Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 250
View Claude Gravelle Profile
NDP (ON)
View Claude Gravelle Profile
2013-06-14 11:58 [p.18376]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government tough questions about why the Ring of Fire project has been suspended.
All I got from the parliamentary secretary was a laundry list of places he has visited. The people of northern Ontario deserve better. They want answers about why, after five months of so-called leadership from Ottawa, the project is further from realization than ever before.
Enough with the spin. What is the minister going to do to get this project back on track?
View Greg Rickford Profile
CPC (ON)
View Greg Rickford Profile
2013-06-14 11:59 [p.18377]
Mr. Speaker, I love these Friday morning lobs from the member for Nickel Belt. There is nothing I want to talk about more.
I actually mentioned a visit to Webequie First Nation. I guess I failed to mention the fact that the minister responsible for FedNor and I sat down at the table with all of the first nations leaders in Thunder Bay. We have met with stakeholders who are implicated in the Ring of Fire.
The prevailing concerns were that the provincial government has dropped the ball on this, and that the NDP MPs who are left out there in parts of northern Ontario are not on board and do not support the initiatives this government is moving forward with to make the Ring of Fire an economic reality.
View Claude Gravelle Profile
NDP (ON)
View Claude Gravelle Profile
2013-06-13 14:56 [p.18302]
Mr. Speaker, the Ring of Fire provides a unique opportunity for the economic development of northern Ontario.
If this project comes to fruition, it will help contribute to the sustainable improvement of our economy and have a positive impact on first nations and local communities. However, the Conservatives are dragging their feet and unable to establish clear rules for the proper management of the project, which is now faltering.
What will the minister do to get the project back on track?
View Greg Rickford Profile
CPC (ON)
View Greg Rickford Profile
2013-06-13 14:57 [p.18303]
Mr. Speaker, today, there is something really ironic about an NDP member talking about following clear rules.
That notwithstanding, this was a decision made by a private company. Our government is committed and focused on working with stakeholders to ensure the enormous potential of the Ring of Fire becomes a reality. We will continue to work with all levels of government, especially first nations, and other stakeholders to help maximize those economic opportunities for northern Ontario.
View Claude Gravelle Profile
NDP (ON)
View Claude Gravelle Profile
2013-06-13 14:57 [p.18303]
Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, in the span of five months, the Ring of Fire project has gone from stalled to completely suspended. The minister's inaction means end runs on environmental assessments, needless court challenges and sidelining first nations.
The minister needs to step up and take responsibility for leaving the Ring of Fire project mired in uncertainty. How is he going to fix this mess?
View Greg Rickford Profile
CPC (ON)
View Greg Rickford Profile
2013-06-13 14:58 [p.18303]
Mr. Speaker, it was our government that was proactive in working hand in hand, in full co-operation with communities implicated in the Ring of Fire. In fact, I visit Webequie First Nation with the Minister of the Environment. We saw a small business centre there. We saw first nations elders and youth and a college-diploma first nations person doing cultural mapping for the development of the Ring of Fire. We saw a busy base supplying materials for the Ring of Fire activity.
Every time we try to create better conditions for first nations communities, the NDP members consistently vote against those and make those challenges even more difficult. Shame on them.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Dan Albas Profile
2013-06-06 17:08 [p.17846]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have heard in the debate today is that with over 600 different first nations, we have non-treaty, treaty, rural and urban areas. This is a wide, encompassing topic. One thing I have heard time and again from members is that the government is collaborating and the approach is on a case-by-case basis.
For example, the Penticton Indian Band has a tremendous opportunity in the Arrowleaf development it wants. It needs water to go ahead with that, among other things. The band may choose to work with the adjacent municipality or may choose to go on its own. It will not be clean water for just the members' own consumption. This will allow them to expand their economic development.
I would appreciate it if the member could highlight some of the other points in relation to better drinking water and more waste water sanitation opportunities, with a focus on economic development and helping on a case-by-case basis.
View Laurie Hawn Profile
CPC (AB)
View Laurie Hawn Profile
2013-06-06 17:09 [p.17846]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about that. We talked about clean water, waste water and so on, and that is critically important. However, there is a longer-term aim here, and that is to help our first nations get educated and trained. They can develop some economic opportunities for themselves in whatever municipality they are in or nearby.
There is nothing to say that they could not take on providing waste water services and clean drinking water for a non-aboriginal, non-first nations community. We want that kind of economic development. We want that kind of participation from our first nations people throughout the country. It is going to be different in Nova Scotia, Alberta and wherever else. That is why it is so important that we collaborate locally, that we do it in good faith and that we do it flexibly and aggressively.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I really appreciate that the NDP is so engaged in this issue.
I can talk about the problems related to a lack of drinking water. Tuberculosis is more common among first nations who do not have a reliable source of drinking water. There are a variety of health problems related to this issue. It also creates a significant problem in the community's ability to diversify and build a strong economy. It is difficult to encourage industry to come to the community if there is no infrastructure. Drinking water is a necessity.
We also heard about municipalities that have first nations reserves connected to their water supply. That is very problematic because, in the context of this bill, the government did not take the time to consult either first nations or the municipalities that have to provide this service.
I think that we will find there are municipalities that are not interested in providing that service to first nations. Good relations could have developed in those instances.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Speaker, our government supports the transmission of oil from west to east, as it would create high-paying jobs and spur growth, while reducing Canada's reliance on foreign oil.
We know the NDP is intent on halting economic development. The opposition leader has come out against reversing the flow of the line 9B pipeline, which is currently being reviewed by the National Energy Board.
Would the parliamentary secretary update the House on the status of this review?
View David Anderson Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, our government has long supported moving oil from western Canada to eastern Canada if the economics exist. At committee we have heard support for this project from the west, Quebec and eastern Canada.
I am encouraged that a coalition of industry groups and labour unions has been created in support of this project.
Unfortunately, the NDP has once again changed its position and now it opposes it. When will the NDP stop its ideological hatred of resource development and resource communities and start standing up for Canadian jobs?
View Dan Harris Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech about the committee report.
She spoke at length about the absence of a digital strategy. That is why the official opposition had to prepare a dissenting report. Quite frankly, the government's lack of action on this matter is unbelievable.
I would also like to congratulate my colleague on the quality of her English, which improves every time she speaks in the House of Commons. Bilingualism is certainly very important for us in the NDP.
It is incredible that the government would be passing up the opportunity the Internet presents. My colleague said that there was a potential $3.4-trillion economic opportunity. The lack of leadership is unbelievable. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association came together and formed a policy on future cellphone towers, because the government will not do it. That is incredible leadership by them, but none by the government.
The member brought up the 700 megahertz auction that is coming up. It is going to be important for the future of our wireless communications and digital economy. The Minister of Industry said that he had no plan to make sure that Canadians receive the kind of money they need. The last auction raised $4 billion. Scotiabank estimates that the current auction might raise $2.6 billion, but the minister himself said that there is only going to be a floor of $900 million. He has no plan to make sure that we invest in telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas to help small and medium businesses all across the country. I would like to ask my colleague to comment on that.
View Hélène LeBlanc Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who is my right-hand man when it comes this massive industry file.
He raised a very good point about the infamous rules that the Minister of Industry introduced for the all-important 700-megahertz spectrum auction. This highly coveted band, which some might call beach front property, will help us make great strides.
However, the minister's dithering on some of the rules has caused delays in what was supposed to be done by this spring. That being said, it is clear that the objectives of these rules will not be met. There will be rollout conditions. Rural and remote regions are much smaller and less lucrative markets for certain companies. Nevertheless, some players are interested in developing those markets and have already made quite a bit of progress. However, the minister is turning a deaf ear and, in fact, does not seem to be listening to the needs of all Canadians.
We can all agree that things are going quite well for people who live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Those markets are well served by the companies, but our more remote and rural regions are not, which presents a challenge to the small and medium-sized businesses in those regions that want to attract customers, including tourists.
View Joe Oliver Profile
CPC (ON)
View Joe Oliver Profile
2013-05-21 19:48 [p.16759]
Mr. Chair, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our government's commitment to responsible resource development. Canada's resource industries, energy, mining and forestry, are key drivers of the Canadian economy, accounting for $1.6 million jobs and almost 20% of our GDP. They generate $30 billion in taxes every year, revenues that help fund health care, education and public pensions. This is a pivotal time for Canada and the actions we take as a country will either set the course for future growth or consign us to watching opportunities pass us by.
Up to 600 major resource projects are under way or planned for the next decade, to the tune of approximately $650 billion. We are entering a development period comparable to the period during which our national railroads were built.
This truly contributes to building the country. Our government will not miss this wonderful opportunity. We are doing what is needed to ensure that Canada remains one of the most attractive sources of natural resources and investment destinations in the world.
Our government recognizes that climate change is a serious global threat and we support urgent action to mitigate its effects. Where we differ with the opposition parties is how to address this important issue.
The NDP seems to suggest that we should stop developing the oil sands and switch to renewable power. Such a policy is not economically feasible and would have dire consequences for our country's standard of living and security. According to the International Energy Agency, even under the most optimistic scenarios for the development of renewable energy, the world will have to rely on fossil fuels for 63% of its energy needs in 25 years. Globally, cutting off oil production would create severe, if not catastrophic, economic hardship, especially for the poorest nations that already suffer from an energy deficit. Indeed, 1.5 billion people are currently without electricity.
Our government believes we can generate economic growth, create jobs and assure prosperity for Canadians for generations to come, and we can do that while protecting the environment. Our plan is working. Without killing jobs or closing businesses, we are reducing emissions.
Ours is one of the first governments to grow the economy at the same time that we are reducing emissions. From 1995 to 2011, our economy grew by 8.4%, while emissions fell by 4.8%. Rather than strand our resources and relinquish our legacy, we have invested in research and development that makes resource development cleaner and greener. We have done that in coordination with our provincial partners, Canadian and international scientists and industry. We have provided incentives for consumers and businesses to enhance energy efficiency to make for a sustainable greener future.
The oil sands represent one one-thousand of global GHG emissions. Their development would not mean game over for the planet. We are continuing to reduce emissions, with a 26% reduction per barrel since 1990.
We estimate that we are halfway toward achieving our objective of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 17%. International statistics from the United States Energy Information Administration show that, between 2005 and 2011, Canada reduced its emissions by 11.4%, compared to 8.5% in the United States, 9.9% in Japan, and 7.9% in Europe.
Canada can be proud to be one of the only oil producing countries that have strong environmental protections.
The challenges facing Canada's energy resources are clear and urgent. The sole client for our oil and gas resources is the United States. In the short term, that has led to a drop in prices, which has meant a loss of some $20 billion in revenue for the Canadian economy. In the medium term, our pipeline capacity is becoming insufficient, which risks wasting our resources.
In the long term, the United States will develop its own vast shale gas and oil reserves. That is why Canada must strategically diversify its markets, which means building the infrastructure we need to transport our resources to the ocean so they can be shipped out.
To meet this challenge, our government is seeking new markets and, in principle, is supporting the construction of pipelines to the southwest and east. We have also modernized our regulatory approval process, strengthened our environmental reviews and increased consultations with aboriginal groups.
In contrast, we have from the NDP incoherence and contradiction and support for foreign commentators who claim our resources are a curse and that it would be game over for the climate if we developed our oil sands which represent one one-thousand of global emissions. From the Liberal leader, these attacks on Canada are greeted by deafening silence.
The plan of the New Democrats is as clear as mud. While they claim they support the development of the oil sands, all indications are to the contrary. They oppose northern gateway before a review is complete. The NDP leader is also opposed to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline, saying that they cannot say “yes” to a project by Kinder Morgan. They opposed Keystone XL and flew to Washington to lobby against the approval of a project that would create hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The NDP claims to be in favour of a west-to-east pipeline, but now it is opposing the reversal of line 9B. The NDP said that we cannot reverse the flow of Enbridge's pipeline 9.
When he was speaking in English, the leader of the NDP said a west to east pipeline was:
—the type of pro-business common sense solution that not only creates jobs—it strengthens Canada’s energy security and will leave more to future generations than just debt.
This blatant contradiction, policy incoherence and opposing messages in different regions of the country undermines the vestiges of his credibility, while it does nothing to help our government sell its message to foreign countries. Similarly, it would be helpful for the Liberal Party to show some courage and start to support policies that advance the national interests.
Our government is taking action on climate change, while promoting Canada abroad and creating jobs and economic growth at home.
View Joe Oliver Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the oil sands, which constitute the third largest oil reserves in the world, create jobs and stimulate economic growth across Canada and in all sectors of the Canadian economy. The oil sands development is expected to support an average of 630,000 jobs a year across Canada between 2011 and 2035. An estimated $2 billion will be injected into the economy—
Results: 1 - 15 of 250 | Page: 1 of 17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data