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
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I was simply going to call for the question again. Clearly the opposition members have suggested where they stand on this motion.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I have a question, Mr. Chair, and it's really a process question.
You're right, the passage of amendment NDP-1 fundamentally changes the bill.
There are two things. I wonder whether the legislative clerk can in fact give us advice in terms of subsequent motions, how they would play into the bill. As well, should this bill go forward to the House in its amended fashion, and should it be ruled out of order by the Speaker, what then happens? Is it referred back to committee? What is the process? What is the procedure?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
You've asked a couple of questions.
In terms of the fact that amendment NDP-1 has significantly changed Bill C-21, the question of admissibility or even relevance of subsequent amendments is a question that I have asked the legislative clerk, because obviously he has provided me with advice on the basis of Bill C-21 as it was, not Bill C-21 as it now is.
I'm in a bit of a catch-22 here. I can't really discuss other amendments until they're actually on the floor. But it is my understanding that the issue of admissibility of an amendment is based on the essential character of the bill as it was proposed, not as it has been amended. So the advice that I have received in terms of the admissibility of some of the other potential amendments will not change as a result of the change to the adoption of amendment NDP-1. That is the first thing.
As to the second question, regardless of what else happens subsequently with the other amendments, when this bill gets reported back to the House, if at that time it is challenged and if at that time the Speaker decides to uphold the ruling of the chair, which is that amendment NDP-1 is in fact inadmissible, then it is my understanding that amendment NDP-1 is reversed, is taken out of the bill, and the bill does not come back to committee but then goes forward to be dealt with by the House in that form.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
May I ask a further question, then?
You have received advice on the admissibility of the other amendments that have been brought forward. Is that correct?
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Are you prepared to share that advice with us at this time?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
It's my understanding that the members of the committee who have put forward amendments have the right to ask the legislative clerk whether he or she feels that their amendment is in order or not. That advice has been provided to me on all of them, but I remind the committee that I'm not required to abide by that advice, and that, in fact, you could imagine a situation where the clerk advises me that something is inadmissible but the chair disagrees and actually allows it to go forward, or the reverse could also happen.
So as I said, if whoever has put the amendment forward wishes to ask the clerk whether in his opinion it's admissible or not, he will give that to you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the way I will rule.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
The information that we will need now is whether the subsequent amendments that are put forward are admissible within the context of amendment NDP-1 having been passed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I am told that the advice that was provided by the legislative clerk will not change on the subsequent amendments on the basis of what has already happened, but that does not necessarily mean that the chair cannot change.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I'm just trying to absorb this.
What you're saying is that the clerk may have given you advice but you may choose not to take his advice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
That's the first point, yes.
The second point is that when one amendment passes, I have asked the clerk whether his advice may change in terms of admissibility as a consequence of that, and he has told me, no, his advice will not change, because his advice is based on the original bill and he does not give advice on the basis of the admissibility of a subsequent amendment due to the adoption of a previous amendment.
That was what I was whispering to him about a few minutes ago, trying to get that clarified, although you can easily imagine a situation where it would be relevant information.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Again, I'll just remind members, and then I'll go to Ms. Crowder, that those are all good and relevant questions, but we've gone a little afield from Mr. Bruinooge's motion.
Ms. Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
You can't pull them apart--that's the problem with it now--because the amendment....
I was quite surprised to see that the Conservatives did not support the withdrawal of my amendment--
Conservative
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
You did not provide consent for me to withdraw the amendment. Right?
So we now are in a position where we have an amendment that has passed that....
I would suggest that what we probably need to do at this point is suspend so that we can review the amendments in light of the amendment that passed, because there may be further amendments that are required. There may be amendments that we have submitted that we are going to need to get advice on that no longer fit within the amendment that was passed.
I'm not sure how we can proceed, given what we have in front of us at this point in time, without some further advice and guidance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I have two comments.
First, in terms of process, as the chair I can only presume that all members of the committee are acting in good faith whenever they make a decision or vote on something.
In this case I could be referring to the decision at our last meeting to overturn the chair's ruling, or I could be referring to the member seeking unanimous consent to withdraw the motion, or I could be referring to the vote that was actually taken on NDP-1. I must proceed on that basis, that people are acting in good faith.
In terms of what this means, I think there are a couple of things. I would suggest to members of the committee that you do have enough information to vote on Mr. Bruinooge's motion. I think that once that is dealt with one way or the other, then the question becomes whether the committee members who previously put motions forward want to actually move them. As you know, even though we have the package of proposed amendments, they're not actually in play until the proponent actually moves them and puts them on the floor and there would be some discussion.
I know that some of the amendments that have been put forward deal with other parts of the bill and we may in fact be able to deal with those. So I'm certainly not willing to suspend this meeting before we deal with Mr. Bruinooge's motion because I don't think it's necessary after the fact. We're 45 minutes from being finished here.
At that point, I guess we'll see whether any of the members who have put forward amendments are comfortable putting them forward. They don't necessarily have to be in the order with which they were assembled by the staff, and we'll try to get through as much as we can. I suspect that we won't get through it all today and that there will be ample time for all members to consider the consequences of the decisions that have been made today and what's the best way to proceed.
Are there any other...?
Ms. Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I would like to make a comment about your comment about good faith. I certainly want to assure my colleagues that the amendments that I put forward were absolutely put forward in good faith.
My request to challenge the ruling of the chair at our previous meeting was based exactly on the kinds of things that you talked about today, that the chair, he or she, can actually not take the advice of the legislative clerk and determine that something is admissible, even though the advice has been that it is not. We know that there is a fallibility around the decision-making process.
After the debate that we had on Tuesday and with some subsequent information that I received, that's why in good faith I came back to the committee today to request withdrawal of my amendment, because after hearing the conversation and comments, I felt that there were other amendments that were far more appropriate than the one I had put forward.
However, with the lack of unanimous consent to withdraw the motion, we were then put in the position that we had to vote on it. Since I do think that there is merit in the motion, the amendment that I originally put forward, I could do nothing but support it.
I believe we are in a bit of a pickle, though, because--you're right--we don't have to consider these other amendments, but now that this one has passed, I would suggest that there is other work we need to do in light of this first amendment that has been passed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I will respond to that briefly, and then hopefully we can move on.
I hope that members will recall that at the beginning of the last meeting, before we started our clause-by-clause, I gave a quick explanation of how, as the chair, I was going to proceed in terms of my management style for clause-by-clause.
I said at that time that I had sought advice from several sources on the admissibility of some of the amendments that were put forward. On some of them I received an almost unanimous opinion on one side or the other, and on others I received mixed opinions. That's why I said at that time that my approach would be that if I was convinced that the amendment was admissible, I would permit it. If I had either been convinced that it was inadmissible or had been given strong arguments and was undecided, then I would consider it inadmissible, recognizing that the committee has the right and the opportunity to overturn that and to proceed anyway.
That was the way I had approached NDP-1, and that's the way I'll continue to deal with this. In terms of going forward, I still believe that if we can deal with Mr. Bruinooge's motion, then rather than taking a categorical position that there are none of these other amendments that we can talk about in light of this until we have had time to digest the actions that have been taken by the committee, I would like to make an effort to go forward. If we get to the point where the committee agrees that we need to suspend because we can't go forward, then we'll deal with that at that time, but I don't want to presume this before we start that process.
Mr. Russell.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
By the way, I must commend you on your chairmanship thus far. Through some very complex issues, you have been clear certainly to me, and that is certainly appreciated. I thank you for that.
I am voting against this particular motion that Mr. Bruinooge is putting forward.
That might come as a shock to those on the opposite side of the committee table. I would just calm down a little if it hits you too hard. Take it gently, take it gently.
I certainly am going to vote against this particular motion. Basically it's a motion for closure, and there's a presumption in that particular motion that the committee is not diligently doing its work and moving forward in a methodical, thoughtful way. Therefore, certainly I would not be supportive of this particular motion. We're doing what we're supposed to do as a committee, and we will continue to do what we're supposed to do as a committee, which is to seriously consider legislation that comes before us and to propose amendments where we see fit and to debate those amendments, and if there is a question on a particular amendment, then we vote one way or the other.
I would also make the comment that this particular motion, like so much of what the Conservative government has done thus far on this bill, is to propose a way forward that is going to be met with opposition. They're designing the process, in my view, even through this motion, that would see this particular bill fail. In fact, they have done this in terms of the first tabling of the bill without any consultation with any first nations leadership or any first nations organizations on the drafting of the bill, without the involvement or input of the people who are going to be most affected by it.
Then when the committee--by the vote of the committee, which should have been respected--said, “Listen, we have all summer, now with the break in June, for you to consult with aboriginal people, to listen to the voice of aboriginal people, and to give that voice expression in terms of the legislation”....
Remember, this is not something totally foreign. The government had just recently decided to consult on Bill C-30, the specific claims act.
So why has the government chosen in this particular instance not to consult, not to collaborate, in the drafting of this legislation, but has chosen to collaborate on another piece of legislation when they knew the obstacle was there already? They knew the obstacle was there back in June, May--let's go back to April, March. If you go back in time, it was there. But what happened? We even prorogued. Legislation went out. They came back with virtually the same bloody bill, understanding that these obstacles were still there.
So in terms of the motion, they're designing the motion for it to fail. They're designing the process to fail. It is only for some political gamesmanship. That's exactly what's happening here.
I do question at times, and I think rightfully so, the motive behind the approach that the government is taking in terms of whether they really want to see the bill repealed at all, or whether they're just putting it forward as some symbolic move that they know will never happen because they're designing the process to fail.
I would say that for those reasons we will continue our work as a committee in the way that we have carried it out for the last number of weeks and months on this particular piece of legislation, and I would vote against the motion that Mr. Bruinooge has put forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you, Mr. Russell, and thank you for the kind words. I hope they're not premature.
At this point I have no other speakers on the list, so I would like to call the question on Mr. Bruinooge's motion.
