Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The timing can be distinct from whether Mr. Sapers appears or not. We can agree with this particular motion to invite him and to talk about his 2008 report. It may not happen until he has tabled his 2009 report, but one doesn't predispose taking away what Ms. Crowder is proposing to the committee.
When it comes to the business of the committee, I don't think that because it's called the “correctional” report it distinctly lies within the purview of security or corrections. For instance, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could fall under foreign affairs or the justice committee. Just because it has a name attached to it doesn't necessarily mean that it falls outside the purview of this particular committee.
The report itself talks about culturally relevant programming to aboriginal people. It directly talks about the incarceration rates of aboriginal people. It directly talks about the incarceration rates when it comes to women and the treatment of aboriginal women specifically. I think that does fall within the purview of this particular committee. So from a technical vantage point, I don't see anything stopping us from entertaining this particular motion.
Outside the technical arguments of trying not to have Mr. Sapers appear or talk about this particular issue, is there any other fundamental issue that others around the table have? Technically, I don't think it falls outside the purview of this committee at all.
