Evidence of meeting #53 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was invite.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm quite sure it's doable. We will do everything we can to make it work.
Ms. Pauzé, go ahead.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I have a question about how the meetings will be set up.
We usually invite two panels. Without saying it explicitly in the amendment, a subamendment or somewhere else, we could invite the first nations listed in Mr. Weiler's motion—the ones directly impacted—for the first panel and invite the other first nations—the ones less impacted—for the second panel. Could we do that?
That's how I suggest we set up the panels, but I don't think it requires an amendment or a subamendment.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Two things about your suggestion worry me.
First, the committee might start off with a plan, but it could all go out the window once the clerk starts inviting the witnesses.
Second, it would create two classes of witnesses, so to speak. Do you understand what I mean? Even though that's not our intention, people might think they were invited to participate in the second panel for a certain reason.
Ms. Collins, do you still have your hand up?
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Actually, I was going to raise something similar to Madame Pauzé, in terms of maybe not leaving it in our hands as elected officials but delegating this to the expertise of our clerk. I did a quick Google search when I was looking at the first nations and Métis nations involved, and there are nine who are part of the federal government's working group on tailing ponds.
I suggest leaving it in our clerk's hands to figure out, in this particular case, with the leak from January and the leak from May of 2022, which were the most impacted by that and potentially prioritizing and ensuring that those nations are able to make it on the date that we are proposing. Then I suggest also inviting all of those nine impacted nations, but ensuring that the folks who are most directly impacted will be able to attend.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm not sure I follow you exactly. The ones who were originally mentioned, I think it's clear that they're directly impacted. We have seven in the motion, but even though we said that's a minimum, at some point we may get so many, if we keep adding, that nobody's going to have enough time to say what they want to say or answer the questions they want to answer.
Can we say that what's mentioned in the motion, the seven in the motion, are the ones at the moment that we really want to see, and if there's a possibility—
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, my point was more that, because I'm not deeply familiar with the region and the first nations that are going to be most impacted, I worry that our decision-making here in this moment might not be capturing exactly the best way to address this issue. I wonder if we were to give this decision-making power to our clerk and committee staff, who can ensure that we are going to invite the—
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Definitely. We always rely on the good advice of our staff.
Mr. Kurek.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
One of the keys to including the larger three nations initially in the motion was that it's difficult for us around this table to suggest who is and is not affected, when you have first nations in the region who are certainly in the best position to make that determination and then to explain to us why that is the case.
I represent an area that is about six hours to the south of this, but certainly it will be valuable to hear from those voices. We wouldn't want to limit those indigenous communities that have both been affected and have a say in this.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The ones that are mentioned in the motion we're definitely going to contact, and we'll take it from there on the advice of the analysts and the clerk. Is that okay? Yes. Shall we vote on the motion as amended?
Do we have to vote on the amendment first?
Who would like to move the amendment? I'm appropriating too much power to myself.
11:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Chair, I would move the amendment as presented.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Just before we do, I want to make a quick comment that this is the way a committee should work. I noticed Mr. Longfield at the beginning said he didn't want the issue to go stale. I'm wondering if he might commit to going and talking to his colleague Mr. Gerretsen, so that the same earnestness can be applied to the foreign interference studies that are going on right now.
11:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's out of scope for the environment committee.
We're going to break now and go in camera. Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]