No.
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.
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.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
It would be in the House, but it would be...sorry.
If this committee votes to delete clause 1 and it goes back to the House, and the government chooses to reintroduce clause 1 as it was originally stated, that would lead to a debate in the House, where there is debate and the opportunity to amend it. Okay?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Yes, to amend the bill at that point. At that point it could reintroduce amendment NDP-1, it could put anything in there at that time. I mean, people can bring forward amendments in the House in the same way that members of this committee can bring forward amendments.
The critical difference at that point would be that if there was a question of admissibility--
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
--the Speaker would be able to rule on it. And if it was inadmissible, then it would just be inadmissible, and they would carry on from there. We wouldn't get into this situation that this committee possibly is going to find itself in, that we would be discussing subsequent amendments, not sure whether the first amendment that has been made is actually in order or not.
Conservative
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I understand the predicament we're in. However, I think this can be quickly settled by a vote. So again, I would ask that we get the chance to go further with some of the other debate that we have. We've already voted down my motion to extend hours. I'd prefer to have the opportunity at least to get into amendment NDP-2, to begin that debate today, as we have only one more day before Christmas to work on Bill C-21.
I would just ask members to call the question on this.
Conservative
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, I'm having a really hard time voting on clause 1 without understanding the implications of subsequent amendments that are put should clause 1 pass, fail, whatever.
I don't know whether it is appropriate to ask either Ms. Hurley or the legislative clerk or whomever that, before we do this kind of vote, we understand the implications of subsequent amendments that have been put forward by the government, by any other party here, on an amended clause 1.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I can respond to that.
I totally understand what you're asking. My answer is that I cannot presume which of the amendments that have been placed before us will actually be moved by the committee member who brought them forward, and whether some of them will be moved or not. The second layer in this decision tree is that some of those motions may be ruled inadmissible, and if they are ruled as inadmissible, they may drop away, or if the committee again decides to challenge the ruling of the chair and overturn that ruling, then we'll have a second go-round of this.
We're discussing something that may in fact be inadmissible in the first place. There are 14 amendments, and we're still dealing with the first one. I believe it's impossible to try to identify what is going to happen two or three steps down the road, because there are so many options at each step.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Can I continue?
You have been very fair and forthright, and I do thank you.
I feel like right now we're driving with our eyes closed, and I don't like doing that. What we're doing here is important--it's important for everybody--and I think it's important that we have some kind of understanding.
I respect what you're saying, and perhaps this is not the place to do it. Perhaps what's needed is an informal meeting, either as a group with the legislative clerk or individually with the legislative clerk and you, to try to sort our way through it.
I think we've made some errors along the way already. In a mood of...I was going to use the word “reconciliation”, but I'm not sure that's the right one. In an effort of cooperation to try to move this forward, respecting the fact that we have very profound differences on this bill in terms of the process--not the substantive, but the process--I would like to suggest that perhaps we adjourn at this point and reconvene an informal meeting or...however, I leave it to your discretion in consultation.
That way we know what we're doing. I don't like driving with my eyes closed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Could I have one moment, please?
I have been advised that while I have called the question on clause 1, that would not preclude someone from making a motion of adjournment at this point. That motion is not debatable. It would require a majority but not an unanimous vote in favour of.
Ms. Neville has moved a motion of adjournment.
(Motion agreed to)
The meeting is adjourned.
