Evidence of meeting #1 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
You're saying one additional person from the party. In effect, that would mean four additional people who would be....
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I don't think this is worth a big debate. Part of the reason here is so that we distinguish an additional person from simply being able to have someone from the whip's office for one of the four of us. It has to do with responsibility for that person.
At an in camera meeting, if there are four people here, with four staff people, and they're assigned in some fashion to the people who are here, there's a responsibility piece that is lost when you add to the number. It's a little less accountable. And I know that accountability is a....
But that's the reason, just for the record. The discussion in the past has been about that. When there's someone sitting back here, it's my job to see to it that the person who is sitting back here, because I'm here, recognizes this as an in camera meeting, and I can hold them to be responsible.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay.
If there are no further comments, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Bruinooge, is the way I stated it the way you want it stated?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay.
Mr. Bruinooge's amendment is on the floor, that each caucus member in the room would have one staff, plus there could be one more per caucus.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are there any other comments or suggestions, or can I ask for a motion that we accept the routine motions as amended?
Mr. Albrecht moves that we accept the routine motions as presented, with two changes--the first, which we just discussed, in terms of the staff; and the second, in terms of the insertion of 48 hours' notice.
All in favour of the routine motions as presented and as amended?
(Motions as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
At this time, I would like to bring forward a motion.
Due to the fact that former Bill C-44 has been reinstated as Bill C-21; that as a committee we have proceeded through a number of witnesses, and in the opinion of the government are at the stage of proceeding to clause-by-clause; and that this is an important plank of our government, having just received a mandate by Parliament to proceed with extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people, I would like to put forward the motion that as a committee we proceed to clause-by-clause on Bill C-21.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Chair, a point of order.
We just adopted the routine motions and the rules for our committee, which said we had to give 48 hours' notice of any motions or substantive motions to be considered by the committee. I would argue that's certainly out of order and certainly it was never intended to be on the agenda for this particular meeting, so I think it would be pushing it a little far to accept this as an agenda item for discussion right now.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I guess the only point I would make is that it's been drawn to my attention that in the notice of motions provision it says:
That 48 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration.
It is committee business.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
No, there's currently no business under consideration except the routine motions that have been put before. All this is now new business, a new bill, with, supposedly, maybe some amendments. I mean, it doesn't make sense to try to push the agenda, sir, farther than you have already.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Let's all calm down for a moment. First, the bill was tabled today. Second, the House will have to agree that it be studied in committee, and that has not yet been done. We have to have the bill in front of us. At the moment, it is not. It is not physically here today.
Third, Mr. Chair, the only items on the agenda today were to elect the chair and the vice-chairs, and to pass the rules of procedure. I do not think that we can get involved with anything else today. I agree with my colleague Mr. Russell: any motion has to be made in English and in French and it has to be tabled with 48 hours' notice. I could comment on the meeting that was supposed to be held on November 15, but we will start debate on that later. At the moment, I do not think that the parliamentary secretary's proposal can be dealt with today.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
While I have a great deal of respect for my colleague across the table, Mr. Lemay, he is wrong on this. As of 10 o'clock this morning, this was referred to committee as committee's only business at this point in time, and therefore it wouldn't need 48 hours' notice. I think your ruling is perfectly correct.
In this committee, there are not a lot of new faces on the other side. Everybody has sat through these consultations. Everybody has known the importance of this. I understand that it's in some of the opposition's apparent best interest to stall human rights to first nations people, but we will continue to push this as the most pressing piece of legislation that we have before this committee right now. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to take the time to calm down, as Mr. Lemay said, and sit down and work this out and get this done for first nations people.
As a matter of fact, the only new face across the table I see is the former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who would definitely recognize the importance of this.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thanks for saying you agreed with my ruling, but I actually hadn't made one yet. I think that I would like to put discussion of Mr. Bruinooge's motion over to the next meeting, for a variety of reasons.
Our next scheduled meeting is Thursday.
Ms. Crowder.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't know if the committee is aware that the Speaker has a reception on Thursday at 3 p.m. for the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards, and I think it would be really important for the committee to put in an appearance there. Whether we want to either delay the start of the meeting or postpone the meeting, I think it would be an important statement, showing commitment of this committee and support for the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. So I would move that we actually not meet on Thursday.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay, and that the next meeting would be on Tuesday?
Mr. Lemay.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I move that the next meeting take place on Tuesday, November 20, and not November 15, so that we can accept the Speaker's invitation. I so move.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Is anyone opposed to not meeting on Thursday and having our next meeting on Tuesday the 20th? Okay?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, I would like very much for this committee to have an opportunity to look at supplementary estimates as well as hearing from the minister as soon as possible, and I'd like to focus on the supplementary estimates.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay, thank you.
At our next meeting, one week from today, the one piece of business that is on our agenda is now Bill C-21, I believe, formerly Bill C-44. That is something we need to proceed with.
I guess there's some discussion in terms of how we proceed with that. Mr. Bruinooge's proposal is that we would move immediately to clause-by-clause. We'll deal with that motion on Tuesday, so that would be one option. I guess if the committee does not want to go to clause-by-clause, then we'll need to have some discussion about how we will proceed with Bill C-21.
We will also need to have a discussion about future business in general for the committee. Again, drawing from my experience with other committees, typically there would be a discussion at the full committee to put forward ideas for future business. Then the subcommittee would take that list of proposals and try to come up with an agenda to bring back to the committee. I don't know if that's the way it worked here in the past, but I'd like to know if that's acceptable.
Ms. Crowder.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
A question on the supplementary estimates. We have a timeframe here, and we're fairly time crunched, because my understanding is that we have to review those before the beginning of December.