Evidence of meeting #6 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Well, I heard somebody say no. There was no request at that time for a recorded vote.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Rod Bruinooge said, “We did”, which answers my question.
So now I'm really confused, because he's the one who's been fighting NDP-1 all this time. But now he didn't give unanimous consent when the mover wanted to withdraw the motion.
I'm having a really hard time understanding.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'm not in a position to explain the strategies or the tactics of anybody who's sitting at this table--
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Procedurally it is my understanding, or I was advised by the legislative clerk, that in order for NDP-1 to be withdrawn, it would require unanimous consent. There was no unanimous consent. I heard somebody say no. There was no request for a recorded vote. I don't know how many people were unwilling to give unanimous consent or who they were.
Subsequent to that, we called the question. Those members who were on the list stood aside and everyone agreed that the question would come forward. There was a recorded vote, and at that time NDP-1 passed.
To my knowledge, there's no procedural problem with what happened. If members of the committee, as I say, question each other's decisions, that's an open question. But procedurally, the offer to withdraw did not receive unanimous consent. The question was put forward, all members of the committee voted, and the motion was passed. That is where we stand.
At this point, we are supposed to be discussing only Mr. Bruinooge's notice of motion in terms of extending hearings. I've heard from several members around the table. As you all know, you all have the right to speak ad nauseam on this issue, but we could also just call the question.
You can speak; I'm just saying we're speaking on Mr. Bruinooge's motion. Unless you have further questions on procedure, I think how we've landed here, while unusual, is appropriate.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I am speaking on procedure.
Mr. Bruinooge just admitted that he said no to unanimous consent. I want that on the record.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Mr. Bruinooge said no to unanimous consent. If he had not said no, we wouldn't have voted on NDP-1.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Well, we don't know that, because we don't know whether there might have been other committee members who said no.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I'm having a really difficult time here. As much as Mr. Bruinooge has said that he wanted to continue discussing Bill C-21 and he did not support NDP-1, now he's on record as saying that he didn't want it withdrawn, which would have been the end of NDP-1, most likely--
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
On a point of clarification, if all members had voted against the motion, would it have passed?
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So the member currently, I think, is looking for just a clarification as to how she could have had it removed. If she had, along with her members--
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I know what I'm trying to say. You don't have to say it for me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Ms. Karetak-Lindell, you're correct in that if unanimous consent had been given, it would have been withdrawn. That would have been the end of it.
There's a second way that it could have been disposed of, and that is, when the vote was called, if a majority of committee members who were voting had voted against it.
So there were two ways that this could have been disposed of.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
But I have sat on that side, and been in minority government. I just want to say that if an opposition member wanted to withdraw an amendment, I would have accepted it and given her flowers afterwards.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
So for them to then go to the next step and try to accuse us of changing Bill C-21 is not fair, because they had their chance to get amendment NDP-1 done and dealt with. I didn't see anyone on our side saying no to unanimous consent. That's the point I wanted to make.
For him to then go to this motion to consider the new Bill C-21 is, I think, bad judgment on his part.
That's all I wanted to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
All right, thank you.
I'd just point out that the notice of motion from Mr. Bruinooge was put forward well before Ms. Crowder made the offer to withdraw. So this wasn't something that arose after.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Procedurally, though, he could have withdrawn it once he saw that it was now a different Bill C-21.
So I just want to make those points, because I don't want people across the way accusing us of changing Bill C-21 and then continuing to debate it. They had a great opportunity and they blew it. As Anita was saying before, they keep blowing opportunities to get a piece of legislation that people support because they worked with the government to get legislation that they feel they're part of.
I've said before--I've said it to Mr. Prentice, and I'll keep saying it to every minister of Indian Affairs--that you cannot keep making legislation that affects a group of people that doesn't involve the people whose lives are going to be affected. Going back to the words that Anita used, you can't think you know best to make laws about people when you haven't walked in those shoes and you don't involve the people whose lives are going to be affected.