Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we read the motion and we, in the Bloc québécois, cannot say that we are in love with it, as we say in French. It raises a lot of questions, as you said. After making my points, I might propose to Ms. Bell a small change that would allow the Committee to consider its motion.
Obviously, if the two projects go ahead, and in view of the fact that we are part of NAFTA, Ms. Bell must understand that the Canadian market no longer exists; it is rather a North American market. Furthermore, the Bloc québécois does not advocate a national energy policy. This project could be turned down for environmental reasons. In this motion, I did not see anything that would dictate to provinces how to manage their natural resources, which are under provincial jurisdiction.
If we were to take this action, it could be viewed as erecting a barrier against exports, which would be contrary to NAFTA. I don't know that much about the project, but I view this motion as an invitation to review the project, not necessarily to block it, and to examine its implications. There is not much danger in examining it.
I would suggest to Ms. Bell to take out the word “all“. It would be very ambitious for the Committee to examine “all implications“, since the National Energy Board has already done so. We must look at the implications in order to reassure the workers who, it must be said, came to meet with us. I would be willing to support this motion if it could be slightly amended. We could have one or two meetings in order to look into the issue raised by Ms. Bell.