Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline?”
“Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North . This is going to be fun.”
“The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply.”
“Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin.”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26 . It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26.”
“Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a resul…”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“I was intent on bringing this matter to your attention, as I did at eight o'clock this morning. Of course, I am grateful for the attention you have just paid to our request.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sent you a letter this morning at about 8:00 a.m. to request an emergency debate as soon as possible on the major military escalation between the United States and Iran. I realize that the circumstances surrounding the debate have changed since then, but I still wanted to inform you about the urgency of the situation. The events of the past 10 days are creating an extremely serious situation that demands clarification of the Government of Canada's position on and response to this conflict. It is imperative that Parliament debate the issues involved, including the safety of our troops, the nature of our commitment to our allies, the urgency of ensuring the safety of Quebec and Canadian nationals and the humanitarian crisis that could result from this war.”
“That framework already imposes on the government a duty to assess the risks associated with military exports, including the possibility that the equipment may be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. I acknowledge that it is far from perfect, but in our attempt to close certain perceived loopholes, I fear that we may complicate a system that is already governed by rigorous control mechanisms. I believe we have a collective responsibility to find the right balance between coercion, protecting human rights and honouring international commitments. For these reasons, while we sincerely commend the dedication of the member for Vancouver East , we cannot support Bill C‑233 in its current form. That is why we will not support it as written by the New Democratic Party at this time.”
“(1105) Thus, in our view, it would be best to leave government some discretion rather than opting for an approach that seems difficult to apply, like the one proposed under Bill C‑233 . That does not mean, however, that we should abandon our commitment to a responsible approach that respects international human rights and is based on a balanced legislative framework. I would like to reiterate that we appreciate the intent of the bill. Unfortunately, however, we believe that passing this bill would miss the mark regarding military exports. It should also be noted that Canada has one of the strictest arms export control systems in the world, particularly since its accession to the Arms Trade Treaty.”
“The measure proposed under Bill C‑233 is also unenforceable because it stipulates that Canada should prevent arms and munitions exports if there is any risk of misuse. Let us face it: There is no such thing as zero risk. It is also a difficult term to define. Indeed, while genocide is obviously enough to justify the denial of an export licence, the threshold of attacks directed against “civilian objects...protected as such” is rather vague. Moreover, I have serious doubts about Canada's ability to quickly obtain the information needed to make a decision without relying on in-depth investigations by recognized organizations that often have much better knowledge of the situation in the various war zones.”
“If Canada and Quebec stop supplying the United States, it will change suppliers, and Israel will still receive arms and munitions from the United States. Passing this bill would not even achieve its intended goal, and chances are that its greatest impact would be to weaken a number of our industries, which are already suffering from American tariffs, and I think everyone in this House wants to avoid that. As I said earlier, the intent of the bill is certainly more than respectable, but we feel that, in its present form, it would only yield mixed results. I believe that we should rather keep working at improving existing mechanisms in partnership with our allies and with all the relevant stakeholders.”
“Indeed, under American law, since 1956, Canadian manufacturers have been considered domestic suppliers, allowing them to integrate the Pentagon's supply chain and to participate in research and development projects in America's defence apparatus. In reality, it seems this bill would have two possible outcomes: Either the United States will stop procuring from Canada or it will simply not comply. Indeed, the United States could simply circumvent the restrictions in this bill. The idea that the United States would start asking for Canada's approval to ship small arms and light weapons is wishful thinking. Since the tariff crisis began, it has become quite clear to us that we have little, if any, control over the decisions that are made by the United States.”
“The Bloc Québécois believes that it is preferable for the government to have some discretion, which promotes predictability and allows for pressure to be applied on rogue countries. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of better regulating military exports to avoid any complicity in human rights violations. However, we believe that the current wording of the bill is too rigid and too broad to achieve its objectives. As a result, we unfortunately cannot support it. Bill C‑233 primarily seeks to address a sobering international situation, but in our view, it adds overly restrictive conditions and limitations. Although well-intentioned, Bill C‑233 raises a number of concerns. We are obviously aware that the situation with the United States is unique because of the agreement under which Canada is considered a domestic supplier.”
“The Bloc Québécois is concerned about the situation in Gaza, which is why we proposed several realistic measures that could help to improve it, including repeatedly calling for a complete moratorium on arms exports to Israel. The Bloc Québécois has always been critical of arms export to countries that violate human rights, such as, for example, Saudi Arabia. We also strongly oppose the export of light armoured vehicles to that country, which is known for its systematic human rights violations. While the Bloc Québécois has never hesitated to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu's deadly policies, the question is whether Bill C‑233 would have a real impact on the situation in Palestine or elsewhere in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the sincere intention of my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East . Above all, bill C-233 is based on a completely valid concern, that of ensuring that Canadian exports do not contribute to human rights violations or armed conflicts. I think that everyone here in the House can agree on this fundamental objective of defending human rights and upholding international law. That said, recognizing that legislation is well-intentioned does not necessarily mean that the proposed measures are the right ones. As I said, it is completely valid to ensure that the weapons, ammunition and military equipment produced in Canada, including dual-use equipment, are not used against civilians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the substance rather than the form, unlike some of my colleagues. I really liked my colleague's speech. Obviously, he focused on something that affects him personally: the vitality of the media and the digital services tax. He is responsible for that file. I would like my colleague to explain something related to the Prime Minister 's famous speech in Davos. Everyone praised him for it. In that speech, he said it was important to stand up to powers that are currently causing more instability in the world. He said it was important to have reliable, secure allies and to stand up to the ones causing instability. Can my colleague reconcile what was said in Davos and what the government is currently doing with regard to the web giants?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something that was said in the previous speech by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska . I want to ask my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North a question, because what was said was rather surprising. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska criticized the Liberal government because of measures implemented in the fall of 2024 that led to drastic changes for entrepreneurs and SMEs in Quebec's regions in terms of temporary foreign workers. He says that a grandfather clause must be introduced for people who are already here. However, the Conservative leader said that temporary foreign workers are the reason young Canadians here are unemployed and cannot find work, so the program should be scrapped. Does my colleague agree with his leader, or does he agree with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska ?”
“Madam Speaker, it can be difficult to maintain order in the House. However, we in the Bloc Québécois respect the Chair, of course. My colleague is a former finance minister. In the budget and the budget implementation bill, Bill C‑15 , the government is extending carbon capture tax credits for five years to help oil and gas companies. Does my colleague, who, as I just said, is a former finance minister, believe that oil companies are having so much trouble staying afloat and making a profit that it is justified for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to help them spend money? Does my colleague really think that oil companies are in such bad shape and that they are not making enough money?”
“Let us choose to believe that there is a way out and that this sad and absurd war will eventually come to an end. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I say to all Ukrainians that we are behind them all the way. One day, peace will come. We must have hope, even in despair.”
“If enough pressure is put on Russia, there may be a way out. However, when our hopes for peace lie in the hands of Putin and Donald Trump, is there really any reason to hope? Well, the answer is in the words of Ukrainian poet Lesya Ukrainka, who wrote: ...through all my tears I still shall laugh, Sing songs despite my troubles; Have hope despite all odds, I want to live! Away, you sorrowful thoughts! Let us hope. Let us stand with the people of Ukraine and choose hope. Let us choose to believe that this war will end, that Russia will come to its senses and that this deadly stubbornness will eventually run out of steam. Let us choose to believe that Ukrainians will use their courage to rebuild their homes and that they will no longer be forced to pick up arms and bury their loved ones.”
“Thousands of children have been forcibly deported to Russia, torn from their families. War had come. There have been roughly two million casualties, deaths and injuries among soldiers on both sides. More than 15,000 civilians have been killed. Why? Nearly 10 million people have had to flee their homes and abandon their pre-war lives in the hope of having a life after the war. Why? What is the point of all this? Can any meaning be found in the deaths of all these women, all these children, all these people? What meaning can be found in the deadly drone strikes in Kyiv and the armoured vehicles rolling through Ukraine's wheat fields? What twisted ambition can justify this endless daily tragedy? Can anyone offer a satisfactory answer to this simple question: Why? The war in Ukraine has dragged on for four years.”
“Mr. Speaker, just five years ago, Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe. Its fertile, rich and plentiful lands provided good soil that was perfect for growing crops. Large fields of sunflowers covered the landscape, their faces turned towards the sun. Barely five years ago, Ukraine was an almost peaceful European country. It is true that there were serious conflicts in Crimea. It is true that there was unrest in the Donbas region. However, Ukraine was not facing a death threat. The crisis was not existential. Then, war came four years ago. War came, and in its wake came horrors, suffering and tears. Thousands of women have been killed. Why? Hundreds of women have been raped. It is a tactic of war used by the occupiers to sow terror among Ukrainians. Hundreds of children have been killed. Why?”
“It is not enough to hope that the situation will calm down in the coming days. We have no control over that. We need an action plan in collaboration with Mexico to bring our people home as soon as possible. To that end, the minister can count on our full co-operation.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the attacks being perpetrated by a drug cartel in Puerto Vallarta and the Jalisco region. Our hearts go out to the people of Mexico, who once again find themselves caught in the crossfire. However, we are obviously concerned for the thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who are being forced to shelter in place in their hotels or homes to escape violence. With roads blocked and airspace closed, the Bloc Québécois also urges tourists and citizens to exercise the utmost caution and follow the instructions of local authorities. However, that is not enough for these people and their families. They want to know when they will be able to return home, and they want to know what their government is doing to make sure that that happens.”
“Mr. Speaker, all day, the Liberals have been very proudly saying that they will be voting against this motion, as if they were pro-environment. Can my colleague explain to our Liberal colleagues that their environmental track record is not just about voting against this motion? Their track record is much worse than one would think. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, we are asking ourselves one question: What does this motion have to offer Quebec? As we see it, this motion has absolutely nothing good to offer Quebec. The more electric cars on Quebec's roads, the better for Quebec's economy. Allow me to explain that to my colleague. When an electric car recharges, Hydro-Québec sells that electricity. Instead of using western oil, we use Quebec-generated electricity. Since Hydro-Québec is a publicly owned corporation, this is obviously better for Quebec's economy. Does my colleague get the picture?”
“Why is it acceptable to subsidize an industry that is primarily American-owned, namely the oil and gas industry, but not to offer a $5,000 rebate on electric cars manufactured in the United States?”
“Madam Speaker, let us talk about questions that have never been answered. So far, no Conservative has answered a fairly simple question from the Bloc Québécois benches. In the case of this motion, Conservative logic suggests that cars manufactured in the United States should not be subsidized because we are in a tariff and trade war with Donald Trump's United States. However, we never hear the Conservatives complain about the fact that the government is providing tax credits and direct and indirect subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is largely owned by American shareholders. They do not have any problem with that. I would like someone to explain that to me. I am open to discussion.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is clear today that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of subsidies for electric vehicles. In fact, it is clear that the government complied with the request that we have been making for quite some time. It finally listened to reason. However, there is one area in which the government has not yet listened to reason. To me, the Conservatives and the Liberals are two peas in a pod. They are like two sides of the same coin. From what I understand, the latest budget extended carbon capture tax credits for the oil industry through to 2040, when they were supposed to end in 2035. This government is bumping up tax credits and subsidies for the oil and gas industry, then bragging about reinstating a measure that it should never have cancelled. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Madam Speaker, one of the Conservatives' main arguments in their motion today is that the government is subsidizing vehicles made in foreign countries. I believe the Conservatives are referring mainly to the United States. We know that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry in Canada, and 80% of this industry is owned by American interests, so if we follow the Conservatives' logic, then we should be putting an immediate stop to these subsidies. Does my colleague agree with me?”
“I call on all parliamentarians to join in this collective effort so that justice is served and political prisoner Jimmy Lai is freed.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights took a clear, strong and unanimous stand. It condemned the 20-year prison sentence that the Hong Kong authorities imposed on Jimmy Lai, a defender of democracy and freedom of speech, whose only crime was to express his opinions publicly. The motion calls for his immediate release. In 2023, the House of Commons and the Senate unanimously adopted a similar motion. All of the parties recognized that, by granting Mr. Lai honorary Canadian citizenship, Canada could exert real diplomatic pressure to secure his release. Today, that call is more urgent than ever. Jimmy Lai's son, Sebastien Lai, put it very aptly when he asked how we could talk about warming relations with China when his father is still in prison. We have a duty to align our actions with our principles.”
“Madam Speaker, a significant, concrete and factual step backward is the decrease in funding to Canada's international development envelope, which is being cut by $2.5 billion over three years. That money is often used to fund human rights organizations in countries under authoritarian regimes. That is a fact. The Prime Minister 's current vision is to link international development and international trade, while ignoring anything related to international human rights. By cutting these budgets, he is cutting funding to people who are fighting for democracy.”
“Madam Speaker, since my colleague did not ask me any questions about my speech, I am not going to answer the question he just asked me. I spoke at length about political prisoners. My colleague is trying to play party politics by attacking the Conservatives and talking about hypocrisy, yet the Liberals are reaching new heights of hypocrisy when it comes to human rights. I spoke about Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister took a trip and shook hands with the Chinese president, but there was not a single word about Jimmy Lai; nothing, nyet , nada . If the Liberals want to talk about hypocrisy, I can talk about hypocrisy all day long.”
“Madam Speaker, I think I made that pretty clear in my speech. I also do not want to be too hard on my Conservative friends, because I am sure they are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, sometimes people have ideas that turn out to be not so great. I think that this motion deserves a lot more work, a lot more rigour to achieve the objective that the Conservatives have set for themselves. Unfortunately, as I said, there are many blind spots in this motion, including the issue of political prisoners, which, as I explained, has been totally left out of this motion. It is really too bad. If the Conservatives want to work on this, if their goal is to convict criminals and above all not to allow criminals to remain in Canada when they have no right to be here, some Bloc Québécois members will want to work with them.”
“For all these reasons and many others, and for the sake of moral credibility, which, in my opinion, should always guide our actions in the House, I oppose this motion, as do my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.”
“Worse still, it could potentially weaken the asylum system, expose the system to costly legal challenges and distract from real solutions to combat extortion and organized crime. In fact, this motion does not appear to strengthen public safety or the rule of law. It is based on fear, generalizations and political oversimplification rather than effective and responsible solutions. It weakens our values, our legal obligations and our international credibility. Extortion can and must be fought head-on, but we can do so without sacrificing justice, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental principles that define democracies.”
“As parliamentarians, we cannot delegate our conscience to authoritarian regimes. Canada cannot simply say that we will ban someone because they have been accused by a foreign state. Doing so would amount to delegating our international refugee protection system to regimes that criminalize dissent. Perhaps the Conservatives should clarify their motion and explain their intention. I am sure that they are acting in good faith, but this is not the right way to proceed. Again, the motion, as written, does not resonate with us at all at the Bloc Québécois. I said it from the outset. To us, this approach lacks nuance and distracts from real solutions at the expense of political goals. It is ineffective and counterproductive, and will not improve public safety in any meaningful way.”
“(1115) If the Canadian Parliament had adopted such an approach in the past, how many political prisoners would have never found refuge here? Soviet dissidents, opponents of the Iranian regime, Chinese journalists, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, and human rights defenders in Latin America could have all been rejected on the basis of accusations made by authoritarian regimes. If adopted, the Conservative motion would prevent someone like Raif Badawi from joining his family in Canada. To date, Canada has presented itself to the international community as a defender of human rights. It has certainly not done everything right in recent years, but blindly including individuals who have been accused of or prosecuted for so-called serious crimes in a general ban on asylum would betray the very spirit of international protection.”
“These defenders of human rights and democracy are sometimes accused of fabricated crimes and prosecuted in weaponized judicial systems or convicted following unjust and inhumane trials. I feel deeply today for the family of political prisoner Jimmy Lai, whose 20‑year prison sentence was announced just a few days ago. In the eyes of the Hong Kong authorities, Mr. Lai is a criminal. In reality, he is a family man and a defender of human rights, freedom of the press and democracy. Mr. Lai is an activist, a pacifist, and yet he is behind bars. His crime is having defended democracy. What does this motion propose? It proposes indiscriminately barring people with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims without any analysis of their case or any context.”
“As I mentioned in my first question earlier, the main issue with this motion is its major blind spot, which is deeply concerning. It relates to political prisoners, people who defend human rights, freedom of expression and democracy, who are falsely accused by authoritarian regimes of committing criminal acts. The Conservative motion makes no mention of these nuances that are nonetheless crucial. The fate of political prisoners is a reality that this motion cruelly ignores. Around the world, there are women and men who are imprisoned, not for violent crimes, but for exposing corruption, defending human rights, advocating for democracy or simply expressing an opinion.”
“These solutions include funding for police forces, combatting money laundering, international co-operation, protecting victims and witnesses, and robust criminal prosecutions. Blaming refugees and refugee claimants does not dismantle any criminal networks. It does not protect any victims. It does not make any communities safer. The Bloc Québécois is also against the idea of restricting judges' discretion, as seems to be the intention of the leader of the Conservative Party. Indeed, for judges to be able to impose a sentence that is individualized and proportional to the seriousness of the offence, they must be able to weigh all the evidence. Ironically, this means that the approach put forward today by the Conservatives would not make Canada safer; it would make it more legally vulnerable.”
“Anyone convicted of serious crimes can be deemed inadmissible and deported. The system is not perfect. I agree with my Conservative colleagues on that point, but the system is neither blind nor unreasoning. What the Conservative motion proposes, on the other hand, is to deny individuals access to refugee protection, which not only goes against the presumption of innocence but also against the charter and our international obligations. It violates those three things in one fell swoop. It is also safe to assume, as I mentioned earlier, that the proposals contained in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this motion would expose Canada to major court challenges. In our view, this motion gives the illusion of wanting to take action, but in reality, it distracts from the real solutions for combatting extortion.”
“Victims deserve protection, justice and support. Because this is such a serious issue, it deserves more than political slogans and solutions that ultimately weaken the rule of law. One example of oversimplification and political slogans is the motion's reference to “loopholes for false refugee claimants”. The right to asylum is not a loophole. It is a fundamental right that has been recognized by international and Canadian law for decades. Canada is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva convention. This means that we have an obligation, as a signatory, to review asylum claims on a case-by-case basis and to not automatically turn people away, unless we have safe third country agreements, for example. On that point, I want to be clear that mechanisms already exist to deny asylum to anyone who poses a risk to public safety.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with someone who is a role model to us all, the member for Rivière-du-Nord , who will be speaking right after me. I will get straight to the point, as I think I did with the questions that I asked. I would like to start by saying that the motion moved by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot does not sit well with the Bloc Québécois. The reason is quite simple. We believe there is no contradiction between protecting public safety and respecting fundamental rights. This motion fails to do either. As we see it, the motion proposes more of an ideological response rooted in fear and generalizations than an effective solution. It would weaken the rule of law rather than strengthening it, without even addressing the true causes of extortion. Extortion is a serious crime. We agree on that.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. In her view, do paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the motion not run the risk of being challenged in court? That could drag on for years and years, since, in my opinion, there are many people who would want to challenge these three paragraphs.”
“Madam Speaker, you may not believe anything, but I believe in you. I think there is a major blind spot in the Conservatives' motion when it comes to political prisoners. There are authoritarian regimes in the world that fabricate charges and convict innocent people simply because they oppose a repressive regime. With the Conservative motion before us today, I feel that these people would not even be given a hearing to explain why an authoritarian regime has accused them of very serious crimes. Is this not a flaw in the motion that would make it impossible for anyone to support?”
“Mr. Speaker, again, I think the only ones who do not understand why it is important to support this motion are the Liberals. I think that everyone in the House is wondering how anyone can vote against this motion. I think that my colleague eloquently demonstrated that. Now, I would like to take my colleague to another issue. This government passed Bill C-5 under a closure motion. Does that not fly in the face of what the Liberals have been saying about holding consultations and how everything will be done properly and that environmental laws will be respected? By making high-speed rail a project of national interest, Bill C-5 would allow them to ignore all these laws. Is there not a contradiction here?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing to my colleague from Jonquière for all past wrongs I committed against him. I hope he will be magnanimous enough to forgive me. Now, my question for him is this: If Liberal members were to vote against this motion, especially members who represent Quebec ridings in the Liberal caucus, how does he think it would affect their influence within the governing party's caucus?”
“Mr. Speaker, we support the high-speed rail project. I wanted to make that clear to the former minister. That has always been our position. With respect to the matter before us today, I would like the member opposite to explain to me what is so divisive about our motion. The motion calls for an official apology from the government. No such apology has ever been offered. It calls on the government to acknowledge the collective trauma that the 1969 expropriations caused. It also urges the government not to do that kind of thing again and to ensure that there are proper public consultations, social licence and appropriate compensation, which the government is apparently committed to doing. I would therefore like the member to explain to me what is so divisive about our motion. Will he vote for or against the motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only question we want answered today is this: What will determine whether my colleague votes for or against the wording of the motion we are introducing today? All we are asking is that she vote on the wording of the motion itself, on the words used in it.”
“Mr. Speaker, reading this motion, I do not think a single Quebecker would be able to vote against it, except perhaps 44 of them. According to my colleague, which 44 Quebeckers would vote against this motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are reaching out and calling for cross-party co-operation today. Given that the next two speakers are Liberal members from Quebec, here is the question that we are all asking ourselves right now: Does my colleague believe that these Liberal members will really address the wording and the subject of the motion, or does he think that they will instead try to avoid the subject, thereby proving that the 44 Liberal members from Quebec hold absolutely no sway within their own political party?”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion reads: That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel, to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods, and to urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. Can my colleague explain how the 44 Liberal members from Quebec across the way can vote against the wording of this motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to hear my colleague. His speech was genuine and sincere. He made a call, and I support that call. He called on us to work across party lines. There are no stumbling blocks in this motion. I do not see how any member, particularly from Quebec, can vote against it. I just want to thank my colleague and give him the rest of the time to respond to the following. How could anyone vote against this motion?”