Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin. That's not a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to the point of order, there are public posts about this Liberal indigenous caucus that show its members. It's convenient for it now to be a private caucus—

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I have a point of order. This is debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Time is up.

Mr. Battiste has the floor now for five minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the previous speaker, MP Michael McLeod. I think that out of this whole discussion we've had around indigenous identity and the indigenous Liberal caucus, his four minutes were the most powerful in that preamble.

As the current chair of the indigenous Liberal caucus, I would like to put on the record that Randy has never stated to me that he's indigenous. He's always attended the indigenous caucus as an ally. We welcome several allies. Actually, we're hoping to get more from this. I think having indigenous allies has allowed us to get to the place we are on reconciliation in Canada, because there are very few indigenous members of Parliament.

As a first nations member of Parliament, I've been reflecting on this. I've had dozens of conversations with the leaders who are here for the Assembly of First Nations special chiefs assembly happening this week. In those dozens of conversations, people aren't really talking about indigenous procurement. They're not talking about indigenous identity. The conversations urgently happening at the AFN are about things like indigenous policing and the safety of communities.

Yesterday the Assembly of First Nations called for action. They called for a public inquiry on systemic racism in policing. In my conversations with folks over the past few months and days, chiefs have told me they're deeply concerned. They're deeply scared of what's happening in our country, and for the future of indigenous policing. I talked to parents who lost their daughter because of a wellness check. I heard community leaders like Chief Leroy, who's from my community, say that at one point we had 20 Mi'kmaq-speaking indigenous policemen in the community, and now we're down to two. I've had folks tell me that there should never be a death in Canada when someone is being checked on for wellness. First nations in Canada should not be scared of the very people we pay to protect them.

During these conversations, people are asking for action. I've asked them what that action means. Does it mean funding for police as an essential service? Does it mean setting targets for how many first nations police we can acquire over the next three, four or five years and saying, “Here's what we need in our communities”? Is it figuring out ways we can collaborate with provincial, federal, municipal and first nations on policing, moving forward?

I think it's incumbent on us as a committee to look into this and talk about this issue. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues and the choices they make about which studies we put forward first. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on this matter too. That's why I waited until the end.

This is incumbent on me. I told the national chief I would do this. I want to table a motion that you all received beforehand. You've seen this motion. I tabled this motion on September 17. It says that in light of “the recent reports of tragic deaths of indigenous Canadians in incidents with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the urgent emergency debate that took place on Monday, September 16, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, immediately following the conclusion of legislation at INAN, move to begin work on the indigenous policing study”.

I know this study takes precedence. I'm not asking for that. I know that what the Assembly of First Nations is asking for is a public inquiry. I'd be willing to listen to amendments on how we can improve this study, but the original study we tabled way back in April 2024 called for the committee to undertake a study of indigenous policing options to ensure indigenous communities have essential services for public safety.

The motion further reads:

The study should examine how federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions can work collaboratively with indigenous governments to advance the safety of their community members. The study should also look at the obstacles and systemic racism within the justice system and examine what barriers exist that prevent indigenous people from becoming become law enforcement officers.

I know I have only five minutes, but I wanted to move this motion now so that we can get to discussion on it. I would like to move that we have a discussion about whether we can do this with the remaining five to 10 minutes that we have in this study.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

The motion is being worked on already. I see it being typed up.

We will go for discussion.

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is obviously a very important issue, and I did actually have an amendment to the original motion that Mr. Battiste moved, which I hope he would be amenable to. I just have a question about the procedure.

It was my understanding that the original motion, which was tabled April 11, 2024, was never actually moved. Before we go any further, I'm not sure if this motion, which now refers to the other motion that was not moved, would actually be in order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

I'll check to see if it was, in fact.

Thank you Mr. Melillo. According to the clerk, the original motion was never actually moved or voted on, so you are correct that the reference....

Mr. Battiste, do you quickly want to respond?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'd like to move it now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Okay. He is moving the motion.

Is there any discussion?

We will go to Mr. Melillo and then to Ms. Idlout.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned, I would like to move an amendment to that motion, and hopefully we can dispose of it and can get back to the questioning. It would be additional text at the end. It would say this:

That the committee also request the Parliamentary Budget Officer prepare research and comparative analysis of policing provided through the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program and non-Indigenous police services, beginning at least as early as 2015-16 to 2023-24, and future years as data availability permits. Factors to compare are to include but not be limited to funding for facilities, equipment, personnel, compensation and employee benefits, culturally responsive and specialized services, training, and oversight and accountability mechanisms. That this research and comparative analysis be submitted to the committee within 60 days.

The rationale for this is to understand, from a financial aspect, what would be necessary to help fill the gaps in first nations policing.

Are you good with that?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

We're going to circulate that in both official languages, if it hasn't been circulated already.

Ms. Idlout, on the amendment, please go ahead.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I also want to put in an amendment, but the amendment I'm proposing is tied to the Liberals' request. I would like to see the Conservatives' amendment first.

I will mention this. Don't just tell us about this, but also show us what's being done. We all know what's been published or what has been proposed. I want to see them first, because without seeing them, I can't really provide input, but I will want to provide input afterwards.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Mr. Genuis is next.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I think this is a very important discussion. I'm not a regular member of the committee, but I'll just say that there's a House order that we hear from the witness that we have for two hours. That's a House order. Committees can't stand against a House order. There seems to be some confusion about that in terms of the setting of priorities here. Committees have to respect a House order.

I understand that there are some members who want to review this amendment. My proposal would be that we proceed to hearing from the witnesses at this time. There'll be time to do other things afterwards, but we should proceed to hearing from the witnesses.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Are you making a motion to adjourn this debate?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Do you agree that we should...? We have a House order for two hours.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Right, so—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Maybe I'll just ask the Chair.

Do we have extra resources?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

We do have extra resources.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We have extra resources.

Okay, so we're going to finish the time allotted—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

When we're done with that round, we will go on to the fourth round of questioning. At that point, we have Conservatives and Liberals, and then the Bloc and the NDP for two and a half minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm not moving anything because I can't—I'm not subbed in—but I just wanted to get clarity about the process here. I'll leave it to the regular members to decide, but we're going to get our full two hours either way. Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

That's correct.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I waited until the absolute end, the absolute last point, to ensure that this happened. It was 11 minutes and 22 seconds ago when I started my question. It's been six minutes extra that we've discussed this.

I do believe we should give time to the Bloc and the NDP to finish this round, but I made sure, with absolute certainty, that this would not take away from the discussion and the House order and that we absolutely made sure this thing that's being called upon by the national chief and by the Assembly of First Nations was addressed.

I think this is minimally impairing us. At most, it will take six minutes to finish this round, and then we can get back to this discussion. Hopefully, by that point, we'll have the amendments circulated.