Evidence of meeting #3 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aboriginal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
My understanding is that this is substantive—at least those on that side have argued so—but I don't think we're going to press it for 48-hour notice, because we have had the motion before us and we normally proceed in a manner where this is valid discussion at this point. It's a significant amendment, but as long as we're all clear in terms of what the amendment is before we go to the vote....
So do you want it read again, Mr. Storseth? Would you like that read again, so that we're clear on it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
I think those for whom French is their first language indicated to me they are clear in terms of what that means. So let's have it read, let's listen carefully, and we'll slow down as you require.
The Clerk
It reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study the objectives of the first ministers' meeting of last November, and in particular in relation to housing, health, education and economic development.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Ms. Neville has asked for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
We're back to the main motion now, if there is comment or discussion in respect of that. At the point we run out of people talking, we go to a vote on that.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I believe that we have had enough discussion, Mr. Chair. I would ask that we now vote on the main motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Is there any more discussion at this point? Hearing none from anyone, then we will proceed to a recorded vote, as requested by Ms. Neville.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
So that will be a report, based on that vote, presented to the House. As I understand it, the Standing Orders require a response from the government within 20 days of that.
Now, we're on to additional or other—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
I'm sorry, I should clarify or qualify that; it's 120 days from the time it's tabled.
The report to the House could be done in the week following; there is nothing delaying the report on that.
Ms. Neville.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the motion that I gave advance notice of last week:
That this committee (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) request a joint meeting with the special legislative committee that is dealing with Bill C-2 ('the Accountability Act') to examine the portions of the act that deal with First Nations Accountability.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
There are two things. I'll have our clerk respond first, and then I have some comments as well.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, can I just ask a question?
Are we able to add a dissenting opinion to the report that we're proposing to Parliament in the previous motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
There is that possibility, Mr. Bruinooge. If one so moves, that could be done, and the committee has the chance to reject that. They also have the opportunity, I'm told by the clerk, to actually request to see that before it's actually voted on. That would be your option.
I'm at your mercy with respect to that as a committee.
If a motion is put forward, you can certainly request that. It would then be a debatable and votable motion. At that point they may choose to decline it, and they may also choose to make a request to see it in advance of appending as well. Those are the options the members have.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I have a question on that, because my understanding was that because this motion was approved it is the report of the committee--
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
--and the only people who have an opportunity then to put a dissenting report would be the opposition members. Unless I've totally misunderstood who puts in the dissenting reports, I understood that if a report is passed by a committee it is a committee report. In that case it is then seen, I would think, as a government report because it's a report coming from the committee, and the only person who could then put in a dissenting report would be a member from the opposition. Maybe I need to have clarification on this, but that was my understanding.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
We've served on committee before, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, and that would be the norm, where any dissenting reports are proposed by opposition members, but that's not exclusive to them; it could be a member of the government side. In fact, these are not government.... As we bring that to the House, it is not a government...it's not even deemed to be, as you suggested they--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
From the committee, exactly. Correct. Yes.
No. It's the option of anyone. There can be a dissenting report to this particular motion, which we have now passed, by any member of one of the opposition parties. There can be a dissenting report tabled from the government's side. That's not excluded from any member within the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
We were about to go to a motion on the floor, but I do require us to conclude this matter of business here in respect of the issue of a dissenting report, which, as I understand it, is debatable and also votable. We now have that on the floor, I assume. With that, what is your intent?
