Evidence of meeting #5 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Well, it's a question, but I don't know that there's going to be a consensus on that.
We have a motion to table these again--in fact, postpone them--but we need to say what date we're going to hear them again.
Will it be Tuesday?
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Point of order.
When the chair introduced this motion, he said we already have a motion up for debate. On that premise, therefore, I would take it that it was duly moved. Then, of course, it is open for debate, because that's what the chair had indicated to us. Therefore, the motion's up for debate. That doesn't require, in fact, that a person be present to debate it. As I understand it, it is on the table for anybody who is present at the committee to debate.
Even if Mr. Bagnell is not present, it is possible for me to move it, and then put it on the floor for debate. Mr. Bagnell only gave notice that this business was coming up. When it comes to the floor, anybody can move it as an item of business. So if the chair is right in the first instance, I agree with that. If he's wrong in the first instance, I will move the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I thank you for your intervention, Mr. Russell.
In fact, there's nothing that requires the members who actually put the notice of motion in play to actually be here. Certainly in the case of Mr. Bagnell's motion, it is part of our business. We chose at the last meeting to continue to have it discussed. So it can be discussed, and the question can be decided here by the representatives of the committee here today, and those who are alternates. So we can discuss the motion.
I would say the same would be true for Ms. Neville's motion, because the idea of notice of motion is to make the committee aware of the question before them. It is really insignificant whether the mover is here to speak to it, because her colleagues can speak to it.
All right.
Do you have another point of order, Mr. Rickford, or do you want to speak to the Bagnell motion?
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Just a comment.
I take Mr. Russell's point.
I guess part of the logic behind this is that the two motions are asking for studies. I'm confused, quite frankly. I'm not part of the subcommittee, but I know that we are already in the midst of a lengthy consultative process with witnesses and stakeholders on a northern development study. These motions represent two more studies.
I guess the question is, objectively, in the instance of Mr. Bagnell, who's a long-standing member of this committee, how does this fit in with the current work we're doing, and the commitments we've made to different timelines?
In the instance of Mrs. Neville, the question I would have is somebody who has been part of this committee historically, but has not been part of this committee since I've been here--for a year and several months--hasn't had a chance to appreciate what's contained in here.
I have other concerns specifically about her motion for the purposes of debating that motion, but I think that's part of the exercise we're going through here.
That's all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
That's fair enough.
We are just going to deal with them one at a time, if we can. Perhaps we can dispense with Mr. Bagnell's motion first.
Is there any other discussion on the motion?
Mr. Duncan.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
I'm not trying to pile it on, but Greg's comments about having a work plan are correct. We've already agreed to extend Tuesdays by an hour to fit everything in. Now we're talking about fitting something else in. You guys are probably all going to vote for this, and you're going to defeat us, so we'll be going in this direction, but I don't think we should be going in this direction unless, once again, we agree to do it outside of our regular Tuesday and Thursday slots, which are already committed to a work plan. If you're not prepared to do that, then you're not really that committed to the subject.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
First of all, I think we can adopt both of these motions today. Second, I think it is for the steering committee to decide when we will examine them more thoroughly.
I think we should adopt the motions and decide what to do once the steering committee has met, whether that happens to be next week or after we return from our break. I was told and I understood that this was how we were going to proceed. We'll see if we need to schedule another meeting. We can adopt the motions, go forward and then schedule meetings to review them.
Conservative
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The reason I think Mr. Bagnell is bringing this up now is that there's an urgency to this. There are 134 programs right now under the healing foundation, and most of those are actually at the end of the rope financially. I think the government has said they were going to allow just 12 of those projects to continue.
The crux of the matter is this. Close the projects down, don't allow the funding to happen, and not only will more than 122 projects fall apart, but there are thousands of people right now in treatment in those projects, and those are the people who will be abandoned if the healing foundation does not receive the moneys that it needs urgently.
So really it boils down to a matter of care: it's a matter of continuity of care, and it's a matter of enabling the people who are currently in the midst of their treatments to be able to continue those treatments to the end. Close off the moneys to the foundation and you deprive these people from being able to complete the treatments they're currently receiving. That's why we're bringing it up now, and that's why there's an urgency to this matter.
Thanks.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Just for the record, Mr. Martin has already formed all his conclusions and come to every recommendation already before we've looked at the subject. I just had to say that; sorry.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Okay.
If I could just comment, the motion doesn't speak specifically to timing. While it's true the deadline is March 31, members will know that's next Wednesday. I don't know that we're going to be able to meet on this before Wednesday. For that matter, I'm not sure how the findings in this meeting will necessarily be incremental to the decision that appears to have been taken in respect to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. The minister did answer some questions on this subject when we had him in here for supplementary estimates. It's up to the committee to decide what you want to do with this.
Administratively, Mr. Lemay is correct: we make decisions about the committee's schedule in subcommittee. I would suggest that any motion that's passed by this committee that affects the schedule would be considered by the subcommittee in the normal course, unless the committee tells us to meet on a more urgent basis.
So without any other direction to the contrary, if these motions are passed, this business would come forward for the subcommittee at our next meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Okay, we have a request to put the question on Mr. Bagnell's motion.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Okay. On the second motion, discussion?
Actually, this one has not been moved at this point. We've had a notice of motion on here. We will need someone to move the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Mr. Russell.
The motion's been circulated. Discussion?
Mr. Duncan.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
This is a very complex motion, as you all know, from having read it. It's a complex topic. Every province operates child and family services differently, so we have a lot of factors to assess. I can't see how we could possibly meet the terms of this motion without multiple meetings, which I do not believe we have the time to do. But more importantly, the crucial factor is this matter is before the courts, and government members would be very limited in their ability to participate, to ask questions, and there's a possibility that we would not be able to attend at all.
So if you proceed with this, you proceed with being forewarned that this is the case. We obviously have no choice but to vote against this motion. This very question is being considered. It's before the courts.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
This is a patent, transparent attempt to politicize an issue that is before the courts.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
When I read the motion, it struck me as rather complex. On that score, I agree with Mr. Duncan. I did some digging and found out that judicial proceedings had been initiated. It's clear to me that if we adopt the motion, the steering committee will need to be very vigilant when it comes to making requests of the department. I realize the government cannot say any more about this, as the matter is currently before the courts.
However, unlike Mr. Duncan, I would not go so far as to say that unquestionably, the goal is to politicize the debate. However, the current situation is clearly very difficult. We will of course support this motion, but I hope that Ms. Neville does not expect us to debate it before the Easter break. I think it will be difficult to debate it before May or even before June.
It would at least be nice to be updated on the status of the court proceedings into this matter, to avoid duplication and, first and foremost, to avoid wasting everyone's time. I will probably ask the parliamentary secretary to bring us up to date on this when the steering committee discusses the amount of time that should be allotted to this motion.
I think we can adopt the motion, but the steering committee will need to be vigilant when the time comes to examine it.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
When the committee will turn its attention to this issue is a matter for the subcommittee to decide. The government has the discretion to determine who should appear or not and what line of questioning to take, depending on the witnesses before the committee.
As far as I understand it, the federal government's action is not a technical matter, in that the Human Rights Tribunal doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear this particular complaint. There are many other issues around child and family services affecting first nations that are not impacted by that case, because the government is arguing it's a jurisdictional issue. There are many issues around the preventive model approach, whether the government has put enough money in, and how many kids are in care. I think we were all stunned by the department's revelation of how many aboriginal children are in care.
Even though the parliamentary secretary raises some concerns, I think there are ways we can mitigate those concerns and still have a fulsome hearing of the issue.
I'll leave it at that. I will vote for it. I'm sure that the member who initially moved this or gave notice of motion would be amenable to working with the subcommittee and the committee to make sure that we can make a hearing of this without stepping on too many toes.