Christian Ouellet

[The Budget, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very clear and informative presentation.

Still, I would be curious to know why he thinks this government did not do like others did in their budgets. The United States, European countries and Korea allocated 20%, 35% and 79% respectively of their stimulus budgets to greening their economies.

How much did this government allocate to that? A mere 8%.

Could the hon. member tell me how come, in the United States, every overall economic budget currently includes 14% more funding per capita for the green economy than in Canada?

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague concluded earlier by saying that his government wants to create jobs.

Does he intend to explain how the Conservatives plan to create jobs, and how they will create jobs in the forestry sector in Quebec, a sector that desperately needs jobs and one that they have been ignoring for several years?

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent presentation and for his tour which, incidentally, included my riding of Brome—Missisquoi. Culture is vital, and that is a point that was raised frequently during this tour, as my colleague mentioned. Culture is misunderstood. There is the blatant case of a 75-year old Quebec artist who is totally misunderstood; this is not a young artist whose career is just starting. All sorts of nonsense is being used to justify turning down his application for assistance.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: does he think that the Speech from the Throne provides any hope with regard to the issue of homelessness? For many years now, that issue has not been understood by this government. Did the throne speech delivered yesterday suggest that the issue of homelessness will be dealt with? Dealing with that issue means providing free housing for at least three or four months and providing support for a few years. It does not mean letting people live on the street or conducting studies on the issue, it simply means helping them.

[The Environment, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, after four years in power, the Conservatives refuse to tackle the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with dignity. Blinded by the interests of the oil companies, they still have no concrete plan to fight climate change.

Four years have been lost, four years of hypocrisy, during which this government did not take responsibility, something that has already won them three fossil of the day awards at the Copenhagen conference.

Meanwhile, Quebec has made significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Some sectors, like the aluminum sector, have reduced greenhouse gases by 20% since 1990, while the fossil fuel industry in Alberta has increased them by 30%. Be failing to recognize the achievements Quebec industries made before 2006, the Conservatives are directly jeopardizing the Quebec economy.

Without the government's ideologies, Quebec—

[Climate Change, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government will defend the economic interests of Alberta oil companies in Copenhagen. These interests go against the interests of Quebec, which is prepared to do its part in the fight against climate change. Because of federal dogma, Canada will have only one voice in Copenhagen.

Will the government acknowledge that when Canada speaks with a single voice, this voice excludes Quebec?

[Climate Change, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is undermining work in Copenhagen, and this could have some serious consequences for Quebec. While President Sarkozy regularly mentions the possibility of creating a carbon tax, and the WTO says that it would be legal under certain conditions, Quebec could end up being the victim of the federal government's inaction.

Does the government realize that by thinking only of the interests of Alberta oil companies, it is sacrificing the economic and environmental interests of Quebec?

[Mylène Brodeur, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the outstanding results achieved by a figure skater from my riding, Mylène Brodeur, from Stanbridge Station.

The ISU Grand Prix includes six figure skating competitions that Mylène and her skating partner, John Mattatall, participate in. At the Rostelecom Cup, which was held in Moscow from October 22 to 25, where they were Canada's only competitors in the pairs category, Mylène and John placed sixth with a total of 141.59 points.

Then, in early November, at the NHK Trophy in Tokyo, the pair placed fifth with a score of 150.71, which allows them to move on to the Grand Prix finals to be held in December in Tokyo.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to commend Mylène Brodeur and her partner, John Mattatall, on their perseverance. I wish them the best of luck in the finals.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very clear and rational remarks. He was really convincing. I believe if someone has to have the last word on this subject today, he is the one.

I would like to speak about the whole question of energy. Now that we are running low on gasoline and have much less natural gas, I would like to ask my colleague whether this is the time to be trading in pork or other export-import commodities, except perhaps heavy metals, diamonds or other high value items. Imagine a new agreement like that that would have us transporting items to a country as far away as Colombia at a time when the amount of energy in the world is changing?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague who is doing good work on the environment, but he has a veil hanging over his eyes, and, unfortunately, cannot see beyond the veil. He is a fine person and a good man. He works hard. I am not attacking him personally. It is his party that prevents him from seeing beyond the veil.

That prevents him from seeing that every time we are obliged to vote on the proposals he mentioned, there are other factors that are unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois, and he knows that. He knows why we voted against them. We did not vote against the environment. For us, the environment is fundamental and we will always vote in favour of the environment.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for that important question. I will try to respond.

It is true that in terms of human rights, there is a great deal to be said, but other members have already spoken to that. For my part, I would like to respond to the issue of the environment. How is it that the Conservatives and the Liberals have joined in saying that the environment is not important? In fact, the answer is that the environment is not important in their eyes.

Those two parties are looking at the future through a rear-view mirror. They have not recognized that it is time to lift the rear-view mirror and look forward, especially the Conservatives, who have not stopped saying for the past two years that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, while they have been in office for four years and they have done nothing for the environment. Four years; zero, nothing. They have no interest in looking after the environment.

The Liberals had problems with the environment. That may be why they will vote in favour of this agreement. They put forward some good proposals at one point and were ridiculed and condemned as populists by the Conservatives. Now, they have no idea where they are going. In the end, unfortunately, the environment is no longer an important value for them.

We really would like to see them wake up, find that energy again and say it is an important value and that they will vote against this proposed agreement because the environment is not protected.