Yes, well, you want me to keep it on clause 2. The point is that, to tell the truth, I'm mesmerized to see that we are....
We are in the process of passing a bill, while there are witnesses from museums to be heard. They are not First Nations, but these witnesses certainly care about the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property and reconciliation with indigenous peoples. No one here can look me in the eye and tell me that the recommendations, the bill and the amendments take into account the information that was sent to us by the Royal British Columbia Museum this morning at 10:14 a.m. That's impossible.
As my colleague said, isn't that a little insulting to all these people the committee is asking to appear? This morning, I’m more interested in doing the right thing, no matter what the government thinks. And the right thing is to ensure, as a representative of the New Democrats, that my First Nations colleagues can support the amendments. We’ve talked a lot about people, like Mr. Saganash, who has often been quoted. This is certainly my main concern.
Honestly, there is a major procedural flaw in rushing right away to pass the bill just like that, when we have important witnesses to hear. We cannot dispute the importance and professional expertise of the people from the Royal British Columbia Museum.
I see you wish to speak, Madam Chair. I'll let you do so and then we'll continue afterwards.
Can someone please clearly explain this procedural flaw in ignoring the views of experts such as the Royal British Columbia Museum and the Canadian Museum of History before passing this bill?