Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect to the parliamentary secretary, if that were the case then why did she make the commitment to me and other members of the House that the clause would be removed? If it were that urgent, why did she, on behalf of the heritage minister and the heritage department, undertake that they would be removing the clause?
This clause, I will admit, is an essential clause to be looked at in its own way and its own right. Many of the issues relative to the 50 years were brought up in committee, but I know she will agree, and that the chair of the heritage committee will agree, that it was the most contentious part of any of the committee testimony we had.
I do not believe that there was a clear decision at that particular point. So therefore, if we were to do something on that legislation, it should be separate. If it were essential because of the 2003 deadline, a bill should be brought in, in a frontal and straightforward way, in an “in your face” way to Parliament and parliamentarians so that we could deal with the bill.
But, I ask the question again. She has said this was something that was essential to be there. If it was essential to be there, why did she agree to remove it in June?