Evidence of meeting #2 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
It's right here in what we had last year: “the parliamentary secretary, who will not have a vote”. It says right here. Your proposal is reversing that tradition in this committee. Ms. Duncan asked you why, and I don't think you've explained.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
I was actually saying that during my intervention I would give an explanation. That was a good segue, but it was her turn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Rickford, I want you to be sure that you complete your time. I was uncertain if Ms. Bennett was coming forward with a point of order. It wasn't a point of order.
Please, complete your point. Dr. Bennett is the only one left on the speaking list after you've completed.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Sure. Thank you.
The reason for the parliamentary secretary vote is nothing more than a safeguard for the interests of this committee in its current composition, as is reflected in the House. I don't anticipate, and I'm hopeful that this sort of scenario will never arise.
I'm not interested, respectfully, in traditions, particularly when the frame of reference is from the 40th legislature, where other parties are mentioned. It has very little to do with reflecting the conditions we all served under in the last Parliament. That's pretty straightforward.
I think I may have gotten my wires crossed with Linda to the extent that the frame of reference for discussions on routine motions was not the Standing Orders as they existed from the last session. They could never be that, because they reflected a minority government and minorities at every committee.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
In the last Parliament there were three members of the opposition and two members of the government, neither of whom really voted at the beginning. The chair didn't really have a vote and the parliamentary secretary didn't really have a vote. There was an approach by consensus.
We now are having proposed that on the steering committee the government have 60% of the membership, and they have 40% of the Parliament. It just makes no sense at all.
It's a very bad beginning to this committee, Mr. Chair. The parliamentary secretary has still not explained why he needs a vote. He never had one before. Why does he need it now that you're actually in a majority position?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
As committees, we are masters of our own destiny.
As you know, Ms. Bennett, committees vary, in some cases significantly, with regard to routine motions. Just to speak frankly from my experience in the last Parliament, the parliamentary secretary did receive a vote on the committee of which I was a vice-chair in the last Parliament.
It varies from committee to committee. This committee can decide its own destiny, but I'm hoping we can get through at least one routine motion today. I would like to complete them today, if there's any way we can do that.
Mr. Masse, you're next on the speaking list.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
When I arrived here in 2002, there was a Liberal majority government and there were no parliamentary secretaries at all involved in committees. They were independent.
Mr. Rickford is privy to information the rest of us are not. That taints the discussions and also the makeup of what you do at committee, because for sometimes really good reasons and sometimes unintentional reasons, sometimes there is motivation....
In 2004 it was the Martin administration that first introduced the parliamentary secretary to committees. That departed from Canadian historical traditions. From that, what we've seen--and I think what we're seeing here as a sensitivity--is that it has become further entrenched, to the point where it's even subcommittee business that we're arguing over. This reminds me of my city council days, when you're arguing on a four-way stop for two or three hours versus a deal of a couple of million dollars. The reality at the end of the day is that the subcommittee reports to the main committee, and the main committee makes the decisions.
But I just wanted to put this on the record. I know that Mr. Rickford has to do his job. At the same time, this is where the problem is emerging. Committees were independent of the PS position. No offence to the individual PS, but it did have an effect upon what takes place and how things take place.
I would suggest that you remove that element of it. They're still ultimately decisions of the main committee. You'll find some consensus I think at that point, and hopefully other stuff can move forward.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I want to echo what Mr. Masse said and as I suggested, which is that we stay with the parliamentary secretary being a member of the subcommittee but not having a vote. I would propose a friendly amendment--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay. I should just jump in--and I do apologize--because it was I who started suggesting we should have friendly amendments. I've been told that in our structure we don't have such a thing as a friendly amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. Well, you can have an unfriendly amendment. It's an amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
So it's simply an amendment. I do apologize. It was I who was leading you down the garden path.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm hoping it's a friendly amendment and that decisions can be pursued on a consensus basis. Let me explain. What happened in our environment committee was that if we could not reach consensus, we simply reported back, and the committee then discussed and voted on the agenda item.
I think that's the best way to resolve it. That would be my suggestion as the compromise.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
What we have now is the motion. We have an amendment. We have an amendment on the amendment by the amender. Now we have yet a third amender. So I suspect what you're doing is striking significant portions of the amendment that.... I think what we had best do is dispose of some of these amendments before we start amending...so we can come back to the main motion. I don't--
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We do have the main motion. There has been an amendment suggested by Mr. Rickford, subsequently amended yet again. What would be helpful, and if I can--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Can we dispose of the amendment that was brought forward to the main motion first before we bring substantive amendments that are headed in a different direction?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The rest of us are at disadvantage because we don't have the motion--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Yes. We have to do the subamendments first. The motion was...the text that Ms. Duncan read.... The subamendment and the amendment we would have to now vote on. Then, when we get back to the main motion again, we can entertain additional amendments. You're no longer discussing amendments to the subamendment; you're talking now about amendments to the main motion.