Evidence of meeting #35 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chairman, as a small closing comment, the question about the case law review, which we've recommended and which the department has undertaken to do, has come up a couple of times today. I would maybe suggest to your committee that when you avail yourselves of the department's action plan, that might give you a better sense of how they're going to go about that and how comprehensive it will be and whether or not it's actually going to be, as the member says, cumulative. That would give you the basis to have more information and perhaps get more information from the department.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I think that will be a great opportunity for the committee to follow up on regarding this discussion. When that is available, we'll make arrangements to have you back and have discussions on that plan.
Thank you very much again.
We're going to take a break for three minutes and then we will reconvene.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Members, on committee business, we have the notices of motions. There are two of them--one for Madam Crowder and one for Mr. Lemay. I will deal with them in the order in which they arrived. We will go first to the ones submitted by Madam Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Great. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
On both of these motions, they were actually in response to experts who came in from other areas. I think we could see some benefit today of having both the department and the other presenter here so that we can ask them both questions. I am suggesting that the department come and respond to the presentations that we already heard from the Cree-Naskapi and from the annual report on the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We are not in camera any more. Does everybody understand that? Okay.
The motion is that the committee invite officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appear before the committee to respond to the findings and recommendations from the 2006 report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. That's the first motion.
Is there any discussion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Yes, we are.
Mr. Lemay is bringing up something with regard to the department coming here to ask questions on various outstanding issues, so we can do this separately or we could possibly put together a list of questions that we want to have answered by the department, and have them on a consistent basis. We can refer this to a list and maybe do it in conjunction with some other issues that are outstanding.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
The next motion is that the committee invite officials from the Department of Public Safety to appear before the committee to respond to the findings and recommendations with regard to first nations, Inuit, and Métis people from the annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2005-2006.
Madam Crowder, do you have anything to say further on that motion?
NDP
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't know if we agreed to something. When you made a comment about a written list, I am not sure I got where we are going with that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We are in separate departments. One was the list for the INAC and this is the Department of Public Safety to appear before the committee. The list that we would have would be for INAC and this one is a separate issue. Okay?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Is there anything further?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We will move on to the motion of Mr. Lemay.
I'm just going to read it the way it is, then suggest a couple of changes, Mr. Lemay. It reads:
That the Committee receive a report from officials at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, every six weeks, on the situation in Pikangikum, Kashechewan and Kitcisakik.
There is some clarification other than the pronunciation of the words that I need here. First of all, on “the committee receive a report”, is that oral or written, Mr. Lemay?
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
It depends what the committee wants. The objective of this proposal is to obtain a report on the situation following the appearance of departmental representatives. I want to know where things stand.
Of course, I would prefer it if these people could report to us live, so that we can put questions to them if the answers aren't satisfactory. They could send us a written report, appear before the committee and answer our questions if we have any.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, I certainly agree with the spirit of the motion in the sense that we need follow-up reports. I think that is good committee work. I am concerned, however, with the number of times that we are going to potentially ask people to appear here. I would suggest that we say “a written summary” or “a written report” and that we do it on a quarterly basis. Otherwise we could get bogged down here every six weeks just doing a lot of work on that type of work. I would suggest that it be a written summary and that it be quarterly. If we are not satisfied with the written report, we would still have the door open to ask officials to appear.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We do have the minister's representive here in Mr. Bruinooge. If we were supplied with a written response, then those questions could be asked of Mr. Bruinooge. If the committee is not satisfied with those answers, then the committee could recommend having the department here.
The other thing that I might mention is the fact that this motion covers only these three topics. I wonder whether we want to be a little bit broader than that, whether there are other topics of concern to the committee.
Mr. Lemay, it's your motion.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I have no objection to opening this motion, there's no problem. You can write what you want, but I want ongoing information on the files that we've dealt with and concerning which individuals appeared before us. I want to have that information every six weeks or every two months. However, a period of three months seems too long to me. There could be urgent matters in Pikangikum, in Kashechewan and Kitcisakik. It doesn't bother me that things be added to this motion.
You understand the essence of the proposal and that's what is important.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I just want to clarify this motion first. As Mr. Albrecht mentioned, it is every six weeks. Of course we were away for break and what not. Do we want to have it every six weeks just when we're sitting? I'd like to just clarify that. There are gaps when we're back in our constituencies. How do we want to address that issue?
Mr. Lévesque.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Chairman, we could have a written report sent to us every six weeks. At our meeting, we could decide if the written report is clear enough. If not, at the following meeting, we could bring the witnesses in to hear from them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
That's a good point.
I'm sorry for butchering your motion, Monsieur Lemay, but I just want to make sure that we get the intent.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We could write “every two months”. Six weeks is, indeed, perhaps somewhat optimistic. I would not want officials to spend all of their time writing reports. I want files to progress.
