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.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
So someone else has to amend it. We're on my motion, but you amend it. All right.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We can continue the debate, but my preference, committee members, is to at least dispose of the subamendment first.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is a point or order or what, but perhaps we could step back and have a decision that the steering committee is the advisory committee; that it advises; that you don't vote at a steering committee or then all of this is moot; that it is just an advisory committee that comes together to try to come up with a menu of things to bring to the main committee; then we don't have to vote and we don't have to worry about whether the parliamentary secretary has a vote or not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Based on the motions and the amendments that have been brought forward, the only way to get to that point in the discussion is actually to defeat the amendment and the subamendment to the motion.
What I would like to do, if it is the will of the committee, is to dispose of the amendments and the subamendments first.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Just in terms of working together, I think what Ms. Duncan and I think....
My experience over the years, as Brian was saying, is that--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I recognized you in the spirit that it was a point of order, but we do have a speaking list if we're going to continue debate.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I just think it's fair to everybody to understand this. I don't like votes at committees, because going by consensus is the way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Bennett, I have to shut you down. I have to honour the speaking order. I do appreciate it, but it wasn't a point of order. I'll make sure that you are on the speaking list.
Mr. Rickford.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of points here.
First of all, I certainly hope and intend that the role of subcommittee will be what it has traditionally been: to plan an agenda. I don't anticipate scenarios where they vote, although I have been a parliamentary secretary and voted at subcommittee in the modern day. I completely appreciate and understand Brian's earlier intervention that this has been an evolution of the parliamentary secretary position becoming more entrenched in the committee process. I take those points, and I appreciate them very much.
Just peremptorily, I'm saying that it's my belief...and it's certainly been my effort and the effort of this side of the table that we never get into a situation in subcommittee where there's voting. But I can say respectfully to my friends across the way that under the previous conditions we were in, in the 40th legislature, we consistently actually did vote at subcommittee because so often there seemed to be so many differences. So this is really just a mechanism, if you will, to deal with those kinds of scenarios.
Ultimately, Mr. Chair, I share the prevailing concern that we're in motion, amendment, subamendment. There are a couple of things, in my mind, that deal with this. One, if we can't come to the consensus on the subamendments, then we can vote on the main motion, and it will not be consistent with the side of this table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, this is where we're at, as far as I can understand as the chair, and this is what I am going to now enforce.
We've had a motion that was brought forward to the table by Ms. Duncan. Then there was an amendment brought forward by Mr. Rickford, and then subsequently a subamendment to that amendment by Mr. Rickford again.
I am going to now enforce that any conversation at this table only deal with the subamendment. We will then dispose of that. I'm going to enforce that we no longer speak to the broader issues but simply to the subamendment.
Once people have completed their discussions, we will go to a vote with regard to the subamendment, get back to the amendment, and then hopefully the main motion, or subsequent amendments if necessary.
Mr. Seeback....
Oh, pardon me. Ms. Bennett was on the list first.
Again, we're speaking to the subamendment only.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I believe the suggestion by Mr. Rickford was that at subcommittee, the chair would not have a vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay.
So there is no subamendment. We're then at the amendment. The amendment is the text that Mr. Rickford added to Ms. Duncan's main motion.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
The context of my concern is literally the devolution of Parliament. What Mr. Masse is describing, I think...I was in this room for the defence committee, and to see a parliamentary secretary arrive with a work plan for a committee, which the committee is supposed to vote on, is unacceptable, I think, in our parliamentary system. Therefore, all my concerns, whether we're talking about an amendment or a subamendment, are about making sure that is not possible and not part of the culture of this committee.
That's where I'm coming from. That's all I have to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I just want to steer everybody to the amendment.
If people have comments, we'll get back to the main motion, and depending on how it's amended or not amended, we'll have those broader discussions.
Are there committee members who would like to speak to the amendment? The next people on the speaking list are Mr. Seeback and then Mr. Masse. I would just ask that if members have comments to make that they be with regard to the amendment.
September 27th, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
The subcommittee is supposed to be a steering committee, and in order to be that, it actually has to get work done and make decisions. If the subcommittee operates only by consent and there isn't consent on something and it has to be brought back to the main committee, that's just a waste of time.
We're here to try to expeditiously move through things. We have to have a subcommittee that can make decisions so that the whole committee can get work done. To me that's why the amendment makes sense: we can have decisions at the subcommittee and we don't have to continuously come back to the committee and say we couldn't reach a decision, and chew up more committee time trying to make a decision about a decision.
I think this amendment makes an enormous amount of sense.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Trying to find some consensus, I wonder whether Mr. Rickford would consider adding the extra Conservative member but not having them vote. That allows four members to be there, two Conservatives, the two vice-chairs, and then obviously the chair could make the decision at the end of the day. That would allow some type of compromise, and the parliamentary secretary could attend but wouldn't have the vote. That would be the one additional Conservative.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Are there any other comments before we move to a vote on the amendment?
Mr. Rickford.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
I actually appreciate that, Brian. I think I should make it clear that I don't necessarily want to shift that onus onto the chair. I think that mathematically it gives rise to a lingering contention that one Conservative and the chair vote, but it doesn't “majoralize”, if you will, a final decision-making mechanism. That would be my only critique of it, but I think it is a good effort to seek some consensus.