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

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

With that, Mr. Schmale, you may speak to it.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to quickly talk about this motion. Obviously, I think many members around this table felt that the answers were not sufficient for the questions asked. I think they were pretty straightforward questions. Given the fact that there is an indigenous procurement program and the minister herself had difficulty answering questions or avoided answering questions on some of the specifics of the program, we as the opposition felt that was very concerning. That's why we're calling on Minister Hajdu.

Of course, my colleague Mr. Zimmer, who had some questions for Minister Vandal, felt the same way, that his questions were not adequately answered.

I think it's imperative that we get the ministers back as soon as possible and drill down on some of these issues. It's affecting the lives of many, and I'm sure they want the answers too.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schmale.

Mr. Lemire, you now have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to use hockey lingo in my answer.

I believe there's been a violation, because I, too, feel that my questions haven't been answered. I don't get the impression that files moved forward or that the minister's vision was any clearer in terms of her intentions and her leadership on a number of files. That said, I wasn't necessarily in favour of bringing a question of privilege to the House of Commons. That would be like suspending a player or giving him a major penalty. It seems a bit excessive to me.

However, I think it would be entirely reasonable to invite the minister back. That's why I supported the chair's ruling. That said, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I will also support the motion to invite the minister back.

That will give us a chance to ask him questions, and I hope the answers will result in a clearer understanding for us and the first nations people watching us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I really like your analogy, Mr. Lemire.

Next is Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I asked a fairly simple question and didn't get an answer. The minister didn't have it. I think it would be an opportunity for the minister to return with that answer.

Secondly, committees are masters of their own destiny here. With this clause in it, it does leave the opportunity for the committee to actually decide what to do with this request.

There are two parts to it. It's a recognition that we didn't get enough answers or the answers that we were asking for. Than in the second part of it, it still retains the power to...the finality of it, for their appearance. It puts the power back on the committee to make decisions, as it should.

I think that's why this is a good motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Next on the list, I have Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairperson.

I want to speak about this for this reason. I want to put this out there because questions have arisen, and they pertain to the work we are doing. When the ministers don't answer our questions, it hinders the work we do. For example, if we get the correct or right answers for our questions, we can find solutions or strategize.

I asked Minister Vandal about three points. If he was able to answer my questions, I would be able to get more proper information. I would be able to ask questions of my constituents, and I would be able to ask more questions at this committee. However, when they don't answer questions, it essentially stops my role as a member of Parliament. When they don't answer the questions, I am not effectively doing my job.

I agree that the ministers should be answering questions. If they are properly answering the questions, we as members of Parliament would be able to effectively do our work. We need to inform our constituents of the work we are doing. When they are not answering questions, there are roadblocks.

I urge the ministers to answer questions so we can effectively do our work as members of Parliament. For the work we are doing today in the committee, I would like to see this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Next on our speaking list we have Mr. Battiste.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's important that we get time with the ministers. It's important for members to be able to ask questions of ministers.

As Mr. Shields said, committees are masters of their own domain. However, today we showed up looking to talk about first nations' clean water. As someone who's coming to you from my first nations community, a Mi’kmaq reserve, I can tell you with confidence that probably the majority of communities out there would like us to resume discussion on first nations' clean water, ensuring that, in the future, governments will not be able to abandon their duties on this and that they're going to have regulations. This is what this committee would best spend its time on.

In terms of having questions put forth to ministers and for my colleagues to be able to do their jobs, I put it in three parts.

First of all, the Conservatives are bringing up a question that is currently under study by another committee, which would make answering these questions, before that committee concludes its study, in poor form for ministers. Before the end of an actual study that's going on, ministers are being asked to answer questions.

As for my colleague, Sébastien, one of the things I would be glad to arrange is a personal sit-down with the minister, where he can have an actual discussion and a dialogue. Five minutes or two and a half minutes to ask a question rarely gets good answers and a really good back-and-forth.

If we were genuine in terms of saying, “Here are some of the questions that we have, and we need to have answers,” I'm sure the ministers would.... I can arrange gladly for them to sit down with Ms. Idlout and Mr. Lemire in terms of getting answers to specific questions that wouldn't be constricted by the time that we have here for them. I'm more than happy to do that.

However, in order for us to maximize the best time that we have for this, I would not ask ministers to show up and prolong what first nations have been seeking for generations, which is access to clean water. I've done my best in the past not to be hyperpartisan in this committee. We've been very collaborative in the past, but I would ask members to think about what this meeting, and what bringing the ministers in over and over again, would do to delay this important work that we have to do on first nations' clean water.

I don't think any Canadian out there would ask us to have a few minutes of questions for a minister over clean water for first nations communities in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

On the speaking list I have Mrs. Atwin, Mr. Carr, Mr. McLeod and then Mr. Zimmer.

Next, we'll go to Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, I'll cede my time to Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I guess there are a couple of things here.

The first is that I think Mr. Battiste just made a very reasonable suggestion, which was to help facilitate a conversation with colleagues around the table with the ministers. That would allow us to bypass the rigidity of the structure that we often have during witness testimony at committee. If the intent is genuinely to engage in a conversation, then the ability to do that is there.

If the desire is to have ministers in front of the camera and to take partisan shots, then that's a different story. Ministers, I'm sure, would be happy to reappear in front of the committee during the study of this legislation, for example. However, I take some opposition to the assertions here, which I think you referenced in your ruling a few moments ago, Mr. Chair, that there is a difference between not liking the answers to questions that you ask and getting answers from the ministers.

On a technicality, Mr. Chair, as you may know, I'm the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so I was a bit curious about the admissibility of this particular motion, not by virtue of the fact that it was introduced outside of committee business or the relevancy of the discussion at hand, but more so that it asks for the committee to compel ministers. I've checked with the law clerks here. There is nothing in a standing order that gives a committee the power to compel a minister to appear. If my colleagues in opposition can point to the standing order or the precedent that exists to allow for that to occur, I'd love to hear it.

In the absence of that—and perhaps we're getting there—my suggestion would be that we very quickly move to amend the motion as is in order to make it admissible, in my view, and in line with what the Standing Orders allow a committee to undertake vis-à-vis the inviting of witnesses. If not, then my suggestion would be—and I'll come back to the mic if necessary—that we adjourn the conversation so that we can get on with the very important business of leveraging the expertise and the guidance of our officials, who are here to help us undertake the study on Bill C-61, which matters very much to all of us.

Again, my hope is that we can very quickly amend this and make it consistent with Standing Orders that currently exist. Otherwise, I would recommend to my colleagues that we adjourn debate on this, and if not, then I would like to get a ruling from our law clerks, who just so happen to be here today because of the study on Bill C-61, to clarify for us whether the motion, as currently written, is actually legitimate insofar as it is asking the committee to do something it is not actually within its rights to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carr.

Next on the list, I have Mr. McLeod.

Just so that members know, Mr. Zimmer will be next, then Mr. Lemire and then Mr. Shields.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be quick.

Mr. Carr covered some of what I wanted to ask. I don't have a copy of the motion, so I'm not sure if the wording was “request”, “ask”, “order”.... Maybe we can get that. I'm not sure what exactly we're asking.

I'm assuming that, if we had the ministers come and we're not happy with the answers, then we're going to ask them to come back again. If we're still not happy, then we're going to ask them to come back again. I'm not sure if that's permissible, but that's likely what could happen if we're going to keep asking ministers to come back and we're not satisfied with their answers.

It leads me to my next point, which is what happens with our study days. Today is going to be taken up with this discussion. A minister's visit that we didn't schedule is going to be added. Are we adding to the study? Is this part and parcel of the bigger study and what we're trying to achieve?

I'm not sure if the ministers have the time, in a two-hour period when we have three ministers, to provide the detailed answers that some of the members are looking for. Maybe we need to add a written question component to this committee's agenda because it's getting pretty complicated. I guess the ask could go to the ministers to come back. I'm not sure if they'll agree because that's opening the door to their being required to come back on and on.

Those are my points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod.

Next we'll be going to Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I have a couple of things. I'll make the amendment as requested. The amended text is as follows:

That Minister Hajdu 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 that the committee strongly requests the ministers' attendance from time to time as it sees fit.

That is our amended text for the motion.

I still would like to speak to something Mr. Battiste said, but I guess now that this amendment is on the table, I don't know where you want to go from here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Again, it'd be nice if that amendment could be circulated just so members....

Members should have that. I'll just pause for a second to make sure members have that in their inboxes.

It has been circulated, so you should have that in your inbox. I'll just give a moment for people to have a quick look at it.

I had Mr. Carr first and then Mr. Shields.

Did you have your hand up as well?

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

Yes, I signalled you when Bob was talking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Okay. We'll start with Mr. Schmale then. I apologize.

First, we'll have Mr. Schmale and then Mr. Carr.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Zimmer for amending that motion.

I know he has more to say on this, but to echo some of the comments, let's get this to a vote on the amendment, to the amended motion if it passes and then continue the business of the day.

We're ready to vote so we don't hold anything more up. Let's go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you Mr. Schmale.

Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad Mr. Schmale brought up no further delays because a concern that I have with the amendment is that it still allows for us to delay the passage of Bill C-61.

I have no concern with the ministers reappearing. My concern is that the timeline is going to likely overlap with the ongoing study that we're doing on Bill C-61. We have a substantial number of amendments.

I would be open to a further amendment that could say, “upon the completion of Bill C-61”. My concern is that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation that I think we all want to pass. The more that we kick it down the road with interruptions like this—despite the fact that it's on an important matter, which is the appearance of ministers—the more we jeopardize this important piece of legislation that first nations across the country are looking for.

I'm not going to formally move this as an amendment. I'm just informing the committee. My recommendation would be that we adopt a motion that says, “following the completion of Bill C-61”—which would mean clause-by-clause and its subsequent passage—we then ask the ministers to appear.

If we don't do that, then the ministers will appear and anything can happen. We can get into a filibuster. We can get into a long, drawn-out conversation. Again, we jeopardize the ability for this committee to swiftly deal with Bill C-61, which is not only a critically important piece of legislation but also has an immense and complicated number of amendments that are going to take us a substantial amount of time.

Further to that, I think that as lawmakers what we understand with the complexity of this is that, if we begin going through a third of Bill C-61, then ministers appear and then we go back to Bill C-61 at the next meeting or meeting after that, we'd be saying, “Where were we on that? Oh, yeah, we did this.” We'd lose our rhythm and we'd lose our understanding. It becomes more complicated for the clerks.

Again, my urging to the committee is to change the wording. I'm not officially putting that forward, but it's to change the wording so it says, “following the completion of Bill C-61”, the ministers appear. If we are all serious about getting Bill C-61 passed expediently, then move this a little further down the line. You'll get your opportunity to talk to the ministers, but let us pass the legislation first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Carr.

Next on the list, I have Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I read it, the last clause of this motion is, “attendance, from time to time, as it sees fit.” That means the committee would determine at what time it sees fit.