Debates of February 14, 2005 (day 35)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make an amendment to Motion 26-15(3).

“Mr. Robert McLeod, Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, be appointed to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight and to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development.”

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Motion on the floor to amend. To the amendment. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With no disrespect to the Striking Committee, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for Twin Lakes is the only Member who is not appointed to any of the standing committees and there is a vacancy particularly to the Accountability and Oversight committee and to Governance and Economic Development committee. That’s the reason that I’m making this amendment to this motion, so that we can deal with that particular Member to sit on these various committees. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. To the amendment. The Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just got up to let the Members know that I cannot support the amendment to the motion due to the fact that there is a lot of other concerns that the Striking Committee, in drafting up the original motion, did take into consideration and that this amendment doesn’t really address a lot of those issues. It’s just basically a status quo amendment to a motion, where the original motion is basically taking more consideration about regional balances and working together as Accountability and Oversight committee members, as was discussed this morning, and I think that the amendment to the original motion is just too cut and dried for me. It doesn’t take into a whole lot of variables that we were discussing in our meetings. Therefore, I can’t support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make a very short comment on this amendment. I will not be supporting this amendment, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. The first one is that it basically does away with the intent of the motion. So it is a very strong amendment and if the Members support the amendment, basically they could vote against the first one. The reason why I think that is more preferable than supporting this amendment is it does away with the work of the Striking Committee, which I think is a very important element to consider, Mr. Speaker.

Hear! Hear!

---Applause

Mr. Speaker, if the Members do not agree with the original amendments, I think the right thing to do is to send the work back to the Striking Committee. It is a working committee, it’s a standing committee, it’s a respected committee that has been set up by Members to do this work. So I really think that this is interfering with the process that’s very well established and it is not respectable of the Striking Committee that was set up by Members to do Members' work. I would like to also urge the Members in voting on this, to consider what precedent this might be setting. We would not want to see a situation where decisions made by the Board of Management or Accountability and Oversight committee or Social Programs committee, any of the work that the standing committees do here that makes it such an important part of our work being revisited in this House in this way. I would urge the Members if they do not support the first motion not to vote for the amendment, but vote against the first one and send the work back to the Striking Committee where it belongs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m going to speak in favour of the amendment that’s before us today. I thank the Member for North Slave for bringing it here today, for one apparent reason: the regional balance that we should try to maintain. The convention is that Cabinet Members are split up on a regional basis and I feel quite strongly that our standing committees and the structure that the standing committees take should also have that convention in mind when committee assignments and our appointments are made. It is absolutely with no disrespect to the Striking Committee or the Striking Committee members that I’m supporting this amendment. I think they were faced with a difficult decision, having a new Member come into the House. The other thing is we still haven’t really heard -- and I know Regular Members aren’t privy to what the discussions are on the Striking Committee and that’s their business -- but there are three members of the Striking Committee and there are 11 Regular Members, Mr. Speaker, and if the Striking Committee makes a decision, why can’t we question it? That’s what this amendment is and I do support the amendment, and I’m not in favour of the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the amendment.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed to the amendment? The Chair notices that there is a tie to the amendment. Rule 60(3) states that in the case of a tie, the Speaker or Chair of Committee of the Whole shall cast the deciding vote and may state reasons. In general, the principle applied to amendments is that decisions should not be taken except by a majority and that where there is no majority, the main motion should be left in its existing form. I, therefore, vote against the amendment and declare the amendment defeated.

---Defeated

Is there any further discussion on the main motion?

Question.

Question is being called on the main motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The Chair recognizes that there is a tie on the floor. Rule 60(3) states that in the case of a tie, the Speaker or Chair of Committee of the Whole shall cast the deciding vote and may state reasons. In general, the principle applied to motions is that where no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority. I, therefore, vote against the motion and declare that the motion is defeated.

---Defeated