Martin Champoux
Drummond, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268 , which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead . This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”.”
“When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems.”
“In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here.”
“We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good.”
“For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 449 lines we hold for Martin Champoux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“The fact remains, however, that the views, ideas and contributions that opposition parties can bring to bills as important as Bill C-22 are essential. I think it is quite shameful that the government has decided to shut the door on these discussions. I would like to know whether my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands thinks that the Liberals got burned so badly over the past few years that now they are saying enough is enough, they can do what they like without giving the opposition a second thought, they can manage their affairs as they see fit, that is just the way it is now that they have their majority, and democracy be damned. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. She has been in this House for many years. My colleague was very, very young when she was first elected, as we all know. She has seen various permutations of government. I was first elected in 2019. The Liberal government held a minority. We had to debate important bills and sensitive issues. The government had no choice at that time but to negotiate with one of the opposition parties. Even though feathers got ruffled on a few occasions, particularly among the Conservatives and the Liberals—some committees got pretty rowdy—bills were always passed in the end, thanks to the co-operation of the opposition parties. Now we have a government that has secured a majority through various manoeuvres, as everyone is well aware.”
“Should we adopt security measures similar to those in some of these countries, such as having surveillance cameras on every street corner and greater tolerance for intrusions into personal data? Should we uphold our principle of protecting personal information, or should we instead align ourselves more closely with countries that may have less regard for such matters when it comes to their citizens?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my young colleague on her speech, which I greatly appreciated. I know that she has worked extremely hard on this bill, as she does in everything that she undertakes. She did such a thorough and professional job, and I commend her for that. In her speech, she spoke of the difficulties that Canada may face in sharing information with other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, England. Certain countries have a history of experiencing attacks, acts of terrorism and various threats that have led to the introduction of different types of measures. I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that more flexibility is needed in terms of privacy protection in order to ensure public safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The first thing I want to say is that it is a bit distracting, when there are not that many people in the House, to hear a conversation between members on the other side. Is it possible to ask that conversations be taken outside? The second thing is that my colleague just said she is 62 years old. I do not know if it is allowed under the Standing Orders to lie about one's age. I appeal to your judgment on that.”
“For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place. However, I will say it again, the argument that 99% and a bit of the population is covered is not enough. That is much better than 10 years ago, so congratulations may be in order. However, I find it extremely concerning that there are even a few people in this context who do not have access to basic security and emergency services. This requires us to act quickly. On that note, I think it is pretty clear that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑268 from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.”
“When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems. However, when we are passing through the rural parts of our ridings, it is rare not to come across areas where communications literally cut out and where there is no signal at all. It is very frustrating, once again, to be told that 100% of the territory is covered when we run into situations like that. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for something serious to happen before we realize that cell service has become something that we can no longer do without and for which we have an obligation to establish mechanisms to ensure reliable service?”
“According to Bill C‑268, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, would be required to act within a fairly short time frame of six months after the act's coming into force. It seems to me that the CRTC already has a rather large backlog of urgent matters to address, so entrusting it with managing this bill as a priority might be risky. There is a history of inaction at times due to the excessive workload that the CRTC faces. However, if everything goes well, we could already see results within six months of the bill's passage and implementation. I find that encouraging. The other thing is that there would be a verification process to ensure the accuracy of data, such as mobile coverage data.”
“People get the impression that everything is fine because almost everyone is connected. However, we are talking about an essential service. It becomes an essential service as soon as there is an incident like the ones I just mentioned. Bill C-268 contains meaningful, positive measures that will improve the current situation. People in rural areas, such as Drummond, will no longer have to wave their phones around trying to get a signal. These measures are primarily aimed at ensuring that unused spectrum is put to use in one way or another. I think it is a waste to hold these resources and not take the necessary steps to use them, particularly in regions and situations where there is a pressing need that must be addressed. I also like the idea of delivery timetables.”
“We can say that those 200,000 people who do not have access to entertainment can always read a book or go play outside. Yes, there is always a way to make do, but these 200,000 people also do not have access to emergency safety services. We have seen cases where this mattered. (1740) There have been situations where people needed to call the fire department or an ambulance urgently—after an accident or during a forest fire, since wildfires sometimes cut off regular communications where they are usually available—but were unable to access even the most basic emergency services. This is a cause for concern. This is a cause for concern, and there is no reason why we should be prevented from providing this service simply because the companies do not want to develop it, even though they hold the required spectrum.”
“We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good. It is much better than it was just a few years ago, but it still means that over 200,000 people do not have access to a cellular network. In 2026, not having access to a cellular network is, of course, a problem for communication. It is certainly a problem when it comes to entertainment. Nowadays, entertainment is increasingly delivered through our electronic devices, our cellphones and tablets. In some cases, it is through our computers, but the fact remains that we need this system, these frequencies.”
“In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here. That is the analogy I would use to explain why spectrum allocation and frequency usage need to be managed in much the same way. There are telecommunications companies that have acquired frequencies but do not need to develop them or lack the resources to do so, because developing these services is quite expensive. As a result, they are holding these unused frequencies that could be put to other uses. We have heard the industry call for more deregulation, rather than a stronger framework. I feel a little uneasy about that request, particularly in this case.”
“Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry. Issues related to spectrum, airwaves and broadcasting involve the technical side of the field that I was in and was genuinely passionate about. Back in my day, although we are not talking about the 1920s or 1930s, we did not have this level of congestion. Regulations were in place, and the government was exercising some control over frequency usage, but it was not as important back then as it is today. It has been quite a while since this policy was last revised. It was revised in 1992 and again 15 years later, in 2007. Now, in 2026, almost 20 years later, we find ourselves needing to review these regulations and this framework.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268 , which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead . This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”. If Quebeckers and Canadians were asked what that makes them think of, 99.9% of them would probably mention ghosts or James Bond villains. Very few of them would talk about frequencies, airwaves or broadcasting in general. However, spectrum is absolutely essential to broadcasting and communications as we have known them today and for decades. There is a reason why this topic is of interest to me. Before I got into politics, I dabbled in various fields, including radio. I worked at radio stations for three decades. That might be hard to believe.”
“I look forward to working with him in the future. I am sure we will meet each other again in our efforts to fight for Quebec as a country.”
“What a colleague he was. He has done impeccable work as the critic for international trade over the past six years, whether in the midst of a trade war or a pandemic. He has masterfully defended the aluminum, forestry and aerospace industries, among others. He worked with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to protect supply management, and he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to combatting forced labour. Everything he did in the House, he did with conviction and generosity. He is an activist. The Bloc Québécois is losing a member who is appreciated by everyone, a friend. Personally, I am also losing a riding neighbour with whom I had the opportunity to laugh and have fun, and I will miss that. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his years of service and his sincere convictions.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton made an announcement today, June 17, or maybe it is June 18. I am not very good with dates, as my colleague knows. Today, June 16, he announced that he is leaving us to run for the Parti Québécois in Quebec's general election this fall. I want to congratulate this extraordinary colleague who wears such sharp suits and ties and has such a unique sense of style. He is an activist. That is a privilege that we have as members of the Bloc Québécois. Our party is full of activists, men and women of conviction who are dedicated to the interests of Quebeckers and to a great and noble cause: making Quebec a country. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton now intends to champion this cause at the Quebec National Assembly. We were colleagues and, from now on, we will be allies.”
“In fact, he just touched on the answer a bit in his response to our Conservative colleague, but I want to know what he thinks the repeal of this exemption will mean for the sense of security among Jewish communities in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was thinking along the same lines as my colleague from Mount Royal. I congratulate him on his speech. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois's call over the past several years to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code has finally been included in Bill C-9 , which we are debating today. Like my colleague from Mount Royal, I have never heard any group representing the Jewish community speak out against this request from the Bloc Québécois. On the contrary, it is seen as yet another tool to protect Jewish communities, which have been particularly targeted by hate crimes over the past few years and even in recent days. Once again, we are witnessing extremely troubling acts of anti-Semitism in our society . I would like to know what my colleague thinks.”
“We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid. We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction. Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?”
“Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time. In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11 . We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture. Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. Obviously, she represents the Green Party, the environmental party. I would like her to tell me a little about this government's backsliding on the environment since this Prime Minister took office last year. For example, think of the pipeline agreements, the rollback of the pesticide regulations, and the continued investment in tax breaks for oil companies. I would like to know if my colleague is still optimistic about the fight against climate change under that party's leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague knows full well that Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling financially. Groceries are expensive. Everything is expensive. Even families that were well off not too long ago now have to make sacrifices and choices. There are solutions at our fingertips that could have been discussed in committee and that could have been discussed more broadly here in the House. For example, eliminating the subsidies to oil companies would generate about $27.5 billion in revenue for the government over five years. That is an estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Would my colleague agree with this type of measure, which would ease the financial burden on Quebeckers and Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. The name of his riding brings to mind landscapes, nature and beauty, and I cannot help but believe that my colleague is worried about the environment and climate change. In fact, he mentioned it in his speech, talking specifically about greenhouse gases and the fight against greenhouse gases. The Bloc Québécois called for an end to the oil subsidies, which would have generated approximately $27 billion in revenue for the government over five years. Instead, the government is maintaining the oil subsidies and, on top of that, it is relaxing the pesticide regulations. These are two measures that actually run counter to what my colleague mentioned earlier. They run counter to the fight against climate change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to present my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert and Minister of Government Transformation , with the document we submitted as part of our pre-budget requests regarding culture. These requests were made—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, during oral question period earlier today, the Minister of Government Transformation and member for Louis-Hébert misled the House. This is not the first time this has happened, which is why it is important for me to set the record straight. He stated, in his response to my question earlier, that the Bloc Québécois had not submitted any requests as part of the pre-budget consultations. In order to enable the member for Louis-Hébert to provide answers that meet the standards of rigour and honesty required by his office, I would like to table—”
“Mr. Speaker, that is zero for two. Let us give him another chance. The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canada needs to partner with middle powers to stand up to the United States. However, he is breaking with the 17 European countries and Australia, which impose digital services taxes on tech giants. He is breaking with the European Union, which imposes levies on streaming services such as Netflix. The fight for the diversity of cultural expression will be waged and perhaps won by middle powers. Canada is pulling out. It is weakening the global consensus and threatening the future of Quebec culture. Is selling one's soul not a rather high price to pay just to please Donald Trump?”
“Mr. Speaker, the word in French is not “programme”. The correct word is “émission” or “série”. While our media outlets continue to lose millions of dollars in revenue, the Prime Minister tried to placate Donald Trump by ending a decade-long campaign by the cultural sector to ensure that the tech giants pay their fair share. In response, Donald Trump has issued additional threats regarding CUSMA. I would like to read a quote from a Quebec filmmaker, a certain Mr. Falardeau. I do not think the Prime Minister knows him. Mr. Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you ‘sir’.” Is the Prime Minister not the least bit tempted to take that advice so he might actually be called “sir”?”
“Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the great beyond, Sophie Faucher is listening to the outpouring of praise and kind words that followed the announcement of her premature passing. The radiant and dazzling Sophie Faucher exuded a powerful and luminous energy that made her loved by all. This great actress, the daughter of another great actress, could shift effortlessly from drama to comedy, from writing to voice acting, from Frida Kahlo to Maria Callas, drawn to these extraordinary women perhaps because she saw herself in them. We certainly saw her in them. Everyone will talk about her ability to fly off the handle one moment and burst out laughing the next; to be moved to tears one moment and outraged the next. A true Quebec icon, she was the embodiment of what it means to live life to the fullest. It is a sad loss.”
“In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive. Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River , whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat. I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech. From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 for a number of reasons. In her speech, my colleague mentioned some of the provisions that Bill C-25 would introduce, including prohibiting individuals from falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not. The current Prime Minister got elected by claiming to be the only one capable of standing up to Donald Trump in negotiations with the United States. The record of the past year suggests that is totally far-fetched, it is false, and we can see that. According to my colleague, does that mean that, under the provisions of Bill C-25, the Prime Minister himself would be in violation of the law?”
“Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that. That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence. I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders.”
“The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole. That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata , who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House. I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence. However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered.”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, a Conservative member suddenly raised his voice while asking his question. I think this could pose a risk to the interpreters, and I think we should keep in mind that interpreters do delicate work and that hearing health is a major concern that we should all be mindful of. I just wanted to point that out as a reminder.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to dream big, but when it comes to taking action, it is a whole different story. French-language culture is the main victim of the Prime Minister 's capitulations. Scrapping the digital services tax means a loss of $1.4 billion per year, and waiving the levies on streaming platforms means that billions more will be left on the table. More importantly, this means abandoning a permanent solution to cultural issues and replacing it with temporary public funding that is subject to the whims of Canadian governments. Ottawa is permanently abandoning a decade-long fight to make web giants contribute. When he was appointed, did the minister know that he was being mandated to destroy our culture?”
“Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Prime Minister sacrificed in the trade war with Washington is francophone culture. This reminds me of how Winston Churchill was advised to cut funding for the arts in the middle of a world war. Churchill asked, if not for the arts, then what are we fighting for? What the Prime Minister has sacrificed to Donald Trump is what sets the Quebec nation apart: our culture, in our language. This is how the Quebec people expresses its existence. How can he treat it as a mere bargaining chip?”
“The government does not seem to understand the situation, which is jeopardizing our manufacturing sector and for which there is an incredibly easy solution. I would like to hear my colleague talk more about concrete solutions to real problems rather than waving around a magic wand that she thinks would solve everything if a Conservative government were in power.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador on her speech. It was a great speech until she said that she was the alternative solution to the situation, with the usual Conservative Party slogans, using the same proposals that promote oil and gas over natural resources and renewables. Anyway, I would like to focus on the part of her speech that I liked, the part about the regions that are becoming ghost towns because there is a shortage of long-term employment and development opportunities to encourage young people to move there. It is unacceptable that young families are looking to leave Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundlanders should have the chance and the opportunity to make a life for themselves in their home province. My region is facing some challenges at the moment.”
“Would she be willing to reconsider the subsidies given to oil companies and redistribute some of those billions of dollars to taxpayers who are really struggling right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague talked about young people struggling to find work in the current economy. As I pointed out earlier to the member for Winnipeg North, 35,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first quarter of 2026. These are precisely the kinds of jobs that are often available to younger people and those who may have less formal education. Meanwhile, the Conservatives fully support making massive investments in developing the fossil fuel industry. Billions of dollars are going to oil companies in the form of tax breaks, for example. Would my colleague be in favour of easing the burden on taxpayers a little, including the young families she seems to want to defend in her riding? People in my riding, Drummond, are also struggling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am curious. My colleague on the opposite side mentioned the fact that there are very few Conservative MPs present, even though it is their opposition day. Like you, I thought this was a quorum call, but is it permissible to note the absence or presence of MPs in the House?”
“That is an alarming figure that shows that Canadians and Quebeckers are currently feeling much more financial distress than optimism, contrary to what my colleague would have us believe. At some point, will the government take concrete measures to help people pay for groceries and basic needs?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about good news and how lucky Canadians are to have the current government, I really have to wonder. I wonder if I am dreaming and if someone should wake me up. It is really astonishing. The Liberals' self-congratulation is getting embarrassing. When figures come out, we can break them down and interpret them as we wish, but some of them do not lie. In the first quarter of 2026, 35,000 retail jobs were lost. Retail is the end of the line. It is clothing shops, supermarkets and convenience stores. That is where people go to shop for their everyday needs. The loss of 35,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2026 means that people cannot afford to buy from their regular stores.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am really enjoying this debate. I have been listening to the comments this evening about the importance of Bill C-16 , particularly with regard to victims' rights and the rights of victims of domestic violence. However, as I mentioned earlier and as I pointed out to the member for Guelph , there are flaws in the justice system. Proceedings are slow and some cases are dropped due to court delays. One of the major problems is the shortage of judges. We still do not have enough judges. The Liberals may argue that the provinces share some of the blame for the role they played in the backlog of cases in the courts, but the fact remains that, when it comes to the federal courts, it is the Liberal government, the current government, that is responsible for appointing judges. There is still a backlog.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from Guelph discussed the perspective of victims in her speech. I think this bill is so important. It will make fundamental changes to how victims are treated during the very painful process they have to go through to obtain justice in situations that are sometimes troubling. My colleague mentioned this in a number of cases. There are a lot of very positive points in Bill C‑16 . I believe she talked about respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. She also talked about court delays. She says that Bill C‑16 will address the issue of court delays. I am not aware of any cases where a trial was halted, because of the Jordan decision, for example, and where the delay in justice, the stay of proceedings, served the interests of victims. The perpetrators are always the ones who come out ahead.”
“Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16 , as was mentioned earlier. There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government's approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking. I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this.”