Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

As always, I want to start by recognizing that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and by expressing gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands that they have stewarded since time immemorial.

Before getting into the substance of today's meeting, I just want to deal with some unfinished business from our last meeting. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Genuis raised a point of privilege. For members' recollection, he said:

...we had an instance today where ministers were asked direct questions by multiple different members of the opposition. They refused to answer some; they prevaricated in [multiple responses] to others. I believe you will find that this is a matter touching on the privileges of members. If you so find, I'm prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Witnesses are not allowed to just refuse...direct questions. Whether they are ministers or other witnesses, that is the rule of the process—hence, the question of privilege. I look forward to your ruling on that.

I just want to get back to that first. I wasn't quite prepared to make a decision on this at the time because, as many members will know, there are lots of things that are happening in committee at any one time for the chair to be on top of. I wanted to have a chance to review the blues to see what was said and the answers. I hope members know that I took this very seriously. I try to do everything I can to ensure that members have the appropriate time to ask their questions and to get substantial answers.

I think that in this case the ministers did answer the questions. They were maybe not the answers that members were looking for. They were maybe not specific and direct answers, but I do believe that the ministers did provide answers to those questions. In many cases, ministers were actually interrupted in the process of answering those questions, or there were very long questions and then the ministers, as they were answering those questions, were interrupted.

I think there were many questions that were answered where there may not have been a very simple answer to them, even if a yes or no question was asked.

While I do very much sympathize with this motion, and I do believe it's important for ministers and all witnesses to do their very best to answer those questions, I don't believe that this meets the threshold of being a violation of the privilege of members. There will always be opportunities for members and the committee to reinvite these ministers or other witnesses to reappear before the committee to answer similar or different questions, if it is the will of the committee to do that.

My ruling is that this is not actually a point of privilege.

I have Mr. Battiste first here with his hand up.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

I agree with you. While the questions being asked seem like they have very straightforward answers, I know that this very topic that Mr. Genuis has alluded to and asked the minister about over and over is actually being discussed in another committee right now.

The basis of his questions is that the minister should or should not know who is an indigenous person in Canada. With indigeneity, there's no one term or description of who is and who isn't indigenous. It covers Inuit, Métis and first nations. Mr. Genuis, by asking questions that seem as simple as “Is this person indigenous? Should this person pay back money?”, pre-assumes that our minister should be able to determine who is and isn't an indigenous person.

The United Nations, in article 33 of the UNDRIP, makes it clear that it is for the nations to decide who belongs to that nation. The UNDRIP is law in Canada. It's important, when we are looking at implementing the UNDRIP, that we don't expect ministers to break from that and to start making claims and answering questions based on their beliefs, rather than what the law is or what those nations say. That's a very paternal way of looking at it. Our government does its best to ensure that paternalistic thinking in the past isn't reflected today.

While they may seem like non-answers for Mr. Genuis on a very complicated subject, the minister was, in fact, doing what's required under the law, under the UNDRIP and under reconciliation. For anyone to state that she was willingly not answering a question that was straightforward and simple is just disingenuous.

I know that's not the case with my colleague, Lori Idlout, who asked questions and didn't get the answers she would have liked, or who thought that they could have been answered better. I'm not going to say that her questions...or diminish the frustration that she has in that.

However, I felt that Mr. Genuis was definitely way off in terms of trying to make something very straightforward that isn't very straightforward in his privilege motion, which seems to be presumptive in saying that ministers should be able to determine who is and who isn't indigenous and the consequences of their indigeneity when it comes to procurement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Next, I have Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your decision, but unfortunately, we disagree. We'd like to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're going to call a vote, then.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Geneviève Dubois-Richard]

Voting “yes” means that you sustain the decision. Voting “no” means that you want to overturn the decision.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Once again, I don't understand what you mean by.... I would vote that the chair did not break any rules.

If I am voting against this motion, then I'm voting against the challenge of the chair. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Voting “yes” to sustain the decision is voting with the chair.

[The Clerk]

You say that the decision of the chair is correct if you vote “yes”.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

First, I have Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

On that note, because we are dealing with this business, I'd like to move a motion, if I could. I move:

That Minister Hadju and Minister Vandal be asked to return to the committee within two weeks and for two hours to answer questions, and that, if they do not return as requested, the chair be instructed to report to the House a recommendation that the committee be empowered to order the ministers' attendance, from time to time, as it sees fit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

A motion has been moved. I don't know if that will be circulated to members. That would be helpful, but I think it is fairly clear. Let me know if we have any debate.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Did we get this in advance under the normal 48-hour deadline? I don't remember seeing this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We'll just pause for one second, Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Battiste, to your question, this was not circulated in advance, but it relates to the business that we're dealing with here, so that type of notice is not required in these types of circumstances.

In any event, it would be helpful to circulate that to members here.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes. I sent it to the clerk in both official languages.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I have a question. For clarity, this is not a notice of a motion. This is the actual motion that we're talking about, and it is in order. Are you ruling it in order?

I'm just trying to follow this. We had already voted on the motion of privilege. That has been dealt with, I would assume, because the vote was decided. However, I'm having a hard time agreeing that this is in order, as the motion of privilege was dealt with. This is really not a motion tied to the motion of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry. There was some misinterpretation here of what was said. I think there was a little bit of confusion about what was brought forward.

We have dealt with this. That was actually completed with the vote. There's a lack of clarity here, but this would have to be a notice, because it was finished. I apologize for that confusion.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

If you're ruling that it has to be put on notice, then I will put that motion on notice and it should be circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much. That is duly noted. We will be able to return to this on Monday, I assume, when that proper notice period has been exceeded.

With that, unless there are any other questions, I would like to get to the matter at hand today.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Before we go on, Chair, I'd like to challenge that decision, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Great. It's one of those mornings here, it seems.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Can I speak to it?