Bill C-27 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
First Nations Financial Transparency Act
An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 23, 2011
- Debated in principleJune 21, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 27, 2012
- Passed the second chamberMarch 25, 2013
- Became lawMarch 26, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Rebecca PattersonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Kelly BlockShe champions the legislation as necessary for transparency and accountability from first nations officials.
- Greg RickfordPraises the bill's need and benefits after committee improvements.
- Ray BoughenExplains the bill's purpose and necessity while defending it against deletion and noting it sets minimum standards without added burden.
- Kyle SeebackDefends the bill's accountability clauses and argues transparency leads to good government.
- Chris WarkentinArgues the bill extends constitutional values of accountability and transparency to first nations.
- John DuncanMoved the bill and stated pride in supporting it for good governance and accountability.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 23 November 2011, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations (First Nations Transparency Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-22 expands the scope of the information to be publicly disclosed beyond the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors to include a First Nation's audited consolidated financial statements.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. · 2012-06-21 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- delays or defersSenator DyckDelays third reading of the bill by six months.Voted down · March 25, 2013 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
71% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,560 words introduced, 1,452 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill retained its core purpose of requiring First Nations to prepare and publicly disclose audited consolidated financial statements plus schedules covering chiefs and councillors. It was revised to separate expenses from remuneration, update definitions, and adjust the schedule title and consolidation rules.
- Remuneration definition was narrowed to exclude reimbursement of expenses, which became a separate category.
Before: “"remuneration" means any salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honoraria, divi- dends and reimbursement of expenses — including the costs of transportation, accom- modation, meals, hospitality and incidental expenses — and any other monetary benefits and non-monetary benefits.”
After: “"remuneration" means any salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honoraria and dividends and any other monetary benefits — other than the reimbursement of expenses — and non-monetary benefits.”
- A new definition for expenses was added and the schedule was renamed to cover both remuneration and expenses.
After: “"expenses" includes the costs of transportation, accommodation, meals, hospitality and inciden- tal expenses.”
- The definition of consolidated financial statements was revised to tie inclusion directly to generally accepted accounting principles.
Before: “"consolidated financial statements" means the financial statements of the First Nation and those of any entity that it controls that are presented as those of a single economic entity.”
After: “"consolidated financial statements" means the financial statements of a First Nation — prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles — in which the assets, liabilities, equity, income, expenses and cash flows of the First Nation and of those entities that are required by those principles to be included are presented as those of a single economic entity, as if the First Nation were a government reporting on its financial informa- tion.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act sets clear duties, fixed timelines, and defined accounting standards for preparing and publishing financial statements and remuneration schedules. Enforcement provisions introduce subjective language and broad ministerial choice over remedies.
Open to argument
“If a First Nation is in breach of any duty imposed on it under sections 5 to 8”
The phrase leaves open what conduct counts as a breach without an objective checklist.
Clear-cut
“within 120 days after the end of each financial year”
A fixed calendar deadline removes discretion over timing.“the fee must not exceed the cost of the service”
An objective ceiling tied to actual cost prevents arbitrary charges.“must remain accessible to the public, on an Internet site, for at least 10 years”
A precise minimum duration eliminates debate about how long publication must continue.
Discretion. The Minister alone decides whether a breach has occurred and which of three escalating measures (action plan, withholding funds, or terminating agreements) to apply, with no statutory criteria or review required.
Challenging the law itself. The combination of 'appropriate' and open-ended breach language could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter, though the core disclosure duties are concrete.
Disputing a charge under it. A First Nation could dispute whether its conduct meets the undefined 'breach' threshold or whether an action plan is 'appropriate,' but the 120-day and 10-year rules are hard to contest.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.