Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are three main topics in this important discussion we're having today.
First is the protection and defence of workers.
Second is adequate consultation with the affected indigenous communities in the spirit of reconciliation. Moreover, on June 21, the Superior Court of Quebec ruled that the CAQ's Quebec government had not adequately consulted indigenous communities. We have to keep that in mind as well.
Third is our responsibilities for the protection of endangered species and other species at risk, and biodiversity.
I see that my colleague's amendment focuses on only one of those three topics, whereas we have responsibilities, as parliamentarians, to protect endangered species and biodiversity. There was a lot of rhetoric at COP15 in Montreal, but at some point, that must also apply in real life. Furthermore, not only does the amendment refer to only one of the three topics, but more importantly, it is somewhat redundant to what is already in the initial motion moved by the Bloc Québécois, which obviously talks about the impact on jobs and economic activities in a number of regions of Quebec.
So I could vote for or against the amendment, but I get the impression that it is not really relevant and that it adds nothing essential to the motion, which already takes into consideration the interests of the industry, the regions and the workers.