Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, you have six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would prefer—and I'll just go on the record and say this—that Mr. Kurek sing the Alberta national anthem for his one minute. I would appreciate that for a sound check. That would be great.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Oskee Wee Wee would have been better.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I agree.

For my questions, I'll begin with Mr. Metatawabin.

First of all, thank you for being here, sir. Your introductory remarks spoke to the integrity of your organization, and they are well represented with you here today.

I did have some questions because I want to make sure that we have the cultural competencies within these particular amendments that may best serve your communities, your nations.

I'm wondering if you've given contemplation to whether the rules regarding gifts or hospitalities place any inequitable limitations on your organizations, such as in offering a gift to an elder, a knowledge keeper or a community member, or providing food that is specific to a particular indigenous first nation, Métis or Inuit community that may surpass the low-value threshold during a meeting, event or reception?

[Shannin Metatawabin]

Thank you for that question.

I kind of compare this to the treaty-making process more than 100 years ago. They designated $4 in that treaty. That was supposed to cover a big bag of flour, a big bag of sugar and other things that people needed on the lands. If you compare that to what it's valued at today, it would be an amount that would cover all those staples.

I appreciate Mr. Green's question, because you never know what the activity is going to be or what part of the country it's going to be in. Look at the cost of food. If you're having an event in northern Ontario or even in Nunavut, the cost of food is approaching $20 for milk. How is that going to fit into your standard for the value of a meal for having an event?

I think that it's more reasonable to say that there's a value of a meal and this is approximately what it is. It says “reasonable” right now, and that makes a lot of sense, and everybody can be left to justify that the meal covers the value of that event.

I would much prefer to be able to offer a gift of moccasins or something to a dignitary who's coming to our area, and the value of those have gone up exponentially because they are hard to come by.

I think we need to maintain some sort of reasonableness and common sense when we're thinking about this. Indigenous people don't generally put their names in the lobbyist registry, but there are going to be more like me who will be lobbying because it's essentially a funnel. More are trying to fit into a smaller area and get those meetings with certain individuals.

Thank you.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to make sure that it's covered off in the study in a very specific way, because you've brought up some very important points around the history of rights holders and what the appreciated value would be in those agreements in terms of treaties.

Would it be reasonable then, sir, to conclude that when offering a gift to an elder, a knowledge keeper or a rights holder, it may be reasonable, or in fact legal, to consider those folks, as rights holders, to be outside of the framework of this particular legislation?

Would you seek to have some sort of exemption for those particular cultural exchanges, which are nation-to-nation and outside of a lobbyist-type scenario? Would that be helpful, sir?

[Shannin Metatawabin]

I think that our nation already considers ourselves exempt under paragraph 4(1)(d.1), where nations are able to engage with the Crown on a nation-to-nation basis.

I'm specifically speaking as an organization representative of my community. I am legislated under the—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

For clarity, sir, because my time is ticking away, you're the representative of those organizations. Let's say, for instance, that you host an event that includes government officials. Your member organizations and dignitaries are from rights-holding nations. It's that grey area where you're not there representing a nation per se, but you're facilitating the event.

It doesn't have to be on the spot now, but for the benefit of this, I'm just wondering if you could provide any scenarios you might encounter in the course of your work. In many ways—if you look at the Two Row Wampum in the Haudenosaunee territories where I'm from, having gone to bread and cheese events there—you're travelling through two worlds in your work.

I just want to make sure that you have the opportunity to see that reflected, as a representative of your organization. Perhaps maybe in further contemplation and in written submission you can provide clarity to this committee around that, if you deem it important. I do think precision is important.

Given the integrity that you've provided in your introductory remarks, I wouldn't want to have amendments to this act that have a cultural gap in the treaty-to-treaty relationships that we have.

[Shannin Metatawabin]

Yes, I appreciate that. That's a very good point.

When I'm trying to distinguish between first nations and organizations that represent first nations in a more mainstream advocacy way, there are cultural elements that we need to designate as exempt, because we have certain processes and ceremonies at those events.

Thank you. I'll send something to you.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We're now going back to Mr. Kurek, who had about a minute left in his questioning. Just so everybody knows, if this were happening to anyone in this room, I would be doing the same thing. It's only fair.

Mr. Kurek, I believe you were going to be asking a question of Mr. Metatawabin. Go ahead, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes. Thank you.

I'll continue with the line of questioning that Mr. Green had.

Thank you for your perspective. I found it really valuable to hear about how you chose as an organization to get involved to ensure you were upholding the highest standards and demonstrating your participation in the process.

I'm just wondering on the precision front if you would have any further comments, so that as members of the committee we could best understand what you would suggest as a good fit. I'm happy to receive further comments by written submission if you are up to that as well.

Thank you.

[Shannin Metatawabin]

Generally, from what I know about the act and the intention of the act to provide equitable opportunity of access, I think there are good elements within the act already, but I don't think that getting into the details and providing those by fine-tuning it to create even more issues by putting dollar amounts on hospitality is helpful for us doing the work, especially when the AFN recently came out with a document called “Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030”. It outlines a need for $349 billion to cover basic infrastructure in indigenous communities to ensure we have standards of living equitable to those of every other Canadian. Then we can think about prosperity, business and contributing to the economy.

There are going to be a lot more indigenous organizations approaching, and we want to recognize that we are a bit different, in that we have a culture, we have ceremonies and we have a process. In putting a certain value on a meal, maybe in a certain situation that meal in a different part of the country will allow for only a salad and dessert or something like that, and not the meal, just to put it in perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

We are now going to our second round of questioning, starting with five minutes each.

Given the time, it looks like we are going to get in only one more round, because we do have some committee business. We have some drafting instructions for the analysts that we have to deal with.

We are going to Mr. Dalton for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses for sharing their perspectives. It is appreciated.

I want to read into the record some comments that the outgoing ethics commissioner made in a bombshell of an interview. Then I'm going to ask the different witnesses for commentary on how, from their perspective, this impacts the code.

I'm just going to read some of these comments. This is from the interview with ethics commissioner Mario Dion. It says:

The government needs to take ethics “more seriously” and that repeated breaches by senior Liberals during his tenure have undermined public confidence in the government....

“The act has been there for 17 years for God's sake, so maybe the time has come to do something different so that we don't keep repeating the same errors.”...

“These are not new rules. You can't make these mistakes, you make everyone look bad, and you make public trust decline by making these mistakes”...

He said he had 140 presentations during his tenure, and thousands of attendees. He said, “that [this] did not prevent International Trade Minister Mary Ng”—who testified in this committee recently—“from telling a House committee”—that's us—“that it would be helpful if the commissioner's office offered 'additional' ethics training to political staff after no one in her office raised a flag when she [doled] out two [thousand dollars] to a...'close friend'.”

He says—and this isn't very complimentary:

“That's like if I drive in my car this afternoon and I drive through a red light and then [argue] with a (police) officer that it is too bad because I should have received training about red lights. It's a convenient excuse, in my view,” he said....

Quoting recent polls showing the public's confidence in politicians is “not going in the right direction,” Dion said in the interview that the ethics breaches by senior Liberals over his tenure were certainly a factor and that “something has to be done” [so that they] show that they “are taking this seriously.”

He says—and this applies also to the code:

“Public shaming is the foundation of the system.”...

The public is understandably frustrated at what appears to be a lack of accountability from law-breaking MPs.

“No one's resigning, no one's forced to resign and no one is [even] shuffled. And there's no appearance of even any sort of accountability, beyond having to stand in front of that question period and say a quick mea culpa, [my fault]”.

He continues:

“It's really dissatisfying that these regimes work that way, and the solution has to lie with [a] culture of accountability within parliamentary democracies.”

I'm coming to the end of his comments

[A voice]

I hope so.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Well, I would understand why the member would hope so. Thank you, Liberal member.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You know me. I'm informal when it comes to interaction, but deal with everything through the chair, please. Don't deal with everything across the table.

Go ahead.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Dion [has] also noted that the Conflict of Interest Act specifically states that respecting that law is a “condition of employment” for the public office holders it applies to. That means that in theory, anyone who breaches the act [should] lose their job....

But who is the boss of Liberal MPs and cabinet [ministers]? The prime minister, who has already broken ethics laws twice.

“I don't think the crafters of the act envisaged the situation where a prime minister would be found in breach [of the act] himself.”...

But who would you give the power to fire an MP, if not the prime minister or voters....

We are just about at the end, again:

According to Stedman, the fact that the prime minister was never sanctioned by his own party and caucus for his ethical breaches allowed ministers to go unpunished for their subsequent breaches....

“If Trudeau is not going to hold himself accountable, and the party is not going to hold him accountable, well [then], he kind of has to not hold them accountable in return. It's kind of a quid pro quo with his...party members,” he said. “Trudeau's caucus failed the system.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Dalton—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

My question—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You've run out of time for questions, Mr. Dalton.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Well, maybe I'll....

Thank you.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to know, so we're clear, that while that will be in the Hansard, it will have no standing within the study. Can you confirm that? There are no questions.... Nobody reflected upon it. So that we're clear, that will not be reflected in any of the analysts' contemplation of the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Well, we'll see when the analysts contemplate what was discussed—