Evidence of meeting #138 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rural.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Can I just add one point of clarification?
I just wanted to clarify that this is a maximum of four meetings.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Can we get clarification from Madame Vignola? I understood that it was a maximum of four meetings.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're just debating the amendment. If we can approve that, then we can get to Mrs. Atwin's amendment on the amended motion.
Are we in agreement, everyone, for the minimum of four meetings, eight hours?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
No. I think we should have a maximum of four meetings. I really believe that as we get into this, the answers to your questions will be very apparent, and I don't believe we would need that many meetings, to be perfectly honest.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Kusmierczyk on the amendment of four meetings.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Respectfully, Mrs. Atwin has tried to characterize this as if I just have some misunderstanding of what's going on, and otherwise everything's fine.
I note that, in reality, the Assembly of First Nations, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council and the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador accused Ottawa of negligent management of the program and called for an audit to be done. In fact—and I'm quoting the article—“the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami called the workarounds a form of identity theft and the 'next stage of colonization.'” According to prominent indigenous leaders in Canada, there are serious problems with this program. This isn't just Garnett Genuis or the Conservative Party raising concerns. These are indigenous leaders who have repeatedly publicly called for further action on and investigation into this. We are using the ability we have, as elected members of Parliament, to magnify their voices and concerns.
I think four meetings are a reasonable place to start, and we'll see where we are after that. We want to hear from ministers and elected leaders of indigenous organizations, as well as from individual entrepreneurs and businesses that are individual users of the program. Obviously, they have different kinds of testimonies to bring us. The representative organizations of indigenous people will be able to speak to broader community impacts, and particular entrepreneurs will be better positioned to speak to the experience of the entrepreneur engaging the program. Recognizing that we want to hear from—at least I think we want to hear from—those elected indigenous leaders, as well as entrepreneurs and people on the Government of Canada side responsible for this program, I think we can't be too limited in the number of meetings we have.
Recall that I was the one who initially proposed a subcommittee, which would allow us more time and flexibility to have multiple studies going on at once. Members didn't want to go that way—that's fine, but I think we need to recognize these realities.
I hope members of the government aren't suggesting that we would not want to hear from these representative indigenous organizations. Although they're not the direct users of the program, I think elected indigenous leaders have an important perspective to offer about what the impacts of this program are and should be, and some of the broader issues around how indigenous identity is defined and measured. I think we certainly would not want to exclude their voices from the conversation.
I think the amendment proposed by Mrs. Vignola is reasonable, and we'll be supporting it.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The PSIB is a vital program. We absolutely want to hear from indigenous leaders, but we also want to hear, absolutely, from indigenous entrepreneurs. We actually want to expand the scope of witnesses. We think this program is a good-news story, and we believe as well that it's important to always look for ways to improve programs, as we do in this committee in looking at all programs, so we welcome these meetings. We welcome the expanded scope of witnesses, but we firmly believe that having never-ending studies has an impact on the other studies that we are doing at this committee as well, which are equally vital and important to the work of this committee.
Therefore, I put forward a subamendment to Madame Vignola's amendment that calls for between four and six meetings, so there is a maximum of six meetings. It calls for between four and six meetings, or we can actually phrase it as “a maximum of 12 hours”. That way, there's flexibility in the scheduling.
Conservative
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kusmierczyk just offered two different ideas. Is it the latter one that the subamendment would read “12 hours”?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's a minimum of four, a maximum of six meetings, or 12 hours.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think moving toward just defining the studies in terms of the number of hours of testimony gives the chair more flexibility in organizing meetings—if we have a half-meeting, for instance—so I'm fine with 12 hours.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I guess my view would be that the public can see in the logic of Mr. Kusmierczyk's point that he is less comfortable with this issue being studied than he initially claimed to be. He said, “Oh, we welcome this discussion. We want to broaden the scope of witnesses who are going to be called, and we also want to constrain the number of meetings.”
This committee can consider its own agenda and the other motions that come up in terms of setting the agenda. I don't think asking for ministers, leaders of indigenous organizations, entrepreneurs and additional witnesses that members may suggest and confining that with a set limit on time, when the study has not yet begun, is going to make a lot of sense. We're going to be in a position where, likely, as this is going, we're going to have people we didn't think to call initially who are going to come forward with feedback, people who have had experiences. I think we're potentially putting ourselves in an awkward position if we say, “Well, 12 hours, but not 13,” even if a leader of a major national organization or a significant entrepreneur who's been affected by this wants to come in that thirteenth hour.
I don't support the subamendment. I think the amendment was sufficient, and that's how I'll be voting.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Committees are masters of their own destiny. If we get to the maximum number of hours and we feel like the topic hasn't been sufficiently canvassed, we can certainly entertain a motion to extend it. I think just providing the chair and the clerk with some parameters around expectations is a reasonable way to go. It's certainly what we do at other committees. In the case of our beloved study on rural postal service, I would note that the number of meetings was understood as a maximum. It's not an open-ended study like some of our other studies. I just think it puts the committee in the driver's seat.
I agree with my colleague Mr. Genuis that there are outstanding questions about how this program has been managed. I think Canadians are interested in obtaining answers to those questions. Whether those answers can be made available in 12 hours of testimony, I have absolutely no idea, Mr. Chair. I'm willing to explore it and see where we get in 12 hours. If we get to that point and there are unanswered questions and outstanding concerns, then absolutely, I'll support extending the study beyond that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
So it's 12 hours if necessary, but not necessarily 12 hours.
We said a minimum of four and a maximum of six meetings—a minimum of eight hours and a maximum of 12 hours. Is everyone clear on that? Okay.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Perfect.
The motion has been amended. We're back to the original motion, as amended.
I know the comment you're making about witnesses. It does say “and other witnesses”, so that leaves it open.
Go ahead, Mrs. Atwin, on the amended motion.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
On the amended motion, just for further clarity, the Minister of Indigenous Services absolutely can contribute to the conversation. I'm not sure how much the minister of PSPC or the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations could offer, so I propose that we strike that. After “Indigenous Services of Canada along with relevant officials”, we'll have “and other witnesses submitted to the chair by committee members.”
Then, just to have a timeline, we can say, “That the committee members submit witnesses for this study no later than Friday, September 20. That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
I can send that around.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I missed whether that amendment was striking those words or introducing them into the motion. Perhaps we could get a written version, given that there were a lot of words there.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Yes, for sure.
It just strikes the naming of the other two ministers specifically, but it does leave the “other witnesses” piece. Then it adds the parameters of the timeline for witnesses, and then reporting back to the House. I can send it right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Reporting to the House is included. It's part of our report stage anyway, so it's kind of superfluous. It's not needed.