Debates of Nov. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Keystone XL Pipeline

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a Dutch elm disease. That is about a tree. This is about the Dutch economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not really think that was a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member might have the opportunity to have some say on that at a future point in time.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member understood the message that is being sent, and he and his party should be more sensitive to not only all Canadians but the Prairies in particular, from my perspective. I represent a prairie riding, and natural resource development is very important to the Prairies.

My question for the member is this. Why does the NDP refuse to acknowledge the important role that the export of natural resources can play for all of Canada, for Canada's economy? Yes, we diversify and add value where we can, but let us remember how important the export of natural resources really is for all of us.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, my region's economy is based on natural resource development, but I want it to be done intelligently.

I am going to take the time to tell my Liberal colleague something. On a trip to Washington last spring, the Conservative Minister of Finance was proud to say that the project was going to create jobs in the United States. He pointed out that the state department report showed that this project was important to the economies of both countries, particularly because it would create over 40,000 well-paying jobs in the United States.

My Liberal colleague seems to be just as concerned about job creation in the United States. I, on the other hand, am concerned about job creation in Canada. I want young people to have jobs here. I want us to do more with our natural resources. I want us to develop them, not sell them at bargain prices. I want us to do something intelligent.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her passion and for her enlightening views on job creation in Canada.

She also spoke about young people. I believe that she cares about creating sustainable jobs to pass on to future generations and young people, and about a healthy environment where we can work and keep the economy going while adding value to green jobs.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, youth employment is of great concern to me.

I come from a resource region where many skilled workers have decided for one reason or another to try their luck in western Canada. It does not make any sense to me when I see the government choosing to send jobs generated by projects such as this one to the United States—jobs that could represent rather incredible economic potential.

I took a welding and fitting course with people who can weld piping and who have the skills to work on the pipeline. Now, we are telling them to go to the United States where the 40,000 jobs will be created. This does not make any sense to me. Where is the logic? The government wants young people to work but it is not trying to find a solution to keep them here. It does not make any sense.

If there were really no other way, then maybe it would be different. However, I think that we could do much better for our youth and our economy, and this pipeline project is not doing that.

Supplementary Estimates (B)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today, the President of the Treasury Board tabled the supplementary estimates (B) for 2013-14.

On behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, I wish to inform the House that there was an error in schedule 1 concerning the vote amount for vote 25b under Treasury Board. The correct amount of $275 million is reflected in the French annexe 1. The English schedule contains a typographical error in the amount of vote 25b. I am, therefore, tabling on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board a revised English schedule concerning vote 25b, along with the correct version of the French, which was tabled earlier today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the update in respect of the supplementary estimates (B), as tabled.

International Trade

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), twelve members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the Fall of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the changes to the U.S. Rule on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), six members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Fall of 2013, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Opposition Motion--Keystone XL Pipeline

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House; and this debate on the Keystone XL pipeline is an example of what the House should be doing in its work and the role of parliamentarians. The issues of development of resources, sustainability and the economy are worthy of debate. I do not think it is any surprise that I do not agree very much with the Conservative side of the floor. However, they show up. We have a different vision. What we need to do in the House, which is the Westminster party system, is to show up and debate so that Canadians can makes choices, and that is what we are here to do today.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party do not bother to show up. Their leader would rather go to Washington to promote the Keystone XL pipeline. He would rather go to Calgary to glad-hand oil executives, but he does not want to bother showing up in the House of Commons to say where he stands. That is a fundamental difference.

The issue here—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood is rising on a point of order.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long-standing convention in the House not to point out the presence or absence of other members, directly or indirectly. If the hon. member would proceed with his speech and offer his own commentary, we can ask him questions later. Who is here and who is not is a matter of entire irrelevance to this debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his intervention. I am glad he has pointed this out. Indeed, members will know that the reference to members' presence or absence with respect to the House is something that members should avoid incorporating into their comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.