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
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I'll consider the information you provided. We are not proceeding with it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
But you'd have to act with considerable haste, because this will be drawn up as a report and at the earliest opportunity will be presented in the House by the chair of the committee.
Ms. Neville.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I read the motion that I gave advance notice of, and I gather you or the clerk have some comment on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
That's correct. First of all, the clerk does, and then I have a comment to speak to as well.
The Clerk
Madam Neville, I wanted to mention this to you prior to the meeting, but the opportunity didn't arise.
Legislative committees are not empowered by Standing Order 113 to hold joint meetings, while standing committees are, at 108(1)(a). We have to conclude that a legislative committee is not empowered to hold a joint meeting.
I have informed the clerk of the legislative committee, who has also informed the chair of the legislative committee, and the procedure would probably be for members of the aboriginal affairs committee to attend the legislative committee's meeting when they are having hearings concerning the aboriginal affairs mandate.
Liberal
The Clerk
Well, it would be possible for... because it's not a joint meeting you would attend as a parliamentarian who can attend any committee meeting. Now for your right to speak or not, that would depend on the chair of the committee and the arrangements he takes at that time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Or the other option, as you would now well know, Anita, would actually be subbing in for a committee member as pertains to the... if it's aboriginal issues under discussion at that time. With the other option there is risk involved because you don't know whether the chair would recognize those other members. They do not have to.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, my motion requests a joint meeting, and I can appreciate what the clerk says, that while it's not mandated, the option can at least be provided to the special committee for a joint meeting. We've just spent a great deal of time talking about the Kelowna accord and the whole matter of accountability, governance, and capacity building was an integral part of the Kelowna accord.
We are the committee that is seized with the whole matter of aboriginal affairs, and I think it is incumbent upon us to be able to at least request the meeting to talk about this. This is a very important issue in terms of accountability. Again, Mr. Speaker, it's an act that has been drawn up without consultation with aboriginal people across the country as it relates to accountability, and I think it is important that we have some opportunity to have standing to deal with this matter.
I would ask you to request a meeting. If it is ruled out of order, then I will come back with something else. But it is important that, as a committee, we have an opportunity to address this issue.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
I don't know if we want to get to a list here on this, but I'm told in fact that rather than get to a list, the motion, from the standing order point of view, is not receivable.
I did on my own undertake to talk to the House leader's office, and I would suggest that the way around this may be to actually go back to your procedural experts within your respective parties and see if there's a way around it. But as things stand, I did some checking through the Standing Orders myself. The clerk did his research through that, and it's not a receivable motion before us at the committee today, unless there's some other way to deal with it or word it, kind of do a creative end-run around it. But for my part--I want to assure Ms. Neville--I've actually talked to the House leaders, and they have basically the same approach; it's not permissible under the present Standing Orders.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Well, I too have consulted and have been advised to move forward with this request. I do appreciate that it is mandatory for standing committees, or it's obligatory, perhaps, is a better word, for standing committees to have joint meetings. This is a special circumstance, and again I would ask you to request a meeting. That is all I'm asking.
I think your suggestion of subbing in is not adequate, or I'll put forward another motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Well, as the matter stands, my understanding is I'm not in a position to receive the motion. I don't think it can proceed from here based on the Standing Orders we have before us. That's the issue at stake right now.
With that, then, we'll move to--
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I would like to challenge the ruling of the chair and see if there is support among the committee to challenge that ruling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
I'm advised—and I guess this does ring some bells from the past--that when a chair is challenged, yes, that is in effect a motion. It can be debated and discussed now, that notwithstanding my ruling on the matter this motion still proceed.
So this is what's under discussion: first of all, do you agree with this challenge to the chair in respect of requests going forward? Then we have hurdles and obstacles from there.
Go ahead, Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Ms. Neville, the chairman and the clerk feel that the motion is not in order and that we have to check this with our party leaders. In order to be able to check this and in order to avoid having the debate continue or having the motion defeated, could we delay it to the beginning of next Wednesday's meeting? I didn't know that it was not in order. I'd like a little more time to check with our committee that is in charge of legislative matters and see whether it's possible for us to support this motion. This way, we might avoid having the motion defeated, or having a decision made that a new motion must be tabled 48 hours ahead of time, that it be translated, and so forth.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Ms. Neville has withdrawn her challenge to my ruling.
With that understanding, we will proceed to take this up, having consulted with our respective procedural clerks, House leaders, etc., as the first order of business at the Wednesday meeting. So that is tabled for the Wednesday meeting for our purposes.
Are there other motions, with 24 hours of advance notice, that anybody wants to proceed to move at this point? After that we'll move to the issue of possible study subjects.
Mr. Bruinooge.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I have two motions that were submitted within the 48-hour timeline. Based on some discussions, I think there may be an amendment forthcoming. I'm not sure if that is actually going to happen, but we will see.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Motions one and two have been duly moved by Mr. Bruinooge. They were submitted 48 hours in advance. They're listed on the same sheet of paper, in both English and French.
The first one reads as follows:
That whenever the Main Estimates or 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 and, if possible, that it be televised.
That's just with respect to the main estimates. It's not to say that we can't do television at other times as well, but specifically then.
The second motion is as follows:
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 and, if possible, that it be televised.
We can discuss these one at a time. We'll start with the first one and proceed to the second one, assuming there's time before the meeting ends at 5:30.
Speaking to the first motion, on the main estimates being tabled and the committee inviting the minister and relevant senior officials, go ahead, Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
If the mover agrees, I'd like to add something to the first motion so that it reads as follows: “That whenever the Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates are tabled in the House, the committee invite the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [...]”
Right now it's a bit vague. I therefore move that we add the words “of Indian Affairs and Northern Development” after the word “Minister”. I would like to make sure it's precisely this minister, so that when we discuss the financial affairs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we avoid having the President of the Treasury Board come and explain the situation. I think I understand the essence of the proposal by the parliamentary secretary. With the addition I've just mentioned, I think that we could easily support this motion.