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.