Mr. Chair, with respect to a long-term solution, he mentioned the Philippine official who was on a hunger strike and climate change. Could my colleague expand on that, please?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 25% of the vote.
Crisis in the Philippines November 20th, 2013
Mr. Chair, with respect to a long-term solution, he mentioned the Philippine official who was on a hunger strike and climate change. Could my colleague expand on that, please?
Crisis in the Philippines November 20th, 2013
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for the steps he has taken to address the situation. My colleague asked the minister how the funds have been allocated and to whom.
Could the hon. member tell me how he feels about the way the funds have been allocated?
Champlain Bridge November 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, on another transportation file, families and elected officials in the greater Montreal area are concerned by the recent developments regarding the Champlain Bridge. For more than a year now, I have been asking the minister to unveil plan B. The public also has the right to know what it is.
Can the minister tell us his contingency plan should the bridge be closed prematurely?
Rail Transportation November 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not seem to have read all the reports.
The Conservatives need to take rail safety more seriously because, as we have said, voluntary measures are not working. In April 2012, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the TSB, made recommendations during the investigation into the Burlington accident, but they were rejected. Now, in a new report, the TSB is accusing the Conservatives of not fulfilling their responsibilities.
When will automatic braking systems and video cameras be installed?
Champlain Bridge November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to change the subject.
The new Champlain Bridge will change the face of Montreal. It will cost billions of dollars and the minister is acting as though he is installing new floating flooring in his bungalow.
We could have a bridge with modern and magnificent architecture. He does not care. We could avoid killing the Montreal economy with a poorly planned toll. He does not care. We could ensure that we hold a tendering process to save taxpayers money. He does not care.
Will he start taking this issue seriously?
Champlain Bridge November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Infrastructure continues to turn a deaf ear. He is too busy repeating “no toll, no bridge” to listen to the people in the Montreal metropolitan area, the business community, surveyed residents and elected officials.
The Champlain Bridge is in really bad shape and must be replaced quickly. However, all the minster wants to do is take money out of the pockets of the people in the Montreal metropolitan area.
Will the minister stop this blackmail?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her question.
It allows me to stress the fact that we are talking about the potential creation of 40,000 indirect, direct and induced jobs in Canada.
We would lose 40,000 jobs according to CEP, based on a 2006 Informetrica report on raw bitumen exports. That is a tremendous loss of jobs. The United States is confirming the same thing. Jobs will be created in the United States, not in Canada.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the Liberals are raising the Toronto Centre by-elections, because from what I have heard, their candidates do not want a debate. They do not want to talk about issues. They do not have any ideas.
Yesterday we heard from their leader that they were for Keystone, but they did not know how they would go ahead with protecting the environment and are looking into that. They have a party that says that it wants to defend the environment, but they have no clue. They do have a clue. In 2008 it was one way; it was a carbon tax. In 2011 it was cap and trade. They followed what we did. Now they do not know. They got lost. They are trying to figure it out. Maybe it is because of their leader's vision for protecting the environment. That is what we do not know. That is why the candidates in Toronto Centre cannot actually say what their vision is. It is because they do not have one.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, first, it is clear that the current government has gutted environmental protection with its omnibus bills.
Our motion is about creating jobs, not creating jobs in the U.S. We are talking about 3,000 jobs created in the U.S. Our vision is creating jobs here in Canada. That is why we put forward this motion. We hope the Conservatives will support our motion, because we are talking about creating jobs here in Canada and not exporting good jobs. Why have that vision?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their warm welcome. It is an honour to rise today to speak to the opposition motion. I am pleased to thank our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his work on the energy file and on this issue in particular.
This motion is so important that I feel I must read it.
That, in the opinion of the House, the Keystone XL pipeline would intensify the export of unprocessed raw bitumen and would export more than 40,000 well-paying Canadian jobs, and is therefore not in Canada’s best interest.
The motion is about the Keystone XL pipeline.
I feel that this motion highlights the fact that there are different visions here in the House. The NDP is offering a vision of the future. On one hand, we have economic development; on the other hand, we have sustainable development, environmental protection and a number of social issues that must be taken into account when considering a project. I am very proud to talk about our vision today. I will attempt to show the contrast between our vision and that of the Conservatives and Liberals because, in this case, they are one and the same.
The Liberals and the Conservatives joined forces to back the Keystone XL project. They are on the same side on this issue, just as they are on many others.
What is Keystone XL really about? It is about transporting crude oil from the Alberta oil sands south through a pipeline to refineries in the United States. Then the United States can sell that oil back to us. That is it in a nutshell. That is the Conservatives' business plan and the Liberals' as well. We are talking 830,000 barrels a day. It is a huge project.
A project this size often creates jobs. In this case, we are talking about 40,000 jobs. Where do those numbers come from? They are based on a CEP estimate derived from a 2006 Informetrica report on exporting bitumen. The United States has talked about the possibility of 42,100 jobs.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are very proud to say that they will create jobs. However, when it turns out that those jobs will be created in the United States, I cannot figure out why the Conservatives are so proud of it, but they are. They go to the United States to meet with people in the American administration and tell them that they will create jobs that will benefit their country's economy.
I am from Brossard-La Prairie, which is not far from Hochelaga, where the Shell refinery closed its doors a few years ago. People lost their jobs. Nevertheless, instead of trying to create jobs in Canada, the Conservatives have decided to create jobs abroad. I understand why they say that our economy is based on natural resources and the oil sands. They want to develop those resources at all costs.
What we are saying is that we have to start with a vision. There is no vision on the other side of the House. We need a vision of what should be done to build a better Canada. We know that the oil sands are being developed and that Canada cannot stop using oil tomorrow. Even I travel by train or by car from time to time, and those modes of transportation use oil.
What we are suggesting is transporting oil from the west to refineries in the east so that we can create jobs.
Our vision is rather broad. We are saying that we want to create jobs, but create them here in Canada. Why fight to export 40,000 jobs to the United States?
The Conservatives, who are once again being helped by the Liberals, are very good at that, as we saw with Electrolux in Quebec. The Conservatives were very proud to say that they reduced the corporate tax rate. They congratulated themselves for it. However, as soon as their tax rate went down, those companies laid off their workers here and moved their production abroad.
Under the Conservatives, about 500,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. I find that shocking. It shows they have no economic vision. That is no way to move the country forward. The Conservative vision, now supported by the Liberals, is to sell everything right away. The goal is to develop all that as quickly as possible and shift production to the United States. The Americans will do the work, get the added value, create jobs and refine the product. Then they can send it back to us, sell it back to us and open new markets.
The Conservatives and Liberals do not seem to care about that. They have a rather narrow vision of this kind of development.
We are talking about economic development, but in this case, the environment also matters. Why are the Conservatives hitting a wall in the United States right now? Why is the Obama administration giving the Conservatives a slap on the wrist? They have had no vision when it comes to the environment.
They say they want to push oil sands development to the limit, and in order to do so, they want to ignore all the rules we have in place to protect the environment. This was all set out in the omnibus bills that the government so proudly introduced, which were clearly problematic.
In closing, I would like to say that I am very proud of this motion, because our vision is much broader and more focused on the future, while the Liberals and Conservatives remain very narrow-minded and have no vision of the future.