Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Criminal Code to stop protecting hate speech under the guise of religion. The law must apply equally to all. Religion must never justify hate.

Once again, we see that, within Canada, Quebec is regressing or stagnating. The same thing happened with secularism, conversion therapy and medical assistance in dying. Quebec settled these debates a long time ago. This is proof that our values are not compatible with this country's values and that it does not understand us either. Quebec deserves to function in accordance with its values. There is only one solution for that: Quebec must be independent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one thing I love about Canada and about living in a federalist country is this: All areas have a high sense of uniqueness and a distinct character to them. I cherish, for example, the province of Quebec for the French language and the in-depth culture and arts programming it has. In many ways, it leads the country in different areas. Quebec and Manitoba share a lot in common. We both have hydro development. We both have a healthy aerospace industry. Manitoba has a growing francophone community.

That is one of the reasons I suggest that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. We appreciate the differences and the contributions of all communities, which make our country the great country it is.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's intervention today was extremely revealing. It revealed a lot about the Conservatives, especially in the way they acted in the House during the speech. We can look at what they were doing when he was talking versus the way they acted when it came to actually voting on the words they had just used moments before.

What underpins all of this, and the member brought it up in his speech, is how, exactly, the Conservatives approach their role in the House. They believe their role here is to obstruct at every possible opportunity. In reality, in a Westminster parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to challenge the government to do better and be better, not to systematically, at every single opportunity, try to dismantle every piece of legislation and policy the government puts forward because the opposition could never imagine allowing it to have a win on something.

Could the member please expand on the thoughts he brought up earlier about the genuine role of the opposition and how the Reform Party across the way has completely lost its way?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if Preston Manning would have liked the member calling the Conservatives “the Reform Party”. They are probably a little farther to the right than the Reform Party ever was, in many ways.

Having said that, it was interesting. I will put it this way: Coming out of the election, I thought there might be a chance to see a different type of Conservative Party, especially when the leader of the Conservative Party lost his seat in Carleton. I recall how, when the leader was not here, or when the Conservative leader's office was in fact not as strong as it is today, we passed Bill C-5. That was co-operative. We could not have done it without the support of the Conservative Party. I am grateful for that, because it helps us build one Canadian economy and build the national priority projects. We got billions of dollars of investment because of that legislation.

Prior to the leader of the Conservative Party winning the by-election in August, there seemed to be more co-operation, but it seems we have gone back to where we were a year ago. The Conservative right once again dominates the party.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reason we are here this morning is that the justice committee is asking for the opportunity to hear from Canadians, and to travel to do so. A travel motion before the House of Commons is, in fact, very rare. At the heart of why we need this travel motion is section 319 of the Criminal Code.

I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could clarify, in good faith, the position of the government and whether it does in fact want to remove paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.

As a person of faith, I never thought I would have this argument in this chamber, in this country. It is hard to stand here today, but this is why I am here. The Liberals challenged us on why we are here. I am here to stand up for people of all faiths in my nation, so they have freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights.

Will the member clarify? Do the Liberals want to remove that section from the Criminal Code?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know we are not supposed to use props, so I am going to put my Canadian Charter of Rights down.

I would say to the member that every member of the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to every member, supports the Charter of Rights. I highly recommend that the member read in the Charter of Rights where it guarantees the right of freedom of religion.

I think of what a pastor, a priest or an imam says to their congregation, and there is no reason for people to be fearful. The only fear factor out there is the Conservative Party's trying to turn it into a wedge issue. If it is anything like their crime file, the reason they are doing it is fundraising purposes, and fundraising purposes alone.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what is in the Kool-Aid that the religious right is giving to the Conservatives. It must be pretty strong, because it is effective. The Conservatives seem to really believe what they are saying. They are claiming that this measure is directed at freedom of religious expression or freedom of religion. It is unbelievable.

My question is for the member for Winnipeg North, who seems to support removing the religious exemption in exchange for the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-9. In 2023, the Liberals did not support us on that issue. In 2024, I clearly remember that the minister at the time, Mr. Virani, proposed including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-63 to get the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill. We were already being pretty flexible. Now the same thing is being proposed once again, that is, including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-9. However, the Liberals are facing a bit of resistance, so now they are getting cold feet, so to speak, and have decided not to convene the committee so that they do not have to move forward on this.

I would really like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me whether the Liberals are serious this time. Are they really going to move forward on this? If so, why is the committee not sitting in order to finally put an end to this religious exemption, which is truly a disgrace in the Canadian system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the best I can do is reinforce the Charter of Rights, which is something I believe in and every Liberal member of Parliament believes in.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

That said, I too am having a hard time following my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North. He is saying that there is some sort of agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to not sit. Well, wait a minute. I was here yesterday. I was prepared to work until midnight. I am prepared to do so again tonight. What we asked, and I personally asked both the minister and the Liberal representative on the committee, was for Bill C‑9 to be passed before Christmas. It could not be any clearer than that. When I hear the member say that the Bloc Québécois is against this, I say, “Wait a minute, that is not right”.

Now, what is the Liberals' real position? As my colleague from Drummond said, we do not really know what to think of them anymore. I need someone to tell me whether the Liberals are actually afraid of religious lobbies. Is that why they are refusing to rid the Criminal Code of a provision that allows people to spread hate and incite hate as long as it is based on a religious text? That would be crazy. If that is really their position, they should say so clearly.

I do not think that is their position. It is not what I heard from the Minister of Justice. It is not what I am hearing from the Liberals I speak to. However, it seems to me that, on this matter, we keep taking one step forward and two steps back, and it is not only this week; it has been like that for years.

The Conservative motion we are debating today asks that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties. We are not against democracy, obviously. Listening to people tell us what they think of a bill is a good thing. However, travelling around is not the only way to get a viewpoint across. Committee travel is one thing, but having witnesses travel is another thing altogether.

So far, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has received some 30 witnesses. They have come to give testimony and express their viewpoints on Bill C‑9. We have also received around 40 briefs on this bill from various groups, individuals and experts. I think the work has been done. Could we hear from more witnesses? Of course. We can hear from as many witnesses and read as many briefs as we like, but at some point, we are going to have to move forward. We cannot sit and listen to people endlessly without ever taking action. Our job in this House is to be parliamentarians and to make laws.

The government tabled Bill C‑9. At the outset, I was not in agreement with it. I said as much to the minister. Amendments were put forward. He did not agree. We discussed it and we came to an agreement on a certain number of things that we brought forward at committee and that we hope will be finalized before the holidays. Instead, however, we are being told that we are starting over. We are going to go back to hearing from witnesses, and this time, we are going to go travelling around to make sure it takes as long as possible. Personally, I am not on board. I find all this rather disappointing.

I have Conservative colleagues whom I respect greatly, and I am sure they want us to work and move forward. However, there is something childish about all this. We have to face up to the situation. There is pressure from religious groups, that is true. My assistant called me half an hour before I entered the House. My constituency office received over 100 calls this morning from organizations and individuals telling us that Bill C-9 is very frightening and that we must vote against it.

I am not alone. I am sure that there are other parliamentarians in the House experiencing the same thing. This adds pressure. It is not fun to be under pressure. However, there is an expression that I often hear in English: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Our job is to make laws.

We are being pressured by people who say one particular bill is great and another is not. That is normal. We have to stay the course despite that pressure or we are not worthy of captaining the ship. We represent people who expect us to take action. I like the idea of travelling around Canada, but I would be happy to do that next summer, during my time off.

For the time being, we are here to work, and Bill C‑9 is an important bill that deserves to be voted on and passed as quickly as possible.

Once again, religious pressure is the only explanation I have been given on that subject. As my esteemed Conservative colleague asked earlier, does this mean that we really want to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code? Yes, but contrary to what I have heard and what I often hear, this does not mean that people will no longer be able to read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. People will still be able to read these texts. People will still be able to practise whatever faith they choose, where they choose and as they see fit, which is great. That is freedom, and we support that.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code does not say that people are free to read the Quran, the Bible, the Torah or any other texts. Section 319 says spreading hate is prohibited. That is what section 319 is all about. The part we want to repeal states that spreading hate is allowed if it is based on a religious text someone believes in. We are saying that that is not okay.

If a person's religion demands that they hate and spread hate, that will not work in Canada. I have a lot of respect for individuals, but that will not work. It will not work in Quebec, and from what I know, it will not work in Canada either. We do not condone that. Individuals are free to change their religion, practise it elsewhere or set aside certain beliefs, but no one in either Quebec or Canada has the right to spread hate or incite hatred. It is prohibited, irrespective of whether the person is relying on a religious text, a philosophical text or anything else, and this should not change. Allowing the spread of hate for any reason whatsoever is at odds with our legal system.

That said, I still have the right to read the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. I still have the right to practise a faith and to take inspiration from those texts. The three texts I am referring to and many other similar texts are full of grand principles and wisdom that we could learn from. Religions are normally a good thing. We can take inspiration from them, both for making laws and for living in society. However, they should not be taken at face value.

Life is very different today from what it was 3,000 years ago. I am sorry, but I do not approve of stoning women for adultery. If I was ever in favour of that in another life—if in fact I had another life—it is clear to me that this is totally wrong today in 2025. I have a lot of respect for Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but I would not sacrifice my own children for any religious belief. Religious wars were once fought by valiant soldiers and people who were fighting for their belief systems, points of view and religions. While that made a lot of sense at the time, it no longer makes sense today. I hope that neither I nor my children and grandchildren will ever live through religious wars.

All that is history, but it is something we should draw on for inspiration. The general principles are good. Seeking peace and love and promoting them is a good thing. However, the words in those texts were written 3,000 years ago by an unknown individual who was laying out their view of religion. Today, some people are taking the message literally and using these words not to spread lofty principles of love, peace and togetherness, but to say that religious wars were acceptable and would be worth starting again. No, we do not approve of that. It makes no sense to us. It has no place in the Criminal Code. We are asking that it be purged from our laws. I am asking for it, the Bloc Québécois is asking for it and roughly 75% of Quebeckers are asking for it. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I believe that over 55% of the Canadian population is asking for it.

I can confirm what was said earlier. The Bloc Québécois had reached an agreement with Liberal Party representatives, including the Minister of Justice, to have these provisions stricken from the Criminal Code. I hope that we will be able to do so. I hope that we can get that wrapped up before Christmas and shake hands in peace and love before leaving for the holiday break, safe in the knowledge that people will be able to continue living in peace in both Quebec and Canada.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which included several points on which we agree. I would like him to comment on the second section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which relates to fundamental freedoms.

What does the Bloc Québécois understand these fundamental freedoms to mean?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that the Bloc Québécois understands these provisions as they are written, and as everyone should read and understand them, I think, although we do recognize that the courts interpret these provisions broadly and frequently.

These are important provisions. We all agree on the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, we know that freedom of expression and all such freedoms have limits, without which there would be chaos. I am free to protest and say what I think, but if I tell someone to do something illegal, for example if I advise them to kill their wife because they learned that she has slept with the neighbour, that is incitement to violence and has no place in a society that claims to be peaceful.

We agree with everything that is there. We have the same thing in Quebec. We have our legislative provisions, including our Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We agree on that, but it must be interpreted in a reasonable way based on the context.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend, the Bloc member, and I enjoy working with him at committee. I would like to understand if he has any knowledge of what is actually happening at the justice committee. He just referred to the Bloc having an agreement in the past tense. The meeting was cancelled last Tuesday and tonight's meeting has been cancelled. We have major pieces of legislation between us, but it appears as though the Liberals do not want us to convene.

I would like to follow up on something. My friend appears to suggest that the rationale for the amendment is the case of Adil Charkaoui in Montreal, who called for the extermination of the enemies of Allah. The Bloc seems to suggest that it is on the basis of this exception that charges were not instituted, but the prosecutorial service in Quebec said that is not the case; it is because it was not an identifiable group of people against whom he incited violence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Adil Charkaoui's comments last year are indeed a good example, and no, I obviously do not have any proof that he was not charged because of the Criminal Code or the content of the Criminal Code.

What I am saying is that such provisions may not necessarily lead to acquittals, but they do lead Crown prosecutors to be more cautious in their approach. Let us say that I am a Crown prosecutor and I have to send the lawyers from my office to work on a case. When I read the indictment, I see that there is an easy defence for the person we want to prosecute, because the Criminal Code says that people have the right to engage in this type of speech if they do so based on a religious text. I am not going to have those lawyers argue in court for two or three years all the way up to the Supreme Court, just for them to be told something that we already know.

That is the problem with the religious exemption. It is not the acquittals that we are worried about. It is the fact that prosecutors do not even want to try to bring charges when they should because they know they cannot win.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously disagree with the Bloc Québécois in this regard, but I would like to ask a question about the Liberal Party's position and the discussions that have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party.

We learned through the media on Monday, and this was confirmed by a Liberal spokesperson, that the government came to an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to move forward with this measure, which we believe is against religious freedom. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm the government's position?

It is rather strange that the government does not have the courage to tell us today where it stands. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm that the government stated its position on this issue with the agreement in question?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. We had an agreement regarding these provisions, regarding our amendment. I can also confirm that I, too, deplore this lack of courage that resulted in the cancellation of yesterday's meeting.

I urge the Minister of Justice and our colleagues on the committee to come to their senses and convene the committee so that we can work on these provisions and pass Bill C-9 as early as next week.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his brilliant speech and for his thorough work on this file, which he has been adeptly looking after for years. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code to be repealed for quite some time, long before this year and long before this Parliament.

Earlier, my colleague spoke about support for this measure that, as I stated before, the Bloc Québécois has proposed many times. According to a Leger poll conducted last year, 75% of Quebeckers support this measure. It also has strong support in the rest of Canada. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said the figure was at least 55%. Actually, 66% of Canadians support this provision. That 66% of Canadians are the 66% of Canadians who fully understand what this measure means, and they are not fooled by populist rhetoric aimed at making them fear for their freedom of religion, which I find appalling. I think it is appalling and I will say why. It is because, as politicians, as elected representatives, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to be upfront with our constituents and to tell them the truth. We have a duty not to sway them into believing certain things that align with our personal views, our party's stance, or worse, the position that lobby groups are forcing on our parties.

I take this responsibility very seriously, and that is why, when people call my constituency office, as many did this morning, asking us to vote against Bill C-9 because it will allegedly violate their freedom of religion, like my colleagues, I tell my team to ask the callers to provide examples. We do not simply thank them for calling and tell them that we have taken note of their views and will take them into consideration. We ask them for examples of cases where, in the practice of their religion or faith or the practice of the minister, pastor, imam or priest delivering sermons in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, there is something that could require protection under the religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

No one is able to come up with an answer, and that is because any logical answer would be so awful, because this is so huge, because the people who call us in good faith, frightened by the Conservatives' narrative, think they are being told that their priest is no longer allowed to read the Bible or their imam is no longer allowed to quote the Quran or parts of the Quran because of this provision. That is not the case at all. Whatever reasons the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and the RCMP had for deciding that Adil Charkaoui's statements did not warrant charges being laid, I am going to repeat those words anyway, because they gave rise to much debate. They were widely discussed in Quebec and they are being discussed here as well, right now, in the House of Commons. At a pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza rally, Adil Charkaoui said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.”

Anyone who utters words like that is not sharing a religion of love or a message of hope and peace. Such a person is propagating hate. The fact that a decision was made by the prosecution service in Quebec, on the recommendation and evaluation of the report provided by the RCMP at the time, not to lay charges against a preacher like Adil Charkaoui, who had already had more than one run-in with the law, does not mean that we can set this aside and just move on and say there is nothing to see here. This is serious.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois are here defending Quebec's values, and also the values of freedom of expression that are so precious to Quebeckers and Canadians alike, with measures like this one. It is a measure that simply says people do not have the right to say that, and additionally, they do not have the right to use religion as a shield to spread hate or call for violence or call for the extermination of anyone. The Conservatives are changing or redirecting or even embellishing the narrative in order to strike fear into their voters that their freedom of religion is under attack, and I find that to be irresponsible. I am going to stick with that word, although I could use other words that would not be as civil, and I do want to remain civil.

I also have a problem with how my Liberal colleagues have handled this specific file. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague from Winnipeg North a question, during the last Parliament, we studied Bill C-63, which sought to combat hatred. However, it did not work. The Bloc Québécois made what I felt was a very reasonable request to split the bill in two. One part of the bill had quite a bit of consensus among all the parties in the House. That part of the bill sought to protect vulnerable people from hateful content, including online content. As the Conservatives said at the time, that part of the bill was a matter of common sense. The other part focused on the concept of hatred and issues that were perhaps more suitable for debate and dissent. It needed to be discussed, but the Liberals did not want that. The Liberals were offering to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code in exchange for our support for Bill C-63 as a whole. That did not work because there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and we could not go that far.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents. Yesterday, we heard from professor David Morin and professor Marie-Ève Carignan, two eminent scholars from the UNESCO chair in the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Their appearance helped us realize that had this part of Bill C-63 been adopted, we would already have made a big step forward in protecting vulnerable persons. This brings me to the point that sometimes we delay the implementation of necessary and urgent legislation for political games. The longer implementation is delayed, the longer vulnerable persons are put in vulnerable situations. These individuals, including children, adolescents and numerous other vulnerable groups whom I need not list are left in harm's way.

In conclusion, I am disappointed with the discussion we are having today. I wish we could have risen above political partisanship or pressure from religious groups. I would have liked for us to stick to the facts and take this Bloc Québécois proposal for what it is: an extremely sensible measure that perhaps warrants discussion on the basis of personal convictions. However, we must stop anaesthetizing people with falsehoods and make sure we are bringing true facts to light so that we can have a frank and honest discussion.

I have not set foot in a church in a very long time, and that is something I must confess, if I can be allowed a little play on words. It has been a long time since I last heard a priest give a sermon, but I was an altar boy as a teenager, and I do not recall a single statement from a priest, a single sermon in which violence was promoted based on what the Bible says. Never in a million years can I imagine a pastor, a priest, a preacher, a minister, engaging in hateful speech, propagating hate or calling for violence in a religious message.

I would be very curious to find out more about the places of worship my Conservative friends attend and the ministers there. What is being said in those churches? A Conservative member once told me they are very afraid that removing this provision will put their ministers in danger for something they might say about homosexuals. What could they possibly say about homosexuals that would make them fear being prosecuted? Are they calling for their heads to be chopped off? What can they be saying? I fail to understand what speech they are trying to defend by opposing the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code.

As a very important reminder, 75% of Quebeckers and 66% of Canadians are in favour of this measure. That is a pretty good consensus for at least having an honest discussion about the issue.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for speaking today on the important issue of online dangers for children. I also thank him for his work on the committee.

What is the Bloc's position on improving the safety of online platforms and social media for young people in Canada? What measures should the federal government take to better protect minors online? What activities should be promoted to encourage positive social habits?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made a passing reference to that in my speech, but it was not really the main point of my speech.

That said, I will reserve my comments and response for later, once we have completed the study that is currently being conducted. With each new meeting during this study, we are learning some extremely interesting things.

The report on this study will be published at some point. At that point, we will be able to discuss the conclusions we have drawn from the study in committee.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, but does he understand that it is already illegal to make statements that incite violence?

It is already illegal. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and will violate the rights and freedoms of 27 million Canadians.

Does my colleague understand that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is not reading that right. That is not at all the case.

I will take another approach. Hate speech and the propagation of hatred are indeed prohibited under section 319, but there is a religious exemption. If the religious exemption is not needed, then let us simply remove it. If it has not been used as a defence or has not been successfully used as a defence, then let us simply agree to remove it.

If my Conservative colleagues think that the safeguards that are already in place are strong enough, then why are they opposed to removing these two provisions of section 319 that allow for the propagation of hatred and violence under the guise of religion?

Let us simply remove those provisions if they serve no purpose.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a strange debate today.

From what I understand, the Liberals do not want to debate this in committee and the Conservatives are clearly against the provision. However, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord pointed out in his speech earlier, there was an agreement.

As my colleague from Drummond said—and I thank him for his excellent speech, by the way—75% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Bloc Québécois's proposal. What is more, the Quebec National Assembly has made a unanimous request for this. The 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, across party lines, have asked the government to support the Bloc Québécois's proposal.

My question for my colleague is this: Does he know very many members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec who are saying that the Bloc Québécois's proposal is unacceptable?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that when we ask the Conservative caucus from Quebec this question, we do not get an answer right away. I look forward to hearing a speech on this from a Quebec Conservative. We might hear a bit more about their position and their arguments.

That was an excellent question from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak forcefully against the motion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We are in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has time for a very brief question.