Mr. Chairman, if we're going to follow the parliamentary secretary's admonitions to stay relevant.... So he's presented an amendment that he says comes as a result of listening to the Jewish community.
All along we've been talking about this being a bill--together with all of its amendments--reflecting the entire Canadian public's commitment to this. But this is the third time I've asked.... If in fact we are going to take the parliamentary secretary's words as truth, it behooves us all to have the representatives of the Jewish community to whom he has spoken—and who have allegedly supported everything he has done—come before the committee. There's nothing wrong with us listening to all of them to find out what it is they wanted.
Presumably everybody consulted with the community prior to the bill being presented in the House. So now we've got amendment after amendment being withdrawn and replaced by the same amendment, and we don't know what the Jewish community supports or not. Not that it matters, because this monument is a monument that is being supported by the public of Canada. Every single community and the public of Canada wants this monument, and they want the Government of Canada to assume the responsibility and the costs and the maintenance for this.
We've already voted this far. What purpose is there to continually harp on the fact that a particular segment of the Canadian public wants it? Is it to diminish their right to have a monument?