Evidence of meeting #127 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
No, I called the vote. If you want me to get the green book out, I'll go get it.
If I call the vote on all previous questions, we start voting now. Then we go amendment-amendment-amendment to the main motion.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I had a chance to peruse the green book. It's not the first time this week, I might add.
On page 1068, in chapter 20 on committees, it says:
The motion “That this question be now put” is known as the previous question. In committee, motions for the previous question are inadmissible.
With all of that said, I know we have one more person on the speaking list. Then, hopefully, we can get to a vote on this.
Mr. Melillo, you're the next and perhaps last.
No. We have Mr. Melillo, and after that Monsieur Lemire and then Ms. Idlout.
October 31st, 2024 / 9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure if all members are back from the time out yet. Nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to take the floor.
I have a question about the subamendment brought forward by Ms. Atwin.
I understand we're still waiting for the text of it. I hope we'll be able to get that before we vote on it. As I heard it, my concern is that it places a two-week restriction on completing Bill C-61, which I think is very ambitious. I don't dispute the motive behind it—I'm getting the text now—but that would be a concern for me because, obviously, we have a lot of amendments, as Mr. Carr rightly pointed out. They're very technical, important amendments to improve the legislation and ensure it's the best it can be. I want to make sure this is the case.
I now have the text, so I will review it.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.
After that, we'll have Ms. Idlout.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my opinion, the issue is ministerial accountability. It's also important to point out that asking ministers questions is an opportunity for members of the opposition and the party in power to move issues forward and make sure the government is aware of things. Most importantly, public answers to these questions give us a clear idea of the ministers' intentions. They let us see if the private and public meetings we've held with them over the past few months have moved things forward. That's why it's important to get clear answers to our questions. That's not what happened at the last meeting, though.
I also get the impression that the Liberals are filibustering a bit today, even as they criticize us for not allowing the study of Bill C‑61 to move forward. That's kind of ironic, because if we had simply settled this issue an hour ago, we would already be studying Bill C‑61, and we wouldn't have wasted another meeting.
It's also worth noting that the government cannot be certain it will still be in power after the study of Bill C‑61.
That said, the questions I asked at the last meeting call for public answers that will tell us clearly whether the government has a formally stated intention to move forward on issues that are important to first nations. We want to know if we can trust the process or if we need to keep putting pressure on the government.
For these reasons, I will not be supporting the subamendment, but I will be supporting the motion to have the ministers appear over the next two weeks.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you.
This was just brought up. It's 9:10. It's a subamendment. This highlights the bill, which I agree with because Bill C-61 is very important to me, but I do have a question.
Will there be an amendment? This amendment, as written, requires the chair to produce a report to Parliament with a strong request to the ministers. Is this normally the process, requesting the chair to produce a report to Parliament? Can you make this clearer?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
To quickly respond to Ms. Idlout's question, it's very rare to have this kind of a motion, but it's not out of order to do that.
Next on the list, I have Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I've just sent it to you. It's in your P9. Please share it with the clerk. I wasn't sure where to send it.
It's a subamendment that, if I understand correctly, has been discussed with some members of the opposition and may get us through the impasse.
I've sent this to you, Mr. Chair, in the hope you will get it very quickly to the clerk in order to get it to our colleagues. It effectively reads that Minister Hajdu and Minister Vandal be asked to return to the committee within two weeks and for two hours to answer questions, following the conclusion of C-61 legislation at INAN.
My understanding is that there have been some conversations with members of the opposition, so I'm proposing this subamendment with the hope that this breaks the impasse.
I know there was some confusion from colleagues, Mr. Chair, so while I have the floor, I will take a moment to put forward my two cents' worth.
The way I read this, I want make clear my interpretation. First, “within two weeks and for two hours following the conclusion” doesn't mean we have to finish Bill C-61 within two weeks. It means that once Bill C-61 is finished, two weeks following that, they would be invited.
Just for clarity, if we have to strengthen that language, that's fine. Again, it's so nobody feels as though we're saying we have to finish Bill C-61 within a two-week period. It means that once it's done, two weeks after that the invitation would take place.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
My understanding is that we can't move another subamendment until we have voted on the one that's currently on the floor right now.
Monsieur Lemire, for clarity—I want to make sure, following Mr. McLeod's point—rather than talk across the committee room here, please make sure you have the floor before doing that.
It may be possible, if there is unanimous consent, for Mrs. Atwin to remove her subamendment and then this one could be dealt with, but that would be necessary first.
Next on the list, I have Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
First of all, I just want to thank you, Ben Carr, for the clarification.
I want to put it out there that this is a concern for me. Looking at the amendments for Bill C-61 is a large undertaking.
Will there be a delay when there's a two-week...? I agree with the request from the Conservatives for two weeks. If we are going to request that the ministers come back, they might not come back.
I just want you to be aware that I mostly agree with the Conservatives and the Bloc to request that the ministers come back in two weeks' time, because we need answers. When we don't get answers, our work is not able to go forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the speaking list, I have Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm just seeking the unanimous consent to remove my subamendment.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
With that, I guess we are.... I'm sorry. I'm going to pause for one second.
I'll move to Mr. Carr, who proposed a subamendment that couldn't be dealt with at the time.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I won't repeat it, Mr. Chair.
Can members confirm they've received the subamendment from the clerk? Okay. It's just been sent.
I'm sorry, Lori. The one I proposed was inadmissible because Jenica's was there, but Jenica's has now been removed, so I'm going to move mine.
For the benefit of the committee, I will reread it, but it is in your inboxes now. I move:
That Minister Hajdu and Minister Vandal be asked to return to committee within two weeks, and for two hours, to answer questions following the conclusion of Bill C-61 legislation at INAN.
I'll move that subamendment, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
Is there anybody who wants to speak on this, or should we go to a vote? It sounds like we have a vote. I'm not seeing any disagreement here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We'll do a recorded division.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
To remind members, because I know there have been a lot of different motions circulating, I'll just read out what we are now going to debate. It is:
That Minister Hajdu and Minister Vandal be asked to return to the committee within two weeks, and for two hours, to answer questions, and that if they do not return as requested, the chair be instructed to report to the House that the committee strongly requests the ministers' attendance from time to time as it sees fit.
I see Mr. Battiste has his hand up, and then I see Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Chair, I'm hoping we can pause this for five minutes, just so I can confirm with my team the implications of this wording.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting back to order.
I understand there have been some discussions between the parties. I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Zimmer.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I'll withdraw my amendment to the motion. I think I'll actually ask for unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment to the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.
I'm going to look around to make sure we have unanimous consent for Mr. Zimmer to withdraw the amendment.
(Amendment withdrawn)
I see Ms. Idlout has her hand up.