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

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've got five minutes, sir, so you can just go all you want.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Ms. Gabriel.

I'm going to repeat what you said earlier. I think it's extremely important to know that you only get 35 per cent of the money for Indians living on Indian land. If I understood correctly, the remaining 65 per cent is apparently swallowed up by the officials at the Department of Indian Affairs. That means that white people are gobbling up—so to speak—65 per cent of the money that is supposed to go to you. Is that what you are saying?

[Ellen Gabriel]

That's an approximate number. It's not an exact number, but it's an approximate number. It's safe to say that it's more than 60% that goes to administrative dollars.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

If I understood correctly, in reality, the problem stems from the fact that you don't get the money. You are a bit irritated by the fact that the money is withheld by white people at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and doesn't reach the aboriginal communities. Did I understand your intervention correctly?

[Ellen Gabriel]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay. Were you here at the beginning of the meeting, when the request was made for Indian bands to be excluded from Bill C-2? Have you read Bill C-2, the so-called Federal Accountability Act? You seem to be saying that you support accountability, but that you would like to participate as an aboriginal woman in the accountability discussion. Did I understand correctly?

[Ellen Gabriel]

I was saying there are other ways of doing this besides including aboriginal communities in this act.

As some first nations have said--Chief Picard has said--we are for transparency, but we don't feel this is the proper act in which to include aboriginal people because of our stance on sovereignty, and because of the simple fact that there are two laws in Canada--one for ordinary Canadians and one for aboriginal people--and making a mix like that, if you want to look at it in practical terms, really doesn't work.

More than that, it's an assertion that the moneys allocated for aboriginal people--yes, the Canadian taxpayers pay into that fund that goes to aboriginal communities, but that money is our money. That money has been earned through the minerals and resources Canada has used to become a rich country. It has been taken from our lands; people are living on our traditional territories that have never been ceded.

We have to have a different relationship and within that relationship is the infrastructure, the administration of the moneys that affect the realities and the needs of aboriginal people.

I don't know if I have made myself clear.

Chief Picard might have something else to say.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Le vice-chef Ghislain PicardNo, you've made yourself clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you have about a minute.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chief Picard and Madame Gabriel, for being here.

In the moment we've got left, I just want to delve into your first recommendation a little bit more where you're saying you had asked the committee to amend the bill to drop any reference to first nations, but then engage in some sort of a dialogue to try to come up with suitable alternatives to ensure accountability of any money Parliament votes to first nations people.

You've obviously given this a great deal of thought. Do you have any written recommendations we could peruse, giving us some ideas how we can find alternatives that would still achieve the accountability you say you agree with us we both want to achieve? Do you have any specific recommendations or alternatives you could present to this committee to examine?

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

I wouldn't be able to go that far, but I certainly feel there is an existing framework for a dialogue and a cooperative approach between first nations and government. To me, it's all in there.

It's only a matter of what you are willing to discuss. If it's accountability, then you have to discuss it in the spirit of how we understand it.

Obviously the relationship between Canada and aboriginal people is different from the relationship between Canada and Quebec and the relationship between Canada and any other municipality in this country because the toile de fond , if you will, is different. It's both historic and more and more legal. So we have to look at it from this point of view.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Is that the time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's the 40-minute time. You've lost two minutes somehow, but if you feel strongly about it, I'm sure the committee will give you another two minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

My final comment, Chief Picard, was we have received amendments from a number of different witnesses thinking the amendments would make this bill stronger. I don't think we've met anyone yet who has stated categorically or unequivocally that they disagree with the spirit of the bill, but many of them have suggested we could entertain amendments presented by witnesses to make the bill stronger. And that's been very helpful, I believe, to this committee.

That's the genesis of my question to you. If you have any specific recommendations.... If we were to drop references to first nations people from this bill, as you would recommend, alternatives may still achieve the same spirit we're both trying to achieve. Any specific recommendations you have would be extremely helpful for this committee, and if you can present them to us now or in the next few weeks, it would be helpful.

[Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard]

I can only repeat what was said in the previous presentation, that the idea of an auditor general for first nations is certainly an alternative that is supported by our membership. The idea of an aboriginal ombudsperson is certainly a concept that is acceptable to our membership as well. You have alternatives there.

If you need to provide a more clear framework in terms of accountability per se, then we do have the Auditor General's reports over the last five years. They bring a lot of doubt to the way in which government has been accountable to our own membership.

So it does provide a lot of food for thought. We're certainly willing to provide our own experience and expertise. I think the whole idea is to be able to be on the same level, the same playing field if you like, in terms of how we approach this whole issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thanks to both of you for coming this afternoon. Thank you very much.

That concludes the witness portion of the meeting. The committee has some business to attend to.

There are two motions. I'm going to have a brief recess before we get into those. I'm going to suggest that because one of the motions might involve getting into lists, perhaps it would be appropriate that the business portion of the meeting be held in camera.

Does anyone have any objection to that?

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

I do. I have an objection to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Then I guess we'll hold it as a public session.

We'll now recess for a moment or two.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's reconvene.

Our business consists of two motions. We will deal with them one at a time. They are brought by Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Poilievre, you can introduce your first motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion seeks to expand the sitting time of this committee in order to broaden the ability of this committee to hear more witnesses and to have more discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'd like you to move the motion, please, and then you can make your comments.

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

Okay.

I move the following:

That the committee add the following four meeting blocks for the week of May 29-June 2:

Monday: 3:30-5:30 p.m.; 6:00-9:00 p.m.

Tuesday: 6:00-9:00 p.m.

Wednesday: 6:00-9:00 p.m., and;

Begin meetings at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursday

May I discuss that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you may make your comments, Mr. Poilievre.

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

The purpose of this motion is to accomplish a number of objectives to which all committee members have attested their support. All committee members have said they want to have vigorous scrutiny of this proposed legislation. All committee members have said that when it's finalized, they want the bill to be passed promptly into law so that it can begin to take effect as soon as possible. All committee members have said they would prefer to have the work done, if possible, before summer so they can be back in their constituencies when the House recesses.

This motion seeks to accomplish all those goals. I take committee members at their word when they say they are interested in prompt passage of the Accountability Act. They've all voted in favour of the Accountability Act as it is. They've all said that they want to work in good faith to pass it into law. If those are truly their intentions, I see no reason why they would not want to devote the maximum amount of time to achieving that end.

At the same time, numerous committee members have said they have found it difficult to hear from all the witnesses they would like to hear from. That's been a consistent complaint by one or two members of the opposition. If that complaint is sincere, then surely they'll want to vote in favour of a motion that allows them more time to hear from witnesses.

In conclusion, I suspect this motion will not be at all controversial, because it does seek to achieve the things that all the members of the committee claim they want to achieve. I look forward to a vote in its favour.

Thank you.