Toronto Sun article: Liberals back down on First Nations transparency
I'm not sure on the policy on posting whole articles.
I thought this article was interesting and I'm wondering peoples views an opinions on the decision.
I'm out of my arcs when discussing First nations politics and economics but politicians being transparent about their salaries seems like common sense to me. Under what circumstances would it be a bad thing?
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/18/liberals-back-down-on-first-nations...
The Liberals just pressed pause on a law requiring First Nations politicians to disclose their salaries. This sends the message that the government sides more with aboriginal power-brokers than the average people on reserves.
"Make no mistake, the only First Nations who benefit from a toothless First Nations Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA) are the politicians, not average First Nations people," Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said via email.
On Friday, Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett revealed the government will drop legal action and stop withholding funds to any First Nation that didn't comply with the FNFTA.
The act mandated band councils provide financial statements, which were then posted online for all to see. The Liberals are now reviewing the whole law. Maybe they'll change it. Maybe they'll scrap it.
This would be a shame. A key way to guaranteeing politicians serve their constituents well is by empowering their constituents with information so they can hold their governments to account.
Because of this act, First Nations members learned a lot about their leaders. Some members of the small Kwikwetlem First Nation in British Columbia even announced they were launching a lawsuit against Chief Ron Giesbrecht after learning he received a whopping $914,219 in compensation in 2013.
The controversial law, which was brought in by the Stephen Harper government in 2013, was opposed by a number of chiefs at the time. Bennett called it "racist" when she was Liberal critic for the post.
However, it was inspired by average First Nations residents who weren't being given this information when they requested it.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation got wind of their complaints and started lobbying on their behalf. Their efforts led to this act.
Plus, according to the indigenous affairs website so far more than 90% of First Nations have disclosed information for the latest fiscal year. The FNFTA is clearly a success. Why nix something that's working?
"This government has been shouting from the rooftops that it stands for transparency and accountability," Wudrick also wrote, "and yet one if its first acts is to stop enforcing a law that has been the single most important tool First Nations band members have had to hold their leaders to account."
Conservative indigenous affairs critic Cathy McLeod tweeted: "They cannot justify keeping basic information away from community members!"
Governments in Canada are increasingly moving towards "open source" measures like this. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has said he supports more open government.
However, he also campaigned on retracting First Nations legislation put in place by the Harper government that the aboriginal community opposes. But does he mean laws opposed by aboriginal leadership or by regular people on the reserves? It's an important distinction. The answer is unclear.
Trudeau has repeatedly stressed he wants to rebuild a "nation-to-nation" relationship with First Nations. It sounds inclusive at first. But nation-to-nation conversations are conducted at the top level. The average person isn't consulted. They're shut out from the process.
It's a shame that a measure that empowered average people on reserves looks to be the first one the Liberals have put on the chopping block.
The article is very slanted. The chiefs have no problem with sharing that information with band members. The objection is the autocratic way in which the law was passed and that it demands a national report rather than reporting to band members. It's an infringement on their sovereignty.
The issue of governance of the indigenous people is complex because there is no single entity that speaks for them. For that reason the federal government does have to be involved but it should be as a facilitator. Not another single law should be passed concerning indigenous people without their direct involvement. That doesn't mean the chiefs get to dictate but there has to be good faith negotiations on anything that impacts them. It's a matter of simple respect.
I don't know if this was a platform commitment but it is something Trudeau said he would do as PM.
To even begin to repair the relationship between Canadians and indigenous peoples means removing irritants as quickly as possible.
It's a small thing but it's a sign of good faith and a step on what will be a very long journey.
Trudeau's approach is that we need to get all stakeholders to the table on issues and come to a consensus on how to move forward. One of the most important requirements of the T&R report is education. We have been virtually propagandized a negative view of First Nations people. While it has been important to highlight the drug problems and poor living conditions that has also led to negative stereotypes. It's amazing how invisible indigenous people are in entertainment media and specifically in Canadian drama. We get a very narrow view. We should have a monument to indigenous peoples not victims of communism.
Our history courses have to be rewritten to reflect the truth, or at least something closer to it.
I rarely quote a whole post of some length, but I'll make an exception.
The last time someone opened a provocative anti-Indigenous thread on this same subject, it went silent after one poster responded appropriately.
Thank you, Pondering, for your sensitive and appropriate response.
I agree. There's an interesting video of Pam Palmater, lawyer and associate professor from Ryerson University, and Aaron Wudrick of the Taxpayers Federation, debating this First Nations Financial Transparency Act when it first came out. Ms. Palmater argues it's unnecessary and illegal.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2623417296
Thanks for posting the link to that older thread Unionist I'll have a read. Thanks too Mark.
Toronto SUN...enough said.
Here is another article on the same topic.
Follow the money: The oilpatch and First Nations
The relationship with FNs enters a new age of transparency — not everyone's happy about it
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/21/follow-the-money-the-oilpatch-and-first-n...
bs article NR
Wilson-Raybould defends stand on UNDRIP adoption
Justice minister says UN declaration should be implemented through consultation
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/07/22/wilson-raybould-defends-stand-on-undrip-a...