Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing me to take part in your meeting today. I'm here for two reasons. First of all, as an aboriginal woman, I take great interest in what occurs within your committee, and I congratulate all members of the committee for the fantastic work you do each and every time you appear.

But as an aboriginal woman and the daughter of a woman who spent her entire career in a correctional facility dealing with mainly aboriginal women offenders, I wanted to be here today to express my concern about the fact that there is a motion before your committee to accept these recommendations,when I have to agree with Mr. Duncan that they're clearly out of the mandate of this committee. I appreciate Ms. Crowder's willingness to try to help aboriginal people.

The second reason I'm here is that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is in that committee that we are presently looking at mental illness in the prison systems, and we are focusing quite a bit of our time on the fact that we do have a number of aboriginal offenders who are in fact affected by mental illness and addiction.

The report by the Correctional Investigator is the basis of much of our study. In fact, as many of the members here know, each and every party represented has taken part in an extensive trip to visit and to study prisons across Canada, and we've also made an effort to visit institutions in other countries, so that we can provide the best possible recommendations to the House in collaboration with a number of stakeholders, including the Correctional Investigator.

The countries we have visited are Norway and England, so there has already been substantial cost on the endeavour in this study. We are looking at very similar recommendations and we are studying the recommendations of the Correctional Investigator. It would be highly untimely for this committee to put forward some kind of proposal in the House. It would interfere with the work that is being done. It would really, in my opinion, tell the taxpayer that we don't care how we spend their money, that we're going to interfere in any way we can, even knowing that it's an obstacle to the good work that others are trying to do, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

More than anything, we want to help these offenders. We want to make sure they get every benefit of the Correctional Investigator, of the stakeholders within Correctional Service of Canada, and of parliamentarians who are working very hard on this issue.

I truly believe that each and every member of this committee wants what's best for aboriginal people. I truly believe that. That's why I'm here today to suggest that this is an inappropriate submission at this point, knowing what all of the parties are involved in other committees, and knowing that we are all trying to do the right thing here.

The fact that it's inadmissible, given the points that Mr. Duncan has provided, suggests that all of us should look within ourselves and really dismiss this motion at this time, because it will negatively impact on the things we're doing in the public safety committee.

I want to tell a very short story just to put into perspective how this study that we're doing in the public safety committee is impacting aboriginal people. With Mr. Don Davies from the NDP, I met a young woman, an aboriginal woman by the name of Debra, and she was actually incarcerated for a murder in the Saskatoon--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask you to stay on the topic of the point of order, as opposed to the merits of the motion. If you can just sum up, we're running short of time. We have two speakers on the list.

I stress that these are going to have to be short interventions so that we can stay within our timeframe.

If you can wrap up on that, then we'll go--

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I will. This woman suggested to us that there were some improvements that could be made within the prison system itself for aboriginal women. I think those are suggestions that will be really important to consider when our public safety committee puts forward our report. I think that anything to disrupt that flow at this given time would set us back.

With all due respect to this committee, I hope that you really take this into consideration, choose not to put this motion forward at this time, and allow us to do the good work that's being done in collaboration with members from all parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rickford, and Mr. Russell.

There's no time limit per se here, but debate on points of order is intended to be brief. Please stick to the question, which is on the admissibility, if you will, of this motion.

Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When this motion was brought up by Ms. Crowder, I felt somewhat concerned about it. I believe this is out of our committee's mandate. We're stepping on another committee's mandate for public safety and corrections.

I've worked with the RCMP for 18 years. Everyone knows that I've served all my time stationed on first nations or working closely with first nations or Métis communities. I've seen the worst and best of what people can offer.

I have a story with regard to what transpired with me and how this committee is looking at bringing this motion to the House. This is about my brother. When I was six years old, we brought a foster brother into our home from a very troubled family from Sechelt, British Columbia. He was involved with and in and out of the law at six years of age. Growing up with him, I saw the trouble he had gone through in being taken in and out of foster care. Then, when he turned 16, he moved out. It was devastating for me, because I lost a brother. At that time, he went into the correctional system for stealing cars; you name it and he would do it.

That's one of the main reasons why I got into law enforcement. I thought I could try to help the communities and first nations. There is a lot of work in the communities. But as for what I've seen from correctional strikes where the RCMP have to be brought in on a provincial basis, I've seen a lot of good work being undertaken by corrections and the federal corrections. I see the corrections leading right now by providing sweat lodges, meeting with the elders, talking about traditions, trying to get their--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Can you bring that back to the admissibility question?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I will. I think this will go right back into the scope and mandate this committee is looking at. I've seen the elders teaching the traditions of self-healing and how a community takes on the role of a sentencing circle and provides guidance, and I've seen the type of punishment or alternative punishments an offender could have. It could be for females or males or young children.

Mr. Chair, I believe this motion is way out of line. I feel it would be more appropriate if we took this motion to the justice committee. They have been touring the correctional institutions and seeing first-hand the challenges of addictions that are facing first nations and Métis men and women.

Is there a simple solution? No, it's a learning experience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, we do have to move on here. We have two other speakers. I'm sorry, we're allowed some discretion, but we do have to get to a decision.

Let's go now to Mr. Rickford, followed by Mr. Russell.

Stay on the question of admissibility and consider that points have been made. Simply repeating points isn't necessarily adding to the debate.

Mr. Rickford, go ahead.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've heard concerns about redundancy and interfering with a process that's already going on in another committee. We've also heard some concerns about our specific mandate. I would take that a step further and, for those reasons, I would say that this is incomplete. The reference in the motion is to one specific report, but we've already heard from a colleague that there may be other reports that have to be considered in regard to this.

I have an appreciation for Jean's comment that first nation socio-economic development should be viewed through a broad lens. She mentioned the silo theory, if you will, as it relates to our discussion today. And there may something to that, through you to Jean, Mr. Chair, who I know has historically been passionate about this issue and the work that this committee does.

But I would submit respectfully that if we were really looking at broader determinants, then we would have to consider the things that are going on in other committees and that ought to be read in and considered for the purposes of this motion or anything like it that we would hope to achieve.

We've heard from a colleague that there are issues around mental illness and addiction. Based on my own history of living in isolated and remote first nations communities--and across this country, in fact--I know that Health Canada's first nations and Inuit health branch has some information with respect to this. I think we certainly want to ensure that we reach that balance where we're not interfering with the important work that other committees are or may be doing. We respect our mandate, and I would say that I think we've done a pretty good job of looking at broader determinants and at what could prevent the kinds of activities that often lead to this specific issue.

It seems quite analytically natural to me to see that redundancy and interference take us to a place where we're really incomplete. For the purposes of this motion and all of the technical concerns my colleague outlined earlier, I think it would be reasonable at this point to objectively take a step back and look at what else is going on here and may impact what this motion is striving to achieve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

I've basically heard enough. We're almost at one o'clock and we have to move on.

Okay. Thirty seconds. Go ahead.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thirty seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, sir.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Well, with respect to what everybody has said, I don't see.... We should interpret the standing orders in the broadest context to allow the committee to have a full airing of all aboriginal issues and those that affect aboriginal people.

It would not be the first time that more than one committee has looked at a similar topic. This report was not commended to any particular committee for its consideration, so I think it's well within our purview as a committee to study it, to accept it, and to have witnesses here in front of us.

It is not a matter of interfering with another committee. It's a matter of us doing our work and reporting to the House, which hopefully will find some congruency and consistency between our work and that of another committee. It's not overstepping the bounds of another committee for us to study it, to look at it.

Neither is it against the standing orders for us to commend a report. We're not talking about a statute or a law of whatever; we're talking about a report to the House for consideration. If there were to be a debate on this motion, for instance.... This doesn't call for a report back from the House. That discussion in itself could inform other committees, so I see no argument for why this is outside the standing orders. It is admissible and it should be put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Thank you, all members, for your input and advice on this question. There's no doubt the mandate of each committee is something that's very clear in the standing orders and we are obliged to follow. It's important, therefore, that all notices of motion meet the admissibility test. I appreciate the thoughts and comments of members in that regard.

I'm inclined, in this case, to uphold the comments that have suggested that this motion is, in fact, not admissible, simply and principally for the fact that it is a broad range of recommendations--in fact, as was pointed out, 19 recommendations in the 2008-2009 report--that are not specifically within the mandate of our committee. So we'll rule the motion out of order.

We of course have a process in place for substantive motions. It can be reworked and brought back to the committee at any time.

This is perhaps instructional for all members, in that when you're considering notices of motion, if there is a question about admissibility you can speak with me or the clerk. These are questions that could be covered off to ensure that we have those in front of us, but we'll abide by our normal committee rules and proceed as follows.

There being no other business before the committee, this meeting is adjourned.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There's another point of order.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We challenge your decision, Mr. Chairman.

If you do not wish to discuss this right now, we ask that it be the first item on our next meeting's agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Respectfully, I heard two things there. I heard that you want to challenge the ruling on the point of order. That is something that is not really debatable and I would be seeking a motion from the committee to sustain the position and the decision of the chair. That would have to go in front of the committee right away.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. It's not debatable. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the chair?

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

All right. We will proceed. At this point, there is insufficient time to proceed on this question, so the motion stays in front of the committee and will be taken up as the first piece of business for committee business at the next meeting of this committee, which won't be until January, members.

May I take this time to wish you all happy holidays and a great time with your families at home over the next six weeks? Please drive safely and have a wonderful break.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.