AANR Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Monday, November 4, 2002
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
The Clerk |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
| º | 1600 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| º | 1605 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1610 |
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1615 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1620 |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1625 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1635 |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
| º | 1640 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1645 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
Mr. Brian Pallister |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1650 |
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, November 4, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum.
Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to make a proposal to the committee, but I will defer to the vast experience around this table. I think it would be very beneficial if we could get unanimous consent from the committee to proceed, as is our right as a committee, with using the format of the secret ballot for the election of our chair.
I would like to add—and I had the opportunity to speak to some of the members of the committee before we convened this afternoon—an expression of my personal satisfaction and the satisfaction of our party with the work of our previous chair. I say on the record that we would certainly be inclined to support that chair continuing, as we think that chair did an admirable job with a very difficult number of responsibilities.
Having done that, I guess I would ask for unanimous consent to proceed in that way, as is our right as a committee.
The Clerk: Do we have a unanimous desire to proceed via secret ballot?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): I know this enters into the realm of debate, but if we know we have the right to proceed with a secret ballot—and I sit on another committee in which that actually happened a year ago—I would question if we're all declaring that we know who the choice of chair and vice-chairs would be.
I'm assuming Mr. Pallister is suggesting that this would be the process for all three—both the chair and the vice-chair who would be Liberal members, as well as a vice-chair who would come from the official opposition. Indeed, then, why would we move to having secret ballots? I'm looking for a little bit of context or explanation why, if we are agreeing openly that we would chose those individuals. I've only heard one name come forward so far, so why we would go to secret ballots?
The Clerk: It's up to the committee. If it's the unanimous desire of the committee to proceed by secret ballot, we will do so.
Mr. Pallister.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm not sure if I understand the full ramifications of the member's question. In the context of the debate around the secret ballots for committee chairs right now, I think we are all aware that it might seem a bit of a contradiction for us to proceed in a manner that was the same or different from that, given that we have a vote tomorrow as members of Parliament in the House.
I'm trying to do two things. I'm trying to move us ahead in the process as best I can in order to have our table officers in place. I'm also trying to make sure that the principle of a secret ballot opportunity is upheld and that we do nothing that would send a message that we don't value such an opportunity to express our wishes in that form. Those are my intentions in advancing this, and I hope that if we can obtain unanimous consent, it would facilitate our moving ahead on this issue and would expedite the work of the committee.
The Clerk: Thank you.
Brent St. Denis.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Mr. Bonin knows he'll have my vote, whether in secret or otherwise. I assume the same applies, in that whether it was secret or otherwise, Ray would have everybody's support. What I understand Karen to be saying, then, is that maybe the issue of a secret ballot is moot.
However, if it exists in the rules that the committee can so chose, then as long as it's understood that, in my case, I'm not prejudicing my vote on the big picture tomorrow.... If it is indeed the right of a committee to so chose each time it constitutes itself, then I don't know why we even need tomorrow. So as long as you understand that I'm not prejudicing my position tomorrow by agreeing that this meeting, as a stand-alone meeting, be by secret ballot, though—and my chairman seems to agree that it's not a bad idea today—then I'll be glad to go along with Mr. Pallister.
The Clerk: Ms. Neville.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I just have a question of you.
First, I would like to concur with my colleague in that however I vote today will not prejudice what I do tomorrow. But I want to know before I make a decision, should there be a secret ballot, whether I can put on the record how I voted.
An hon. member: You can do it right now.
Ms. Anita Neville: I want to make sure how I vote is on the record. I will say I will be supporting the past chair, but I am—
Mr. Brian Pallister: If I may, in response to the member, certainly that is an option all members would always have. What we're trying to establish here is that the default option would be that you would have the option of it being secret. The default option would not be that you would have to proclaim it publicly. We're not trying to restrict in any way any member's right to communicate to anyone they wish how they voted in the context of this election of chair, not in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I just wish to say that it's entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee. Not only do we have the precedent of the environment committee last year, we also have the precedent of the communications committee under the Conservative government. When the Liberals proposed a secret ballot, it was agreed to, there was an election, and the government designate won.
¹ (1540)
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Chair, on a point of procedure, everyone's speaking. We do have a chair. I haven't heard her recognize anybody, but I've had my hand up for 10 minutes. I suggest that we start to recognize the chair and that we proceed in the order that the chair designates.
The second point is that I don't understand why we're having a vote on secret ballots today. What is the all-fired rush for this committee to meet and decide on a chair today, instead of waiting for the process to pass through the House of Commons tomorrow? It will be voted on tomorrow and it will be binding on all members of Parliament.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): We're in debate. There's not supposed to be any debating until the chair has been elected.
The Clerk: I'm not allowed to entertain points of—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Of course there's debate on it. And you're not the chair, right?
Mr. Raymond Bonin: No, I'm calling your point of order because we're open for debate. But there should be no debate.
The Clerk: That's right. I'm afraid I'm not allowed to recognize points of order.
Mr. Raymond Bonin: I don't think we should be debating while we're here today, instead of next Thursday. That's not the issue here.
The Clerk: Mr. Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Madam Chair, my colleague Mr. Pallister from the Canadian Alliance has asked if there is unanimous consent to proceed with the secret ballot election of the chair. Is there in fact unanimity at this time where this matter is concerned? I haven't heard any members on either side raise any objections. Mr. Pallister has attempted to respond to some of the questions. I'd like the question to be put and for the matter to be debated.
The Clerk: I will go along with the committee's wishes. Is there unanimous agreement to proceed with a secret ballot vote?
[English]
I'm ready to receive motions for the name of chair. We may proceed one name at a time.
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Mr. Ray Bonin to be the chair of the committee.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Clerk: I'm not able to recognize points of order, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why do we care, a day before the vote in the House, about how we pick our committee chair? What is 24 hours' difference going to make to whether or not we choose our chair today by secret ballot, by show of hands—
Mr. Raymond Bonin: No points of order are allowed during nominations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is a point of order. We're voting on an issue tomorrow that's binding in the House of Commons.
Mr. Raymond Bonin: There is no such thing as a point of order during nominations. That's one of the procedures.
The Clerk: Honourable members, you have before you a motion that Mr. Ray Bonin be named chair of the committee. I will be passing out pieces of paper, and I'd like you to write on the piece of paper either a yea or a nay, since my understanding is that there is agreement to proceed by secret ballot.
As a point of explanation, my colleague and I will be counting the ballots, and it will be the majority of the votes cast.
(Members vote by secret ballot)
The Clerk: Honourable members, I am pleased to announce that Mr. Raymond Bonin has been elected chairman of the committee.
An hon. member: Bravo!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
¹ (1550)
The Chair: While we distribute the agenda, I want to thank you very much for that tight race. It cost me a lot of money to campaign and do everything else.
As the committee chair, I will try to continue in the way we have proceeded in the past. We have done some very good work. We are not always the centre of media attention, but there's not that much controversy because everybody does his or her job well. Members have an opportunity to express themselves very clearly on their positions, and I respect that.
My commitment to you will be the same as it has always been. I don't play games. I don't hide information. I try to be as impartial as I can. As I said last time, on a tie vote, you will find that I will probably vote for the government. It would take an extreme case, but I am a Liberal. Until it gets to that point, I will do everything I can to be as impartial as I can. If you think I'm overstepping that boundary at any time, you will be able to tell me.
The decisions of this committee will be made by you. I will recommend to you and get your approval before I do the work. I work on behalf of the committee.
[Translation]
I do not speak to the press or to anyone on behalf of the committee unless I've been authorized to convey the committee's position.
Let's continue then. We will now proceed immediately with the election of the vice-chair.
[English]
Do we have nominations for election of the vice-chairs?
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I move the name of Maurice Vellacott as one of our vice-chairmen.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay moves that Mr. Maurice Vellacott be vice-chair. Are there any other nominations?
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: How do we nominate vice-chairs? Have we decided that one vice-chair is going to be a member from the government? That is a question at this moment. If so, then I nominate John Godfrey.
The Chair:
Standing Order 106(2) states:
| Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party.... |
So, yes, there will be at least one vice-chair from the government party, and one member of opposition has been nominated already. So I have two nominations before me.
Mr. John Godfrey: I would like to withdraw my name, but I would like to thank the honourable member.
The Chair: That opportunity will be given.
Are there any other nominations?
Ms. Redman.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to put forth the name of Nancy Karetak-Lindell as vice-chair.
The Chair: Mr. John Godfrey has been nominated and Ms. Karetak-Lindell has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?
In reverse order, I ask Ms. Karetak-Lindell if she accepts.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I agree.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, do you accept?
Mr. John Godfrey: I wouldn't dream of it.
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, do you accept?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I accept.
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott and Ms. Karetak-Lindell have been acclaimed vice-chairs of the committee.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I would again like to ask for unanimous consent to exercise the option we have as a committee to utilize the secret ballot on a yes-no basis. If the committee would see fit on such a manner of principle, I would ask that we be allowed to express our views on these nominees without any repercussions necessarily from any offended candidate or nominee.
The Chair: Unfortunately, I have to rule with the procedures that are in place, and we have before us two acclamations. There is no such thing as a vote on acclamations. You will say to me that we just had it, but I'm sorry, that's not proper procedure.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Once the committee is convened, are we obligated to follow these procedures?
The Chair: Those are normal procedures of Bourinot. You do not have a vote when you have an acclamation.
Mr. Brian Pallister: We do not have a right to express a “yes” or a “no”? I want to be clear on this, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: You cannot do that, because to express a “no” would mean we would go without vice-chairs.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Then you would re-call it, I would think.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, and then Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. John Godfrey: The real procedural issue here is that before the nominations were called, there should have been a call for a secret ballot. It's important that you do that before you call nominations, because you can't anticipate whether there's going to be more than one candidate. Once it's already happened, I think the cat's out of the bag; we've already done it.
So whatever happens tomorrow, or if we decide to do this again, it has to start with, “I move that there be a secret ballot.”
The Chair: I agree with Mr. Godfrey that we should have asked before, but the basis for my ruling is that you do not have a vote when there's only one candidate. If there were only one candidate for the Speaker of the House, that person would be acclaimed.
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Although the committee is subject to certain rules, it is master of its own fate, if you will. Just in your reference to a speaker, I would think, if the members, by unanimous consent, decided that they wanted to do a yes-no thing so that the person actually had a mandate...because there may well be people who say no, notwithstanding the fact that there's only one name forward, we don't think they're a capable or qualified candidate.
So there may be some merit to what John says here. I think you would certainly be in a position to decide, Mr. Chair, by unanimous consent, that we could revert to a secret ballot despite what you have just decreed. I would ask that you perhaps consider unanimous consent to revisit it. If it's denied, then we do not have a secret ballot possibility.
¹ (1555)
The Chair: Colleagues, before I go to Mr. Martin and Mr. Laframboise, I'll explain to you my understanding of the rules.
I have ruled that there's been an acclamation. There's no vote. You are free to challenge my decision. I don't get offended if you challenge my decision and a majority of you say the chair's wrong, we should have a vote. It doesn't offend me. But the ruling is before you. It's based on procedures, adopted procedures. And I can be challenged.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): The only argument I was going to make, Mr. Chair, is that there might actually have been more people nominated if we'd understood that there was going to be a secret ballot vote. In other words, there could have been people interested in the office, for either side. Working under the basis that we've set a new precedent for a secret ballot vote, we thought we were going to have an election.
I think the only fair thing would be to reopen the nominations to see if there might be anyone else willing to stand for the position of vice-chair and then fill that position by secret ballot vote.
The Chair: I cannot reopen nominations. Now, if committee members are asking me to put aside all procedures and operate in the dark, I can do that, but if you're asking me to apply procedures that I've tried to learn over the 25 years I've been involved in this....
When I'm wrong, I accept being challenged, but I'm following procedures. They're normal procedures. They're not Robert's rules, used for unions and associations, but Beauchesne's and Bourinot. Those are the rules used for government meetings, and that's what I'm putting into force.
After nominations are closed, you can't say that in the vote--that we shouldn't have--we want a secret ballot.
Mr. Pat Martin: I never heard you say the nominations were closed.
The Chair: I did.
Mr. Pat Martin: I never heard you say those words.
The Chair: I closed nominations and I asked, in reverse order, if they were accepted. We had an extra candidate.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, thank you for coming back to me, because I'm really not satisfied by that. I honestly did not hear you say that nominations were closed. When you asked, will you accept the nomination, I thought you were simply clarifying the intervention by Mr. Godfrey that he was not interested. When you asked him if he would stand, he more or less blurted out, out of order, no, not me.
I believe we are within our rights, even by Standing Order 106(2), to deal with the nominations so that we're all satisfied that we've canvassed the group to see if there are any further nominations. I don't believe that's violating any rules of order. Going beyond that, Standing Order 106(2) reads:
| Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government |
Nothing in there precludes the idea of reopening the nominations for clarification until we're all satisfied that there aren't other people interested in leaving their names stand. Then we can talk about the way in which we have the election.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to be certain that I understand. At the start of the meeting, the Clerk asked us if we were prepared to proceed by secret ballot. She asked if there was unanimous consent, and unanimous consent was given. Only one person was nominated for the position, and that was you. We held a secret ballot and I'm fine with that. The important thing here is to note for the record that a secret ballot vote was held. However, when there is only one candidate, proceeding by secret ballot is rather...I agree with you on that score.
However, as for the second part of the voting process, namely the election of the vice-chairs, I had understood that if elections were held, they would be by secret ballot. You seem to be saying that had we held elections, we might not have proceeded by secret ballot. I, on the other hand, had understood that any elections at this time would be by secret ballot. If there's only one candidate for the Chair's position, I agree with you that a secret ballot may not be necessary, but I have a question and I want it to be duly noted in the record. Had we held elections today, would we have had a secret ballot? I'd appreciate an answer.
º (1600)
The Chair: According to procedural rules, if you wish to have a secret ballot, you must request it each time a vote is held.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Must we request a secret ballot before nominations are received?
The Chair: If the request is made prior to the actual voting, then it's not a problem.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: However, we could have requested it before nominations were received. We could have stated that any future elections will be by secret ballot. That's how we proceeded in your case.
The Chair: You could have requested a secret ballot after the nominations were received, provided you did so before anyone voted.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Then we could still request one.
The Chair: But there won't be a vote. Three candidates were nominated, one declined and the remaining two were declared elected by acclamation, since there are two positions.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: As I was saying, I was under the impression that for any future vote, we would have a secret ballot election, and that this fact had been duly noted. You're telling me that had I moved a motion prior to the nominations, you would have gone along with a secret ballot. In other words, I could have requested a secret ballot vote before the actual nomination process.
The Chair: Before, or even after, for that matter. If Mr. Godfrey had not declined the nomination, and one member had requested a secret ballot election, I would have sought unanimous consent of the members and would have proceeded by secret ballot. However, there was no vote. The two nominees were in fact acclaimed.
Mr. Marceau.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like someone to check the records to see if in fact you uttered the words “the nominations are closed”. I didn't hear you say that. Could someone check, since everything is recorded, because I didn't hear these words. I was under the impression you asked the question because John has indicated he wasn't interested in the nomination. You said “I will come to that”, to give him a chance to withdraw his name immediately. I never heard you say that the nominations were closed. Therefore, I'd like to raise a point of order because I want someone to check the transcripts to see whether nominations were indeed closed.
The Chair: Before I turn the floor over to Ms. Redman, I will admit that I did not follow procedure and put the question three times. So, one could say that I did not ask often enough if nominations were closed. If you want me to be a stickler for the rules, I have no problem with that. However, I'll enforce the rules to the letter every time. You push, I push back. If that's how you want it to be, then fine, but our meetings won't be as interesting.
Ms. Redman.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman: Merci, monsieur le président.
I asked for clarification; I recognize it is not an opportunity to debate. I, as a member of this committee, did not understand this to be a secret ballot. When I asked for clarification whether it would be just for chair, as well as the two vice-chairs, I didn't receive it. My understanding was it was just for the president.
However, if the members opposite are having a problem, rather than challenge the chair I suggest they ask for unanimous consent to find out whether or not they have it. Then we could proceed, rather than wrangling over this little downward spiral that seems to do nothing toward moving the business of this committee forward.
The Chair: The difficulty we're facing is that when we came to nominations for two positions, I called it an acclamation. If we do that, then there's no vote.
The opposition seems to want a vote whether there are more candidates than we need or not. I don't think we should have had a vote on my election. Saddam Hussein had an election with one candidate, but that doesn't happen in Canada. That's the problem we're having right now. If we want to reopen nominations because I didn't say it three times, then I will ask for unanimous consent to reopen nominations.
I've been asked by Mr. Keddy to seek unanimous consent to reopen nominations--no debate, no points of order.
Those in favour of reopening....
[Translation]
You can't raise a point of order during a vote.
Mr. Richard Marceau: You're talking about opening the process up again, but as we already noted, the nominations were never in fact closed. You now agree with us that that was in fact the case because you didn't put the question three times, as per the rules. Consequently, you can't ask to reopen a process that was never closed in the first place. Therefore, I want it to be stated clearly that from a procedural standpoint, since nominations were not in fact closed, the process need not be re-opened.
º (1605)
[English]
The Chair: I did not ask three times, by the letter of the book, if nominations are closed. I'm being held to task for that and I will take my pill. I will conduct these meetings and they will be very boring, because I happen to know you should ask three times.
What happened to our experience on this committee with the members around this table? Now if we find a position to embarrass the chair because I didn't do it, I'll take my pill.
I will reopen nominations for the position of vice-chair. I now have two nominations: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, and Mr. Maurice Vellacott.
[Translation]
Do you have a motion, Mr. Marceau?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that Mr. Pat Martin be elected Vice-Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Are there other nominations? I have asked the other members. I will ask Mr. Martin. Do you accept?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I do, and thank you to my nominator.
The Chair: We have an election. Put out the recorded vote ballots. Give everybody a ballot so they can vote for two people. It's a recorded vote, not a secret ballot. Nobody asked me for unanimous consent to have a secret ballot.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm asking.
The Chair: You are?
Mr. Mario Laframboise: I request a secret ballot vote.
The Chair: Mr. Laframboise asks if there is unanimous agreement to hold a secret ballot vote.
[English]
Do I have unanimous consent that this be a secret ballot?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: This is not a secret ballot.
Mr. Brian Pallister: As just a friendly suggestion, Mr. Chair, ask three times if nominations cease, so we don't have to go through this again.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
Are there other nominations? Are there other nominations? Are there other nominations? I declare that nominations are closed.
I will ask for a show of hands, first for Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I believe, according to your rules here, one vice-chair position has to be a member of the government side, so it's really only a run-off between the two of us.
The Chair: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. When a member asks if there is unanimous consent and the answer is no, is it possible for the record to show the names of those who said no? Is there some way of doing that? I'm seeking consent to proceed with a secret ballot vote. Can we find out who voted down the idea of a secret ballot vote by calling for the vote on the motion?
The Chair: No, we will proceed to elect the candidate by show of hands. As for knowing who rejected the idea, they will remain anonymous. In other words, their names will not appear in the committee records.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, we're not voting on procedural matters to ascertain... Can I request a vote on whether we intend to proceed by secret ballot? Can I do that?
The Chair: No, we will proceed by show of hands. I will ask all those in favour of electing Mr. Vellacott to raise their hand. I will then ask those who support Mr. Martin to do likewise. The person who has the most votes will be elected Vice-Chair. Ms. Karetak-Lindell is elected by acclamation, as she is the only nominee for the government vice-chair position. Agreed?
[English]
We will proceed to the vote. I'll repeat in English, my first request will be for those who support Mr. Vellacott to raise their hands, and then I will ask those who support Mr. Martin to raise their hands. The most votes will win.
It's like popcorn in here now. I will ask the question, and we should vote.
Mr. Vellacott is vice-chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chatters.
º (1610)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Could you perhaps give us the reference you used for the procedure, so that we could check that in our own minds for the next time around and we don't get into this confusion? I just want the book and the section.
The Chair: It's Beauchesne. We'll have to take a course on procedures. You say on the decision that--
Mr. David Chatters: I just want to know what we're following, so that when we, as members, come into the next one of these, we will know what procedures are. Obviously you know, but there's some confusion around the table.
The Chair: I need to know, confusion on which decision?
Mr. David Chatters: On the election of chairs and vice-chairs, the issue of the secret ballot, when you have to make that call.
The Chair: On the issue of the secret ballot, I said to you it doesn't matter if you ask it before we nominate or after, provided you ask for it before the first person votes. If you'll check Beauchesne and Bourinot, you will find that. You don't have to ask it before nominations.
Mr. David Chatters: Okay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like you to verify the outcome of the question as to whether committee members favoured a secret ballot vote. You asked if there was unanimous consent, and since there was no such agreement, if even one person expressed opposition to a secret ballot, then that's that. You argue that pursuant to the Standing Orders, one person can stop a secret ballot from taking place. I want you to confirm for the benefit of committee members that this is in fact proper procedure.
The Chair: Before the meeting started, before I was elected, I indicated that Minister Boudria had twice informed the House of Commons this day of the procedure to follow for holding a secret ballot vote. I therefore asked the Clerk how committee members should go about holding a secret ballot vote, in keeping with Mr. Boudria's comments in the House. I was informed that unanimous consent was needed. That's why I sought unanimous consent.
If you're asking me if the City of Toronto seeks unanimous consent, I will tell you that each municipality follows different criteria. In some instances, a two-thirds majority is required, while in others, its a three-quarters majority. I was told that in committee, unanimous consent was required. That's all I had to go on.
[English]
Are there any other questions on procedures that you want to clear up?
Now we will deal with the establishment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, the steering committee. What is your desire?
Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: I move that the chair, vice-chairs, parliamentary secretary, and a representative each of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party do compose a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
The Chair: Mr. St. Denis seconds.
(Motion agreed to)
º (1615)
The Chair: There is another procedure I have used with this committee in the past, and it will only be used with your permission. Quite often, we had a committee of the whole for steering committee meetings. The members seemed to like that. If at times you wish to continue that way, we'll do it that way; if not, we'll go back to this motion. It won't be done without your approval.
I need a mover that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the chair.
[Translation]
So moved by Mr. Binet, seconded by Ms. Neville.
[English]
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. John Finlay: Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: The motion says... Oh I see, you've left it, “retain one or more”.
The Chair: Yes. It's your prerogative.
Mr. John Finlay: It's not limited to one. We can have two.
The Chair: I will come to you before going for two, because it's your budget and it's your decision.
Mr. John Finlay: Okay.
The Chair: The next motion is to hear evidence that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition. Do have a mover? Ms. Redman, seconded by Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Wouldn't we be better off having an amendment in there, Mr. Chair, “and within a reasonable period of time report this information back to the committee”? Because there's nothing there. It simply says the chair could receive evidence. I assume it's automatic, but....
The Chair: As chair, I cannot call a meeting on the spur of the moment. I have to advise you in writing so many hours beforehand of meetings. It's when we have a witness and there are only three or four here. Do we send the witness home, or do we hear the testimony? It does not give the chair the authority to call a meeting in an hour. The other procedures for the call of the chair are in place.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: And the witnesses would all be on the record?
The Chair: Yes. It would be a scheduled meeting with all of the support staff around. Okay?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The next question I can deal with if you want, but I suggest you put that off until we have an organizational meeting, because it says witnesses will have up to 10 minutes for opening statements and all that stuff. I think you should have the opportunity to decide how long you want the presentations to be and how long the questions should be.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I like that suggestion.
The Chair: Do we agree that we defer this until our organization meeting?
Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I hate to tell you, but I'm not going to be at that meeting. No matter.
What exactly do you mean by “organization meeting”?
The Chair: I would like the focus of our next meeting to be on the workings of this committee. I will chair meetings according to your instructions. It says here that 10 minutes are allotted for presentations, but maybe you prefer 15 minutes. In the past, I asked you if you had any objections to giving some individuals more time. For example, when Matthew Coon Come appears before the committee, attendance is quite high. We have been flexible in the past. I don't want to set a hard and fast rule of 10 minutes, because that would prevent you from...
Mr. Richard Marceau: I have no problem with that.
Equally important is the order in which the witnesses are questioned. Shall we come to a decision today, or shall we defer our decision until the next meeting?
The Chair: My idea was to hold a meeting to resolve these specific matters.
º (1620)
Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine then.
[English]
The Chair: So allocation of time for questioning will be deferred to the next meeting, because I want you to have the decision on that.
We've a motion that a transcript of an in camera meeting be kept in the office of the clerk of the committee for the purpose of consultation by members of the committee and be destroyed at the end of each session of Parliament.
Moved by Mr. St. Denis, seconded by Mr. Finlay. Is there debate?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Is that legal? What about the provisions of the Access to Information Act?
The Chair: Mr. Marceau, I'll ask the Clerk for her advice. I don't know what the Access to Information Act says about the minutes of in camera meetings.
The Clerk: Mr. Marceau, transcripts of in camera meetings are not published. The Clerk keeps a record of them until the committee decides their fate.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I want to know if they are subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act.
[English]
The Chair: That's a good question.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: We had this discussion at the formation of the last aboriginal affairs committee, or the one before, and I think Nancy was actually chair. There was a lot of discussion about it, and if I recall correctly, and I believe I do, the records have to be kept on file, as Richard is stating, because of the Privacy Act, not access to information. Access can never be given out on it, but I think they have to be kept on file for some period of time; that's in the records of this committee. That discussion was long and painful, and I think it was decided at the time that they had to be kept on file.
The Chair: We can continue the debate, but you have the option of deferring this also until we have the answer to that question. Is that your wish? So that will be dealt with later, and I would ask the clerk to have the information for the next meeting.
The next motion is that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representations from any organization, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a third person, should there be exceptional circumstances--which I would run by you anyway.
Moved by Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Mr. Chatters.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The next motion is that the committee authorize the chair from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.
If nobody moves it, I'll move it.
Moved by Ms. Redman, seconded by Mr. Godfrey.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: I'll share a little story with you. The first time I chaired the aboriginal affairs committee was in 1996, and we had a big discussion on whether we would have coffee or not. My final decision was that when somebody moves that we authorize our paying for coffee, we will have coffee. We did not have coffee that year. I'm very pleased that we're going to have some food, and that includes coffee.
Now we have a motion that unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee, 48 hours notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee, and that the motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and circulated to all members in both official languages. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk will put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting. Moved by Mr. Godfrey, seconded by Ms. Redman.
Mr. Martin.
º (1625)
Mr. Pat Martin: I know it's common practice for most of the committees, but not all. I'm just wondering if we're satisfied with the 48 hours, or if we want to revisit that. It's so long, it's sometimes onerous for bringing an issue up, given the short timeframes we have at the end of a session sometimes, and given the fact that we probably only have between now and June to do any serious business on this committee. As everybody acknowledges, by the time we get back in September 2003, there will be a lot of other things on the minds of parliamentarians.
In the interest of at least generating a debate on whether it should be 48 hours, I'd like to move an amendment that the notice be reduced to 24 hours and the rest of the language remain the same.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: The actual motion says you could shorten the time if there was unanimous consent, and that could be done, I assume, by a telephone poll. I think the 48 hour rule prevents the feeling of any monkey business or trying to sneak something by, particularly for people who have to travel. It seems to me it's a form of consideration, because it really can be very disruptive. That's my view.
The Chair: Before I go to you, Mr. Martin, I'll just give you my position on this issue.
Instead of “unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee”, I think that should read “unless there is unanimous consent of the members present”, because we could be at a meeting where we just have quorum, and somebody says, no, we need 100% of all the members, whether they're here or not. Normally, that would say “of the members present”, and you must have a quorum first. If you have nine members, you want to introduce a new issue, and all nine members give unanimous consent, you deal with it without notice. That's the protection.
But the amendment I've accepted says 24 hours. Now we will debate the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: What are we debating? His amendment or your suggestion?
The Chair: His amendment calls for 24 hours' notice. That's what we're debating.
[English]
Mrs. Redman.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Unless it was emergency business, which this motion already provides for, I'm wondering if 48 hours is needed to provide enough time, not only for travel, but in order to make sure everything comes in both official languages, which I know is really important, so all members have the fullest participation possible in the topic.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Godfrey, I think 24 hours, even for people like you and me in Ontario, is just too tight for getting back and forth. If something comes up, it's going to create a hardship, especially if we can get together and say, all right, on this issue we're going to do something now.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Martin, last to speak on the amendment.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I accept the point you made. Perhaps the language should be changed, whether we went 24 or 48, to “of those members present in an urgent situation”. The point that was made about the need to get here within 24 hours isn't really valid, because you can always substitute. There's nothing stopping the Liberal Party from getting a substitute to come and sit at the committee if it's a vote that they feel strongly about.
We've always met on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If some urgent issue comes to our attention, even during Tuesday, when we're having a meeting--let's say the end of Tuesday or Wednesday--we couldn't deal with it in the Thursday meeting. It's then put off until the following Tuesday, four or five days later, which would be the first opportunity to deal with the issue. Your 48 hour rule really turns into a five or even six day rule by the time we can bring something up. And there's the added problem that every fourth week we have a week down, and it could be extended further.
As I say, things will be happening in a hot and heavy way as soon as we get into the very controversial legislation we're about to get into. I believe the 24 hour rule is a reasonable compromise. I was coming here originally asking for the rule to be waived altogether, because we operate quite well at the public accounts committee with no notice required. It's not unusual at all for motions to be made at the public accounts committee. The ruling party doesn't find that any problem at all, because they always make sure they've got the balance of power within the committee room, so if the motion hasn't got any merit in their minds, they simply vote it down.
I still maintain that it would be far better with a 24 hour rule, if we're serious about getting issues dealt with at this committee. If obfuscation and delay are the object, then the 48 hours notice seems to do that quite well.
º (1630)
The Chair: Thank you.
That closes the debate.
Just to be clear, the amendment changes “forty-eight (48) hours notice” to “twenty-four (24) hours notice”.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We're back to the main motion. Any debate?
Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: Do you wish an amendment moved to put in the words, or do you just wish it to be understood, that it's the members of the committee present? Would you prefer to have an amendment?
The Chair: If it stayed the way it is, and I were asked to interpret it, I would interpret it as meaning that it is by unanimous consent of members present. But I could easily be challenged, because it doesn't say it.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would— [Editor's Note: Inaudible]—
The Chair: I have a motion to add “present”.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it would read, “the Members of the Committee present”.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Marceau.
Mr. Richard Marceau: This amendment has a fundamental flaw, unless this is clearly specified, and that's why I'm a little surprised that my colleague Mr. Vellacott is presenting it. On the question of the quorum, no mention is made of the fact that an opposition member must be present; the rule applies only if the committee is hearing testimony. If we wish to add this, we need to be certain that someone from the opposition parties is present. Otherwise, that would mean only government members need be present and that would defeat the very purpose of the notice. Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the notice.
[English]
The Chair: My understanding of quorum is that it is 50% plus one, and in that must be included at least one member of the opposition.
Is that correct? Or is it just nine members?
Mr. John Godfrey: Is that in the House rules?
The Chair: No, to my knowledge, this is a rule that the committee should set for itself. Personally, I'm not interested in chairing a committee with just nine of us Liberals. I don't believe that would be fair, and I don't believe I would be impartial if I were to do that. I know that I would get unanimous consent to do anything the minister wanted to do, and it would not be fair. It would not be fair.
Are you telling me that a quorum is nine, no matter... Yes?
º (1635)
Now, there has been an amendment that we add the word “present”. That's what we are debating now. However, before we finish today, I would recommend that we deal with quorum. If you wish to leave it at nine, that's up to you. If you wish to say that it is 50% plus one, and one of those, at a minimum, must be a member of the opposition, that's the way I've always operated. I think it's written somewhere, but I'm not sure.
Mr. Pallister.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I would need the advice of members of committee on how to proceed, but I would think it would be somewhat dangerous to proceed with the amendment that has been proposed in the absence of a full understanding and discussion of what constitutes a quorum.
Clearly, we would be passing a motion that would--theoretically, at the very least--give control of the committee to the members of the committee “present”, and that might not comprise any opposition members.
So I think it best that we set this aside and have the discussion on quorum now.
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment and suggest that we defer it to we make sure we understand what quorum is.
The Chair: The amendment is on the floor. I've accepted it. I now have a motion to defer the amendment to the next organizational meeting, and I'm accepting that. Are we agreed, members?
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chair: When we meet, we need to know if it's written anywhere that at least one member should be a member of the opposition. If it's not, I can't imagine how we operated 100 years with a quorum that doesn't include at least one member of the opposition. It just would make no sense.
Mr. Finlay
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Brian and John have said, but surely there must be a definition somewhere of a quorum.
The Chair:
Okay, I'll read it to you.
| In the case of standing, legislative or special committees, a quorum is a majority of the members. The Chair of a legislative committee, who is named by the Speaker... |
They say:
| As a courtesy, most committees do not begin their meetings until at least one member of the opposition is in attendance, even if a quorum is present. However, committees may meet and adopt motions in the absence of one or all opposition parties. |
That's the rule, as a courtesy. What's a courtesy? I wait for an hour before starting the meeting? We should verify that the committee has the power to establish its own rule on quorum.
I hope I have the support of committee here. I think it makes no sense to have nine of the governing party having a meeting, because with unanimous consent we can do anything, and that's not the way I would like to govern.
Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, while I agree with you that we should have an opposition member present for any decisions of the committee, I think the reason for making it a majority of the committee, whether there's an opposition member there or not, was simply, in the big picture, so the opposition couldn't stop the committee from conducting its business by not showing up. That's all it was for. But I agree with you that as a courtesy, we should not do business without the opposition present, at least one member.
The Chair: I'm prepared to accept an amendment on the motion that is before us. If you wish to deal with the nature of a quorum, at this point you need 48 hours notice, as it's new business. We're not dealing with quorums. Fair enough?
An hon. member: Fair enough.
The Chair: Fair enough.
Monsieur Marceau.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: I have a procedural question. I apologize for not being an expert on such matters.
As a committee, do we have the right to modify the rules set out in Marleau-Montpetit? I think we don't have that right because these are rules that have been adopted by the House of Commons. Therefore, we cannot specify a minimum number of members. This approach has worked well for us and we should continue with it. In any case, with 48 hours' notice, parties have time to get organized.
I would leave things as they are, since the committee has never had any problems with this in the past. On that basis, I move that we either withdraw the amendment or reject it. I move that we adopt the motion as worded and that we proceed as we have always done, not having encountered problems.
º (1640)
The Chair: I'm prepared to do that.
However, I recall that a very clear rule was in place in the past. When I checked with the Clerk of the House of Commons, he advised me that committees were masters of their own destiny. I would like the clerk to clarify this point for our next meeting.
[English]
For our next meeting we must know if we are able to change what a quorum is. If we can't, it's the end of the story, but if we are masters of our destiny, we can do it. So for our next meeting we would like a clear answer on that.
Mr. David Chatters: So we don't need to raise the 48 hours in a motion or anything? It's taken that's going to be on the agenda of the next--
The Chair: The information will be provided for you. I will put it on the agenda for the meeting, so that if you wish to, you can deal with it at that meeting. Okay?
So we have deferred the amendment suggesting 24 hours to the next meeting. I will put on the agenda for the next meeting “Quorum”. The word “Quorum” is all you're going to see there, and this is what we're going to talk about. If it's reported that we cannot change it, it will be a short discussion.
(Motion allowed to stand)
The Chair: The next motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to receive and distribute documents to members of the committee only when they are available in both official languages.
Moved by Mr. Finlay, seconded by Mr. Marceau.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The motion is correct, but it says “upon receipt of notice”. A lot of the reports we receive would be in one or the other official language. We're not going to receive them in both official languages. It's the job of the clerk to have them translated and give them to the committee in both official languages. I wanted to make sure that wording was clear.
The Chair: It's the job of the clerk to have it translated as soon as he or she receives it.
Mr. Pallister.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Isn't it the case that you sometimes have presenters who come ill-prepared and advance information in one official language? Would this in any way restrict our ability to receive information that wasn't prepared in both official languages if we were, for example, conducting hearings elsewhere?
The Chair: It prevents the clerk from distributing the documents. Nothing prevents the witnesses from putting the documents on a table at the back and saying, you're welcome to pick them up. It just prevents the clerk from distributing.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Next is that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources shall be empowered to travel from place to place within Canada during its consideration of the First Nations Governance Act, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. We can deal with this.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't think we can deal with that motion. I think that motion has to go to our steering committee first, and then come back to the committee. Any motion I've ever seen in committee that's had to do with finances has come from the steering committee.
The Chair: We can't travel unless the House authorizes it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it needs to be deferred until the steering committee can meet.
The Chair: We need this motion to go to the steering committee and ask for the money. I can't go to the steering committee and ask for money to travel on the governance bill unless you give me authority to go and ask for the money.
Okay, I'm told that we already have the money, that the issue doesn't die when we are prorogued. This is to ask the House for authorization to travel.
Do you want to defer it, or do you want to deal with it? Okay, we'll deal with it.
Mr. Martin.
º (1645)
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, now that we're a newly constituted committee, who's to say that we might not want to expand the amount of travel we had approved prior to prorogation? There are a lot of groups coming forward now saying 12 visits across the country isn't going to be adequate for such comprehensive legislation and they want this committee to go to a lot more places. Therefore, I don't think we should give authorization to go to the steering committee asking for a fixed amount of money until we have time, as a committee, to revisit the issue of what communities we're going to be visiting.
The Chair: I can tell you we're not going to ask for money. We have the money. Those of you who have been on this committee before know that when we were prorogued, what you decided I put aside. I'm coming back to the committee. I don't do anything without checking with this committee. I will introduce to you the decisions you have made before, and then I'll ask you what your desire is on that day. Whether we change anything in there will be your decision. You will have full opportunity to do that, the same way you will have full opportunity to decide who the witnesses are. I'll run everything by the committee. I have a record of coming to you first.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, is this not a very general seeking of approval to travel from place to place? Do you want something changed, like “consideration of the First Nations Governance Act and other statutes that might come before the committee”? Isn't this just a housekeeping motion to say we want to travel?
The Chair: That's only for when you will want to travel on the governance bill. I have permission to ask the House to give us that permission, that's all it says.
Can we deal with this, or do you prefer waiting? Are we ready for the question of giving me permission to ask for permission to travel with the money we already have?
Mr. Brian Pallister: With regard to Mr. Keddy, I understood him to have presented an amendment now. Am I wrong on that, Gerald?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: He's asking the question whether it is appropriate at this time or the steering committee should be requesting.
Mr. Brian Pallister: I see. So it wasn't an amendment.
The Chair: I put the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: I have a list here of bills that have already been sent to us. We have been sent Bill C-2, An Act to establish the process of assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in the Yukon. We have been sent Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. We also have Bill C-6, An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims, and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill C-7 is the governance bill.
I thought this one was coming here, but I'm told it's going to Foreign Affairs, Bill C-14. It's an act providing for control on the export, import, or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and for certification. So if it goes there, fine.
We have three other bills as well as that on governance. I just want to put this on the table, and I think we should discuss it at the next meeting. I would suggest to you that we do all the legislation we have except the governance bill, which we can tackle after the Christmas break. My reason for suggesting this is that after this week we have four weeks left. One of these has to be done by the end of the year. If we don't do it that way, I think we would have the minister appear, the department, maybe some of the leaders, and then we would go away for a month and a half, and then start over. I suggest that we proceed that way, but you will decide at the next meeting.
Mr. Chatters.
º (1650)
Mr. David Chatters: I don't disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I think we need to spend a meeting revisiting the procedure and how we're going to deal with that governance issue.
The Chair: I would suggest to you that our next meeting--and you'll decide before leaving here when it is--will be just that, planning our future and how we're going to do our work in the future.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary, I want to tell you that Bill C-6 is apparently the first one we receive. So I think, with that in mind, we can--
The Chair: It seems to be a priority?
Mr. John Finlay: That's right.
The Chair: We won't decide today, but this is what I will ask you at the next meeting.
An hon. member: What is Bill C-6?
The Chair: Bill C-6 is for specific claims. The explanation I have here is that it is an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, to provide for the filing, negotiation, resolution... I think it's a mechanism.
The next meeting will be planning what we do in the future and how we do it, and you will be the ones deciding. When would you like that meeting? Could we do it Thursday morning? That's the slot we have. I think tomorrow is too soon. I'm open to suggestions. I just threw out Thursday morning because we're not here next week. All right, 11 o'clock Thursday--that's our normal slot. Okay? We'll get advice tomorrow morning. We didn't plan a room, because I didn't mention it before.
Is there anything else?
This meeting is adjourned.