I think we'll do that right after I make my argument. Thanks.
As we have been arguing now, at length, for three of these meetings, I hope that three days would be possible for experts to come to the table. For example, there are many facts that would need to be clarified, like exactly what the government means by orphan wells and whether it means inactive, suspended or terminated wells, and like what it means by abandoned wells and whether it actually means decommissioned wells. Those are the kinds of facts that every single Canadian concerned with these issues, right across the country, I think, would want to see our committee able to clarify with individuals at the table who know what they're talking about and who are experts in the field. Perhaps they can provide some clarity to this motion, given the wording in it that colleagues have, at length, litigated as being misinformation and disinformation.
I certainly support the removal of the preamble that way and support the amendment as suggested by my colleague.
Of course, I would hope, if colleagues are amenable to this solution, that we would prioritize hearing from indigenous contractors, indigenous communities and indigenous workers, who long throughout energy development have been partners, employers, employees and contractors. They are, in ever-increasing numbers, becoming equity owners in resource development and of course right across the supply chain as, by and large, small and medium-sized companies and contractors doing this work.
It seems to me that if the federal government is serious about this objective, then it would support representation by experts and regulators and by the provinces in which this work is being done, primary among them due to the federal failure here, the revocation of the money and the refusal to participate in terms of the extension of time and funding that the Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 chiefs and the Albertan government asked for.
Given that there are 32 communities among which more than $100 million has been split, and given the opportunities available in the future for additional contractors and for indigenous communities to be engaged through the facilitating work by the Indian Resource Council, I think it would behoove members on this committee to hear about the kind of work going on in provinces right across the country, given that this is a reality across the country.
Those are the reasons I support my colleague's amendment, and I hope, in good faith, if every member of this committee is serious about environmental remediation and reclamation, and about indigenous economic opportunities, that this amendment will be supported. Hopefully, we can have an actual productive, informed and fact-based assessment at this committee, again, still knowing that we actually have not yet completed work on two previous studies. That is something I cautioned about from the very beginning—just moving to this work immediately—but I guess every individual member can account to their constituents when they feel they are not doing their jobs on committees and we can't seem to get reports out the door but are being moved on to different topics.
