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
Yes.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
We are back on clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry as amended?
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, could we have a two-minute break at this point, please?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I would ask members to go back to their seats. I have some information for you.
As some of you may have noticed, clause 1 is the essence of this bill, so our next step in the process is to ask if clause 1 shall carry as amended. Okay? That's the vote I'm going to take care of in a minute. But I just want to explain what the options are, as we have some advice to offer in terms of what the subsequent options might be.
Obviously, if the committee chooses to vote in favour of clause 1 as amended, then clause 1 will be as amended, and we will proceed to other amendments in the manner we were speaking of a few minutes ago. If clause 1 as amended is defeated, then there will be no clause 1 at all in what we report back to the House, as clause 1 will have been eliminated. While some of you might say that doesn't make any sense substantively, that's the way that it works procedurally. At that point, the government may seek to restore clause 1 in its original form, not in the amended form.
If you want a decision tree, the committee is about to vote on clause 1 as amended; and if clause 1 as amended carries, then NDP-1 replaces clause 1 of the bill, as it was presented to us, and we would carry forward with all of the complications that would entail. If clause 1 as amended is actually defeated and does not carry, then the bill we are discussing will not have a clause 1. At clause 1 the bill will just say that clause 1 has been deleted, which will bring its own set of complications in terms of how we deal with subsequent amendments. But that's what will happen.
If, in the second case, the committee decides to overturn clause 1, and this goes back to the House without clause 1, then at that point the government does have the opportunity to bring forward, or attempt to restore, clause 1 as originally written, and it would be voted on. But I would point out that would be the initial version, not the amended version. A motion to restore clause 1 in its original form would be both debatable and amendable in the House; so conceivably, at that point, the House could choose to pass it or to amend it.
Ms. Neville was first, and then Mr. Russell.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
In the eventuality there's a motion to bring clause 1 back and it's debatable and votable in the House, does it then go back to the committee, or does it stay in the House?
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
As a further question, there are other amendments here that talk about clause 1; but if the above eventuality takes place, then the other amendments would basically be useless, because there would be no clause 1 to amend.
Is that right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'm not sure “useless” is the right word--“disconnected”, certainly.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
As I see it, there are some other amendments that talk about clause 1, right? There are other amendments dealing with clause 1, but if this vote happened, and clause 1 as amended did not pass, would clause 1 already have been deleted at that particular point?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
If, in the vote we're about to take, clause 1 as amended does not carry, then from that point forward we will be considering a bill that does not have a clause 1; it will just say, clause 1 is deleted.
Now, I don't want to go too far down the road of hypotheticals, because each step has several options and it quickly becomes a very large tree of options. I guess that's not to say one of the other amendments we are about to consider might in itself reintroduce some meaning back into the bill—if that makes any sense.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell, and then Ms. Keeper.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I guess it's more hypothetical, but I wanted to know, if we are able to do amendments in the House, are those then bound by the same rules--they cannot be substantive amendments and would be subject to being the same types of amendments that are allowed in committee?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Yes, it's my understanding that the rules are the same. I guess the only difference would be that if the House considered an amendment and there was a question of admissibility, the Speaker would rule on that at that time and it would immediately be dealt with.
Part of our problem is that we have to go through five steps to find out whether what we did on the first step is admissible or not, whereas when this is in the House, if there's an issue with admissibility, the Speaker is the arbiter of that. So if the Speaker rules it inadmissible, it is. I don't think the House can vote to overturn the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker's ruling would be final, and then you could proceed with subsequent discussion.
Ms. Keeper.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are doing an excellent job.
If he does rule, would the subsequent discussion then take place back at committee?
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
No, it would take place in the House. Would that be on the bill in its entirety?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
It's my understanding that the bill has been referred to committee, the committee will go through its process, and when the bill is returned to the House, the House will deal with it. But it will not, in any case, be returned to the committee.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
But in the case that the amended clause is defeated, then we have no clause, right?
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Then the government could possibly seek to restore clause 1, right?
Liberal
