Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I was only looking in one direction.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to tell me whether he still does not find it a bit odd that his court justices were asked for their opinion as a last resort. It is a bit like a divorce case. This is about divorce.

It is as if a couple had a difference in separation proceedings and one of the spouses told the other that his or her mother was going to settle the dispute. It is a bit like that.

Does he not think that his justices—appointed by him, paid by him and in his service—are not likely to be biased in the decision they are asked to give, a decision that should, if they have understood their role, suit their minister?

That is what is upsetting the people of Quebec at the moment, and he did not resolve the problem in his speech, earlier. I would like him to be a little more explicit.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe I answered the hon. member by quoting the words of his leader, the Premier of Quebec, who recognized the quality, in fact the great quality, of the Canadian justice system, including the supreme court.

Yes, we have a court renowned throughout the world and one of the most often quoted. The opinion it will give will be considered by judicial experts and courts all over the world, because it will carry weight in some other countries, something which will be considered as very important.

I am confident that the justices really want to be honest and competent.

The other thing that should be said is that we are not asking the court whether it is right or wrong to secede. We are not asking the court to declare that Quebeckers should stay in Canada against their will. We are asking the court to tell us whether or not the PQ government, the present Quebec government, has any legitimacy when it argues that it has the right to proclaim itself the government of an independent state based on the results of a consultation of the people it alone established and interpreted.

We should not confuse the issues for political reasons. They are too important for that.

If the court renders a decision favourable to the position of the Government of Canada, everybody will benefit from this information. We are not going to make important decisions without that information.

If you are a union leader and you tell your members that you can launch an illegal strike, you are not acting in a democratic way.

What the Government of Quebec is presently asking its citizens to do is precisely that—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I apologize for interrupting the minister, but his time is up.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to put it on the record that I do not believe that I was not seen. I believe I was not chosen. I believe the Chair had the right, after acknowledging that I was right in my interpretation of the rules, to move to recognize me and not the member for Chambly. The Chair chose not to do that twice and I regret that very much.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion because it raises the issue of the future of Quebec.

The official opposition is very concerned about the future of Quebeckers. We want to do everything we can to make sure that this future is as good as possible.

I suggest that the motion before us is only half a motion. The motion is really referring to the rights of Quebeckers but it does so without qualification. It appears to imply that the right of Quebeckers to decide their own future is some absolute right but in reality, there are no such things as absolute rights.

Every right is subject to qualifications and limits. Rights are limited by the rights of others. My right to extend my fist stops at the end of your nose. So what we have before us is half a motion. The missing words are subject to the rule of law and the principle of democratic consent.

The official opposition maintains that Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future but first of all in accordance with the rule of law. In the case of Canada that means in accordance with the Constitution of Canada which is the supreme law of our country.

Whether or not the Bloc or the PQ like the Constitution of Canada, it is the law of the land. That law contains no explicit provision for the secession of a province. The only way a province could lawfully secede would be to pass a constitutional amendment which would then have to be carried in this House and approved by the other provinces.

The point that the current law does not provide for a unilateral secession seems patently self-evident to us, but if that point will gain more authority by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, so be it. That is why we favour the reference to the supreme court to get a determination on this matter.

Members of the Bloc will say that they do not intend to respect the rule of law with respect to this point, the right of a province to secede, but I would plead with the Bloc members to tread very carefully on that ground.

Once you say—particularly once lawmakers say—that you respect the rule of law except on this point or that, you are opening a door which you may never be able to shut. And if you teach your people that there are exceptions to the rule of law and that when they disagree with the law they should feel free to break it with impunity rather than to change it, you are starting down a very dangerous road.

That is why I asked the hon. leader of the Bloc after his speech whether he believed in the rule of law within a new Quebec. He said yes. Yet if the Bloc teaches the people of Quebec that there are exceptions to the rule of law, what will be the answers of such members when some citizens of Quebec say to them down the road “We do not like your law. We intend to break your law and we declare that we have a right to unilaterally break it because you taught us that this is permissible”.

Another qualification on the Quebeckers' right to decide their own future is the principle of democratic consent. Reform has been quite clear on this point. We want Quebeckers to remain in Canada. We fervently desire to unite Canada for the 21st century.

We believe that Canada can be united by reforming the federation on the principle of equality and through a rebalancing of the powers. But we have also stated that if a majority of Quebeckers responding to a fair question in a fair referendum process were to decide in favour of secession, the Government of Canada would then have an obligation to enter into negotiations of terms and conditions of secession, terms and conditions on which Canadians would then have to pass judgment.

Before the Bloc Quebecois members rejoice too much at our endorsation of this principle of democratic consent, let me make clear that it is a two-edged sword. If we affirm that Quebeckers have a right to decide their own future in a referendum, that right should apply to every Quebecker including those who see their future as part of Canada.

The ballot for a referendum on secession to be fair to all concerned should bear two questions. And I do not mind saying what the wording of those questions should be: Should Quebec separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada, yes or no? If Quebec separates from Canada, should your community separate from Quebec and remain part of Canada, yes or no?

If a majority vote on the first question on separation is sufficient to trigger the negotiation of a secession, a majority vote on the second question in a particular district or municipality would trigger the partition of Quebec, a change in the boundaries of Quebec in accordance with the right of Quebeckers, in this case a minority of Quebeckers, to determine their future. In other words if Canada is divisible, as long as the process employed respects the rule of law and the principle of democratic consent, then Quebec is divisible by the application of the same processes and the same principles.

I conclude by saying it is because the secession of Quebec would not only diminish Canada but would also diminish Quebec, it is because both Canada as a whole and Quebec as an entity would ultimately be injured by secession and partition, that we search for a third way beyond separation and status quo federalism. We earnestly plead with Quebeckers to consider that third way and to generate a new consensus around that third option as the best guarantee of a secure and a prosperous future.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, we welcome this opportunity to debate this motion in the House of Commons.

I want to take the opportunity to ask a few questions of the leader of the Reform Party to understand clearly where he stands on some issues.

I would like to quote an article written in the Calgary Sun on October 30, 1995 by his principal adviser, a Mr. Ezra Levant, whom we see here almost on a daily basis in the House of Commons. He wrote an article entitled “Ten reasons to vote yes”.

I would like to offer the opportunity today to the leader of the Reform Party to clarify the position because I understand this is the position of the Reform Party of Canada. And if it is not, then the leader of the Reform Party has a choice. He can either fire his principal adviser who is presenting this position and has not backed down or it is the position of the Reform Party.

Let me quote what Mr. Levant says in the name of the Reform Party on why they should vote yes in the referendum. His second reason is to end bilingualism and multiculturalism. In paragraph 3 he states “If we kicked out Quebec, we might then have the fortitude to tackle Canada's other ethnic separatists, natives”—natives are ethnic separatists according to him—“demanding their First Nations”. He then goes on to say “Next would be the National Action Committee on the Status of Women” and then radical environmentalist groups.

Mr. Levant in the name of the Reform Party goes on. In paragraph 4 he states that we should “end the corruption of Parliament. For decades, Quebec's largest export to Ottawa has been politicians who bring old style patronage to Parliament. We won't miss the politics of road paving”. I see the Reform members agreeing with that. That is the attitude they have shown.

I have a second short question. The leader of the Reform Party in 1990 at the opening of Reform's offices in Montreal said “If Reform Party MPs were elected in Quebec, they would work for separatism if that is what their constituents wanted”.

Could the Reform Party leader explain to us how he conciliates his position of populism that says they represent strictly the views of their MPs? How can he explain that he would accept that there would be Reform MPs in Ottawa representing separatism?

I will quote from the July 21, 1994 Toronto Star : “In our view the wishes of the constituents ought to prevail in determining how the members vote. If we get a member of Parliament in Quebec, that member will be expected to represent Quebec's interest”.

Those are two straightforward questions for the leader of the Reform Party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all I find it incredible that the leader of the Conservative Party would put his focus in this debate on articles taken from the Calgary Sun and the Toronto Star .

The first one was written by Mr. Levant long before he worked for us. These positions do not represent the position of the Reform Party, as the hon. member knows. But it gives us an opportunity to declare what our positions are.

I have made it abundantly clear that our principal position is to want this country united like it has never been united before and to put an end to the kind of division that has been brought about by old line party politicians practising on this national unity issue and making a career out of it for 30 years and leaving us in the position where we are at.

Second, we believe that the key to uniting this country is to find a new balance of powers between the federal and provincial governments.

We have practical evidence from the pollsters and from our own experience that it is the one concept for changing the federation for which there is growing support inside Quebec and outside Quebec.

This is the principle on which we believe the country can be united. We are going to do everything in our power to communicate the rebalancing of powers in which we believe inside Quebec and outside Quebec and to provide a third option for Quebeckers and not the status quo federalism that has been represented by this party and that party for 30 years and not the separation of the country advocated by that party, many of which members were recruited into politics by that party.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if there is one constant for the NDP concerning the motion before the House today, it is our steadfast support, since our founding in 1961, for cooperative federalism, which reflects the duality of Canada and the distinct place of Quebec within the federation.

As Tommy Douglas said in 1967 with respect to the first report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism:

The Canadian Constitution must create equality between Canada's English and French speaking communities, as well as the conditions necessary for both these communities to have equality of opportunity. In order for there to be such equality, special arrangements must be concluded with the Government of Quebec in order to negotiate a new division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments.

Since our founding convention in 1961 the NDP has been very clear in its support of the notion of Canada as two founding peoples.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

It sounds like debate.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

It is debate. Pay attention. I spoke in French and threw the Reformers off.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

No respect.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

In any event, what I was saying was that since the inception of the NDP in 1961 we have been very clear in our perception of Canada as two founding peoples, with the understanding that we have other founding peoples in Canada in terms of our aboriginal people. We have gone on from that time to accept both in reality and in debate various forms of asymmetrical federalism.

I remember in the debate on patriation—Madam Speaker, if this is so important to members of the Bloc, maybe they could have their caucus meeting outside the House so I can hear myself think. I am talking about you, Bellehumeur.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

We have traditionally supported forms of asymmetrical federalism and we have traditionally supported self-determination for Quebec. Many of the resolutions that were quoted earlier by members of the Bloc in their opening speeches reflect accurately positions taken by the NDP in the past and positions which are held to this day with respect to the ultimate ability of Quebeckers to freely decide their own future.

I did not think there was any dispute about this. I do not really understand Bloc members when they say there is a new consensus in Quebec around this, that Claude Ryan has suddenly done something new.

It seems to me that in all of Canada, in the referendums of 1980 and 1995 and in the debate that surrounded those referendums, there was always the acknowledgement by the prime ministers of the day and by other political leaders that in the final analysis the future of Quebec within Canada was a political question, not a legal question, and that it would be up to the people of Quebec to decide their future within Canada. Any attempt to detract from this principle is unacceptable.

The questions at issue, which unfortunately the Bloc did not try to clarify in the language of its motion, are what is the role or purpose of the supreme court in this matter and what is the role of the rule of law in this matter. There are process questions that need to be answered. The Bloc did itself a disservice by not trying to address some of the process questions in the motion. I heard some of the members address such concerns.

There was a reference to referendum and a clarity of process, et cetera, but they are asking a lot of us and a lot of other members of Parliament—and we may yet do it—to vote for a motion that leaves questions of process up in the air.

This is our concern. It is not an anxiety about or an objection to the principle that Quebeckers might freely decide their future and someday might decide to leave the country. We think that would be a tragedy of historic proportion, but we have never said that Quebeckers should be kept in the country against their will.

However, just as Quebec entered the country by negotiation it is not unreasonable to make the claim that Quebec, having chosen freely in a clear and fair process to leave Canada, would have to leave Canada by negotiation with the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada would have some say in how that would happen, not whether it would happen. That seems to me to be only fair, particularly when we consider that there are outstanding questions with respect to the self-determination of aboriginal people within Quebec, a territory that was not a part of Quebec when it entered Confederation.

These are reasonable questions. They are not raised as threats or in any way to diminish the freedom of the people of Quebec to decide their future. They are raised as reasonable questions of fairness and process which any Bloc Quebecois member would raise in any other context, were they not absolutely preoccupied with making the political point about what is happening at the supreme court.

I understand their objection to the way in which the referral to the supreme court could be and sometimes appears to be used by the federal government in an inappropriate way. When I say that there are questions of process that need to be decided, it is not a blanket approval of the way the Liberal government is dealing with the issue.

I listened to the rant against the supreme court by the hon. member from the Bloc. It made me regret all the more that we were not able to get the Meech Lake accord through.

One of the objects of the Meech Lake accord was to change the supreme court structurally so as not to have it subject to such accusations, however inaccurate they may be, to change the supreme court structurally by changing the way the supreme court was chosen.

There would have been three judges chosen by Quebec and the rest of the judges would have been chosen from provincial lists. All the provinces, not just Quebec, could have had more of a feeling that a court which finally decides federal-provincial matters would be a court that all levels of government participated in creating through the appointment process.

But that was not to be and because that was not to be along with a lot of other things included in that accord, we have the political situation we have today. We have my colleagues in the Bloc, whose genesis is in the defeat of the Meech Lake accord.

I am inviting my colleagues in the Bloc to have more to say throughout the day about process, about how they see the principle which they have expressed in this motion with which we agree being embodied in process and about how many of the questions raised in terms of process will be addressed.

I believe the people of Canada feel they have some part to play in this, not in instructing Quebec or in keeping Quebec within the country against its own will. But, if Quebec makes a decision to leave Canada, they want a role to play in determining the nature of the separation, how it will happen and what the relationship will be after separation.

That leads us to the topics of partnership, sovereignty association and all the things in which presumably the rest of Canada would be involved if it ever came to that.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from the New Democratic Party for his open-minded words with respect to Quebec. We recognize the New Democratic Party historically, but I would still like to ask him whether he, his fellow parliamentarians and his political party are aware of the gravity of the situation and the ramifications of a reference to the Supreme Court of everything having to do with the constitutional question, which has dragged on for 30 years.

First of all, are the members of the New Democratic Party and members in the House generally—and I address Quebeckers across the way—aware that this whole process denies the existence of the Quebec people and instead identifies Quebec as just another province?

Second, are they aware that the whole constitutional question, which has dragged on for 30 years, now rests in the hands of nine judges whose allegiance is to the Parliament of Canada and to Canadian institutions, which appoint them and pay their salaries without consulting the provinces, particularly Quebec, and that these judges will soon be asked to rule on the future of Quebec and its democratic institutions as they relate to a Constitution that the Parliament of Quebec has never recognized and that it in fact denounced in 1982?

What we are saying, and we would like to hear the New Democratic Party's frank view on this, is that the people of Quebec alone have the right to make this decision, because they are a people. What is happening here is that the existence of the people of Quebec is being denied. Do the people of Quebec alone have the right to decide their future?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is conceivable that I and others outside the Bloc Quebecois either do not appreciate the gravity of what is before the supreme court or have a different view of the gravity of what is before the supreme court.

My understanding is that whatever is before the supreme court in no way impinges upon the ultimate political freedom of Quebec to determine its future. My understanding is that what is before the supreme court has to do with process.

I think members of the federal government, and perhaps all of us, are playing catch up. For the longest time there was sloppiness on the federalist side with respect to what would happen if there were a vote for separation. It was a bit of a parlour game. We had a referendum. We had debates. We had whatever. But there was a confidence on the federalist side that the separatists would never win such a referendum. That confidence bore a certain laziness with respect to asking questions about what we would do if the separatists ever won the referendum. It was always assumed that they would not.

In October 1995 when separation was that close, all of a sudden the people on the federalist side woke up and said that it was not a parlour game any more, that it was not just some kind of ongoing Canadian amusement. It was real.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves more fundamental questions than we have asked ourselves in the past about how this would transpire if in some future referendum there was a victory for separation. I think that is in part the genesis of the supreme court reference.

I just want to make it clear that in our minds it is a legal thing. It has nothing to do with the ultimate political question of how Quebec is either to be kept in Canada of its own free will by arriving at new arrangements that satisfy the desire of Quebeckers to feel they are being recognized and treated as a distinct or unique society within Quebec or, having failed to do so, Quebec leaving Canada.

Part of the answer for that from the point of view of the NDP is to rebuild the social democratic consensus that once existed in this country. Part of the problem is that for the past 10 or 15 years we have been governed from the right and we had a history of being governed from the left of centre federally. That is partly what kept the country together.

We have seen a diminution of our national institutions, of the ties that bind us thanks to free trade. I always remember during Meech Lake that the Tories were singing the praises of Canada while they were destroying it with free trade, deregulation and privatization. Had they given some thought to their other policies, maybe they would have been able to achieve what they set out to achieve. Instead they were destroying the country on one hand and trying to save it on the other.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to join in this debate on the opposition motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois on an issue that has taken up much of the time and energy of Canadian politicians for the last 30 years.

I first want to deal with this motion. The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers—

—and for them alone to decide their own future.

This is an issue that my party has already dealt with several times. It was the subject of two referenda in our recent history, in 1980 and 1995. Madam Speaker, I have no problem in telling you that my party, my caucus, can support this motion.

It does not create a major problem for us. But I also want to be very frank because, on this issue, the important thing is that the truth be told. The problem in this debate is not what the motion says, but what it does not say.

It is not the words in the motion that people might object to. It is everything surrounding the motion, including its impact and how some people would want to proceed in the event of a break-up. The real problem is there. Yes, the motion is fine and we can support it. We do not have any problem with it in principle. It does not create a major problem for us.

But at the same time, it leads us to ask other questions and we can say right away, because we do not want to give the wrong impression, that we have few answers. This is part of the problem. And this also must be said frankly. This is always in the spirit of portraying things as they are. It is commonly known that we are opposed to a Supreme Court reference as proposed by the federal government.

First of all, it bears repeating that a reference to the Supreme Court by the federal government, or to a court of appeal by provincial governments, is always an exceptional measure. It is very seldom used, and with great caution, by governments.

And for good reason. Dragging the courts into political debates is not without consequences. There will be very real consequences for the courts and for Canada if we privatize, if I may be a bit ironic about this, if we privatize political issues by referring them to the Supreme Court.

The reason why we never thought this is a good idea is that the Supreme Court will not be in a position to tell us anything we do not already know on the substance of the matter. Legally, since we are always in a society that abides by the rule of law, the Canadian constitution does not provide for the breaking-up of the country.

From the legal standpoint, if we ever have a scenario of separation, we will be confronted with a legal vacuum, a kind of black hole. I keep repeating this, and it bothers quite a few people. My friends in the Bloc are already reacting to this. Whenever I talk about this, people laugh, but it is just the plain truth.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Not again. You are funny.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

You find that funny, but Quebeckers have to suffer the consequences and I do not think they find it as funny. That is the problem.

In international law, we have to say things like they are. I cannot help but laugh when I hear people right and left, people from both sides, refer to the fundamental principles of international law. What I would like to know is who is going to enforce the decisions made in international law? Who are we going to refer to? On what authority will we decide to implement those decisions?

In international law, there is no rule. I am sorry, but the way we see it, I will try to be accurate—one cannot say that there is no rule, because there are some, but the way we see it, where someone would say: “Here in a legal principle, a decision, which we will implement”, that is not how things work. There is a sea of principles in which we could swim for ever and ever.

There is another rule. Ultimately might is right, the strongest wins out. That is the plain truth. I will not elaborate on that because, needless to say, that is not a scenario anyone would wish for. It is simply a question of common sense. The Supreme Court could come back to us with that option.

What upsets me the most, however, is that with this kind of reference to the Supreme Court we tend to recognize, to say publicly that the breakup of our country is so likely that the head of the Government of Canada and the government itself have come to the conclusion that it is a possibility to be considered.

We have to be honest and realize that, in every type of relationship, if we keep talking about a breakup, it will eventually happen.

The same thing holds true for a country, spouses, or business partners. I think that the current government is not keeping the referendum commitments made in 1995 when it focuses on the breakup scenario.

We have brought forward a number of ideas to help move the debate along.

Since the 1995 referendum we have made it very clear that we oppose this supreme court reference. We think it is a bad idea. By the way, we certainly acknowledge that there are great number of Canadians outside of Quebec who think this is a good idea and I know that. However, I just think a lot of people are living under the illusion that this is going to solve a problem when it will not. It is a political problem.

There are a number of things we can do. I have written to the prime minister and the premiers at least twice in the last year making some constructive suggestions on behalf of my party and the men and women in my party who believe there are solutions and a consensus at hand.

In fact, we feel frustrated because we happen to know that there is a very real will for change in the country. It is reflected in all parts of the country, in Alberta, Ontario, the Atlantic and Quebec. This will for change is compatible with what governments in Quebec have also been seeking for the last 30 years. It is within our reach if we have a leadership that is able to understand it and seize that opportunity.

Among the things I have written about to the premiers and the prime minister are rebalancing the federation and limiting federal spending power. I have recommended some institutional changes. Our country has matured to the point where we can change some of our institutions.

My party and I believe there should be a covenant, that we should renew the social and economic union of Canada. Under a new institution, a covenant, we could agree to national standards in health care for example. We could make a commitment to delivery of services to people. We could put the focus on the services we are rendering rather than on the governments that deliver the services. Through such an agreement we could install predictable financing.

Health care is probably the most important example. Over the last few years our health care system has been slashed in its funding. It is broken and needs to be fixed. Here is a good place to start for the sake of our parents, our grandparents and our kids who deserve a good health care system.

Senate reform and the recognition of Quebec are among the ideas we put forth. We have had the worst of debates on these issues. The Reform Party has gone out there cynically and for 10 years it has lived off of denouncing Quebec and the idea of distinct society. It ran on that issue during the last election campaign.

Now the concept of unique character is on the table. The minister and the Liberal government have said that unique character and distinct society mean exactly the same thing. It is intriguing to us how the Reform Party will swallow itself whole on this issue.

[An hon. member]

How profound.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

The Reform member says how profound. I can only regret that he and the people in his party have been an instrument of division on this issue. I quoted an article from the principal adviser of the Reform Party of Canada and its leader.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

He was a college student at the time and did not work for the party.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

One of the members said that he was a student at the time and did not work for the party, so we are getting some denials which is important. Mr. Levant said:

Such a divorce would be painful. But after a year or so of realignment, things would probably be better than they are today. Here are 10 reasons why Alberta would be better off.

I will quote three of them:

Eliminate bilingualism and multiculturalism—.If we kicked out Quebec, we might then have the fortitude to tackle Canada's other ethnic separatists: Natives demanding their “First Nations”. Next would be the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Then the radical environmentalist groups.

The fourth reason he gives to kick Quebec out is to end corruption in Parliament. Is it any wonder that we are where we are today.

In conclusion, we have no problem with this motion. It is the consequences surrounding it and what is not said in the motion that we have great difficulty with.