Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Allow me to explain my position to the parliamentary secretary. I attended the meetings of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure last year and the subcommittee never held a vote. We always operated by consensus. If a vote is necessary, the matter is referred back to the main committee which ultimately has decision-making authority.

I for one enjoyed having the parliamentary secretary in attendance, because he served as a go-between between the government and the committee and let us know, for example, what we could expect from an upcoming bill. A good example of the benefits of his presence was that generally speaking, the committee would ask the parliamentary secretary about the minister's availability to testify.

I don't recall the subcommittee having to hold a vote. It always operated by consensus. That's why we liked to have the parliamentary secretary around, because he was not entitled to vote. If, for whatever reason, a vote was required, then the other four members voted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Madame Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Chair, last time around it didn't require an amendment. The parliamentary secretary often sat in on the subcommittee meetings without changing the structure that was in the routine motion. The parliamentary secretary would come and provide some background or whatever but was really there for advice on what was happening on the government's part. There was no need to change the routine motion. The subcommittee agreed that it was okay for the parliamentary secretary to sit in. It was more informal. I don't know why we would monkey around with something that was working quite well. Just leave it as it is without actually changing the formal routine motion. As it stands, it worked. Why would we fool around with it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We presently have in fact two proposals that have been put on the floor, one by government members and the other from Monsieur Bélanger, I think. I sense from the discussion that there isn't any more discussion on the first amendment, which proposed an additional government member, but is there any more on that particular amendment? We'll maybe ask the question on that and then move to the second suggestion.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think procedurally we're working on the subamendment that Mr. Bélanger presented, that the person be non-voting. I'm prepared to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I didn't propose anything, Mr. Chairman. It was my colleague Mr. Bagnell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's fine. It was Mr. Bagnell, then.

The subamendment was proposed by Mr. Bagnell to amend the amendment, presumably to remove the suggestion of “the government” and replace it with “a non-voting parliamentary secretary”. Is there any more discussion on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The paragraph on the subcommittee is therefore amended, and we'll make the addition of the parliamentary secretary in a non-voting capacity.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think procedurally we need to go back to the amendment and adopt the amendment that I presented, to add a person. Right now we've just agreed that he be non-voting. Now we have to add the fact that we'll have the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

We've agreed on the subamendment. Now we go to the question of the amendment.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. We're now accepting that the subcommittee include the PS in a non-voting capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Correct.

Committee members, if you'll indulge me here, and if I can go back, what I had read and what I understood in the subamendment from Mr. Bagnell was to amend the proposed amendment, in fact removing the addition of the government member and substituting it for a non-voting parliamentary secretary. Okay? That's the effect of the subamendment that we just decided.

So we basically, for all intents and purposes, by accepting that, have in fact taken it away and the committee has reached an agreement on that. It's a moot point to go back to the initial amendment.

I don't know, Mr. Clerk, whether we need to in fact ratify that question, but certainly the agreement has been reached by the committee to do so.

So I think we're agreed on the subcommittee question. However, Mr. Albrecht, you had a proposed amendment for a reduced quorum.

Is it acceptable to proceed to that proposed amendment and deal with that question?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I just want to clarify that we're all agreed that the current subcommittee will include the parliamentary secretary in a non-voting capacity, because we haven't technically voted on that fact. But if we're agreed, then I'm okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Well, do we want to vote on the amended motion?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

No, I'm okay if everybody.... If we have it in writing that that's the agreement, I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, that's where we're at.

Now, you had another proposed amendment on the protocol regarding reduced quorum.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I would actually add to the reduced quorum that one government member also be included for the purpose of holding a meeting where there is a reduced quorum. Otherwise, the government has no representation at all in these situations.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Can I just ask for a point of clarification?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Given that the reduced quorum says that the chair be authorized, the chair is a government member.

[An hon. member]

Not always.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Well, at this committee the chair is a government member: Bruce Stanton belongs to the Conservative Party. So you already have a government member present, because it says that the chair be authorized to hold.... So I'm not sure why you need to add “government member” for this particular committee. I understand in other committees that the chairs are not always government members.

It's just a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Well, it is, and I suppose, Madam Crowder, it depends on what you consider the role of the chair to be in that regard, in line with Mr. Albrecht's comments. I mean, some might view that the chair really is there in a chairing capacity, not in a partisan capacity. It depends on your interpretation.

The proposal is to add that at least three members be present, including one member of the opposition and one member from the government. Is that correct?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

But my understand is that the meetings are at the call of the chair, and there is a provision, as we saw last time, where you could call extraordinary meetings. But if the meetings are at the call of the chair, then I would presume that the chair will do his work and make sure that his party members are going to be present before he calls the meeting.

Again, the chair is a government chair in this case, and although you're non-partisan in the chair, I presume you would do your due diligence and make sure that the government members were going to be present.