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

[Stephen Mills]

In relation to some of the information that he identified, such as water quality, water quantity, and other aspects, shutting down a lot of these monitoring stations has had a big impact on proponents. They have to undertake even more studies than in the past in order to get in the door with YESAA. It's a lot more difficult, and the onus is on even very small proponents to collect data that used to be collected by government over a long term.

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

In that context, again I'm coming back to the municipal planning process. In the province where I live, British Columbia, a lot of the scientific assessment has been downloaded to municipal councils. They don't actually have the capacity to gather that kind of scientific information, so what's happening is that the proponents are doing it, and there is a mistrust because the proponents have a stake in the outcomes from that scientific data.

I'm not suggesting that they all skew the data, but there is a fundamental mistrust because they're not seen as independent and unbiased. I don't know if you've come across that.

[Ian D. Robertson]

I think that's very true, but it goes back to what the government's role is. When government neglects to pay attention to the basics, such as straightforward traditional research, they're creating problems that have consequences down the way.

Where did we see this happening? We saw it happening in the 1980s when we were cutting the deficits. The first places we cut were the ones that cost us the most. If you have to fly up to the Belle River, it costs a hell of a lot more than the data in, say, a document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Robertson. That's great.

Now we'll go to Mr. Clarke. This is the last time slot, by the way.

I understand you're going to split your time with Mr. Rickford.

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

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

I thank the witnesses for coming back and speaking here today.

My question is in regard to YESAB. From what I understand, it's an independent arm's-length entity that is responsible for implementation of the YESAA legislation and regulations. My question is in regard to the period when the board is sitting on assessments and the board members are being appointed.

First of all, I'd like to know long the appointment process is. How does it affect the members being appointed? From what I gather, they're all appointed at the same time. Is that correct?

[Ken McKinnon]

Yes, and it presents real problems, because we could be going through four major assessments in June, when all our appointments come up. It would mean that we would be gone, and everything would start from scratch on four really major assessments that we'd be involved in. It's a problem.

[Stephen Mills]

The only thing I would add is that the entire board doesn't do the assessments. There's an executive committee on the board. Ken, I, and one other person, Simon Mason, are on the executive committee. We conduct the assessments on the large projects; our designated offices have their own independent authorities to conduct assessments at the community level on most of the projects. Our board members deal with administrative matters, and they're there should we strike a panel.

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

What would be a proper recommendation in regard to the appointment process or for a timeline for each board member to be appointed? Would there be any suggestions?

[Stephen Mills]

The Umbrella Final Agreement limits it to three years. That's the constitutionally protected duration. We have a couple of members on a slightly different timeline owing to some delays in their appointments. There's a recommendation in the five-year review.

Our biggest risk is a changeover of all the executive committee at one time. That puts new people into the middle of an assessment. That may be a risk; I'm not saying that it is absolutely a risk.

The other side is that if we establish a panel, panel members must be made up of board members, and you can't replace them because it's a quasi-judicial process. Should the appointments run out during a panel, which may take a long time, then we lose those members, and they can't be reappointed. We could see a panel stop. There's a recommendation in the five-year review on that matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You're at the halfway point now.

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

I'll pass it on to Mr. Rickford.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead, Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I also thank my colleague.

Stephen, I want to revisit a question I asked. I want to get to the land use planning questions, but on your answer about the Transport Canada issue, I almost feel like it was cut off a little bit. From my own review of this literature in preparation for this meeting, I think this is an important point and an important function. It isn't just about Transport Canada; there may be other major departments.

But you identified Transport Canada and I want to give you an invitation to finish if there is more that you had to say on that, and whether it's on Transport Canada or others. As you said, I think this is really important for major projects in other regions of Canada.

[Stephen Mills]

I'll try to be as brief as possible on that.

Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans all provide regulatory roles, but in some cases they come in fairly late, or they're hard to reach in assessments.

On the northern major projects office, I think it may be helpful to have them as effective participants in our assessments and to have them recognize what is happening in the Yukon. They don't have offices in the Yukon, so it's difficult.

For example, with DFO, we have one major project before us where they are currently the only regulator on it. The biggest issues on that project are socio-economic and DFO has already said that they have no authority to add any socio-economic aspects to a fishery authorization.

We have some big hurdles to overcome and I think all the governments--first nations, territorial, and federal--have not kept pace with the YESAA legislation. If you really want to deal with socio-economic effects, you need to have some way of enforcing those effects through licence or something else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rickford and Mr. Clarke.

Witnesses, at this point we are going to go to the next segment of the meeting. We'll suspend briefly for two minutes so you can say goodbye to some of the members here. We'll then resume immediately after.

Members, we'll suspend for two to three minutes maximum, if we can. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I call the meeting back to order. We are resuming with consideration of committee business.

Members, I believe the documents have been circulated.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

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

This motion concerns me a lot. The motion is referencing a 2008-09 report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, which has 19 recommendations, only one of which is specific to aboriginal Canadians. That recommendation is actually specific to the public safety minister and an action he might take. The other 18 recommendations generally fall outside the mandate of this committee. Yes, it's true that aboriginal inmates may be impacted by the other recommendations, but no more so than any other inmate, generally speaking.

We have copies of those recommendations. They consistently talk about recommendations regarding “the Service”, which means the Correctional Service of Canada, and which is outside the mandate of this committee, clearly outside the mandate of this committee.

I think it must also be considered that in our study on this topic, Mr. Sapers mentioned his recommendations from his 2007-08 report as they relate to aboriginal people. Ms. Crowder's motion does not mention that report, even though it was included in our consideration of the topic.

The report mentioned in the motion, “Good Intentions, Disappointing Results: A Progress Report on Federal Aboriginal Corrections”, was not a report by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, but it was released by his office. There were no specific recommendations in that report. The only thing we had in that report was a conclusion, and I can tell you that the conclusion contains no recommendations.

He talked in the conclusion about “a concern about ongoing performance gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal corrections”, which has turned into alarm as the Correctional Service of Canada is failing to deliver on commitments to date. He talks about previous good intentions reflected in the Correctional Service of Canada policies and strategies, which “have been inadequately operationalized, at least partially due to a lack of data tracking, clearly enumerated deliverables, and accompanying accountabilities”, whatever that means, “leading to disappointing results”.

He talks about the “Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework”, which is:

...intended to establish concrete actions with projected results and expected outcomes subject to evaluation and establish levels of accountability in regards to deliverables in implementing the Strategic Plan, 2006. Future implementation of the Framework should be expected to further CSC’s meeting of its goals in Aboriginal corrections.

Therefore, he endorses the approach of setting up “tangible targets with timelines, relevant performance indicators, strengthening accountability and clarifying roles and responsibilities, enhanced monitoring, and public reporting on progress”. This says, “Only time will tell if the Draft Strategy for Aboriginal Corrections Accountability Framework will live up to its promise of accountability and results in Aboriginal corrections”.

I see no recommendation there. It also states:

However, while supporting this initiative, the...[Office of the Correctional Investigator] also feels compelled to ring the alarm. The anticipated growth in the federal Aboriginal offender population and potential shifts in their geographic distribution is in the pipeline, suggesting continuing over-representation in correctional populations for the five-year [Correctional Service of Canada] planning period from 2009/10 to 2014/15.

There is no recommendation there, I submit. It continues:

At this juncture, given the young and growing Aboriginal population, a...[Correctional Service of Canada] failure to expeditiously mobilize good intentions in Aboriginal corrections will reverberate throughout the youth and criminal justice system, Aboriginal communities and Canadian society for years to come.

That's a summary of what this report represents.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator's “recommendations”, which are referenced in Jean's motion, appear to point to two reports, which are the 2008-09 report and the progress report. In the first instance, as I've already mentioned, all but one of the 19 recommendations are clearly outside the committee's mandate, and I would submit that the other one is also outside our mandate, although it does mention “aboriginal” in its intent. In the second report, there are clearly no recommendations.

I would submit that according to Standing Order 108(2) the motion is clearly inadmissible. For the record, I think I'll read Standing Order 108(2): The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on: (a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them; (b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same; (c) the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department; (d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and (e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

Both of the Correctional Investigator's reports are clearly beyond the mandate of this committee. I would suggest that if the NDP wants a committee to recommend these to the House, then the reports should be sent to the relevant committee for further study there.

In addition, both of these reports have already been tabled in the House. It would be completely redundant for this committee to report them to the House when that has already been done.

That's my objection to reporting this to the House, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

It is a legitimate point of order. Normally these questions are dealt with fairly quickly. There is some discretion on the part of the chair. If others wish to make interventions in respect of the point of order, we'll allow some brief interventions on it before I make a determination.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We just heard from witnesses who talked about some of the challenges with the silo approach to regulation. I would argue that in the case of first nations, Métis, and Inuit men and women who are in prison, the Indian and northern affairs committee has some responsibility around the conditions that lead to people entering prison and the conditions that don't contribute to their success on release.

There are a number of factors involved in this. The Correctional Investigator, in the report that came through the department, talked about the poverty, social exclusion, substance abuse, and discrimination that contribute to people ending up in the prison system, and then of course to their challenges when they're released.

Part of my motivation around recommending that it go to the House was the frustration that we heard through the Correctional investigator around the fact that for 35 years he's been reporting on these issues and really has not seen the kinds of changes that would contribute to successful reintegration into society and to prevention. Because of the lack of attention in the House over 35 years, it would seem that the aboriginal affairs committee could have a role in raising attention to this. I would argue that we can make a case for its fitting within the mandate of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. I'll try to be really brief, because I think the chair should rule quickly so that we can get on with it.

I would agree with a couple of Mr. Duncan's points, in that the recommendations are at times hard to find in the report, the way it's written, and also that there are a number of recommendations that would help non-aboriginal people as well as aboriginal women.

But not wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater, obviously there are things here that would help aboriginal women,so I think we can recommend it to the House. I think Mr. Duncan should call for a concurrence debate on it and he can bring up these particular points.