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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to see some inclusion here. It bothers me. Mr. Lemay has said that there has never been a vote before. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that there is going to be a vote, but we just want the opportunity if there ever has to be one. We'd just like to have a vote. We'd just like democracy.

We see other committees. This is a good working relationship, but we're seeing what's basically transpiring right now, and it's being railroaded where we don't have a voice or a say in the subcommittee. That bothers me. I'm not sure if we're in camera or out of camera right now--

[An hon. member]

We're not in camera.

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

--but to hear this and the position that Mr. Lemay, Ms. Crowder, and Ms. Neville have, that bothers me. When Mr. Lemay mentioned your position, about you being chair, your position is to be neutral. I don't think that's very fair. I don't think that's just, because it doesn't give us, really, a voice in the subcommittee when there has to be neutrality. We just want another hand if one side says black and the other says white. It doesn't matter; we can meet in the middle, but we could also agree to disagree.

We're now in the 21st century, and we're not progressing like other committees have been. We're going to be getting stagnant and staying in one place, and we're not progressing further down the line and keeping in touch with other committees. How do we progress? How do we get our voice across? We could be sitting here and it would be “point of order, point of order” every time, and then what work are we getting done? We could debate this. I could talk for an hour just on this very issue of debate.

Now, when I sit here and hear Mr. Lemay saying “let's go to a vote, let's go to a vote”, I don't think that's fair. I don't. I think that's rude, but that's my opinion. If it does come down to a vote, I will be very unhappy.

At points, in making this committee work in the spirit of our House leaders, I think decorum is important and to work together.... I don't see this as an olive branch being provided right now. I think it's just another wall or barrier whereby we can't work together as parliamentarians. This committee does work, and just to get a vote.... I don't see the issue of not allowing us to vote. If there has never been a vote, what's there to say that in the future there may not be a vote or necessarily have to be a vote...? But open dialogue, open communication, is the parliamentarian's way.

My personal opinion, and this is only mine, is that I'd like to have a say on what takes place in subcommittee, being the only first nation member here.... I think we should have a say. Todd is aboriginal. I respect that as well, but I still think, being first nations, that I should have a say on what takes place in this committee, since we are supposed to be representing aboriginals as a whole. I don't feel I'm getting that voice across or being able to voice for my constituents, for Canadians from any province, what they have to say or the direction in which, as parliamentarians, we have to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The subcommittee is a creature of the committee. By definition it is smaller--sub--and in some ways it is subservient to the main committee as well. It has certain rules and procedures that govern its work and the way it functions.

Never have the structure or the workings of the subcommittee interfered with the voice or the vote or the workings of the main committee, the standing committee as constituted. In fact, every report of the subcommittee comes back to the main committee, and in fact every member has an opportunity to debate it and to vote on it. That has been the experience for the last five years.

The subcommittee structure and its workings may have contributed to this committee functioning in such a collegial way and in fact moving forward with its work in a diligent manner.

I think all the arguments others are using to now change the subcommittee rules will have the opposite effect. In fact the structure we have has facilitated the voice. It has added to the voice of people at the subcommittee meeting. Our subcommittee structure allows every member around this table in the full committee setting to cast a vote about its reports and its workings.

People have brought up the issue of witnesses. Witnesses aren't determined solely by the subcommittee. The subcommittee may present a prospective list of witnesses. Then there are those who request to be witnesses. Then there are members around this committee who want to put witnesses on a list the whole committee reviews.

There has been nothing in the subcommittee's workings and nothing in the structure of the subcommittee as it now exists that has in any way prohibited someone's voice from being heard on a particular issue or their vote being cast at this committee level. Never has that happened.

To be quite clear, a number of members have served on this committee for two or three years or more and are now voicing concerns about the subcommittee. This is the first time I've heard such concerns that they are not being allowed to carry out parliamentary responsibilities or that their voices are not being heard. I can't recollect this being a part of the conversation before. There may have been a conversation around the parliamentary secretary position, but as Mr. Lemay pointed out, in fact it was opposition parties who wanted to have that voice at the subcommittee meeting to facilitate the work of this particular committee.

So if the structure works, if it's doing what it's supposed to do, I don't see any reason why it should change now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

I would just remind the committee that at the moment the question before us is really whether the committee wishes to charge the subcommittee on agenda and procedure with the responsibility of developing a draft work plan, with the intention that the draft work plan be reported back to the committee.

With that, we'll go to Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

To go back to what Mr. Russell was just saying, in my opinion, we already have the basic makeup of the subcommittee, as we've already discussed. If I don't hear an invitation to the rest of us to come and be part of it when that happens--and I understand what you mean by a subcommittee--it's as though people from either the government side or the opposition side are not being asked to participate. I guess that's really where I am right now. That's my position. Never before was that option available, and now we're discussing it. If that were possible, I would like to be able to contribute to that. That's my point. As I say, it was never given to us before, so if we are discussing it now, I think we should talk about it a little more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Just as a point of history on this, my recollection is that in the last session--and typically the routine motions include empowering the use of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure--there was no discussion on it. It was part of the routine motions, and that's just the way the committee proceeded.

So thank you for pointing that out.

We'll go to Mr. Clarke, followed by Ms. Glover.

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

I think this is just, as Mr. Russell mentioned.... I'm a parliamentarian, and this is a learning curve for me, sitting on this committee.

I want to learn; don't get me wrong. As learning progresses, we expand our wings. Sometimes we want to take flight and try it, and see what happens. But to see this as the only committee....

Maybe the clerk can clarify this for me. Is this the only committee that doesn't have that opportunity to participate in subcommittees? I'd like some clarification there before we go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I can probably answer that question for you, Mr. Clarke. I alluded to it earlier. Each committee decides how it wishes to organize its business around the work plans. Some committees choose the subcommittee approach and others choose to put all of those discussions in the full committee.

I don't have a list of which ones choose to go either way, but I do know, having had some experience.... I have worked in committees that have done it either way. As we said earlier, it is entirely up to this committee how it chooses to do its work.

Is that okay? Okay.

Let's go to Ms. Glover, followed by Mr. Weston.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I just want to be clear that I'm not suggesting we disband the subcommittee. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I have suggested here today is that we only defer to subcommittee when we as a group don't have the time to do the work at hand. And today we have lots of time to do the work at hand. That's all this discussion is about--today. Today let's get the work done instead of excusing everyone, because they want to take part.

I am in full agreement with the rest of you that a subcommittee is something that, absolutely, if we want to have a subcommittee, we can decide to do. It's our committee. But right now we have the time to discuss business. We have another hour. I'm suggesting that we do it as a group and defer to subcommittee only when we don't have time to do it as a group.

My second suggestion is that when we do go to subcommittee, we delete that part about not having a vote and just make it fair, that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right. That's another question.

We'll go to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

I just think that because it's the first meeting of a reconstituted committee, probably the most important thing we have to discuss is what we will be discussing.

I know that when I fly back to the west coast Thursday night, I'm going to be asked by my wife and three kids, “So what are you doing on this new committee?” I'm going to say, “Well, I don't have a clue. It's all being decided by somebody else.” My ten-year-old is going to ask me, “How come?”, I'm going to say, “Well, that's just the way it is”, and she's going to say, “Daddy, is that why you spend the time away from us the way you do?”

I would just say that I would rather be able to participate, on this occasion at least, in looking at what we're going to be occupying ourselves with for the next months to come.

That's why I would like to participate in the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. You have the question before you. Again, it is that the committee charge the subcommittee on agenda and procedure with the responsibility to develop a draft work plan for the committee's work plan for the fall and report back to the committee.

This actually flowed out of Mr. Russell's question. That's what we've been debating here. Would you like me to read the question again?

[An hon. member]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is that the committee charge the subcommittee on agenda and procedure with the responsibility to develop a draft work plan for the fall session and report back to the main committee.

(Motion agreed to)

We now have the motion proposed by Ms. Glover. That was specifically to the issue of the routine motions. I'll ask the clerk if we have a copy of the routine motions. Does anybody need a copy of the routine motions? We'll try to get you some and I'll go orally here if I can.

Currently the routine motions read as follows in the section for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure: “That the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs, a member of the opposition party, and the parliamentary secretary, who will not have a vote.”

That's the way it currently reads. Essentially Ms. Glover's motion was to remove the last clause or phrase coming after the comma, which reads, “who will not have a vote”.

Ms. Glover, did you want to speak to that motion again? Then we'll consider the question before us.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

It is with great disappointment that I'm going to speak on it, because I truly feel that the member sitting to my right ought to be allowed to participate.

Being that they've been excluded by the members of the opposition parties, at the very least I would think that the government has a say in the subcommittee. If in fact the government doesn't have a say in the subcommittee, then this committee is made up of three people and the chair, who is to remain neutral, and that is not my idea of democracy. That is not my idea of committees that are fair and balanced and willing to work together.

So I would hope that everyone here supports this motion, at the very least so that the subcommittee is fair and balanced and allows everyone the same vote. That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

Are there other interventions on the question?

[An hon. member]

Vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion negatived)

Thank you very much, members.

Now we will proceed to Monsieur Lemay.

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

I move that the meeting be adjourned and that the subcommittee meet right away. That is my motion and it is not debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. We have a motion.... Correct. I was just about to say that. Monsieur Lemay has proposed a motion to adjourn. It is not a debatable motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The motion is carried. This meeting is hereby adjourned.

As we informed you, we sent notice of a subcommittee meeting to continue on in the time remaining for this meeting. We will ask the subcommittee members to hang back and we'll consider the work plan.

Thank you.