Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, concerning the interventions that were made and the questions that were just asked.
My colleague opposite started his intervention by saying, “From his federalist point of view” when speaking about my colleague. Does it mean that, essentially, to him, the dogma of separation must prevail, no matter what is contained in the bills that we have to consider? Does he not think, like me, that when one hides behind dogmas, it is the best way not to face reality and that, essentially, what concerns these members more than anything else is not the interest of Quebec, but rather the interest of their option, which they pretend to be the interest of Quebec, which has never been demonstrated?