Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.
Won his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Petitions November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.
Committees of the House November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, entitled “Quorum and Mandate of the Committee”.
Respect for Communities Act November 8th, 2013
My mistake, Mr. Speaker.
Which specific criteria are acceptable, and which specific criteria does the hon. member find unacceptable in the legislation?
Respect for Communities Act November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague listing the requirements the government has put in this legislation. I may have misunderstood. I was getting the impression that she is opposed to all of the requirements. That may not be so.
Which specific requirements the government has put in do you accept, and which do you specifically reject? Do you accept, perhaps, the requirement for—
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
And the market, as the hon. member across the aisle says, helps to make those decisions.
We should let those decisions be made by technical professionals, and not try to impose socially engineered outcomes to try to skew results in political ways that may favour us.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has made the point. If we are going to move oil, we have to move it somehow. We have options. One of them is rail; one of them is pipelines.
Engineers, scientists, et cetera, helps—
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what the Prime Minister meant when he said that we will not take no for an answer is that he will be absolutely resolved and totally engaged in defending the interests of Canada.
When it comes to standing up for Canada, this Prime Minister does not take no for an answer. He says yes to Canadians from sea to sea. He says yes to Canadians for a growing economy. He will not take no for an answer from anyone in this country or abroad when it comes to stopping the development of Canada.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to overemphasize my qualifications, but I think I am one of the few members of the House who has a science degree in the geosciences.
If the hon. member wants to have a learned discussion about climate change, my sedimentology professor at the University of Saskatchewan would be a very good person to educate him. I tend to take similar views as my sedimentology professor.
However, I would note something with regard to his criticism of the government's environmental position. There are two approaches to environmental regulation. One is to emphasize outcomes and protection. The other is to use environmental regulation legislation as a means to socially engineer economic and/or social results. That is the difference between their approach and ours. We are interested in environmental results. They are interested in using environmental regulations for social and economic reasons.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, as a member of the natural resources committee, to be able to participate in this debate today. Before I get into the main body of my speech, I would like to start off with a quote:
I support the Keystone XL pipeline because of a triple bottom line assessment looking at environmental, economic, and social reasons. ... [The NDP leader] will make his comments. My job first and foremost is to stand up for Saskatchewan’s interests, to develop our resources in a sustainable and responsible manner, and that’s the approach that I’ll be taking and our caucus and party will be taking with me as leader.
Who said that? That was Cam Broten, leader of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party.
Those who are observing this debate today who think that it is a debate between the Conservatives on one side and the New Democrats on the other should understand that New Democrats who live in areas of the country that are actually impacted by the development of our natural resources and the development of our oil, be it in the oil sands or in southern Saskatchewan in the Bakken oil play, or New Democrats who have held government for more than one term—including our ambassador, the former NDP leader in Manitoba—are also forcefully advocating on behalf of this pipeline. New Democrats who have had real responsibility and who come from areas of the country where they have been in government on a regular basis take a perspective very different from New Democrats who have not been in government or who are not in areas of the country where this issue would affect them economically.
I think it would behoove members of the opposition not to listen just to New Democrats like Mr. Broten and Mr. Doer down in Washington D.C. but also to members who are traditionally of their historic coalition.
Anyone who was a member of the natural resources committee would know this, but not all members of the House will: members of trade unions not particularly often tied in with the Conservatives, such as the AFL-CIO and some of the other building trades, have been strong proponents of the Keystone XL and of building pipelines from Canada to the United States to increase and enhance the economic development of western Canada and all of Canada.
The people watching on TV and people who will read this in Hansard need to understand that it is the federal New Democrats who are opposed to the development of these resources in western Canada. It is those New Democrats who are dead set opposed to the development of the economy based on natural resources. It is not fair to link all trade unions and all New Democrats with the policies of this opposition party. It is good to know that some of them actually understand partially how the economy functions.
Now that I have started with my introduction, let me get into the main body of my speech. It is a pleasure for me to stand in the House today and speak about the economic growth and improvements to North America's energy security that North Americans will see as a result of the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Conservative government's top priority remains the economy, creating jobs, and boosting investment. Canada has a market-based energy sector that is open to investment from around the world. Our history has shown that this is the best for all of Canada. While national approaches vary widely, history has shown that global energy security as a whole is greatly enhanced by open markets and transparent energy regimes.
The oil sands comprise approximately 98% of Canada's 172 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and their responsible development will provide Canada with a secure economic development with a secure source of oil, as it will for all of North America. When we consider this project, it is important to recall that even under the International Energy Agency's most stringent low-carbon scenario, oil is still estimated to provide for 26% of the world's energy mix in 2035.
Oil will almost certainly remain part of the energy mix for Canada and the entire world for years to come.
Why is this pipeline important? It is important because of our existing trade relationships with the United States.
I should note here that Keystone XL will not just transport oil from the oil sands: oil from other places in North America, such as Saskatchewan, Montana, and North Dakota, will also be transported by this pipeline. However, oil from the oil sands currently accounts for about half of Canada's oil exports to the United States. This sector drives one-fifth of the country's economy, employing nearly one in 10 Canadians and representing over half our exports. This is one of the reasons Canada did not have some of the same economic difficulties other countries in the world did when the global financial crisis hit in 2008.
Resource revenues generate billions in annual taxes and royalties for governments to fund critical social programs, such as health care and education. These jobs, these programs, are things that matter to Canadians.
If I may take another small detour here from my main speaking notes, it was noted today by some of the opposition members that 40,000 jobs will supposedly be exported into other countries if we do not force the oil industry to develop refineries here in Canada. What would happen if we actually did force oil refineries to be built in Canada? What would happen? How would we have to do it?
There are a few ways to approach it. We could give big subsidies to the companies that would build oil refineries in Canada, if they are not market incentivized to do it. Therefore, we would have to take taxpayers' money. We would have to raise taxes, and raising taxes would kill jobs. Those 40,000 jobs that were discussed today are not new jobs, but transfers from taxpayers.
Maybe we would not give them subsidies. There are other ways we could do it. We could restrict the export of the oil. That has been suggested. That then makes the assets already invested in less profitable, makes the future incentives for investing in the oil sands and other oil development in Canada again less profitable, and encourages people not to put their capital into Canada but to put it somewhere else.
People who say investors have to put their capital there because they cannot get the oil from anywhere else need to understand that capital has an infinite number of options. If we do not encourage investment in our oil sands, that same money could go into lumber in other parts of the world or a copper mine in Chile or Mongolia or some other place in the world.
This 40,000-job myth that is being put out there is not some sort of free lunch. Either we lose those jobs because we have to raise taxes to build something that is inefficient and that the market does not want, or we have to have restrictions, thus lowering the profits on other industries to subsidize.
One way or the other, when we subsidize to get jobs, these mythical 40,000 jobs, we lose as many jobs or, almost always, more jobs in other sectors. That is why the market works best.
When people are prepared to put their own dollars down for something, we end up with a better result. When Canada follows a free market approach, not a single Canadian job is lost. When we intervene in the energy market with the government, as was proven with the NEP, we lose jobs and we lose revenue. That is bad for all Canadians from sea to sea.
With only one minute left, I do not think I will be able to finish everything here today.
Let me say this: I agree with Mr. Broten. Keystone XL has met the triple bottom line. It is good for social development, for people all the way along there. It creates jobs and employment. It is good for the economy, again reiterating what I just said. It is good for the environment.
The argument that oil sands oil is somehow worse for the environment than other oil forgets what it is replacing and the fact that most emissions from oil products occur when the consumer uses the oil.
Development of the oil sands and of oil in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta is important to the Canadian economy. Keystone XL is a free market solution to help develop that resource. It does not take government money. It does not take subsidies.
Let us encourage people to invest. Let us encourage all Canada to grow and develop together.
World War II Veteran November 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Roman Sarauer.
Roman was born August 9, 1921, and grew up near Annaheim, Saskatchewan, with his parents and nine siblings. In 1942, he bought his own farmland near St. James, Saskatchewan, but his farming career was interrupted by World War II and service for the Royal Regina regiment. After training, he served in Suffield, Alberta, where they were experimenting with blister gas. Early in 1945 he left for overseas, spending a year in England, Holland, Belgium and Ireland before returning home.
In July of 1946, he married the lovely Dolores Mamer and together they farmed and raised nine children. Eventually, his son Leslie began to farm with him and in 1980 Roman and Dolores moved to Annaheim. Roman continued to help out on the farm until his 90th birthday. He enjoyed curling and still enjoys playing cards and visiting. His only sadness is the loss of his beloved Dolores in 2009.
Roman Sarauer, the people of Canada thank you for your service, for being willing to go and willing to give.