Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister explained that he wants new pipelines because he is a nationalist. Canadian nationalism means dirty oil. Quebeckers do not identify with that and should not have to pay for it either. Last week, Ottawa confirmed that it wants to allocate $10 billion in public funds for a new pipeline. Yesterday, the Prime Minister put $25 billion into a sovereign wealth fund that looks more like a gimmick designed to finance oil companies. Does he realize that no matter how many maple leaves he slaps on the pipelines, Quebeckers simply will not want them?”
“I have a feeling that, as people see us doing this, they will realize what the government is trying to hide. Three and a half years can be a very long time. At the end of those three and a half years, we will see where public opinion stands on the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a case of “shut up” or “keep talking”. That is how the government works. The Liberals will do anything they can to avoid accountability when questions are being asked. It is a different way of doing things, but it is clear that the Liberals want as little transparency and accountability as possible, so that they can do things however they like. Even the Prime Minister 's attitude makes this obvious. He avoids being in the House during question period as much as possible. I think the opposition is going to have to get creative. Generally speaking, Bloc members tend to have creativity in spades. We will make use of the tools still available to opposition MPs. In particular, we can invoke Standing Order 106(4) in committee. We will use the media as much as possible to rub salt into any wounds there might be.”
“Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to talk a little more about how I see things. The government seems to want to change the composition of committees not in response to a past problem but rather because it wants to anticipate future problems it might encounter. It wants to give itself all the flexibility it needs to ram bills and motions through and to prevent studies from being carried out. That will not necessarily be in the best interests of the people, who would otherwise be duly represented by their representatives in the House. The government wants to give itself free rein to do whatever it wants. It will be, as they say in a language we occasionally hear in Parliament, “my way or the highway”.”
“This shows the kind of approach that is on the horizon. It also makes clear that transparency is not really the Liberals' cup of tea. More and more, we are seeing a host of agencies that keep decision-making out of the public eye. We know the government is pulling the strings behind the scenes, but as soon as accountability comes into play, we are not supposed to ask questions under the pretext that it is an independent agency. That is part of the current government's attitude. Ultimately, it is the citizens who will lose out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon for her excellent question. I really enjoy listening to her in the House as well. It is okay to praise one another from time to time. I get the feeling that, unfortunately, one of the things we will be doing the most in the coming weeks is praising one another because we will unfortunately have a much harder time holding the government to account. We can see it in the Liberals' attitude. Yes, there are committees where the government is quick to try to refuse requests for studies from the opposition parties and requests for documents on the pretext that it can do whatever it wants since it now has a majority. Just because someone can do something does not mean that is the right thing to do. We will certainly see examples of that in the future.”
“The fact that, in a context of new laws, the government has decided quickly and without any consultation to do things as it sees fit is an example of the arrogance we can expect in the future, even though it might not have been necessary to act that way at all. The Bloc Québécois has always proven that it is the adult in the room, that it can speak. Our proposals, the ones I made during my speech, were reasonable. That was a missed opportunity for the government to show that it can do something useful and work fairly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back in time. Members will recall that a lot of new laws were created at one point in this Parliament, during COVID‑19. During COVID‑19, we had to make a lot of changes to how we did things, particularly to allow members to speak away from their seats, to allow online voting, to start implementing certain things. It faded a bit once there was a Liberal-NDP majority, but at the very beginning, there was a willingness to work together. That is what underpins democracy when it comes to creating new laws, as long as there is consensus, and that is how it was done.”
“Other possibilities, other alternatives and other options could have been discussed with the opposition parties, which would likely have been eager to make their voices heard, including regarding the prospect of a reversal if the government were to lose its majority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the parliamentary secretary spent my entire speech not actually listening to me. I said it once, I said it again, I have repeated it ad nauseam: We do not agree with how they scraped together their majority, but the fact remains that the government has a majority, and, as we have said repeatedly, the composition of the committees must reflect that. We disagree primarily because there was no consultation, contrary to the House's century-old tradition regarding committee composition. Furthermore, we disagree with the formula the Liberals are using, since they are claiming a share that is ultimately not as proportional as it would have been if it had been “6-4-1”, for example.”
“I would never allow myself to hope that collaboration with the current Liberal government would materialize, unless Canada and Quebec were two separate countries and were speaking to each other as equals.”
“As I said in my opening remarks, no one is going to come to blows on buses about what we are discussing here. The composition of the House committees is something that is primarily our concern. I do, however, see this as a warning to the general public: What we are seeing now is the beginning of what could become a period of Liberal arrogance that will continue for years to come—perhaps as much as three years. It is not just the opposition parties that will bear the brunt of this. If I were a lobbying group, or if I were the government of one of the provinces or of Quebec, and I heard in the future that the government wanted to collaborate with me, honestly, I would have serious doubts. Without additional guarantees, I would not dare to hope for anything.”
“He told us that the opposition parties could use an opposition day to demand that the committees revert to their previous makeup. We then asked him if he would listen to the opinion of the House if such a request were made. The government is forcing the opposition parties to waste one of their opposition days doing the work it does not want to do itself, all in order to uphold the sacrosanct notion of proportional representation on House committees. It is putting pressure on the opposition parties and, what is more, it is paying lip service to the idea that it might consider the opposition parties' views. However, the way it has treated our views so far—even just in terms of adopting this motion—speaks volumes about what we can expect from it going forward. I will conclude on this point.”
“We should not be surprised—not now, since the honeymoon still seems to be going on, but in a few months' time—if certain members of the Liberal caucus, such as the more progressive or greener members, start getting fed up, feeling that they no longer have a place in this government, and decide to leave. Some are physically closer to the door than others. They might be interested in taking one step more. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and a few others might be slowly inching their way to the door, physically and perhaps mentally as well. If the government were to lose its majority along the way, what would happen to the composition of committees? That is an excellent question, which, incidentally, was put to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons .”
“In short, the argument that committees block legislation is particularly misleading. (1555) Since there are no issues with getting bills through committee and since there are no issues with filibustering and obstruction other than the government's own, the argument that we need to have a Parliament that works rings completely false. It is all the more absurd as a reason for not contacting the opposition parties to discuss what could have be done about committees. Another concern I have about the composition of committees is that this requires a notice of motion from the government: Proposing a new committee composition takes a notice of motion from the government. As I have said before, the government's majority is shaky.”
“From 2013 to 2015, that proportion rose to 74%, which is quite high. From 2015 to 2019, under a Liberal majority government, it was 50%. That is not a great success rate when it comes to passing bills, and yet the Liberals had a majority and therefore could not argue that bills were being stalled in committee. More recently, for our purposes, prior to the 2019‑20 prorogation, the rate was 63%, which is not so bad. After prorogation, in 2020‑21, the rate was 60%. During the last Parliament, the rate was 53%. Then, surprise, surprise, although many bills have been introduced recently and have not been debated in the House yet—and which we included in our analysis among those that have not gotten through yet—we still end up with a rate of 65% of bills that have gone through committee.”
“The other argument we keep hearing for why a majority is absolutely necessary on committees is that committees are the place where bills end up when we have to debate them clause by clause, propose amendments and move the work forward once they have been through the House. According to the Liberals, since they have a majority in the House at second reading and can refer bills to committee, they should have a majority on committees so that bills do not get stalled in committee. However, that argument is also pretty odd, because we took the time to run the numbers. We went over every Parliament and looked at how many bills made it through. I have time; I can pull out a few numbers. In the 41st Parliament from 2011 to 2013, 58% of bills passed the committee stage and made it to third reading or the Senate, for example.”
“The opposition is asking for them, but what are the Liberals doing? They are blocking the committee's work. The other place where we are seeing obstruction right now is the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That is because the opposition is asking for figures on cost overruns related to, among other things, the Cúram software, the Phoenix software and the ArriveCAN app. The opposition wants to know what happened. It wants the government to be accountable, but the government is obstructing the process to avoid accountability. Again, these are the only two committees where obstruction is happening.”
“The answer is no. Dilatory motions, which are used to slow the work of certain committees, are currently being used in two committees: the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. However, that is Liberal obstruction: The Liberals are the ones slowing the committees' work because members of the opposition want to do their job, in other words, get information. In the case of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, the opposition has requested documents proving the profitability of the Contrecœur project. The government tells us it is a very good project. That is great, but let it show us the numbers. It must have them, if it can tell us that it is a good project.”
“The Liberals argued that they did not want to contact the opposition because the Conservatives had already made it clear in the media that they disagreed with the idea of overhauling committees. I think it is fairly common knowledge that discussions between the parties in the House do not take place in the media. It would therefore have been entirely justified to continue the discussion with various colleagues to see if we could reach an agreement that would have led to a better understanding. I have another point: When the government decides that a majority is necessary in committee, there are often two reasons. The first is to avoid obstruction and filibustering, a tool available to the opposition parties in cases where they feel disgruntled over x , y or z . Is that a valid argument in light of Parliament's current situation?”
“If the government wants to avoid having committee chairs cast a tie-breaking vote, then it should talk to the opposition parties, like the Bloc Québécois, to avoid situations where a committee chair would have to break a tie. (1550) If a committee chair ever has to do that, well, so be it—that is their job. They earn an extra $10,000 a year to run the committee, and voting in committee is part of their duties as an MP. Is it really the end of the world? In any case, we were unable to have this discussion, because the Liberals decided to go it alone, without consulting the opposition parties, without contacting them to seek their views or suggestions on the various options for forming committees, once again disregarding the established tradition regarding how committees are formed.”
“Using the same principle that the Liberals are defending tooth and nail to justify making changes to the Standing Orders, we would be much closer to reality. However, the government is saying that this would mean that, once in a while, the chair of each committee would have to break a tie. The government cannot have it both ways. In a context where the government has a majority, albeit a slim one, the least it could do is not be so arrogant, which it was even back when it was a minority government. The least it could do is not resort to the extremes of arrogance by changing the makeup of committees and saying that it will continue to collaborate, as it promised to do.”
“That means five Conservative members on each committee. Let us do the same with the Bloc Québécois. If we multiply 22 by 12 and divide it by 343, that comes out to 0.78 members. Once again, let us round that up. Here is what it would look like in a scenario with 12-member committees: six Liberals, five Conservatives and one Bloc Québécois member. The problem is that this does not give them a majority on the committee. Based on the Liberals' proposal, if they really wanted a committee of 12 members, that is the composition they should have had. In that case, why not have a committee made up of 11 members? If there were six Liberals, four Conservatives and one Bloc member, we would be much closer to the parties' standings in the House.”
“There are currently 174 Liberal members, out of a total of 343, which is about 52% of the seats in the House. The Conservatives have 140 seats, so they represent about 40%. The Bloc Québécois has not changed much, and our percentage is 6.5%. Let us look at it from the opposite angle. Let us say that the committees will now have 12 members and that we want to maintain the same percentage of representation. Let us do the math. The Liberals have 174 members, and let us multiply that by 12 and divide it by 343. That comes out to 6.12 members. If we round that off, we end up with six Liberals per committee. Let us do the same calculation with the Conservatives. The Conservatives have 140 seats, so let us multiply that by 12 and divide it by 343. That comes out to 4.79 members. Let us round that number up.”
“At that time, they also held five out of the 10 seats in committee, or about 50%, which was relatively proportional. The Conservatives held 144 of the 338 seats in the House, or about 42% or 43%. They held four out of the 10 seats in committee, or about 40%, which is quite close. The Bloc Québécois held 22 seats in the House, or about 6.5%. That meant that we should have had 0.6 members in committee, but since that is obviously impossible, our representation was rounded up to 10% or one committee member. However, all of this was still relatively proportional. What the Liberals are proposing here is that committees have 12 members. Let us do the math again. Let us say we want each party to have the same percentage of seats it currently holds and committees are made up of 12 members. Let us start with today's standings.”
“We are going from committees that are mainly made up of 10 people, with five Liberals, four Conservatives and one Bloc member, to committees made up of 12 people, with seven Liberals, four Conservatives and one Bloc member. That would give the Liberals what we call a supermajority in committee. This morning, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons saying that there is no such thing as a supermajority in the House and that supermajority is an American term. However, the fact is that what the government is proposing does not reflect the composition of the House. I want to do a little math, and I hope that members will be able to follow what I am saying. After the general election, at the very beginning of this Parliament, the Liberals held 169 of the 338 seats in the House, or about 50%.”
“The government is telling us that committees must reflect party standings in the House and that we must therefore ensure that we have roughly the same percentage. We agree with the principle that committees should reflect party standings in the House, but we do not agree with the way the government acquired its majority, particularly by way of floor crossers. Having said that, it would serve no purpose for us to deny the current reality that the House now has a majority. From there, what should a parliamentary committee that is proportional to the House look like? (1545) The government is proposing to add not just one but two Liberal members to every committee.”
“In fact, chapter 20 of the new manual we received says, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House, and each recognized party determines which of its members will represent it on a committee.” It also says that, by convention, the parties meet, discuss, negotiate and agree on the wording of a motion adopted subsequently through a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Most of the time, this report is adopted by unanimous consent. That just goes to show how committees have always been set up in a spirit of collaboration and consensus. However, we are now in a situation where, just a week after promising to collaborate, the government is imposing its approach on us.”
“This is the first time that a government has gone from a minority to a majority midway through a Parliament. The usual procedure for the composition of committees is already set out in the Standing Orders. The parties determine by consensus how the committees could reflect the situation in Parliament. If there is a majority in the House, it makes sense for committees to have a majority as well. If there is no majority in the House, it makes sense that committees should not have a majority either and should reflect roughly the same percentage of representation as in the House. In addition, this is usually done collaboratively.”
“So the first thing the government is doing with its majority is shutting down debate in the House on something that is at the very heart of parliamentary democracy, namely committee work. The government made a nice promise to collaborate, so we might as well remind the government of that promise. The day after the by-elections, the Prime Minister said that the government would listen to all voices in Parliament and promised to work collaboratively. He said, “The work ahead demands collaboration, partnership, and ambition to deliver at the speed and scale Canadians are counting on.” As I was saying, unfortunately, the government is breaking with a parliamentary tradition that has always existed when it comes to the composition of committees. We are in a unique situation, and we acknowledge that.”
“As my predecessor would say, no one is going to come to blows on buses about how many members from which party will serve on committee, but this is a sign of a deeper problem, which we are going to talk about today. I will come back to that. Most importantly, this is being done rather quickly. In just seven days, we went from the government promising to work with the parties after it secured a majority in the April 13 by-elections to a unilateral approach in which the government is refusing to engage in discussions, despite the customs and practices of the House. This has not been discussed or raised in the House, and now the government wants to impose a gag order just to make sure that the House has been sufficiently steamrollered.”
“Mr. Speaker, we may be asking for quiet, but we are not asking for members to be muzzled and, unfortunately, that is exactly what I will be talking about today. When members take the floor, we tend to say that we are pleased to rise, but that is always a little less true when the government has just announced a gag order or closure motion on a bill or motion. Unfortunately, that is what is happening again today. It seems as though this will not be the last time, and that is the problem. We are here today to talk about the composition of committees. That may seem rather innocuous and it may not be of interest to those watching at home.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister was elected a year ago tomorrow, the situation with Donald Trump has not improved. It is getting worse. That is why, tomorrow, the Prime Minister has to make good on the empty promises he has been making for a year now and come to the aid of Quebec's economy. That is why we need a wage subsidy to prevent a wave of layoffs. That is why there needs to be support for our forestry industry in the face of the illegal U.S. tariffs. That is why the idea of EI reform must be revived. Will the Prime Minister finally rise to the occasion tomorrow?”
“Mr. Speaker, not only is the Prime Minister not getting any relief from the Trump administration with the tariff crisis, but, with tomorrow marking a year since he took office, the situation is worse now than it was at the outset. The way the new U.S. tariffs are calculated is a direct attack on our economy. By taxing all products containing steel or aluminum based on their full value, Washington is disproportionately targeting Quebec and our SMEs. Our workers and businesses do not have time to wait for a saviour. When will a wage subsidy be introduced to prevent layoffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government, in its laziness, assumes that all towns within the same census metropolitan area are the same, but I repeat: Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is not Montreal. People from Montreal will not travel two and a half hours by public transit, one way, to come here and work. Let us not forget that we are a strategic national hub for defence and that, at a time when the federal government is investing in defence, local businesses are not allowed to hire staff or retain their existing workforce. Does the minister realize how absurd this is? Is she going to change the rules?”
“Mr. Speaker, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is not Montreal, yet the federal government treats it as if it were Montreal when applying temporary foreign worker program rules. As a result, because the unemployment rate is high in Montreal, we are not allowed to hire or retain workers in Saint-Jean, even though our unemployment rate is low. Everyone has spoken out against this policy: the city, members of the Quebec National Assembly, the chamber of commerce, businesses and so on. I myself have contacted three ministers, including the Quebec lieutenant . Since Saint-Jean is not Montreal, will the government treat Saint-Jean separately instead of harming businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis is exposing all the cracks in the system. Washington's new tariffs clearly show that EI needs a complete overhaul to cover more workers. With the dramatic increase in the cost of living, seniors between 65 and 74 years of age deserve an increase in their old age pension. With Quebec sawmills closing one after another, the forestry industry obviously needs help to deal with the Americans' illegal tariffs. The government must fix these issues in its economic statement on Tuesday. That is clear. Will it do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the applause. The Prime Minister will be celebrating the first anniversary of his election on April 28 with an economic update. He promised to resolve the tariff crisis quickly. However, it is hitting harder than ever, with new tariffs on the total value of processed products. The Bloc Québécois has laid out what we expect in terms of better support for Quebec's economy. First and foremost, we are calling for a wage subsidy to protect jobs in businesses threatened by tariffs, especially SMEs. Will the government adopt this vital proposal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be celebrating the first anniversary of his election on April 28 with an economic update. He promised to resolve the tariff crisis quickly, but it is hitting harder than ever— Some hon. members : Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, Earth Day should not just be acknowledged. Thanks to the Liberals, Earth Day must now be a day of resistance. Yesterday, we learned that the Liberals are moving ahead with their new dirty oil pipeline out west. That is not all. Last Thursday, we learned that Canada hit a brick wall in 2024 with its greenhouse gas reduction targets, and it is because of the oil companies. The year 2024 also marked the end of the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's tenure, before he left his ministerial role and his leader scrapped his climate plan. I cannot imagine what the coming years will bring. If there are still any pro-environment Liberals out there, what are they waiting for to speak out against this?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day, but it does not really feel that way here in Parliament. Yesterday, sources confirmed that the government is pressing ahead with its obsession over a new oil sands pipeline. It is testing the ground for a pipeline that would transport an additional one million barrels of dirty oil every day from Alberta to Vancouver. That is one million more barrels every day, while southern Quebec is battling floods that have become almost an annual occurrence due to climate change. Is it not time for the Liberals to come back down to earth?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still has to deliver results. Two things: First, the fact that he is describing our relationship with the U.S. as a weakness shows that the negotiations are not going well. Second, although the government is talking about economic diversification, 80% of our trade is with the U.S. and that cannot be redirected overnight. Meanwhile, some Quebec businesses have had to reduce shifts or close their doors since Washington began charging tariffs on the total value of our products. Will the government help them before it is too late?”
“Mr. Speaker, in a video, the Prime Minister told those hoping for a return to normalcy with the United States that “nostalgia is not a strategy”. That is fine, but we have been waiting for his strategy for a year. Meanwhile, Washington has started taxing our steel- and aluminum-containing products on their total value. This is a disaster for hundreds of businesses and our resource processing sector. Apart from calling them nostalgic, what does the Prime Minister plan to do for our businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's new tariff calculations threaten the entire industrial landscape of aluminum and steel processing in Quebec. As a result, companies like BRP are collapsing on the stock market and others are set to reduce their production or shut down, like Venmar in Drummondville. The Prime Minister must support Quebec's aluminum and steel, including its processing. He must also help our SMEs understand how to adapt to the new tariffs set out in the order from Washington's 58 pages of complex schedules. Beyond simply understanding the file, will the government act before our businesses are forced to lay off workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got himself elected on a promise to protect the economy from Donald Trump's tariffs, but yesterday he had no idea what the Bloc Québécois leader was talking about when he informed him that Washington had changed its steel and aluminum tariffs. Americans are now charging a 25% tariff on the total value of all products containing steel or aluminum. They are taxing not only the metal, but the total value added. Donald Trump signed that order two weeks ago. What has the Prime Minister done to help our businesses since then?”
“We would not be able to do it in a timely manner anyway, so even if we were to implement this measure, we would not be able to prevent many candidates from running.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comment. We will discuss riding names in private afterwards. As for the question about the longest ballot committee, I think that the other measures already included in the bill, namely making it an offence to encourage people to sign more than one ballot and having one official agent per riding, are already enough to address this issue. As I mentioned, if we were to add a requirement to only have one signature, the Chief Electoral Officer would not be able to quickly determine whether there were in fact multiple signatures. If we were to prevent a candidate from running because there were multiple signatures, we might be undermining good-faith candidates.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my case, my riding will not be changing its name. In fact, a short name like Saint-Jean is quite inclusive and the people of Saint‑Jean identify quite well with that name. Rather, I was talking about the work that my colleagues have done, specifically to ensure that the identity of their region is honoured. This was done through consultations with various municipal officials and, in some cases, through surveys sent to all voters in the riding. We are able to do so using parliamentary tools available to us, like householders. We can send out little cards proposing various names or even proposing to keep the name. It is up to the voter to indicate their intention and interest. The Bloc Québécois did this work to ensure that the name changes truly reflect the reality on the ground and the will of the people.”
“They would likely be considered to be beyond the scope of the bill, which is unfortunate. The government had a great opportunity to get the job done, but that does not mean the Bloc Québécois will give up on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it was fairly clear when I described the issue of nomination papers and the fact that electors can only sign once. The Bloc produced a supplementary report on this topic and tabled it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when we were looking into the longest ballot committee. It is reasonable to expect that we will be proposing amendments about this as well. We shall see to what extent our colleagues will listen to us, even though they seem firmly committed to the idea of limiting the number of signatures. Perhaps we will hear from different witnesses who will shed further light on the matter. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked to see the issue of public funding of parties in the bill. Will we be able to table amendments on this subject?”