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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Can you send it to him now?
What I propose is that we amend the motion by adding “d)”. It's not going to be elegant because things will be split up, but it doesn't really matter. We're going to add four first nations. We're going to add ECCC.
Did I hear someone say Indigenous Services Canada? No, not representatives from Indigenous Services Canada...? Okay.
Okay. It's ECCC, four first nations and representatives of Northwest Territories. Have I missed anything?
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I don't know if you want that as a separate motion in d).
Liberal
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
The motion, in c), says two hours to hear three of the nations. I think we want two hours to hear all seven of the nations, or do we want a separate meeting to hear the other four nations?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's where we get into how many meetings we want.
Has there been agreement on the number of meetings?
I have Mr. Longfield.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
We're continuing the conversation. One thing I suggested was that we could possibly go longer than two hours if there's a meeting that looks like it's going to have too many people at it and we won't be able to.... I think we'd want to keep it within three meetings and have some flexibility on the two-hour limit.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
The clerk also has to try to get people to the table, so it's to give the flexibility to the clerk if needed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The idea is to give flexibility to the clerk, but I don't have an answer for you right now as to whether we can extend the meeting beyond two hours. That's what I'm trying to say.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Weiler a question based on the original motion.
Why did the member pick up three first nations when seven have been involved?
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
They're the three first nations most directly impacted by this. I'd be very interested to hear from Mr. Deltell on what other four you'd like to invite to this committee.
We want to hear directly from the indigenous groups that are most directly impacted by this. What we talked about in the subcommittee was making sure that's in the first meeting, so that we can start with that level of understanding before we talk about where the breakdowns of communications are that led to that impact.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have a suggestion. I suggest that, in c), we just add four nations.
Ms. Collins, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm trying to keep track of too many things.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's okay.
I wondered if we wanted to keep our language somewhat vague. I am not deeply familiar with the region and the first nations involved. I hear from Mr. Weiler that there are three first nations potentially most impacted and from my Conservative colleagues that there are seven altogether. I just don't want us to miss a nation that might be impacted.
I'm wondering if we want to switch our language to something along the lines of “invite the first nations who are impacted by this” and then potentially have those seven first nations mentioned but maybe allow our committee team to ensure we're capturing everyone who is impacted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
How about, in c), we amend it by saying, “Invite, as a minimum,” and then add the four we want to add after the three that are there? That leaves it open if there is an extra first nation that we've forgotten, like an eighth first nation or whatever.
It would say, “Invite, as a minimum, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Mikisew Cree First Nation”—take out the “and” because it's going to be a comma—“the Fort Chipewyan Métis Nation” and the four that Mr. Kurek suggests. We're saying “as a minimum”. The understanding here is that we'll figure it out in good faith if there are others. That would take care of an amendment to c). Then we could amend b) to say, “Invite Alberta's...”.
In other words, we're saying that we're keeping the two-hour slots. We're not changing the two-hour slots. In b), we could say, “Invite Alberta's Energy Regulator, representatives of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and representatives of the Government of Northwest Territories for a two-hour meeting”.
In other words, the amendment to this motion is very simple. We amend b) and c) to include some stakeholders we hadn't mentioned. Part b) is about government and part c) is about first nations.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's very simple amendments to b) and c).
Does that work? Can I read it to you?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
The motion up until b) is the same, and then b) would say, “Invite Alberta’s Energy Regulator, representatives of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and representatives of the Government of Northwest Territories for a two-hour meeting, to answer questions”.
Then c) would be amended to read, “Invite, at a minimum, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Mikisew Cree First Nation, the Fort Chipewyan Metis Nation, the Fort McMurray First Nation 468, the McMurray Metis 1935, the Fort McKay Metis Nation, and the Fort McKay First Nation, for a two-hour meeting to provide a testimony to the Committee about how this incident is affecting their communities.”
That's where it ends, at part c). There's no part d). Does that work?
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We talked about trying to ensure that this meeting comes first in the order of precedence. Is that something we need to build into the motion, or can we just leave that in the hands of our...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Absolutely. The intention was to have the first nations come first. I think that's agreed, so I don't think we need to put it in the motion. It's agreed. You can read the minutes after. We all agree with that.
Do we pass the motion as amended?
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'm not very aware of the details.
Earlier, we were saying that we needed to have some flexibility when it came to how long the meetings could go. Do we need to include that in the motion, to make sure we aren't stuck with wording that prevents us from going longer than two hours, if we want to meet for two and a half or three hours?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We don't know whether we will actually be able to meet for longer. It depends on a lot of things. Many constraints are beyond the committee's control. Nevertheless, I fully realize that, if possible, the committee wants to keep some flexibility in that regard, should it be necessary.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I understand, Mr. Chair. I completely agree with the spirit here. The problem is that, on a number of occasions, we haven't been able to meet for an extra five or 10 minutes, even, because the entire support staff had to be available. The people who support the committee do a stellar job, and the committee certainly appreciates it, but we do understand that they have responsibilities on their end.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Personally, I think the three 2‑hour meetings will be enough to do everything.
