Evidence of meeting #138 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rural.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's fine, and remind me so that I won't have to mention it when we actually do the report.
On the amendment, we have Mr. Bachrach, and then Mrs. Vignola.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have just a quick point of order, Chair. Is that going to be distributed?
September 17th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay.
Is she also proposing to strike—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Why don't we just wait a few moments until it comes out so we're clear on it?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Do you have it in both languages, Mrs. Atwin, or are you sending it to the clerk to then be translated and distributed?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I think we want to try to get this done.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I just want to clarify. Is the amendment proposing to strike the invitation to leaders of indigenous nations and national indigenous organizations? Is the amendment proposing to strike that?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Yes. It leaves it open in the “other witnesses” portion. It just doesn't specifically name it.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Right.
We do not support this amendment, for a number of reasons.
Number one, this is a study of procurement. Having the minister responsible for procurement is quite reasonable and, I think, important. This is an issue of an indigenous program, but the way indigenous identity is defined in this country and the way people may be manipulatively qualifying for it who shouldn't is also an issue of Crown-Indigenous Relations. I think inviting all three ministers makes sense. Needless to say, ministers don't have to come if they don't think they have something relevant to contribute, but I think we should invite all three ministers. Their responsibilities all do touch on it.
The other thing is—I thought we had agreed, but it seems we didn't—that we should clearly state in the motion that we should be inviting leaders of indigenous nations and national indigenous organizations. We want to hear their perspectives alongside that of others.
As well, I do not agree with setting a hard cap on witnesses. It's Tuesday. The proposed witness deadline is Friday. When it comes out that this study is taking place, there no doubt will be folks who have been affected by this policy who will want to come forward and who will contact us and contact the chair. Given that we've already set some parameters around the timeline of this study anyway, I think we should have an open-ended witness submission opportunity so that if a witness comes before us and says, “You know what, you really should hear from so and so”, that witness can be added to the mix, rather than us saying, “Oh well, too bad. You had three days from the motion being adopted to the witness deadline, and if you didn't get your names in, too bad.”
I think the motion as amended by Mrs. Vignola is fine. The hard cap on witness submission three days from now, with the removal of references to some ministers and to indigenous organizations, doesn't make a lot of sense.
In terms of the reference to reporting our conclusions to the House, yes, clearly we'll report our conclusions to the House, but that doesn't have to be in the motion. That's just something we always do. I don't think this amendment really adds anything.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Just in light of that, perhaps it would be simpler if we could separate them into two amendments, so we can deal with the first piece separately, but I would like to have the piece about reporting to the House as a separate amendment. We'll send them separately in both official languages now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We'd have to have approval, unanimous consent, to withdraw the amendment.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, here's a clean way to do it, then. I would propose to amend her amendment by taking out all of the changes she proposed, except the change that we would report our findings to the House.
I can move that subamendment and people can vote how they want on it.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Well, we're not going to get.... Mr. Genuis, you're proposing a subamendment to an amendment that we don't even have clear wording for, on something where they're trying to subamend their own amendment. Let's just wait a couple of minutes.
How far are we from actually getting it in writing to the clerk?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're back. I understand the parties have an agreement.
The floor is yours, Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I was going to ask for unanimous consent to pull my amendment, but Mr. Genuis already had a solution for that.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes. The subamendment that I had proposed was to remove all of the changes except the one that would say the committee would report on its findings to the House. I think we now have agreement to adopt the subamendment to the amendment and the motion.