The federal government is pushing forward on a First Nations accountability bill that would require all band governments to publish the salaries and expenses of their elected chiefs and councillors, among other things.

In principle, most aboriginal leaders and communities are supportive of what this legislation is trying to achieve.

Indeed, it’s hard to come up with even one compelling argument for why any democratic government should not be as transparent as possible to its citizens about its financial dealings.

Yet, some indigenous leaders and communities have mobilized against the legislation, arguing that it shouldn’t be passed.

At the core of this opposition is the idea that the legislation is another example of the federal government imposing a solution on all First Nations, ignoring the inherent right of aboriginal self-government and the fact that some First Nations already have strong accountability mechanisms in place.

Indeed, this legislation is reminiscent of legislation passed by the Ontario government in 2006, when it amended the Municipal Act to force municipalities in the province to create formal accountability and transparency regimes.

In the summer of 2010, several colleagues and I carried out a study of how 12 municipalities in Ontario responded to these forced policy changes, and found that the majority of these municipal governments responded in much the same way First Nations have responded to the federal legislation.

Most of the municipal officials we interviewed agreed that accountability and transparency were crucial aspects of municipal governance, and that there was always room for improvement. But almost all of the officials were critical of the Ontario government’s approach to the issue.

Among other things, the officials pointed out that many of the options available to the municipalities, such as an integrity commissioner and a lobbyist registry, were really only appropriate for big cities like Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton, and not for the majority of municipalities in the province.

The legislation also ignored the fact that some municipalities in the province already had accountability and transparency regimes in place, so the legislation was a waste of time and resources, especially since most of these municipalities hadn’t experienced any scandals in some time.

In the end, all of the municipalities we studied complied with the legislation, either creating their regimes from scratch or modifying their existing regimes in accordance with the requirements in the legislation. What was really interesting was the amount of communication between the municipalities as they learned from each other on how to develop the best regimes available while respecting local contexts and concerns.

In the end, although all the municipal officials were annoyed with the province for imposing these policy changes, a quarter of the officials we interviewed thought the legislation had helped their municipalities to improve their regimes. The rest of the officials had mixed feelings, although none said that their accountability regimes were weakened by the legislation.

The situation facing First Nations today is eerily similar to the one Ontario municipalities faced in 2006.

Although there is no question the federal government’s approach is problematic, especially given the long history of colonialism between indigenous peoples and the Crown, the outcome may have some very real and positive effects.

The worst case scenario is what happened in Ontario, where existing regimes were formalized and, at a minimum, had no negative effects on local accountability and transparency.

Similarly, First Nations that already have strong accountability and transparency regimes will simply have to ensure their regimes meet the basic standards laid out by the legislation.

For those First Nations that have no formal mechanisms in place, it will mean creating new ones, either on their own or by finding examples to emulate.

Fortunately, these First Nations will have access to a variety of excellent examples, such as the accountability and transparency regimes that exist at Westbank First Nation in B.C. and the Nunatsiavut government in Labrador.

Overall, the results of this legislation should be positive in terms of improving accountability and transparency between band councils and band members.

The same cannot be said, however, for the relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples.

Christopher Alcantara is associate professor in the department of political science at Wilfrid Laurier University. He co-authored an article in a recent issue of Canadian Public Administration that demonstrates how aboriginal self-government can facilitate stronger accountability regimes compared to those that are currently available under the Indian Act.