Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 29th, 2010

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking at the announcement. When the announcement was made, it was just prior to when the House rose. It was back on May 21, 2010, when the minister made the announcement. The program will come into effect. I'm just looking at the website and I've pulled up some interesting numbers, or just the dates. It was announced that on April 1, 2011, the food mail program will be replaced by the new food subsidy program, Nutrition North.

I'd just like some clarification from Mr. Lévesque. We are looking at a study on nutrition and how many meetings we are going to need. When looking at the website and at his motion, much of the information, from my understanding, is on the website.

Are we looking to clarify some of the tabs that were pulled up? Are we looking at the food mail program network, or are we looking at the destination points? Are we looking at the postal rates, shipments to businesses and government agencies, the funding, and the eligible and ineligible goods?

I'm just wondering. Three meetings might cover it. What is his suggestion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I'll take that as a question.

Mr. Lévesque, do you think we would need three meetings?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I think that will do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reiterate, as Mr. Russell said, that this is an important study. We've heard it many times in the House. The health and welfare of many of our aboriginal people, particularly when we're talking about diabetes and these kinds of things, is pressing and a priority issue.

I believe we have two hours today that we've all scheduled. If we can proceed with the work that Mr. Russell has suggested we do in the subcommittee, we might get it done today, and take advantage of the time that we do have. I would suggest that we do have a report that we're in the middle of trying to get through. I would suggest perhaps four meetings to go through the report and then move directly to finish this study, because you are already into the study and I believe it is a priority. Then we can continue with the motion that Ms. Neville put forward. There is now a motion that will be discussed, which Mr. Russell has put forward.

I think we ought to start with the report that we're well into, for which I would suggest maybe four meetings. I've seen the report. I don't think it's going to be very contentious. Then we can move to at least three meetings on this immediately following the report.

We ought to decide that here in committee today, so that we take advantage of the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're kind of gradually shifting into a discussion around the work plan. That's a question we can come to.

I would like to wrap up our consideration of the motion that's in front of us and then we'll come to this other question.

I have Ms. Crowder and Mr. Bagnell on the list.

Is this on the motion?

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

It is a point of clarification. My understanding was that we were going to adjourn the meeting and go into subcommittee to talk about the schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is correct. We gave notice to the members, the vice-chairs, and subcommittee members that the intent today, because we didn't have anything else scheduled, was that we could go directly to subcommittee after the main committee adjourned.

Mr. Bagnell, was that your question as well?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

That was part of my question. I was just going to emphasize how important this report is for me too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Of course.

Are there any other interventions on the motion as amended?

[An hon. member]

Question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The motion is adopted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lévesque.

On the issue of the work plan, Ms. Glover has suggested, given that we have an hour and 30 minutes remaining in this meeting, that we could use this time to consider the work plan in front of us. I'd be happy to take any comments on that suggestion and then we'll decide.

As members know, subcommittees are creatures of our own making. They are not compelled by the House. We have used the subcommittee procedure to set the agenda in this committee for some time. Other committees elect to do it differently. It is entirely up to us how we choose to proceed in this matter.

I have Ms. Crowder and Mr. Lemay. Ms. Crowder.

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

I was just going to say the subcommittee seems to have served us well. I think I would strongly encourage us to use the subcommittee and come back with some recommendations for the full committee, rather than take everybody's time here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, we studied Mr. Lévesque's motion, but we also have Mr. Russell's motion that we received, was translated, and complies with... If we were to agree to debate Mr. Russell's motion today, I have nothing against the subcommittee looking at how we would address this motion if it were adopted. I believe everyone received it. I am not sure whether we can start debating it today. At the very least, we would have already studied two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci.

Again, we're raising a different question here. We're going to try to do one at a time if we can. You have raised an interesting question as well.

Are there any other interventions on the question in terms of whether we wish to use the time in the main committee to consider the workplan for the fall?

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I agree with Ms. Crowder that the subcommittee works well and we should leave it to them to do the scheduling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I feel a little bit like a fish out of water, because I'm so used to committee members wanting to be included that I'm a little surprised to see committee members who don't want to take advantage of the two hours they have to have input on a subject. So I really feel like a fish out of water.

I believe it's important that we hear as many members as possible when we have the time. Subcommittees typically are used when we don't have enough time to do what we need to do in committee. They are not used to replace the committee. I would say that the fact that we have a subcommittee that doesn't vote and yet there's a routine order that says that we all get together except the parliamentary secretary doesn't vote.... I would like to bring a motion forward to deal with that, so that we can start off the subcommittees on the right foot, so to speak.

I am going to put my motion forward right now with regard to the subcommittees. That is, when we're talking about subcommittees there is a section that says that the subcommittee routine motions include everyone, except that the parliamentary secretary will not have a vote. My understanding is that your subcommittee is a discussion committee and you don't vote anyway. So we need to fix that motion.

So my motion is that the committee seek an amendment to the subcommittee routine motions to delete, after parliamentary secretary, the following: “who will not have a vote”. Therefore, the routine motion will read: That the subcommittee on procedure and agenda be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, a member of the other opposition party, and the parliamentary secretary. In that way, we at least have a subcommittee that is equal.

Then again, we need to go back to whether we use our time as a committee or we defer it to a subcommittee. I frankly want to hear all of your opinions. I think your opinions are valued. I think your opinions are worth while. If we ever run out of time, absolutely, I'm willing to be part of a subcommittee that decides these things, but I don't think it's impossible for us as a committee to do these things together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just before we proceed to the list of speakers, the motion to make the amendment to the routine motions is not a substantive motion, so it can be accepted under the rubric of committee business. So we can put it in front of the members here this afternoon. We will have to set it aside a moment until we make this final decision about moving into subcommittee.

I've got Mr. Russell, Ms. Crowder, and Mr. Lemay. Was there any other intervention on this question about whether we finish the meeting here today?

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My understanding is that we would adjourn committee business and move into subcommittee or steering committee business.

I've been on this committee I think for five years. We've operated in this way for the entire length of time. We seem to function very, very well as a committee, and we have achieved most of our goals in terms of getting through studies, dealing with our legislative responsibilities and legislation that has come before us. On the understanding that we would move into subcommittee today, I would suggest that is exactly what we do.

If at a later committee meeting we want to address motions dealing with the rules of the standing committee.... Even my particular motion was not received in the 48 hours, and I would have had to move it and get unanimous consent from the committee in order to have it heard. I was willing to defer that until we move into committee business again.

My feeling is to do what we had intended to do, move into the subcommittee, report back, and then deal with other motions at that particular time. Even though, Mr. Chair, I respect your ruling--you ruled that it's not a substantive motion and therefore doesn't require the 48 hours' notice--sometimes with these things it is nice to have a little heads up on what's coming down from a procedural basis.

That would be my recommendation, and that would seemingly be what my colleagues want to do today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Ms. Crowder.

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

I concur with Mr. Russell.

I think the other issue is that there is certainly no intention, from my experience in being on this committee for many years, to shut the rest of the committee members out. What has happened is the subcommittee does a lot of the hard work, comes back to the full committee with recommendations, and it is the full committee that decides on its agenda.

So in the best use of everybody's time, I would still urge us to continue with the steering committee, the subcommittee, and report back.

I agree with Mr. Russell's comments about the other motions.