Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2006

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

A motion was tabled this evening with regard to this file. I don't see why the committee cannot adopt it. As far as I understand, the minister will appear before the committee soon. If we adopt this motion before the minister appears, and if we feel that the minister answers the question contained in our motion when he is before the committee, we will not have to present it to the government. But the motion will already have been adopted by the committee.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Monsieur Lévesque, just in response to your position, based on your logic, you could also say you could have the motion be voted upon after the minister comes to speak before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

There have been a number of other reports that have come through over the years that have never had any action. The fact that a report was done and the previous government responded doesn't actually mean anything ever happens.

If you wanted to, you could change this motion to not require the government response but just have it as a concurrence motion on the floor of the House; then, if you weren't satisfied with the minister's response, you could redo a motion requesting.... But you could change this motion so the report would be tabled on the floor of the House without requirement from the government to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It is an important issue, and I think it is about the process. First of all, this committee is at the pleasure of the House, not of the government that is in power. When it was presented to the House, it was presented to the whole House—all parties, not necessarily to the government. I think you're correct in what you're saying, that it's been received by the House. At the previous time, of course, it was a different government than today, but ultimately it is a record in the House.

Now there's been a response by the former minister. Maybe what we need is to have that response by the new minister and see what his position is on it, rather than retabling this document in the House, because I understand that's the essence of the motion. Is that not correct?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It is, Mr. Chairman. I've got it right this time.

I guess I'm a little taken aback by the reluctance of the government to have this tabled in the House again. I know there are precedents in other committees for the retabling of substantial reports done under the previous government. This is a significant issue. It's an important issue for aboriginal communities. My understanding of it is that it was agreed upon in the executive committee this morning that there would be no issue and that it would go forward. Some time between now and then something has changed.

It is an important issue. It is a very different political perspective we're dealing with now, and I would like to know the response of this government to the committee's report, which was an extensive study and report. In fact, there's a motion before another committee that we reinvent the report and do it all over again. Talk about waste. All this requires is that the government of the day give a response. As I say, I'm a bit astounded at what's happened between nine o'clock this morning and five o'clock this afternoon.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

If I can respond briefly, I think all members of the House would agree that this is an important issue. In fact, I think the minister was a key architect of some of the elements of the report. He's very much a believer in the direction this has taken.

I would suggest that because the process has already run its course in a minority government previously, it would be a good illustration of how an incoming minister can utilize the work of the previous government. Then perhaps you will see his position and the government's position on this, and you'll have an opportunity at the next meeting to also ask him about this topic.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I would accept that argument if the work of the previous government on the Kelowna accord had been honoured. The precedent for honouring previous government commitments is not there, and I think this is too important to pass by. It's clearly up to the committee, and I can't understand the government's objection to responding to a report that the minister had a part in crafting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The question I put forward was this. Because it was already tabled in the House, is that not good enough? So I think it would be important for the committee to hear from the minister, because you're surmising that he's not going to respect that report, and we don't know that.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

In relation to this discussion, the committee recommended to the House that it adopt the results of the first ministers meeting of last year. That was something this committee opted to do. In the previous government there was no recommendation to the House. So in that sense, I think we're talking about the same thing, as a committee.

The committee has recommended Kelowna to the House. Previously the committee recommended this report to the House. Why does the committee need to do that again? I guess that's the crux of the argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Ms. Crowder is next, and then Mr. Merasty.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Again, it may be procedural, but just because a report has gone before the House doesn't actually mean that anything is going to happen with it. My understanding of having this report come forward again is to get some assurance that it's going to move forward, because it is such an important issue.

I understand the minister will be coming before us, but we're going to have him here for two hours. There is some significant work in here, and we're not going to want to spend our two hours dealing with the minister on this, because, as we heard from the briefing from the department today, the issues are vast and broad.

I am going to support the motion of having this report retabled in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Merasty.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I also think we should proceed and be very clear that we'd just like a response. If the government chooses not to support that....

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

This argument sounds very similar to the one relating to the Kelowna accord, in the sense that many of the members on this committee are new. For me to sit here today on behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of my own integrity, and adopt a report—that's what you're asking me to do—and send it on to the House when I haven't even read it and we haven't studied it for sure.... I just think we lack credibility if we don't at least take part of one meeting to be briefed on what this report is. I'd at least like a copy of it in my office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The question the chair would ask is, would correspondence to the minister asking if he's going to implement this report suffice, or does it have to be presented to the House? You're presenting to the House twice, which to me doesn't seem procedurally correct.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is clear that I will support the motion. The only question is whether we will vote on it this evening or on Wednesday.

If my colleague agrees, I might be willing to wait until we put the question to the minister when he appears. However, it is clear that we will have to hold the debate on this motion and that it will be voted on.

I would therefore suggest that we put the study off until Wednesday, after the minister appears. However, the minister will have to know that we'll ask him a question and that we have a motion to that effect. That way, he will be able to prepare.

I might be willing to agree to wait to hear from the minister for another two days. We will vote in two days, but what's clear is that the vote is not far off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Can I have a motion to table--if that's the pleasure of the committee--until after the minister speaks to the committee?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Based on Mr. Lemay's position, I move to table this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

There is no debate on a tabling motion, as I understand. At least there wasn't the last....

[The Clerk of the Committee]

Actually, the motion is that a vote be held on this motion next Wednesday. Is that the motion?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It would be on Wednesday, after the minister's visit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

All in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much.

Is there any other business for the good of the committee?

Hearing none, we're adjourned.