Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate very closely and as a result of that I actually want to follow up on the last comment made by my friend and colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona.
The fascinating thing, both about the motion and about the debate that has been happening here in the House all day, is that we really do not have a sense of what the government members will be doing on this motion. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona has expressed, they have gone all over the place in the debate. They have expressed their support for parks. They have said how lovely Canada's national parks are, which is all really wonderful, except we have motion before us that actually puts the question to the House about whether we support an apology for the expropriation and to the people who have been expropriated and their families.
The other thing I have not been able to figure out in the debate is why the motion before us requests an apology from Parliament. We may well be in a position where the Liberals would support an apology. In fact, the member for Honoré-Mercier, earlier on in the debate, expressed an apology on behalf of the Liberal Party, which is appropriate since it was the Trudeau government that began expropriations. As it is a Bloc motion, obviously Bloc members will be supporting it and we in the NDP will be supporting it.
However, would that apology be enough? It may pass in the House with the support of those three parties , but will it be enough if the government actually votes against the motion?
I wonder if the member could explain why this motion asks for an apology from Parliament as opposed to an apology from the government specifically, so that the members opposite would have to take a firm position and be accountable for that position.