AANO Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met at 8:45 a.m. this day, in Room 8-53, 131 Queen Street, the Chair, Blake Richards, presiding.

Tara Shannon and Tom Isaac answered questions.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, is postponed.

The Chair calls Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Yvonne Jones and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3; NAYS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following:

“6.1 With the explicit consent of the first nations, the federal minister may delegate, in”

(b) by deleting lines 17 and 18 on page 1.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following:

“(3) Any delegation made under subsection (1) must be made in compliance with the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 2 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 14,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete clause 14.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

As Members are aware, parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 5 to line 4 on page 6 with the following:

“existing project is required when an authorization is renewed or amended unless, in the opinion of the Board, there is no significant change to the original project.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 14 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 15 carried on division.

On Clause 16,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete clause 16.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

As Members are aware, parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

(a) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 6 with the following:

“56. (1) A designated office shall, after a proposal is”

(b) by deleting lines 4 to 20 on page 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Yvonne Jones and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Bruce Hyer for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 16, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 6 with the following:

“56. (1) A designated office shall”

(b) by deleting lines 4 to 20 on page 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 6 to line 20 on page 7 with the following:

“report to the executive committee on the progress of the evaluation of the project.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 16 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 17,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete clause 17.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

As Members are aware, parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

Yvonne Jones moved, — That Bill S-6, in Clause 17, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 7 with the following:

“58. (1) The executive committee shall, after a proposal”

(b) by deleting lines 10 to 26 on page 8.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Yvonne Jones and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 7 to line 26 on page 8 with the following:

“referred to it under paragraph 56(1)(d), report to the Minister on the timeline required for the conclusion of the evaluation of the project.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 17 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5; NAYS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 21,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete clause 21.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

As Members are aware, parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 38 on page 10 with the following:

“reference, within the time limit specified by the Board.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 21 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5; NAYS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3.

Clause 22 carried on division.

On Clause 23,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Yvonne Jones and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 23 on page 12 with the following:

“within the time limit specified by the Board.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 23 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5; NAYS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 27,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 12 on page 13 with the following:

“the period prescribed by the rules.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 27 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 34,

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to delete clause 34.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 768:

“An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect.”

As Members are aware, parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 15 with the following:

“respect to the exercise of any of its functions under this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 15 with the following:

“(2) Policy directions only apply if explicit consent of the first nations and of the territorial minister has been given, and they do not apply in respect”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill S-6, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43 on page 15 with the following:

“(4) If there is a conflict between policy directions given under this section and the provisions of any Act of Parliament, any regulations made under an Act of Parliament or any territorial law, those provisions prevail to the extent of the conflict.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 34 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 35 to 42 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 43,

“shall not exceed 25 years.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dennis Bevington and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

“(b) in the case of a type A licence other than one described in paragraph (a), with respect to an appurtenant undertaking, the anticipated duration of the exploration or developmental work, the construction or operation of works used in relation to the appurtenant undertaking or the restoration of the site, as the case may be.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dennis Bevington and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3; NAYS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5.

“(2) Every 5 years, the Board shall review each licence issued under this Act in order to determine if it should be amended or cancelled in accordance with section 43.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dennis Bevington and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3; NAYS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5.

Clause 43 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 44,

“section 55.2 by a maximum of six months to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dennis Bevington and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3; NAYS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5.

Clause 44 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 45 to 56 inclusive carried on division severally.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: John Barlow, Rob Clarke, Earl Dreeshen, Kyle Seeback, Mark Strahl — 5; NAYS: Niki Ashton, Dennis Bevington, Yvonne Jones — 3.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 10:13 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.