Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Don Head]

It has developed over time. Just under 8% of my staff complement are individuals who have declared aboriginal ancestry. In some cases it's a little higher because people just haven't declared it. So that's a significant number in comparison to other federal government departments or agencies.

Just so you know, and it goes to an earlier question about our overall human resource strategy, we're not necessarily satisfied with that number. When 17% of our offender population are individuals of aboriginal ancestry, we need to have a staff complement that is as near reflective as possible of that number as well. We believe that having aboriginal staff working with aboriginal offenders, showing themselves as good role models, make up part of the right equation in terms of going forward.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

There's apparently a CSC review panel looking at FASD. There's a research project proceeding to create an assessment scale. Are you familiar with this? How important is this? There must be some estimate of the percentage of the population generally in terms of having FASD.

[Don Head]

We have an addictions research centre in Montague, Prince Edward Island. It does most of our work and research on addictions. It works with agencies such as the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, and others like that. Our group has been doing a lot of work around FASD to come up with assessment tools that will help to point us in the direction. But as members of this committee know, a full pronouncement of somebody having FASD involves more than just a screening process or tool. It requires a much more in-depth examination of the individual and their family history.

We do not have anything definitive on the number of individuals who may have FASD. There have been estimates at different times that it could comprise 30% of the population or 50% of the population, but until we have these tools, we are not able to give a definitive number.

Giving a full exam to get that definitive declaration is a very expensive process. We are trying to make some inroads through the use of screening tools in our addictions research centre.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I also understand that an Inuit-specific risk prediction scale has been completed, or was supposed to be completed this year. I know the name but I don't know what it does. This committee just spent the last two weeks in the north, and would be quite interested in hearing from you on what that relates to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Give a short response, if you can, Mr. Head.

[Don Head]

I'm not sure about the status of the risk development tools, but we can provide this committee with some information on the risk tools we use so you can get some appreciation of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Head.

Members, we are almost at 1 o'clock. We started a bit late. One item arose out of our discussions this morning that we need to deal with.

Do you wish to take two more questions with this witness and go until shortly after 1 o'clock? We did the same for the previous witness.

I am at the committee's discretion.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Take care of business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right. It will not take very long.

We'll let you go, Mr. Head. We appreciate your audience here this morning.

Members, Mr. Lemay has raised the issue of expanding this study to include hearing from the Minister of Public Safety.

Is it the wish of the committee to expand the study, in regard to our orders of the day today, the study on the findings?

Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

On a point of order, why would we take this as a committee discussion as opposed to a subcommittee discussion? Most of the time when we're talking about changing our work schedule, we take it to the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

If that's your wish; it's just that the item was raised in the course of the discussion today. We heard from other members on the point, so we could resolve the issue today, if you wish. It was really a point of discussion.

Madam Crowder is next, and then Mr. Bagnell.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I believe that when we originally talked about this motion, we were going to hear from the Elizabeth Fry Society. Is that still on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's still on for Tuesday morning. It will be a split meeting. We will have representatives from the Elizabeth Fry Society, as well as the author pertaining to the honour of the crown subject. Mr. McCabe will be joining us for the second hour.

Next is Mr. Russell, and then Mr. Bagnell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Given the time and that we limited questions due to the time constraint, I think we should refer all future business of the committee to Tuesday, with the one caveat that agree we will deal with supplementary estimates. This discussion could go on and on, but we have a planned meeting. We should discuss it at the subcommittee meeting and bring it back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I hope the subcommittee can also address the question I raised this morning about adding Air Canada and CMHC to our witness list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You're right, Mr. Bagnell. That was within the course of our continuing consideration of northern economic development.

Let me just say that the reason I raised it here was that in fact the request came in the course of our deliberations. It was not raised as a motion, but it nonetheless was a request. It's perfectly in order to consider the question here before committee. But if the committee would rather move that to subcommittee, we'll do that on Tuesday morning.

With that in mind, we are adjourned.