Evidence of meeting #8 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'm in a bit of a catch-22 here. Having said that, I will tell you that I do not have a problem with Liberal-1 in terms of the admissibility.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
That's fine, but I just want clarity that they will be admissible should this bill return to the House.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't believe, according to the Standing Orders, that the chair can rule on admissibility until a motion is actually put forward. You therefore cannot foresee the future. There could be amendments put to this bill that pass that make it inadmissible or would make further motions inadmissible.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I appreciate that assistance.
I'll go back to what I was saying. By not ruling NDP-3 inadmissible, I'm saying that I view it as admissible, okay?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
That's not to say what the clerk's advice was or was not on that, okay?
In terms of Liberal-1, Mr. Storseth is correct, in the sense that it's not actually on the floor yet.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Having said that, as the person who moved Liberal-1, you could certainly ask the legislative clerk whether, in his view, it's admissible or not, but that does not necessarily determine my behaviour.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
For clarification, I appreciate that you ruled it admissible. I'd like to know from the legislative clerk that he too sees it as admissible.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
The legislative clerk provided advice to me that it was admissible, and I have ruled it as admissible.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my concerns to you on the admissibility of this.
I understand that when looking at this legislation as it sat before we came to committee, there might have been the view that it was admissible. Now that we have passed clause 1--saying specifically that this bill will be dealing with the fact that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed--I believe if you refer to page 654 of Marleau and Montpetit, under the section of “Principle and Scope”:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. As well, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negative of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading it is also out of order--
There is no doubt in my mind, and I think it is the position of the government, that this does go beyond the scope and the principle of the bill that the government has put forward and therefore should be ruled inadmissible.
I just want to have that on the record, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I appreciate that.
As I said to all members last week in terms of the issue of admissibility or inadmissibility, obviously I receive advice from the legislative clerk. It's non-binding advice. And in a couple of cases I did receive conflicting advice, quite frankly, from others. I have had to weigh that conflicting advice out.
I have made a decision that NDP-3 is admissible, having considered all of that. I appreciate the free advice, but that decision has been made and it's not debatable.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I'm just trying to get a clarification on procedure. Is he therefore challenging you on your decision in the same way as, when you declared NDP-1 inadmissible, if that's a correct word, Jean challenged you?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I want to thank all members. I thought when I became a chair that it would take me a long time to learn the procedural rules, but thanks to the efforts of all my colleagues I've had an intense tutorial in the last three weeks.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
If the chair deems that an amendment is admissible, he doesn't actually state as such that it's considered admissible. Having said that, a member of the committee can challenge admissibility in the same way as a chair who deems something is inadmissible can be challenged. So it is possible for a member to challenge the decision of the chair and to suggest that it is in fact inadmissible.
Maybe the easiest thing to do is to go to Mr. Storseth and ask whether he was merely offering free advice or he was challenging the ruling of the chair.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position on this. Unlike the opposition, I did not say I was challenging the ruling of the chair.
Once again, I refer all committee members to Marleau and Montpetit, page 654, which allows the chair to rule an amendment out of order even after he has ruled it admissible.
I'm just suggesting it is the position of the government that this is the case and that I hope the chair would take that position. If not, I'm sure this can be ruled upon by the Speaker at report stage.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay. I appreciate that if I do change my mind, I'm allowed to. At this point, I have no intention to do that.
I have Mr. Warkentin and then Ms. Crowder.
December 13th, 2007 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I was remiss in doing my homework, so I will ask Ms. Crowder for some information. With regard to the reference in paragraph (a) on the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763, I'm wondering if you could elaborate as to the reason for the inclusion. I only ask, as I said, because I was remiss in not doing my homework last night.