Evidence of meeting #127 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
No, get your legal book out. Those are two different clauses. The second one puts the flexibility on this committee to make the decision as to when that would happen. Read it carefully. It would be the committee that would determine this. The request to the House is in two weeks, but if you read that last clause, it says that it's then the committee that determines when, “as it sees fit”.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Whichever it is, there are two clauses in here and the flexibility still rests in the hands of this committee regarding determining when they would appear.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
It's still there. It's still up to the committee to determine when they would appear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.
On the list, I have Mrs. Atwin, Ms. Idlout and Mr. Battiste.
Next, we'll go to Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will echo what a lot of my colleagues are saying here.
I cannot support, in any way, anything that would jeopardize the timeline we have for Bill C-61. This is critically important. Indigenous communities have been waiting long enough for this. I think we owe it to them to make this our first priority and to focus on this piece.
If the concern here is about the indigenous procurement piece, we're studying that at OGGO this afternoon. You're more than welcome to join us there and ask some questions. I'm happy, also, to facilitate any further questions or [Technical difficulty—Editor] with ministers. Of course, we want to get the answers to questions for colleagues. That's critically important as well.
I think we're close on this. However, for me, any iota of an inclination to possibly use this to delay Bill C-61.... I cannot, under any terms, support that. It's very critical that we're very clear with this. I understand what Mr. Shields is trying to say. However, to me, it still looks like there's that two-week time frame. Again, because of the tight turnaround for Bill C-61's clause-by-clause, I have to see that language tightened up in order to have that assurance.
I think the colleague going after me might be putting forward a subamendment, if I'm not mistaken. It would be to have that clarification piece around the timeline for finishing Bill C-61 first.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Before I go to the next speaker, Mrs. Atwin, are you moving a subamendment or just suggesting one at this time?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I kind of danced around it a bit.
I will move the subamendment to insert the piece around finishing the legislation of Bill C-61.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
People are speaking without using the mic. There are discussions going on back and forth. I can only hear the person who is on the microphone, so I'm missing half of what's being discussed here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. That's a point very well taken.
As much as possible, can members make sure they speak when they have the floor and use the microphone, so all members can participate as well as the members who are not here in person and joining by video conference?
Ms. Atwin, you are moving a subamendment here. Could you read out the subamendment for members' certainty, before we move to debate on it?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Yes. Wait one second. I'm waiting for the order of where to put it.
It would simply be, “be asked to return to committee within two weeks...following the conclusion of Bill C-61 legislation at INAN.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
Next on the subamendment, my list here says we have Mr. Battiste, Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I support that subamendment. It would go a long way in showing the sincerity of this committee and that we're not trying to filibuster C-61. We're actually concerned about what the genuine point of the original motion is and that it not get in the way of first nations finally accessing legislation that protects clean water for them.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Chair.
What troubles me in this conversation about what Mr. Carr has said is that what's keeping the Liberal government from bringing water to first nations communities is this bill.
You've been in government for nine years and you still haven't got it done. You were supposed to get it done in 2021. Now you're pretending that this legislation is holding everything up. Your government could have had it done and should have had it done when you said you were going to have it done several years ago.
I would put forward to the committee that we do have witnesses here. We want to get to the legislation, to the amendments that we've talked about. Let's just get it going. Let's call the vote on the original motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thanks, Mr. Zimmer. I'm afraid we have to deal with the subamendments that have been moved.
Next, I have Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I take Mr. Zimmer's point at face value, but whether or not he feels, or others feel, that the legislation could have come sooner doesn't negate the fact that it's here now and that what we're talking about is delaying it. Let's very clearly lay out what we're talking about.
The subamendment says we agree to invite the ministers back, because there have been concerns from some members about the clarity or transparency of their answers. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with that assessment, I respect members' rights and their ability to ask the ministers to come back.
What we're saying is, yes, let's do that. We agree. However, before we do that, let's conclude C-61. Let's conclude C-61 before we bring the ministers back. This is what I don't understand from my colleagues across the way. Why is it that they would have a concern with getting C-61 finished first? No one's disputing that the ministers ought to come back. Even if we disagree, we're accepting that. Just get C-61 done first.
The last point I would like to make is regarding something Mr. Shields said to me a few moments ago, and I don't quite understand this. The motion, as amended, says that the committee report to the House that “from time to time” ministers be invited. That's what we do. How do you think we invited the ministers two weeks ago? We didn't need a motion reported back to the House following through on something that some committee previously said—that from time to time we would invite the ministers—and then, in accordance with the written rule of that motion that went to the House, the ministers appeared. They appeared because we asked them to.
This is fluff. It's not necessary. I urge my colleagues to adopt the subamendment, amend the motion accordingly and invite the ministers back, but do it once we finish C-61. There's no hiding. There's no evasiveness. We agree the ministers should come. We just want C-61 finished first.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
October 31st, 2024 / 9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Carr.
Next on the list, I have Mr. Battiste.
No...? Next on the list, I have Mr. Shields.
Conservative
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
That's all of them. “All previous questions” means we vote on every amendment and the main motion.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
That's what I'm saying: “all previous questions”. That means all of them.