparency throughout this time? Whatever happened to the collaborative efforts with first nations that were taking place in 2005 and 2006? Why was that not continued? The issue of a first nations auditor general was even being talked about in 2005-2006. Why didn't those efforts continue? Is there anything that could have stopped the minister? What legally was stopping the minister from taking this information and making it public?
Could the minister not have adjusted his policies in either of those two documents and made this information public? What was stopping him? What was fundamentally different, except that now we have this huge issue, and it's causing divisions and enhancing stereotypes?
:
Thank you, Ms. Block, for coming before the committee.
You're probably aware that when legislation that impacts on first nations, Métis, and Inuit comes before this committee, one of the questions that we always ask is about the duty to consult. Now we have another example of a piece of legislation coming before this committee for which the duty to consult that's been mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada has not been fulfilled. I think that arguably most people are in support of accountability and transparency, but we can't disregard a process when it is a consistent message that we put out, so it's troubling that once again we're dealing with a piece of legislation that has not fulfilled that duty.
In our looking at the bill, a number of issues have arisen. I know a number of us have consistently said that it's important for chiefs and councils to be responsible to the people who elect them and not to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. I don't think you'll find broad disagreement on that. Here, though, it appears that you're requesting a standard that's different from what other Canadians are subject to, and I want to refer to a couple of points before I get you to respond.
You're asking for federally funded dollars, and a significant amount of those dollars comes in through grants and contribution agreements. I don't know if you're aware that Treasury Board guidelines on contribution agreements, under appendix C, make no mention of salaries, even with respect to people who act as third parties to transfer money to other people. The guidelines just have a lot about audit requirements.
What I hear you saying about this bill is that all the other Canadians who get grants or contribution agreements don't need to release their salaries, but first nations do, so you're setting up another double standard here.
We're fairly used to that. First nations are governed by double standards all over the place, whether it's funding on reserves for child welfare, education, health care, or clean drinking water. We consistently say that it's perfectly acceptable for first nations to be treated as second-class citizens. Once again, I see you implementing a double standard by requiring something from them that we don't ask for other people on grants and contributions. That's one aspect of it.
The second aspect is that you've included under clause 6:
Despite anything in the Privacy Act, where, at the end of the period referred to in subsection 5(3), the Schedule of Remuneration has not been made publicly available, the Minister shall make it publicly available.
The way I read this—and it will be interesting to hear from some lawyers on it—is that all other Canadians are subject to the Privacy Act, but we're going to override the Privacy Act in the case of first nations. We're not going to have it apply to them, because somehow or other they're a different class of citizen. This is another example of saying first nations don't deserve the same treatment as other Canadians and that we're going to allow the government to override the Privacy Act in this case.
I wonder if you could explain to me and to other Canadians who may be listening why it's okay to treat first nations differently from other people in this country.
I'd like to thank Ms. Block for coming to the committee today.
We had a lot of discussion and debate on this very bill when you brought it forward and were just asking for some of my input.
Just as some background, having lived and worked on over 11 reserves in Saskatchewan, I've seen the membership--not the chiefs and councils, but the band membership--wanting to see the books and being turned down in all forms and aspects, and then being punished because they were making those requests.
Just seeing your bill and how it takes into consideration the membership.... There are some good reserves out there that are transparent and that are accountable, and they should be complimented for doing that, but there are those out there that will not open their books. It doesn't matter if people go to the reserve during the band meetings; the chief and council will not let them open the books. I've had to do investigations on improper bookkeeping. At times, yes, there have been fraud charges laid.
My first question is this: why should first nations be forced to publicly disclose remuneration and expenses of their elected chiefs and councils? As well, is this an invasion of privacy?