Leon Benoit

[Petitions, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is to remind Canadians of a CBC show presented about a year ago, which pointed out that sex-selective abortion is occurring in Canada.

The petitioners call upon this Parliament to condemn that practice. They call upon us to present a common front in this Parliament that does condemn discrimination against unborn females through gender-selective abortion.

[Petitions, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present on behalf of constituents a petition that reminds Canadians that the definition of life in Canada is 400 years old and should be updated based on modern science.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest possible extent.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the member opposite for his presentation. However, much of his presentation dealt with a belief that the Keystone XL pipeline could have a negative impact on the environment. The science shows clearly that this is simply not the truth.

I wonder why the member is ignoring studies such as one done by a well-respected firm, IHS CERA, which did an independent study, the latest that I know of, that confirmed once again that the Keystone XL pipeline, “...will have no...impact on...GHGs”. The opposition members go there talking about how Keystone will have a negative impact on the environment, and in fact, study after study, the science, shows that it will not.

I wonder why that party will not put aside its blind ideology against development, and in particular, against development in the oil sands. It continues to spew untruths about the science and the reality of the situation involving Keystone and the environment.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is on the natural resources committee. He missed some key studies that demonstrated that the jobs in the oil and gas sector are in production and in building pipelines to move the product.

On his question about the Prime Minister's comments to the American President, he was saying that decisions like this should be based on science and that the science shows clearly that this pipeline can be built in an environmentally friendly way. That is what he was saying, unlike the leader of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, who went to Washington railing against the development of the oil sands and the pipelines that are needed to move crude oil, upgraded oil, or the products that would be produced in these very refineries the members are talking about. He went there and railed against them, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has not been involved in any kind of in-depth discussion on these issues. Certainly members of the natural resources committee have heard clearly a few things that relate to the question he has asked.

First, they have heard that the real jobs in the whole oil production and processing industry are in building pipelines and in producing the oil. That is where the vast number of jobs are. Refining would be fine for adding more value. I would like to see it, but there would be a relatively small number of jobs. We were told this by several witnesses in committee, including some of the NDP's own witnesses.

I see that the Speaker is standing, but I would love to have another question along the same lines, so I could add—

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is squarely focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs and economic growth. The NDP has shown clearly, with the motion it has brought before us today, that it, in fact, is not.

This motion is a silly motion. I do not like using language like that, but I will explain my statement in a minute. It is one of the silliest motions I have ever seen brought to the House of Commons. I will read the motion, and then I will explain why. It is just so ill thought out. In fact, it has not really been thought out. They brought it, obviously, at the spur of the moment, without really thinking about the consequences of what they have in the motion.

This motion was brought by the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and it says:

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.

I just want to talk a little bit about what that motion says. It makes no sense. First of all, the New Democrats are saying that we should not build this pipeline to get new refining capacity in Canada and more jobs.

Here is the reality. Right now, we refine more crude oil than we need for Canadian use. In other words, we have to export part of the gasoline, diesel, and so on that we already refine in Canada, because there is already an overcapacity of refining. That is okay. I do not have a problem with that. If business determines that it is economical to refine more, then fine, but it certainly should not be based on restrictions that some future NDP government would put in place.

Here is what they are proposing, and this is why it is so silly that it is almost beyond imagination. They are saying to build these refineries. What are they going to do with the diesel, gasoline, and other products they produce in these refineries? What are they going to do with them? Are they going to build big disposal pits and somehow put this gasoline and diesel in these disposal pits? They are going to have to do something with it if they are going to produce a product that cannot be used.

They are saying to not build the pipeline so that we can refine more in Canada. If they produce more gasoline and diesel that is not going to be used in Canada and that has to be exported, how are they going to export the diesel and gasoline? They are going to have to have a pipeline. It is simply not economical to ship gasoline and diesel from refineries, for example, in the Edmonton area or anywhere other than very close to the border. It just does not make sense to ship it to market other than by pipeline.

Pipeline is needed. There is no doubt about that either way, whether we are shipping raw bitumen, upgraded oil, or products refined in Canada. When a barrel of oil is refined, it creates roughly 30 to 35 different products that have to be exported. If we are going to refine in Canada and refine more than we use, we are going to need more pipeline capacity, because we would be shipping such a large number of products, roughly 35. We would have to have a pipeline system that could ship those products.

We can certainly block a pipeline off and ship different products at different times down the same pipeline, but we can only do that to a certain point. Some of those products have to be kept so clear that, in fact, it cannot be done that way. What the NDP is proposing simply cannot be done, unless we build more pipelines.

Let us look at this in a realistic way. I almost feel like it is a mistake to debate a motion that makes so little sense, but I am going to go ahead and make some other comments that I think are worth making, whether the motion makes sense or not.

As we know, natural resources are a huge part of the Canadian economy. When we take the direct and indirect impact into account, the natural resources sector represents 15% of Canada's GDP, and more important, I would suggest, more than 50% of Canada's exports. That is huge.

When we include the supply chain that provides goods and services to the natural resources sector, natural resources account for nearly 20% of Canada's GDP, or almost one-fifth of our total GDP. Energy resources are a huge part of that equation.

First and foremost, Canada is a trading nation. That is the reality. The NDP does not want to see that. It has opposed every trade deal we have brought to the House. However, the reality is that Canada is a trading nation, and the NDP cannot change that. Frankly, if it did change that, it would mean that a huge percentage of the Canadian workforce would be out of jobs.

We are a trading nation. Right now, 99% of Canada's crude oil exports go to the United States, which is where the Keystone XL pipeline would go, and 100% of our natural gas exports go to the United States. However, as the U.S. becomes more self-sufficient, Canada will need to diversify its export markets. That is why our government is aggressively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities for Canada in fast-growing markets around the world, including the Asia-Pacific.

That is why Canada must build and expand the infrastructure needed to move our product to tidewater for export as well as to the American market. We cannot continue to rely upon one market. It will be a declining market, because the Americans are producing more. They are increasing their domestic oil production at a rapid pace due to new fracking technologies, many of which have been developed right here in Canada.

Expanding and diversifying our energy markets is a top priority of the Government of Canada. Canada's energy sector currently has proposals to build and improve pipelines to the west, to the south, and to the east to ensure that we have customers for our energy products.

We strongly support the Keystone XL project to transport Canadian crude to the United States, and I have explained why that is necessary. It would create jobs, provide economic growth, and ensure energy security for both countries.

Canada is already the largest oil supplier to the United States. In fact, in 2012, we delivered three million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day. That is twice as much as the second-largest supplier of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States, which is Saudi Arabia. That is a huge change. Canada provided twice as much as the second-largest supplier to the United States and more than Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined.

Even with the International Energy Agency's forecast of rapid growth in American production, the United States will still need to import 3.4 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2035 to keep up with the projected increase in demand. It is clear that the need for Canadian oil will still be there in the United States, but we will have to be competitive.

The Keystone XL would help meet that demand. We simply cannot ignore that it is needed. Our government will continue with that project. There are many good reasons for that.

The NDP, we know, is against trade. It is against development of so many kinds. Its former environment critic called for a moratorium on oil sands development, yet now, just a year or so later, the NDP wants more refineries to process oil sands crude. It wanted to stop the production, but now it wants refineries to process oil sands crude. The NDP is really changing its position on issues on a constant basis. That is something I do not think lends it credibility.

There is no doubt in my mind that New Democrats demonstrate again and again, with the position they take on resource development, that they are simply not ready to govern, and I do not believe that they ever will be.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Come on, you do not believe that.

[Petitions, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the practice of gender selection pregnancy termination, which discriminates against females. They call on Parliament to take this action. There have been statements in Parliament by all parties who have condemned this practice, yet Parliament itself has not passed a motion or taken a stance on this.

I am pleased to say that at the Conservative convention last weekend, they took a stand on this, and we are determined to, in fact, have Parliament condemn this practice.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, both the federal government and the provinces have worked with stakeholders and workers. The result is that the legislation will be effective. Both of those provinces want the legislation passed as soon as possible. Therefore, I look forward to it coming to the natural resources committee, of which I am a member, as soon as possible, so we can have further discussion and get it back to the House so we can get it through as quickly as possible.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, workers have been included in this whole process, so it has not only been the federal and provincial governments but all stakeholders, including workers, who have been carefully and continually consulted through the process. I agree with him that consultation is important.

On his first comment, it seems to me there has been a bit of a conversion on the road to Damascus, in effect. The member finally recognizes that when natural resources are developed anywhere in this country, the benefit is spread right across the country. We have certainly seen that with the oil sands, where all of the activity there provides jobs in central Canada and eastern Canada as well as in Alberta. It is the same thing with Newfoundland and Labrador and with natural resource development everywhere, in fact: there are jobs across the country. What is good for one part of this country is good for the whole country. The member brought up an excellent point.