Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things about what my hon. colleague said. First, I think it is not totally accurate and correct to say that members of the Bloc Quebecois are not here to build a better Canada. Of course, we are here to promote the sovereignty of Quebec. This is our main goal. But we are also here to defend the interests of Quebecers within Canada until Quebec becomes a sovereign country.
We never thought that our role was to make Canada a less attractive country, because we wish to maintain very close ties with the rest of Canada. Besides, it is not in our interest to make Canada a less attractive country or to portray it as such.
That being said, with regard to the issue raised by our colleague, I believe he is getting things mixed up when he says that you showed your sense of fairness and justice by accepting a certain number of amendments, namely the 300 amendment proposals to Bill C-20 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. How could you have rejected those amendments? What right would you have had to refuse amendments that were acceptable and in order, simply because they had been moved by the Bloc Quebecois? Could you have refused them for this reason alone?
I am not referring here to the amendments that you duly accepted, despite the very subjective and partisan evaluations made by certain people across the way. I am not referring to that. I am referring to amendments that were refused without even having even been moved, and to amendments which were refused after having been changed on the recommendation of the same people who had refused them and which were nevertheless ruled out of order.
Now, if the hon. member cannot understand that, maybe he should listen instead of shouting.