Yes, you can, in the course of time.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aboriginal.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aboriginal.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong the debate. We're all accountable to the taxpayers of Canada, but as parliamentarians and as a government, we're also accountable to the people we serve, and when I listen to the parliamentary secretary's amendment to the motion, it distresses me no end.
My colleague Mr. Merasty has addressed the issue probably more eloquently than I can. But what I'm hearing is that we, the people around this table, can better determine what is required for aboriginal peoples than those who are involved, than those who were part of the Kelowna agreement, than those who did the 18 months of consultation leading up to Kelowna. We can't cherry-pick. We can't tell them that this is better and do it in a non-consultative manner.
What we have to recognize is that this is a nation-to-nation agreement, signed by the leadership of every government in this country. It's time to move forward. People across this country are waiting for it.
I can't give you details of the $1.8 million, Mr. Mayes, but I can tell you that in communities in the province of Manitoba they know what they want to do with it. They know the plans they have coming out of Kelowna. They have the $5.1 billion laid out. They know what the $1.8 million in education means in terms of the numbers of young people who can go on to post-secondary education. They know what it means in terms of teacher training. They know, in the health accord, how many more young people will be able to go forward for training as health professionals. They know what their communities need, and far be it from us to tell them better.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I do not support the amendment as presented, even though I haven't seen it in writing yet, because I think it totally changes the focus of the original motion.
In the original motion, we're asking the government to implement the Kelowna agreement and to respond to us in 120 days as to what their intent is. The amendment totally takes away that request for the government to respond to our motion, because he is asking the committee to study the agreement and see if it's good enough for the Conservative government to implement.
We've been hearing a lot in the last little while about the moneys that are being put out by the agriculture minister. I don't hear anybody from the agriculture committee asking to study that agreement or whether that money is being put to best use. We do put the trust of decisions in our governments; we try, anyway, to give the prerogative to the minister and the Prime Minister to make decisions on behalf of the people of Canada. Where there's a will, there's a way, and I don't see the will in the Conservative government to look beyond party politics to really address the needs of aboriginal communities.
Again, in the way of the funding announcements, we're not hearing any committee asking to study any of those agreements in the same way that I believe the members across the way are asking that the Kelowna agreement be studied. As we've said on this side, the work has been done. They might want to talk about how best to work with the aboriginal groups to implement the recommendations, but I don't believe it's up to this committee to study every line in that agreement to see if it best serves the people of Canada.
I'm very proud that our side has every recognized group in the country represented on this committee. That is one thing that the budget failed to note, that there are three recognized aboriginal groups in Canada. We have a lot of messaging to do in that we tend to think “First Nations” equals “aboriginal people” in Canada. It doesn't. There are First Nations, there are Inuit, and there are Métis. That's a fundamental misunderstanding that we see all the time. That's how we sometimes gauge how understanding the people are who are talking about the issues. If they fail to recognize the three aboriginal groups, then I know right away they haven't done their homework. They don't understand the First Peoples of Canada. That, to me, was evident in the budget.
To go back, I do not think the amendment is serving the purpose that we want to see in the main motion.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
It seems that the wishes of various members of the committee are clear, so I'm not sure why we're not moving to a vote on the amendment and the original motion. We can continue this debate across the table, but I would suggest we vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Well, as long as there's discussion with respect to an amendment or a motion, I'm not in a position to actually call the vote.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Well, there's discussion on the question.
Anyhow, at this point, Gary, do you want to speak with respect to the calling of the question, whether or not we should go to a vote?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
It's no matter. Now you can speak with respect to the question, so go ahead.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Well, I guess part of the answer to my colleague across--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Did you want the question called? You can have your debate as long as you want and then comment as you choose.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Okay. I'll call the question to the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
She has called the question. You're responding; you're debating; you're discussing.
Conservative
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
The question is debatable. I think the previous speaker should move the previous question and we vote on that if we want to close down debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maurice Vellacott
Okay, carry on.
I mean, you can call the question, I guess, was my point. It's not receivable, in that if there's still debate, it carries on. That's the way the committee structure works, and that's the way the Standing Orders operate. At the point where nobody has anything further to say, we go to the question.
Gary, I don't know if you had anything more to say. Then I have on my list Mr. Bruinooge. We'll proceed, I guess, based on that. At the point at which there's nobody further to talk or discuss, in terms of the amendment, then we go to the vote on that, and after that we see if there's discussion with respect to the main amendment, back to the main amendment.
Gary, I guess I didn't hear from you. Did you want to speak?
