By no means are we filibustering.
I'm taking this bill quite seriously. This bill could become law, and I think we have to have the people who can define exactly what we're voting for. We do not know. This definition has been everywhere.
Ms. Dhalla just said that she had many motions on the table. She feels that she can lump them together. Well, she wouldn't have put them separately if she felt that she could lump them together. They're separate motions. They all must have certain language or specifics.
One thing that does distress me this afternoon is the suggestion that we are against any sort of child care for aboriginals--far from it. So I would like to see no press releases saying that the Conservatives have voted against something that we believe in and care very much about.
I have met with aboriginal groups. I have some in my riding. I'm very proud of them, and I like what they're doing. They have asked me for child care too. I would like to go back to the riding and ask them what they think of this bill. They would like early learning and child care too. But I don't know if this bill is capable of delivering it.
Furthermore, we should find out what the aboriginal leaders in Quebec think, because Quebec is exempted. I know they're governed by federal law, so there's no confusion there. But now we have this broader definition that we're supposed to put. We will go through the bill very quickly—I'm certain we will—as long as we understand this, because this is huge. These are first nations.