Thank you, Madam Chair.
Of course, I'm looking at some of the media coverage of the committee yesterday, and here's a headline: Status of Women committee shuts down testimony on controversial First Nations bill.
This is on iPolitics.
I'm not clear, Madam Chair, that this is the kind of reputation that the status of women committee would like to have.
What we have before us is a bill that will have far-reaching impacts on first nation men, women, and children, and part of our responsibility as members of Parliament is to exercise, as Ms. Ashton referred to, due diligence. It's our responsibility to ensure that we give a thorough review of a piece of legislation.
I might point out to committee members that this is the first time that matrimonial real property has been before a parliamentary committee. It has been before the Senate, absolutely, but it has not been before a parliamentary committee. It's our responsibility to ensure that we thoroughly review the bill and that we ensure that we have had sufficient testimony in order for us to make sure that the bill is achieving the aims it is purported to achieve.
What we had yesterday, unfortunately, is something that I have not seen in my entire career here in Parliament. We had key witnesses on the piece of legislation who were not allotted what is customary time to present their point of view, and there was no time at all for the members to pose questions to these witnesses.
I would argue that delaying the clause-by-clause consideration in order for us to make sure that we've covered all the bases is something that, as responsible parliamentarians, we should undertake. So I am supporting Ms. Ashton's motion and I would urge all members to support this so that we can demonstrate, as a committee, that we understand our responsibilities and that we are respectful of the witnesses who have made the effort to come before us.