Bernard Bigras

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the minister's words. He says that he can reassure people about current and future drilling in Canada, but that is just not true. Down south, President Obama says that his government has imposed a moratorium and is waiting for the results of an inquiry, but here, the minister is still authorizing oil drilling just 400 km from St. John's, Newfoundland.

Government officials say that if a drilling accident happens, they would have to bring in a drilling platform from the Gulf of Mexico to drill a relief well. It could take 11 days for the drilling platform to get here and four or five months to drill a relief well.

How can the minister provide any reassurance about current drilling projects when people from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board are saying that it could take months to drill a relief well? Is that what the government calls reassuring?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if I have only 30 seconds, that means that I cannot do any kind of preamble.

I would like to ask the member whether she finds it acceptable that in 2005, the government decided that exploratory drilling projects would no longer be subject to comprehensive studies, but to screenings instead? We have not only the current government to thank for these weakened regulations, but also the Liberal government, which began this in 2005.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

I must point out that this general weakening of environmental standards, environmental assessments and safety standards had already begun long before the current government decided to amend legislation, for example, so that projects would no longer be assessed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency but, instead, would be submitted to the National Energy Board. Since 2005, we have known that the federal government, with the help of the Liberals, intended to make changes to environmental assessments so that exploratory drilling projects would no longer be subject to assessments or studies—

[Climate Change, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, by saying that the environment has no place at the G20, the Prime Minister is refusing to look at the economic opportunities associated with environmental protection. He thinks that Kyoto is expensive and of no benefit. But that is not true. Green technologies and a carbon exchange represent opportunities for Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister admit that implementing Kyoto is costly for oil companies but not implementing it is costly for Quebec?

[Climate Change, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has asked Canada to add the fight against climate change to the G20 agenda. What was the Prime Minister's response? The agenda will focus on the economy. That says it all. For the Prime Minister, the economy and the environment do not go hand in hand. Sustainable development is a foreign concept to him.

How can the Prime Minister separate the environment and the economy when it is obvious that the environment is not an obstacle to but a motor for economic development?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Outremont of a few historical facts.

First of all, the Bloc québécois, as a political entity, did not oppose the Meech Lake accord because the Bloc québécois did not exist when the accord died. I suggest the member take another look at his history books. All the more because the NDP played a major role in the failure of the Meech Lake accord. The NDP is his party. I will remind the House that at the time, Ms. McLaughlin chose to oppose the Meech Lake accord. That created a rift within the NDP, causing Ed Broadbent to literally leave the party. All this was on top of the fact that the Premier of Manitoba, who was a New Democrat, opposed the Meech Lake accord, in particular the parts dealing with the principle of spending powers.

The Bloc did not create the constitutional crisis; in fact, it is actually a victim of the crisis. It was all down to the NDP at the time. The NDP reached record lows in terms of committed voters a few years later, in 1993.

There are no lessons to be learned from the NDP, because although the party may claim today that federalism is a system which can evolve, it was first in line to shoot it down.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe debate has resumed, but the interpreters have not yet returned. I just want to make sure the translation is available.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the speech made by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who is frankly playing the bogeyman today. I listened to his proposition, and the problem is with his basic assumption. He says that federalism, as a system, can evolve as long as there is the will. That is what the member just told us, and that is where the problem lies. Federalism has not evolved since 1982, since his government unilaterally patriated the Constitution, since the Meech Lake accord was deep-sixed. There has been no evolution in Canadian federalism because there has been no desire to see it evolve, as the member just said.

This became abundantly clear over the weekend. Both the Canadian population and our colleagues in this House criticize us, as the member did, for speaking only on behalf of Quebec. We are not ashamed of that. I see the member is nodding. Yes, he said that. Let me say one thing: we are not ashamed of defending Quebec's interests, because that is our role.

How can the member say that the federal system can evolve if there is a will, when there has never been any political will whatsoever, neither in the House nor among the Canadian public?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Like the federalists.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House leader of the Bloc Québécois for his eloquent speech, which showed the two visions that exist in Canada. We have the Quebec vision, in which we would receive more powers, and the Canadian vision and the Canadian people, which are not open to the demands of Quebec.

This has been made clear in the actions Parliament has taken in recent years. When the Bloc Québécois asked that Bill 101 be applied to federal areas of jurisdiction, the answer from Ottawa was no. When Quebec wanted to withdraw from Canadian multiculturalism, we got a no from Ottawa. When we wanted the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine to be applied internationally, the answer from Ottawa was no.

Is it not true that the closed vision of the Canadian public has been harmful to Quebec in this Parliament in recent years?