Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just turning to where we started with this amendment was to mirror language in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which has a duty of consultation on governments to consult with Indigenous governments before any regulations are made. We canvassed that with the Minister, with the sponsoring Minister, and it was quite clear that went too far, and there were concerns around precedent.

I don't think the MVRMA has set universal precedent for federal legislation, but I digress. I am happy to accept that rationale.

This does not have the same burden. From the onset, I tried to be very clear in speaking to this motion. It is a duty of notice, 30 days, whenever regulations are changed or to be made. I think my concern, and the concern of my colleague who helped author the dissenting opinion, is a piecemeal and inconsistent approach to how we manage co-drafting, and not just when the legislation comes forward, but when it needs amendment or when regulations are produced. This is an opportunity to set a clear standard of engagement in regulation-making authority as it relates to co-management of land and resources across the concert of bills that are before the House and in future bills going forward.

I appreciate that the Minister is giving us assurances that they are going to work it out at the IGC. That is an important process. That needs to play out, but we have to deal with this bill today. We do not have the opportunity to wait and see if legislative amendments are required. What we heard, quite clearly, is that certainty is what our Indigenous partner governments are looking for. It is not just governments that are coming forward to provide written submissions on a piece of public legislation. They are co-authors of these bills. I think that they have a right to feel like they should be continuing along in the process.

Members have raised their concerns around this amendment, and one of these is around the phrase "Indigenous governments or organizations." The law clerk has provided my understanding of the phrase. It is a phrase that appears in the bill and was discussed at committee. I think that Members raising this, perhaps, are strangers to the facts of this bill and are, perhaps, attempting to make this amendment something that it is not. I believe in free and informed debate, and I think that that debate should be on the motions before us and what we think the motions are.

This motion, again, clearly stated, is a notice period required to all Indigenous governments or organizations in the Northwest Territories, whether or not they are part of the Intergovernmental Council. It is a broad and encompassing relationship piece, and again, it is a duty of notice. It is not a limitation on the government's ability to draft or pass regulations. It just ensures that everyone is in the same loop when important changes are being made. I do not think that it is an unreasonable compromise from the committee's original position, which was full-blown legal consultation on any regulation. This is a huge step back from that, and that is not what is being asked for today.

I hope that we all understand clearly what this amendment represents and not what we think it represents and that we can decide our votes based on the facts and not on politics. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request a recorded vote.