If Trudeau becomes PM, should he scrap the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?

[PsYcNeT]

I'm pretty sure the PM can't arbitrarily scrap legislation. It has to go through the usual channels.

[HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by Rerun

It sounds like he wants to.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...assive-income/

So I guess the biggest benefit from the current form is that it has exposed negative spending trends among some bands and drawn back the curtains on some of the abuse of funds in these communities. So I think there is merit to this act, but I don't think his actual is to repeal the law entirely.

A quote from that very same article from Trudeau:

“Actually, I wouldn’t keep the legislation in place. I would work with First Nations to make sure that a proper accountability act that would have disclosed any excesses we see, but is done in a way that is respectful of the First Nation communities.”

So saying he is going to scrap it is deceitful. Nowhere in that article do they quote Trudeau as saying he will ditch the transparency act. The argument he makes is that in it's current form the act does not fairly treat first nations as independent of the government and forces first nation bands to report revenue much like government institutions such as universities. I agree with Trudeau that in it's current form the act serves to treat each band as an arm of the government whereby each individual is kinda working for the government in the need to report earnings sense.

Do I think that first nation bands should revert to no transparency? Absolutely not. But in it's current iteration it is not totally fair to those in higher authority in these community groups. It would be like me wanting to know what the pastors/priests/ministers make in churches around the country for the sake of comparison. Is that really something that needs to be shared with the entire country? I don't know.

What I do believe is that pulling back the blinds on everything is not always the best solution. While we all want open transparency in the affairs that concern us, some of us don't need to know intricate details about other people's affairs that needn't concern us. And sometimes sharing too much can cause harm.

TL;DR, do not keep the law in the same form it currently is, make revisions, keep open transparency to the people of each first nations community, I hate deceitful titles.

Also, if you want to start an open and prosperous debate on a subject, and while I applaud your passion for the political position you support, please take note of your own signature. If you start a political conversation calling out a member of the opposition party you lose face value when people can immediately identify you with another party that is just looking to beat up on a person who has different perspective. If you want to save face and be reasonable, when you propose such a question try including some points for both sides of the debate to demonstrate to your audience that you are open to discussing the merits of each alternative. Such may include "hey you know he might have a point on this one that we have not seen before, and reviewing legislation may offer a new alternative that only came up once this was originally implemented" or "It might not be the best to change it because it already works".

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure the PM can't arbitrarily scrap legislation. It has to go through the usual channels.

So, package it up in a giant omnibus bill greater than 400 pages, menace your party MPs with the threat of expulsion for not towing the party line and then watch the bill pass?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Reaper

So, package it up in a giant omnibus bill greater than 400 pages, menace your party MPs with the threat of expulsion for not towing the party line and then watch the bill pass?

Only if you have a majority

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

If you actually read the article, it sounds like OP used selected quotes to tell only part of the story:



So, he's still all for disclosing the financials which would still allow the public to see the paper trail, but in a more respectful and less attack-driven way.

He doesn't want to stop disclosure, just change the act. Doesn't even seem like news.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz3A6sCrA5o

He began a response to a yes-or-no question on Liberal policy by saying “whether we keep this legislation …” but quickly corrected himself, saying: “Actually, I wouldn’t keep the legislation in place.

He's saying he would scrap the current legisation

I would work with First Nations to make sure that a proper accountability act that would have disclosed any excesses we see, but is done in a way that is respectful of the First Nation communities.”

He'll replace the legislation with something else.

Neither he nor a party official would specifically commit to a law that requires chiefs and councillors to make their remuneration available not just to band members but Canadians at large.

The new legislation may or may not require salary figures to be available to the general public. They're not saying.

[GGG]

The first nations band need to be accountable to their people but I do not believe they need to be accountable to the Canadian government.

I think the way Harper went about passing the original piece of legislation was very heavy handed and not respectful of the autonomy that should be given to first nations. However the benefit of exposing corruption is important and some kind of legislation to ensrue that first nations people know how their leadership is spending. Ideally each band would be hiring 3rd party auditors to disclose this info but until that happens the federal government needs to work with the bands to have this disclosure.

So I really like Treadeau's stance here. Seems to not just treat it as black or white and recognizes that the nations should have autonomy along with the accountability.

[MelBridgeman]

"respectful of the First Nation communities.”"

how do you accomplish that? Posting salaries and identifying who is making big cash will never be "respectful"

Until Chief Spence and big enviro hijacked idle no more, getting accountability was the whole point and King Harper and his crew accomplished that and all Trudeau can say was it wasn't done "respectfully" - what kinda weed is he smoking?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by GGG

The first nations band need to be accountable to their people but I do not believe they need to be accountable to the Canadian government.

Yes they do, the Government of Canada and it's taxpayers provide them with billions every year, damn straight they need to be accountable. It's bad bad bad business to suggest otherwise.

[Canuck-Hater]

Yes, but if he doesn't they should introduce a Canadian Government Transparency Act-its only fair.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes, but if he doesn't they should introduce a Canadian Government Transparency Act-its only fair.

Well there is the budget and salaries, expenses and pensions are widely available... what isn't?

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well there is the budget and salaries, expenses and pensions are widely available... what isn't?

Yes, our government is completely honest about everything they spend. My mistake.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes, our government is completely honest about everything they spend. My mistake.

Touche, but it's all public record and it's not just this current government nor will it be the last. Also there is always a small percentage in a group of people who will try and circumvent the system

[SebC]

I can't really support Trudeau on this. Why shouldn't the Canadian public know where their money is going?

[afc wimbledon]

Firstly this, on the whole, is not taxpayers money, it's a contract payment, just like the money we pay ford or GM for cars for the RCMP.
Secondly though, the res' band system is utterly corrupt and anything that breaks that is a good thing, personally I would stop paying 'bands' and start paying individual band members forcing those in power to campaign for taxes like a municipal council. It would also put a check on the practise of forcing families off the res so that the remaining few families get to keep a bigger share of the federal funds.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

I can't really support Trudeau on this. Why shouldn't the Canadian public know where their money is going?

In all likelihood, he just opened his mouth without thinking about what he is actually saying. As is often the case with Trudeau, he will likely "clarify" what his statement actually meant shortly.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Ark2

In all likelihood, he just opened his mouth without thinking about what he is actually saying. As is often the case with Trudeau, he will likely "clarify" what his statement actually meant shortly.

He clarifies it in the very next sentence.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

He clarifies it in the very next sentence.

He said shortly.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

"respectful of the First Nation communities.”"

how do you accomplish that? Posting salaries and identifying who is making big cash will never be "respectful"

Until Chief Spence and big enviro hijacked idle no more, getting accountability was the whole point and King Harper and his crew accomplished that and all Trudeau can say was it wasn't done "respectfully" - what kinda weed is he smoking?

I agree.

Respectful of First Nations communities? What does that mean?

Its common practice to publish senior public service salaries. There isn't a mayor or elected official in Canada that has a "secret remuneration". Its common knowledge to know what they make. After all, it is our tax dollars paying their salary.

What makes Chiefs so special? Why are they any different from any other elected official that gets paid from the public trough?

[110%]

Only public funds should be disclosed. Private funds from their own enterprises and how those funds are spent should not be disclosed to the general public.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I agree.

Respectful of First Nations communities? What does that mean?

Its common practice to publish senior public service salaries. There isn't a mayor or elected official in Canada that has a "secret remuneration". Its common knowledge to know what they make. After all, it is our tax dollars paying their salary.

What makes Chiefs so special? Why are they any different from any other elected official that gets paid from the public trough?

What makes it different is 'we' signed treaties with 'them' agreeing to pay or provide services to them as payment for their land.
First Nations are just that, legal entities that pre date Canada, as such, like when we pay a company for a service, I used the example of Ford and GM, we don't get to know or direct what Ford does with that money.

I say all of this while still thinking that the disclosure is a good thing and in fact the winding down of the band system would be the best for individual natives