Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2010

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

No, no, in English. Ça va.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment moved by Mr. Bagnell is that in the last sentence, after “the province of Saskatchewan”, we would insert a comma and then “and any other witnesses deemed necessary”.

Now we'll move to debate on the amendment.

Mr. Duncan.

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

Thank you.

I have a couple of real concerns with the wording of the motion as it is amended. This goes back to the original motion.

First of all, we're trying to take the politics out of FNUC. That's what has been attempted for many, many years. I believe the selection of witnesses here is political in some instances. I also believe that the motion talking about “governance changes that have been made” predetermines something that has not been predetermined. If it has been predetermined, it's only in the media. We really don't know what we're talking about.

I consider this motion to be very encompassing of much more than we would like to assume. I actually think that what we need is to dumb it down, to say that we're going to call witnesses, study the circumstances, and report our findings to the House. To do anything more than that is going to lead us... Well, certainly on the government side, it creates a real problem for us.

I gather at this point that we have concurrence that we'd like to do this outside of our regular committee meetings--I think I heard that--and that we would like to keep this as something we can accomplish by March 31. I don't see that happening with the current wording of the amended motion--at least for being able to complete this. There are far too many groups involved, and I think there's the appearance of some predetermined outcome. I could propose an alternate motion, but that's not what we're debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, you're right. We are just debating the amendment at this point. You could propose a subamendment, but only to the amendment that we already have in play. So if your interest is in making more substantive proposals to the motion itself, we'll have to get through this question first, and then we can consider that.

Monsieur Lemay, vous pouvez procéder.

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

Mr. Chair, we do not want to get bogged down in procedure. This motion deals with the current situation of the First Nations University in Regina. The university has a problem, and it is not complicated. After March 31, they will have no more money. We want to know why. We would also like to know if the government is willing to reconsider its decision, given everything that the First Nations University has already worked out, with the oversight of the University of Regina. That is it.

With all due respect to my colleague opposite, the government has already made its assumptions.There was embezzlement and it has been admitted. Funds were misused, and there is no point in going over that again. Everyone admits it, including, clearly, the department. As members of Parliament, we want this university to continue the exceptional work that it has done for First Nations—at least, as Bloc Québécois critic, I do. There is a clear problem with the administration. I do not want us to be debating whether $40,000 or $50,000 were spent at a casino. We know that that kind of problem existed. Clearly, money was embezzled. We will not be looking for the guilty. That is not the goal of the committee.

Let me digress a little. I am not sure that we have to have additional sessions or add an hour to meetings. Do not forget that it was not we who prorogued the session. With all due respect, I propose that we pick up our work carefully and sensitively. I hope that the government is not going to come charging in on every occasion saying that we need to add this, that or the other. If we can pass this motion, we will then get together and see how we can deal with it during our committee meetings. We could start as soon as next Thursday or at the beginning of next week.

I want to focus the debate onto one question. I am perfectly in favour of the amendment that says we want to add witnesses. The question is whether the government agrees to reconsider its decision to cut the funds. If not, why not, and if so, how? What are you waiting for if the issue is whether this extremely important university survives or ceases to exist after March 31? That is what this debate comes down to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

We now move to Mr. Rickford, on the amendment.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

With respect to the proposed amendments, Mr. Chair, not much changes for me. I have serious questions and concerns about this. I understand to a certain extent the significance of a deadline, but this problem has been around for quite some time. I think if this committee is really going to sit down and discuss this and listen to witnesses, a number of things are going to be required.

First of all, there are six organizations listed in the original amendment. There is a proposed change to that amendment that would open it up to at least, I would think, another perhaps equal number of organizations, in the spirit of fairness. I'm assuming there would be one, if not more, per organization, and I'm not sure that any of us is going to have the time by March 31 outside of regular committee—even in regular committee, given the number of meetings we have—to do a thoughtful investigation of this or do an analysis by the committee.

We don't understand—and I think this has been shared by all members—the size and scope of this problem; we have not had a pre-emptive briefing on any dimensions of this problem historically, on how and why we're at this juncture right now. With respect to that, and as much as I respect his opinions often at this committee, I don't buy Mr. Lemay's prorogation argument, but he tried his best. As one counsel to another, it didn't work for me.

This proposed change to the amendment lacks focus; it lacks discipline. We do not have a clear objective as to how we can actually help the students. This government has already put forward in the House a plan to deal with certain parts of this problem that it feels it has a role in. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that we take a serious moment to pause about what we're going to do here and how we're going to do it, because we only have 14 more days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

We are moving on, time-wise, so I'm going to go to Mr. Clarke. We'll hear from Mr. Clarke; then we'll see at that point whether you wish to have the question on the amendment or, alternatively, you want to suspend momentarily so that you can compare some notes.

Let's go to Mr. Clarke, to see where we end up.

Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to support this motion, but I still have problems with the wording myself. Mr. Lemay was talking about accountability and about the financial fraud. When I read the wording here explaining their roles, I think the underlying issue that is going to come back, for me—for curiosity or for the integrity part—is to find out the underlying causes of the fraud and what steps or mechanisms are going to be in place to prevent such a thing from happening again. Right now, the province is still sitting down with First Nations University and with the chief to discuss this. This is still in negotiations, and I don't want to step on someone's toes right now when negotiations are still going forward.

If there's any way we can amend this further... I have some suggestions, which I'd like to bring forward. But at this point, this motion just doesn't meet the scope of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll take the question now on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

The motion before us is now amended to include the phrase, as we said earlier.

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

How will that be recorded? It will be carried?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is carried by a show of hands.

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

Could I suggest that it was carried on division?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Well, that would be—

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

It's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

—the effect of it, certainly.

If you wish, members, to have a recorded vote on these decisions, by all means just signal me or the clerk. We'd be happy to accommodate you, of course.

We have an amended motion. Is there any other debate on the amended motion?

All those in favour of the motion, please signify. Those opposed, please signify.

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

I'm opposed, and I'll ask for a recorded vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. We're partway through.

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

I can ask for a recorded vote at any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In the spirit of accommodating the Standing Orders, let's have a recorded vote.

We'll do this again. I'll give it, then, to the clerk.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

Thank you, members.

Just before we leave this subject, as was discussed, we will be meeting, with whatever time we have left for our subcommittee, and the subcommittee will consider how this study will be accommodated and the logistics around calling witnesses, and so on.

Ms. Crowder, you have the floor encore.

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

Mr. Chair, as you're probably aware, this is a motion, which has been rewritten, from before prorogation. From my working with the clerk and others, the motion has been more narrowly focused.

I think you're all aware that we had the correctional investigator before the committee back in November. I won't repeat his testimony, but it was clear that there are a number of issues facing aboriginal offenders, both men and women, that have not changed significantly in 35 years, except to get worse.

Given the seriousness of the situation and the overrepresentation of aboriginal offenders in the prison population, I'm proposing...

I won't read the entire motion. I don't think I have to read it into the record, do I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

No. It has been circulated.

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

In light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be any movement—of course, this is not a partisan comment, because there's a long history of many different governments that have been involved in this—I'm proposing that we look at a couple of the specific recommendations and that we report this back to the House.

We know that in some provinces aboriginal offenders make up well over half the prison population. As well, part of the objection to this in the past was that it was outside the scope of Indian and Northern Affairs. In fact, what we've done is identify a horizontal initiative on urban aboriginal strategy that involves Indian and Northern Affairs, Corrections Canada, and the Department of Justice. There is a history of Indian and Northern Affairs dealing with issues with these two other departments that are directly implicated in the correctional service.

I'm encouraging members to support this motion so that we can have some attention drawn to the overrepresentation of aboriginal populations in prisons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Members, you'll recall that we received a motion on the same subject in our last meeting of the second session. In fact, it truly was the last meeting for us in that session.

I want to compliment the author for attempting, at least, to draw that connection. We had discussions on how this motion might come to be admissible, might have a connection to more directly link it to the mandate of the committee. She's done this through the reference to the horizontal initiative under the urban aboriginal strategy.

I've reviewed that program, which was referenced in the motion. Although it's laudable in its goals and would undoubtedly result in preventing aboriginal people from falling into criminal activity and by extension incarceration, the program does not relate directly to the substance of the motion.

This motion calls for the implementation of eight of the 19 recommendations of the Correctional Investigator from his 2008-2009 annual report to the Minister of Public Safety.

Each of the recommendations calls on the service, either Correctional Services Canada or the Minister of Public Safety, to take measures to address the issues cited by the report. Notably only one of the recommendations, that being number 12, is specific to aboriginal corrections. That recommendation directs the Minister of Public Safety to direct that CSC appoint a deputy commissioner for aboriginal corrections.

While it's understood that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development represent the lead ministry for aboriginal policy and programs across the federal government, the motion before us only recommends action by a specific minister and department, which lies outside of this committee's mandate. I would like to take a moment to explain that.

Our committee is empowered by the House in accordance with the Standing Orders, specifically sections 108(1) and 108(2), to take on certain activities, but those powers are not without limits. It is true that we are considered to be masters of our own proceedings, but we're obliged to stay within our mandate.

Standing Orders 108(2), at page 960, in the English version of O'Brien and Bosc states:

The Standing Orders set out a general mandate for all standing and standing joint committees, with a few exceptions. They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the departments assigned to them. More specifically, they can review:

the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them;

the program and policy objectives of those departments, and the effectiveness of their implementation thereof;

the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and

an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

I will continue:

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees: bills, estimates, order-in-council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters which the House wishes to have studied. In each case, the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

Members, as we see in the mandate, our committee also has the opportunity to make our work known to our colleagues in Parliament, and to the public, by reporting to the House on our findings and recommendations. These rules respecting reports to the House are spelled out in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 985 of the English version.

In order to carry out their roles effectively, committees must be able to convey their findings to the House. The Standing Orders provide standing committees with the power to report to the House from time to time, which is generally interpreted as being as often as they wish.

A standing committee exercises that prerogative when its members agree on the subject and wording of a report, and it directs the chair to report to the House, which the chair then does.

Like all other powers of standing committees, the power to report is limited to issues that fall within their mandate or that have been specifically assigned to them by the House. Every report must identify the authority under which it is presented.

In the past, when a committee has gone beyond its order of reference or addressed issues not included in the order, the Speaker of the House has ruled the report, or a specific part of the report, out of order.

Members, it is here that I have the greatest difficulty with the motion, since it compels action by a ministry and department of the government that is not assigned to us.

The motion has no recommendations to the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or its agencies, so if this motion were adopted by the committee, we would be unable to cite an authority under the Standing Orders to which this report is provided or pursuant to.

In the past, when committees have reported to the House on matters outside of their mandate, the Speaker has been quite clear that those reports, and the recommendations they give rise to, are indeed out of order. I would like to recite two such instances that were quite recent.

This is from the Commons debates, page 5925, on May 15, where the Speaker said:

Hon. members will recall that the issue of the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was raised just a few weeks ago and was dealt with in a ruling that the Chair gave on March 14, 2008. I wish to quote again, as I did in that ruling, from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at p. 879:

That would be Marleau and Montpetit.

Committees are entitled to report to the House only with respect to matters within their mandate. When reporting to the House, committees must indicate the authority under which the study was done (i.e., the Standing Order or the order of reference). If the committee’s report has exceeded or has been outside its order of reference, the Speaker has judged such a report, or the offending section, to be out of order.

The Speaker continued:

As mentioned by the hon. Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip in his remarks, Mr. Speaker Parent offered clear guidance in the matter before us in his ruling given on page 5583 of the Debates of June 20, 1994:

He said:

While it is the tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

The Speaker went on:

This is a reality that continues to this day, a reality that cannot simply be set aside because of existing circumstances in another committee, or by invoking the urgent need to address a subject, or by arguing the gravity of that subject.

The Speaker continued:

As hon. members know, and as explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 857, decisions of committee chairs may be appealed to the committee. However, as hon. members may recall, in my ruling of March 14 last, I raised serious concerns about committees overturning procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and the problems that may arise from such actions. I find it particularly troubling in this instance that the committee chose to proceed as it did with the clear knowledge that what it was doing was beyond the committee's mandate.

Another instance of the same issue occurred just last year, and this is taken from the debates, pages 2301-2302 on April 2. The Speaker said in his ruling on a point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in regard to the admissibility of the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance:

I am sure that hon. members would agree that the work of committees is vital to the functioning of the House and of Parliament. Because of their importance, the House has taken great care to define and differentiate the responsibilities of its committees, particularly where there might at first glance appear to be overlapping jurisdictions. While it is true that the House has given its committee broad mandates and significant powers, with such power and authority comes the responsibility of committees to respect their mandates and not exceed the limits of their authority.

The Speaker continued:

Thus, it is expected that committees will be judicious in the exercise of their mandates so as to avoid bringing disputes to the House for the Speaker to adjudicate.

As explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 857, decisions of committee chairs may be appealed to the committee. However, as I noted...on March 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008, committees that overturn procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and choose to present procedurally unacceptable reports to the House will have them declared null and void.

Members, accordingly, I rule that the motion is inadmissible due to its reach beyond the mandate of this committee.

I might suggest to Madam Crowder that she could consider taking this motion to her colleagues on the Standing Committee for Public Safety and National Security, where it would most definitely and most certainly be admissible.

Members, that is the decision. I appreciate your patience. I understand there were comments to the contrary in our last meeting. Members will know that the ruling is really not debatable, so we will proceed from there. There being no other business for this committee, we can move.

I see I have points now from Madam Crowder. We'll hear from Madam Crowder first, and then Mr. Bagnell.

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

Mr. Chair, given that you ruled it inadmissible, I don't know if at this point I can withdraw the motion. I certainly brought the motion before the committee with good intentions. In part it was due to a great deal of frustration, because we've had correctional investigative report after report highlighting the very serious problems within the penitentiary system with first nations. Some of that frustration came through the correctional investigator's report last time around, where he talked about the widening gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders.

Although it was outside of his mandate to comment on the conditions that led to people becoming incarcerated, he acknowledged that there are serious problems with poverty, social conditions, education, housing, and all of those kinds of things that are factors that can contribute to people becoming involved in the criminal justice system. So although the correctional investigator couldn't deal with the things that INAC is responsible for, those are some of the motivating factors in bringing this before the committee. There are some things that INAC can do prior to people being incarcerated.

Again, I don't know if I can procedurally withdraw it at this time, but I certainly won't challenge the chair.