Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, meeting number nine. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 27, 2006, are for the study of Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing, and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight, and accountability.

Our guests today are from the Assembly of First Nations. We have three representatives. We have the chief executive officer, Richard Jock; we have the chief of staff of the national chief's office, Bob Watts; and we have the special adviser, accountability, Daniel Wilson.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It doesn't take long to get points of order in this place.

Go ahead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's right. I'll make mine to the point.

Some of the members have asked me to make a very quick clarification about an article that was in the paper today. It cited quotations from yours truly in which I mentioned that I had become convinced—by Mr. Martin, in fact—that the $1,000 reward for whistle-blowers would not be proceeding through the committee.

I just wanted to clarify that it's still in the draft bill as it's written right now. All my comment referred to was a prediction that it would not go beyond this committee and would not ultimately end up in the Statutes of Canada.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I don't want to take issue with the fact that Mr. Poilievre may have been convinced by Mr. Martin, but I would like to put on the record that it was I who first suggested that we remove that provision.

Perhaps Mr. Martin was just more persuasive than I.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Does anyone else have anything to say?

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chairman, just on that point of order, I think Mr. Poilievre did the right thing and the respectful thing in telling us, soon after he mentioned to the press that a fairly important part of the legislation might not seek favour in the final go-round with the government.

I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that such statements be made, when possible, through the committee—to the committee, under the committee, in the committee, with the committee. That might make the workings here a little more democratic. As good as the member of the press was in eliciting that comment, I don't think it's the way we should conduct the affairs.

I think everything's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not going to tell any committee members how—at least outside this committee—to conduct themselves.

I guess the question remains, though, for all committee members, whether this means this issue is dead, or should members of the committee still ask questions on it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It's their choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Their choice?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think perhaps it's useful for us, because if we have a limited amount of time to hear and question witnesses, maybe we can all drop that particular subject and move on to other questions. So it may be an economical measure that Mr. Poilievre has taken there that will save us all a lot of time and streamline our activities.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on that, wouldn't it make sense, then, that all of the prospective witnesses be advised that this...? We have to have some sort of formal admission that that is no longer part of their discussion and therefore their preparation. It might save some time.

Do we look for a motion down the road? Is that what we should do?

The chair is open to that. Maybe I'll be bringing a motion with the proper notice on this point. How's that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry for the delay. We have those from time to time.

As you know, you can if you wish make some preliminary comments, and then members of the committee will have some questions of you. Thank you for coming this afternoon and for giving us your views.

[Richard Jock, Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I'd like to thank the chair and members of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 for this invitation.

We would like to begin by being very clear with regard to our overall view with respect to the general issue of accountability.

First of all, first nations in Canada do already have a very fundamental accountability relationship, one that we think is unique in Confederation.

It is very clear also, as evidenced by the comments of the Auditor General yesterday, that the existing relationship has dramatically failed in terms of realizing the outcomes we all hoped for. We further believe that Bill C-2, as structured, will not achieve the objective of improvement of accountability for spending on first nations issues.

Third, we have recommendations and a process that we have been engaged in with senior officials and with members of government that will attain this overall objective of accountability, but we feel equally that the current process with this draft legislation puts that process and that kind of thinking at risk to a large degree.

We also have concerns with the effect of Bill C-2 as a matter of law, in terms of fairness, and in terms of practicality. I'll go over that briefly.

The question on law is that this aspect of the legislation appears to be inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, in that it represents an infringement on the inherent right to self-government.

In terms of fairness, in this act first nations governments are treated differently from other governments. It has the effect of singling out approximately 98% of first nations governments among all governments in the world who are recipients of funding from the Government of Canada for application within this act.

Third, in terms of practicality, first nations are already subject to greater oversight than any other level of government. In her remarks the Auditor General also made the point very clearly that in fact first nations are overburdened by unnecessary duplication of scrutiny.

[Bob Watts, Chief of Staff, National Chief`s Office, Assembly of First Nations]

First nations are anxious to improve the accountability relationship. The “Accountability for Results” initiative, which has been going on for almost two years, demonstrates this commitment on a national level. The Auditor General referred to this initiative in her comments on May 9. We know it will prove to be more effective than the existing provision in Bill C-2. As the Auditor General indicated, Bill C-2 will not contribute to greater accountability with respect to first nations. It will not have a positive effect and puts at risk first nations-led efforts to improve accountability in a practical and effective manner. Two of those efforts are--and you've heard of this, again, from the Auditor General--the idea of the first nation auditor general and a first nation ombudsperson.

As you've heard from the Auditor General, accountability is a relationship that is about much more than monitoring and audits. The Auditor General did not seek the expanded mandate in Bill C-2, and even if it is granted, we suspect from her testimony that she does not intend to use it, as she knows it will not be helpful in terms of increasing accountability.

Our recommendations are pretty straightforward. We recommend an amendment to Bill C-2 to treat first nation governments equally with other governments. We also seek the support of this committee for the Assembly of First Nations' “Accountability for Results” initiative.

It's important, I think, for members to know that for the past three months we haven't been able to move further on this initiative. It was moving with good speed, but I think some folks thought the initiative may be in conflict or may be a duplication. For whatever reason, that initiative hasn't moved forward. We've had the opportunity over the last three months to make great strides; we haven't done that, so we need your support.

Third, in this regard we've tabled papers with the committee to put on record an amendment to Bill C-2, and we've provided a copy of our position paper describing the Accountability for Results initiative.

I'd like to thank the chairperson and the committee for allowing us to make our opening comments. We're prepared to receive any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Jock and Mr. Watts, thank you very much. I know there will be some questions for you.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Sure.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I would just ask very simply, was the Assembly of First Nations consulted by the government prior to the tabling of Bill C-2?

[Richard Jock]

No.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Poilievre for his initiative to drop the $1,000 issue from our deliberations. I think that's a good thing. Other amendments could be put forward along the same lines in order to improve the flow of our discussions in committee.

You proposed an amendment to clause 42(4). Do you have any other amendments to Bill C-2 to propose to us?

[Richard Jock]

Just that one.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You just have that amendment, but it is vital and essential to you so that Bill C-2 does not apply to you.

I'd like to go back briefly to the Auditor General's intervention. You answered Mr. Owen that you were not consulted in the drafting of Bill C-2. When the Auditor General appeared before the committee, she implied that consultations were underway between the first nations and her office on the establishment of an Auditor General position for first nations.

Can you fill us in on those discussions, and what are your thoughts on that Auditor General position?