I'm really grateful that we've come to this place. I think the spirit of it is that we want to get to the bottom of what's happening and we want to support the policy around indigenous business set-asides and procurement strategies.
However, I was concerned about the broad scope. I really want to take the time right now to comment on how problematic it is for a committee to look at and perhaps scrutinize the indigenous status of an individual and perhaps their workforce. There are certain mechanisms within different departments that can conduct these kinds of audits. Indigenous Services Canada is an example of that.
I'm just concerned about the broad scope, so I'm very much open to getting the data, looking at the information first and then moving from there to determine where we want to take it.
Should it require a further longitudinal study? Should it require a subcommittee? I think we need more information to be able to decide that, because there is a complex issue here around identity, which may become more problematic than we might first assume in looking at the initial motion.
I'm very much in support of Ms. Vignola's amendment.