Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Well, it's not an amendment, because we.... It's just the original motion. Jean moves that.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

What's the purpose of taking away time from a party to ask questions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Jean.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

It's actually a method to make the time more equal rather than taking away time. If you make sure everybody has seven minutes, then you are actually allowing more voices to be heard at the table.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I agree entirely with Jean. In several committees, it becomes quite frustrating very quickly to be the third or the fourth member of the team to get the floor. You will very shortly be experiencing this yourself. That is the case, for instance, when there is an interesting debate to which only one hour has been allocated. As we know, those who have the floor rarely speak for less than 10 minutes. According to my experience, it very rarely goes otherwise.

In short, in order to make it possible for members of the committee to be able to speak more often, I am quite ready to support Ms. Crowder's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Are there any other comments?

I guess we could go to a vote on that as the motion is, unless there is a further amendment to it. It will simply read, then, as I understand it:

That an organization be given up to ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair for their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the questioner of the official opposition, seven (7) minutes for the questioner of the other parties, starting with the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner until each member had the chance to question the witness (alternating between the Opposition Parties and the Government), and leaving at the discretion of the Chair the possibility to reduce the time limits of the second round of questions if time is running out.

We'll take that to a vote. It is moved by Jean.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Those are the basic routine motions, unless somebody has something else to suggest in terms of an additional motion that hasn't been the norm.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have a couple of other relatively routine motions that were with the committee last year.

I'd like to move that whenever the main estimates or the supplementary estimates are tabled in the House, the committee invite the minister and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a meeting of the committee, which is televised, if possible.

The second part is that whenever a chapter of a report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the committee, the committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a meeting of the committee, which is televised, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Do we have any questions?

Jean.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

In the future, it would be really helpful if we could have this in writing before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

That would make a lot of sense, obviously. I guess my hands are a bit tied when additional ones come.

These are ones that have been done in the past. Actually, this was out of the last one, but no matter, your point is well made.

Can I read it again? Is this verbatim from the last...? It simply says that whenever the main estimates or supplementary estimates are referred to the committee, the committee invite the minister and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a meeting of the committee, and, if possible, that it be televised.

The suggestion from the clerk is that this can be perceived as routine, but it may also be considered as a future business thing.

The other motion, which I will read quickly so that we can get to the comments, and it was adopted by the committee last time, is that whenever a chapter of a report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the committee, the committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a meeting of the committee, and, if possible, that it be televised.

So the member is within his right to propose that as a routine motion. It's for you as a committee to dispose of it yea or nay, or for it to be brought up at a future meeting, as you choose.

Yvon, go ahead.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Whether we are talking about the present motion or others to come, it would be preferable, as Jean mentioned, that we have them in writing and that we debate them at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Absolutely, and by virtue of the 48-hour notice, that is a requirement. So if you judge today that you would rather it come in a written form.... Mr. Bruinooge is proposing it as a routine motion, that this be standard operating procedure for our committee. He's proposing it as a motion. You as a committee have an option then to approve it. If you sense that you need the text--I read it off, but if that wasn't clear or you want it in writing, in French, you may want to delay it until the Monday meeting. I am at your pleasure as you choose with respect to this.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Just out of courtesy, that's why we have staff here. I know he's new, and we all go through these when we're new members. We're not aware of all the services available. But when we do walk in and there's a motion that we want to share and it is routine, it can be photocopied before it's read out, so that we are looking at a written copy, for the courtesy of all the members. Sometimes it's very difficult to just do it by hearing the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Are there any other comments? At your pleasure, we will vote this yea or nay, up or down, or defer it to another meeting.

Todd.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Have you already made a ruling that this is routine business, this particular motion? Because from my own perspective I would call it more of a substantive matter, seeing that it determines the business of the committee and somehow binds the committee to go through. I'm not saying I don't want to, but I would see it as more of a substantive matter.

Secondly, it is planning the future business of the committee. That would be the second agenda item, which we haven't gotten to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay. I'll let you vote up or down or whatever, as you choose. If you want to have it tabled, that's another possibility.

As I read it from the minutes last time, it just follows the whole string of motions here, the routine motions. It follows right after this that the copy of the transcript be kept in the committee. There's no differentiation as to.... It's just one of that string of routine motions here.

So in answer to your question, that's how it was handled in the last Parliament. So based on that, I have no reason to rule it out of order, because it was not approached as a substantive motion from the previous committee. But if you feel it is, then obviously you may be advised to simply vote it down. Or actually somebody could move to table, I guess, until Monday, as they choose.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I move that we table it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Okay. Jean first.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I was just going to support Mr. Russell's comment about the fact that I think this is part of future business and the committee could determine at the time that these matters come forward about how they want to deal with it. It will depend on what their agenda is and all of those other things. So I would be prepared to vote against this. We have a motion to table now, though. It's not debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Have you moved to table? It's tabled until our next meeting then. At that point, I assume we would have French and English sets, but it has its 48-hour notice by that point too.

Are there any other issues that we want to discuss as we conclude here? I should say that already we have some other material in.

Monsieur Lemay, you had a motion that has come in, but you have not moved it. Do you want to do anything with respect to that today? Is it in both languages? I'm not even sure if it is.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I don't thinks it was distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

It's not circulated, that's correct. You're right.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I tabled the motion in accordance with Standing Order 108. The motion you will be receiving reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee recommend that the government implement the Kelowna Accord, entitled: First Ministers and National Aboriginal Leaders Strengthening Relationships and Closing the Gap. That the committee adopt those recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

We will have to debate the motion, obviously, but it would have to be presented to the government. I was expecting that it would be presented in both official languages so that we could debate it, probably next Monday or Wednesday. I think that we will have enough time to have it translated between now and Monday, unless Mr. Clerk tells me that this has been done.

[The Clerk]

It has been done.