Yes. Thank you.
You know, I haven't been at the committee for a few meetings, but I've been watching very closely the evidence that's been put forward. I want to thank my colleague Madame Michaud for bringing forward this motion and showing a desire to have additional witnesses to look into what I think is just a massive amendment. I wish my Liberal colleagues would show some humility across the way when talking about misinformation and perhaps recognize that the whole reason we're here today is because of an amendment they put forward that does indeed have massive implications in this country.
Moving forward, I think the amendment put forward by my colleague Ms. Dancho is well placed. I remember earlier testimony on Bill C-21, when we had indigenous witnesses come to this committee. They were very clear that they had not been consulted. They did not feel consulted about this legislation. It kind of disappointed me that we moved into clause-by-clause without taking a step back to recognize that, you know, these are indigenous people in this country who have been disenfranchised by this country for over a century, and they're telling us at committee that they were not consulted. These are representatives of first nations and indigenous communities, and this committee just basically took down their testimony and said, well, we're going to move along.
That didn't sit right with me at the time. I didn't know if I was going to have an opportunity to raise this issue, but I think now is a good opportunity to raise this issue. When we spoke to those witnesses, they said it wasn't good enough just to talk to the chiefs. It was noted that one of the Liberal members said, well, we spoke to a chief about this, and they said they thought it was all right.
That's a big mistake. We really need to get into the grassroots with indigenous communities, with first nations, Métis and Inuit. We also need to approach them on their level. I'm not saying to limit it to those groups, because I think there are lots of other groups we need to hear from on this specific amendment. I'm just speaking about the indigenous witnesses for a moment. It's quite a thing to ask that people come to Ottawa from these rural, remote and northern communities. I know that a lot of times there's financial compensation for people to come here, but it's just not feasible for them. We also know that in this country we still don't have a very strong network of rural broadband, which also eliminates....
This leads to the question of capacity. Where there is no capacity, I don't believe there can be consent. I think it would really be essential for this committee, as a sign of reconciliation and good faith, to actually set aside some meetings for this committee to actually go into these communities, within reason. We're talking about Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Churchill, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, Vancouver Island and Labrador, just to name a few places. It may not be all those places, but certainly some of those places. They all have merit.
It's important for us to go into these communities and invite these people within their own communities to come to our committee to have their say and be heard by us. I think that would be a tremendous show of reconciliation in this country. I think it would be a tremendous show of willingness to consult with first nations, Inuit and Métis folk who live in rural areas who hunt and trap for sustenance or for recreation.
I really want to lend further support to my colleague's amendment and suggest that there's room for flexibility here if members have specific places they'd like to go or if they think a specific number of meetings is appropriate. I think setting out 20 as an initial proposal is a strong proposal. I hope this amendment is taken in good spirit by this committee.
Thank you.