Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is a long amendment, but I hope the wording is familiar to all of you. This is the very same language that's found in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for which this legislation is an important step to fulfill those recommendations and those calls to action.

The legislation, Bill C-29, fails to include the actual requirements—the minimum requirements—of the contents of the annual report. I've had some conversations informally with other members and understand a desire to not be prescriptive and say that's the only thing that the annual report must cover. I certainly would, if I were a member of this committee, amend my own motion by adding a paragraph (h) to say “and any other matters as the Council deems appropriate”, but I do think it's important, at a minimum, to include the mandate of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as they appear in the report.

I think it would be most unfortunate, Mr. Chair, if in the first few reports the minister tabled.... The minister must submit to the council an annual report. Imagine if it didn't include any of these things that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission required. It would be a very large failing of our process here in this committee if a report were tabled by the minister—a future minister, this minister, a minister 20 years from now, whatever—who decided, “I don't want to let the public know or the council know the number of indigenous and non-indigenous children in care, and I really don't think I want to share the comparison in funding for education for indigenous children on and off reserves.”

These are the minimum requirements from the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I hope that colleagues around the table will see the benefit, even if you feel that you want to amend it to make sure you're not ruling out other things that the minister might want. I don't think, when there's a list of things, an annual report setting out (a) through (g), that it in any way, given the context of the whole act, restricts what the minister would be able to put in a report to the council.

Without this language, I don't think Parliament and the government are fulfilling the commitments that were made to follow through on every single call to action. It's not enough, I think, to put a tick box next to this to say, okay, now we've created the reconciliation council, and it exists. On the calls to action, it's only a few paragraphs, but they're highly specific. I really do think it's an error—however well intentioned—and it would be a serious mistake to leave out this language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there a wish to discuss?

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

Yes. During the study, we heard from members of the transitional committee on the national council for reconciliation, and it was described by them that while the focus is on the TRC calls to action now, in 10 years, if we fulfill them, the committee should be able to grow and expand.

Understanding that Ms. May's intention on this is not to be too prescriptive but to make sure that these are part of that, we're prepared to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Next is Mr. Vidal.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

My only comment would be that in CPC-3, which we all supported together on Monday, we've already included language that would say to “monitor and report on the progress made on measurable outcomes, including in relation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action number 55”. As I explained on Monday, the absolute intent of that addition was to include these specific things but not to be limited to those specific things.

In response to Ms. May not wanting it to be limited to just those, I would submit that we've already done in CPC-3 what she's asking to do here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

Would anybody else like to comment?

I have Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is just a matter of consistency.

Shouldn't this new clause be numbered 17.1 and be under the heading “Annual Report”? I know that the proposed new clause would be inserted before line 5 on page 6 and that, according to the amendment, it would be numbered 16.1, but it is more concerned with the annual report than the protocol.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

As currently drafted, if amendment PV‑3 were adopted, it would create clause 16.1, which would contain all the words the amendment proposes to add.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

So this would be the chosen numbering, even though it is not relevant to the protocol.

All right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Ms. Idlout, did you have your hand up?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Having reviewed amendments CPC-3 and PV-3, I do notice some differences between the two amendments. I'm willing to support it. We have also supported CPC-3, but PV-3 is a little bit more prescriptive, in that it needs to happen within six months and it sets out some very specific items based on the TRC calls to action.

I think it is slightly different and I'm willing to support the motion as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

Mr. Weiler, go ahead.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Maybe just briefly to respond to Ms. Gill's question here, the annual report is separate. The annual report will be submitted by the council itself. This, I think, does fit under the disclosure of information, but it would be separate from the protocol that will be developed first, and this would be an ongoing thing.

It would be part of the disclosure of information, but separate from the protocol, which would be the first action that would be taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

I'm going to put this to a vote.

The question concerns whether we will vote in favour of amendment PV-3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 17)

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We'll now go to clause 17, beginning with amendment CPC-11.

Mr. Vidal, would you move it and discuss it?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would move that amendment CPC-11, identified as reference number 11961197, be considered by the committee.

The purpose of the two items in this proposed amendment is simply to shorten the time frames. In subclause 17(1), six months is shortened to three months, and then in subclause 17(3), 120 days is shortened to 60 days.

Just to explain my purpose, I'll go back to my professional career as an accountant. When I was dealing with financial matters for people and we dealt with results at the end of a fiscal year, if we didn't actually have an opportunity to respond to those results until almost a year into it—in this case, it would be 11 months if this played out—we'd already be a year down the road before we could respond to the concerns or the issues raised in that report.

My purpose in this would be simply to shorten the time frames to potentially a five-month window rather than an 11-month window so the government of the day could be more reactive to the recommendations that are coming from the council.

I think it's pretty clear what my purpose is there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

Is there debate?

Mr. Battiste, go ahead.

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

I'd like to hear from the team as to whether they think these timelines are reasonable. We see this as possibly being difficult to achieve. As a government, we want to make sure we hit some of our timelines. When we don't hit our timelines, we often get called out in the House for that. It's for us to see if we're creating reasonable expectations with the timelines within this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Do any of our witnesses care to comment?

[Kate Ledgerwood]

Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the reasonableness of timelines, perhaps I'll provide a little context in terms of how the original timelines were identified for this.

Speaking first around the government response, the proposed 120 days was actually taken to reflect the current standards that are in place for the House committees. When a committee of your nature issues a report, the government provides 120 days. That was used as a model for the council in terms of the government response.

For the initial council, I'll allow my colleagues to speak to this if they have more knowledge around it, but I think six months was to ensure that the council was provided with adequate time to be able to produce a very thoughtful report, given the breadth of work that is anticipated to be before it. Especially since, as we know, the end of fiscal year certainly can be quite busy, for this organization, as it's being set up, we wanted to make sure that six months was the maximum time, we'll say, but that does not prevent them from reporting earlier.

Certainly we'd be ready to respond if it did come in earlier, but in wanting to ensure maximum flexibility, six months was seen as what would be able to provide that.

I don't know if colleagues want to add to that.

[Andy Garrow]

I'd add just one thing.

It also reflects the requirements for disclosure of information. It allows time for that to happen. It's expecting the council on an annual basis to determine what their information needs are, giving the government time to respond to that, and the council being able to analyze that information and develop the report. That was also factored into that six-month timeline.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

Based on those very thoughtful considerations, and the consistency that I think we've looked at from committees all across Canada, we will be opposing that. While I'm in a hurry to see reconciliation in Canada, I don't want to rush things and make mistakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Yes, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'd like to ask the witnesses about the work of the interim board and how much of that preparatory work will help contribute to ensuring that this important work could be reported sooner rather than later.

I do agree that first nations, Métis and Inuit have already been forced to wait years for a lot of this information. I agree with the Conservatives' motion that there is a sense of urgency for this kind of information. There is an interim board that's already functioning. I wonder if that would help make sure that this amendment could be supported.

Qujannamiik.