OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 016 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 7, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 7, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 016 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 016 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 016 (Version officielle) 147 016 07 11 2013 2013/11/07 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Commissioner of Official Languages The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 66 of the Official Languages Act, to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages covering the period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( f ), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[ English ] Public Sector Integrity Commissioner The Speaker : I also have the honour, pursuant to

section 38 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner concerning an investigation into a disclosure of wrongdoing. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[ English ] Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act Hon. Rob Nicholson (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) Bill C-11. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11,

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (priority hiring for injured veterans) . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] National Housing Act Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) Bill C-550. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-550 . He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed enactment amends the National Housing Act to provide that part of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s retained earnings from its housing loan insurance business be transferred to the provinces, to meet their urgent needs for affordable social housing.

The bill will limit the potential equity of the CMHC to about 1% of its loan portfolio, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. These measures would ensure that anything in excess of the amounts provided for in the reserve fund and equity would be returned to Quebec and the provinces, so that they could invest the money to meet their needs.

This new money from the CMHC could be added to the program already in place and would enable Quebec and the provinces to maintain current funding levels and to develop and reinvest in the construction, renovation and conversion of affordable housing. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] National Security Committee of Parliamentarians Act Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

Bill C-551. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-551,

An Act to establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill, which, if passed, would establish the national security committee of parliamentarians. I would note that this bill has been presented to this House on a number of occasions, beginning with Bill C-81, introduced by the then Liberal Minister of Public Safety. This legislation would ensure that Canada's intelligence gathering community has the kind of proactive oversight already in place in a number of world jurisdictions. This legislation is required on an urgent basis.

I would remind the Minister of Justice , the Minister of State (Finance) , and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh that they, on behalf of their respective parties, endorsed the national security committee of parliamentarians in a 2004 report. Therefore, I would hope that this legislation would move forward on an urgent basis. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2013-14 A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

B) for the financial year ending March 31, 2014, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

(1010) [ Translation ] Business of the House Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) Motion moved: That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Burnaby—New Westminster, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders. She said: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find that there is consent to adopt this motion.

The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Yes. The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

[ English ] Petitions Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : 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.

Human Rights Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition addressing the homophobic laws recently adopted by Russia's Duma. Dozens and dozens of residents of Toronto—Danforth and its neighbour, Toronto Centre, signed this petition at the Old Nick on the Danforth. They are calling on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to institute a visa ban for the Russian parliamentarians who originated these repressive laws that have so much potential to not only deepen hate but to give a green light to violence against the LGBTQ community.

This visa ban request from the petitioners is supported by over 100 human rights organizations in Canada. The petitioners specifically note that the New Democratic Party, the NDP, has requested that the minister put this ban in place. I would end by noting that the visa ban measure was dismissively ridiculed, on national news, by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of hundreds of people in the industrial Cape Breton area. They are outraged by the closure of the veterans office in Sydney, one of eight offices being closed across this country. Sheldon MacNeil, the president of branch 3 Legion in Glace Bay, and Tom Kennedy put this petition together. It sheds light on the fact that they are holding a huge rally on Saturday to voice their concern about the closure. It is with great pride and support that I offer this petition on their behalf.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply (1015) [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Keystone XL Pipeline Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) moved: Motion 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. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this motion. I would like to preface my remarks by talking a bit about my past.

I used to work in one of the now closed oil refineries in this country, the Shellburn Refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia. As a result of having worked with oil, having had to clean out the oil tanks at the refinery as part of my job, I developed a healthy respect for that substance. When cleaning out oil tanks, people need oxygen tanks and full safety equipment. If the safety equipment malfunctions or the oxygen tanks run out, the worker is not around any more.

That degree of danger and a healthy respect for a substance that can bring some benefit but also some danger is something I would like to bring to the debate. Just to start off, I would like say that we are talking today about Keystone and value-added jobs. We are also talking, though, about the government's lack of action on climate change and the environment. That is part of the ongoing narrative. As President Obama said so well when he was looking at Keystone, the Conservative government simply has to start taking environmental measures.

As we will see later on, Canada is beyond being a climate change laggard; we are among the worst of the 60 countries annually surveyed on climate change. We are in 58th place out of 61 countries. It shows an appalling lack of leadership and an appalling lack of responsibility on the part of the government. There are environmental issues we will be bringing to the fore throughout the course of the day while we are debating this issue. There are also economic issues, which I will come back to in a moment, and of course, safety issues.

One of the things I will be pointing out in my 20 minutes is the fact that under the Conservatives, there is not only increasing danger in our railway system, which has been sadly and tragically underscored by the appalling devastation in Lac-Mégantic, but in pipeline management, as well. Under the Conservative government, we have seen a steadily increasing number of pipeline leaks and pipeline spills. In fact, there has been a doubling over the last few years on the Conservatives' watch.

When we are talking about the issue of Keystone, we are talking about value-added jobs, of course, but we are also talking about a complete abdication of responsibility by the government on the environment, on climate change, and on pipeline safety. I think those are important issues to bring to the fore. Earlier I referenced that I was refinery worker. I would also like to flag that on natural resources issues generally, the Conservative government has been appalling bad. I represent the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster.

Many of my friends went to high school in New Westminster, at the New Westminster Secondary School. After high school, my friends went into the softwood lumber industry. They worked at the three plants that existed there: Interfor, Canfor, and Western Forest Products in New Westminster. There were hundreds of well-paying jobs and thousands of indirect jobs that depended on the softwood industry. All of that was eviscerated and evaporated overnight when the government irresponsibly signed the softwood lumber sellout. Now we have Conservatives laughing at the loss of jobs.

I am sorry, but I think we should be standing up for the workers rather than having Conservatives laugh at the loss of jobs. Two thousand indirect jobs were lost as a result of the signature on that agreement. They may laugh at those families, many of whom I went to high school with. Those families had to cobble together a couple of part-time jobs. The one hope they have is looking to 2015 and looking to the election of an NDP government that is actually going to take workers seriously.

I have seen first-hand the devastation in my community wrought by the incredible irresponsibility of the government, signing an agreement it had not even read and did not even understand. The NDP certainly raised this issue consistently in the House.

(1020) I saw first-hand in the natural resources sector the loss of jobs, which eventually added up to about 60,000 manufacturing and value-added jobs lost in the softwood lumber industry following that agreement. When we look at that, when we look at the actual loss of jobs in smelting and refining even in the mining industry, it is a source of real concern.

Because the number of mining and quarrying jobs has gone up over the last few years, but Statistics Canada tells us that the number of jobs lost in the smelting and refining sector, when we are talking about mining, has gone far beyond any gain of jobs in mining and quarrying. If we look at the lumber industry, at the mining industry and now at the energy industry, this has been a dismal period for working families. There is absolutely no doubt. We have to come back then to the issue of the energy industry. The Conservatives messed up the two other areas.

Why would they be pushing Keystone, which results in a loss of value-added jobs? I will start off by saying two undeniable facts and a third one that really impacts on Canadian working families. The first undeniable fact is that under the current government we have lost half a million value-added and manufacturing jobs. That is a simple fact. It is undisputed. Even the Conservatives admit to it. They say they have given a few part-time service jobs so that must compensate.

The reality is that half a million value-added and manufacturing jobs being lost on the watch of the Conservative government is undeniably a sign of failure. Second, is our current account deficit. What we are doing increasingly is exporting raw materials and importing the value-added products and the manufacturing products from overseas. In 2011, that deficit on current accounts was $49 billion and it gets worse. Last year, it went to $62 billion. That is a record. We have never had a deficit that large in our nation's history.

That is directly related to the government's failure on value-added jobs, its failure to understand that we need coherent policies and we need to put those policies in place to ensure that Canadians get to work. The third point I would like to make and the third undeniable statistic is that the working families across this country, so many of whom are represented by NDP MPs in this Parliament, are now struggling under a record debt load. It is a burden that we have never seen in our history. It is actually highest in Alberta.

Those working families struggling under a burden of massive debt because they have seen an erosion in real income at the same time as expenses continue to climb, that is something that is extremely germane to this debate. We are talking about Canadians over the last seven years getting poorer and poorer, and more and more in debt every year that the Conservatives are in power. When we talk about value-added jobs, we are talking about something that has a profound impact on the quality of life of ordinary families right across this country.

Here we have the failure of the Conservative government in a whole range of sectors, a failure to create value-added jobs, failure to create manufacturing jobs, crippling debt loads and a current account deficit that is by far the worst that we have ever had in our history. What is the Conservative government's solution to all the problems it has inflicted on Canadians over the last seven years?

Its solution seems to be to move to raw bitumen exports, and somehow that will address what has been the chronic mismanagement of the nation's economy for ordinary working people, families that simply are working with a lower quality of life than they had before. Then we have to look at what the actual impacts are of this strategy for raw bitumen export. That brings us back to the issue of Keystone. In speaking about Keystone, I would like to start by citing some of the Albertans who have raised real concerns about what the impact of the Keystone pipeline is.

We are talking about a pipeline that exports raw bitumen out of the country. What have some Albertans said about what this means in terms of good, well-paying, value-added jobs?

(1025) Former Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, who certainly seemed to understand that issue, said the following. I will read the quote slowly because it is important to have it on the record: ...shipping raw bitumen is like scraping off the topsoil, selling it and then passing the farm on to the next generation. He said that in 2006. That is really what we are talking about here. We are not talking about creating value-added jobs. We are talking about scraping off that topsoil and then sending to the next generation a farm that has no topsoil left. We have basically gone through the resource.

We have not gotten the value-added jobs that should be coming with that, and yet at the same time, we have a government that is absolutely obsessed with the idea that this is the only way for Canadians to prosper. Obviously, if that type of approach has not worked in a whole range of other sectors, Ed Stelmach is absolutely bang on in saying that this is not an appropriate response from any government that wants to create well-meaning, value-added jobs.

Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, said the following about Keystone: What we fear is that the consequence of this particular action will be to deny Albertans literally thousands of high-paying, long-term jobs in upgraders and refineries.... ...[every] barrel of bitumen shipped down the Keystone pipeline or other similar proposed pipelines is a barrel of oil no longer available for value-added production and job creation here in [Canada].

Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, in other words, the president of a federation of workers who work in the energy industry, said that in December 2007. Those are two Albertan voices saying, very clearly, that the idea of sending raw bitumen out of the country means that literally we are sending jobs out of the country. This is a matter of real concern. As far as the figures given and the approach given by the current government, I would like to cite a few other voices. Robyn Allan comes from western Canada, like myself.

She is a well-known economist in western Canada, as well as the former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, who is well-known for her commentary on the energy sector. She said that: Chopping local downstream expansion projects.... In other words, not having value added but looking to export raw bitumen. ...breaks the value-added chain. Canada's oil resources increasingly become a pool of raw crude waiting to be siphoned off along pipelines serving economic development and energy security needs of other nations. These nations are smart.

They know controlling the supply chain mitigates the pain of rising oil prices. If more bitumen upgrading was undertaken where it comes out of the ground, we wouldn't need as many new pipelines. She references that about 30% less capacity is required when we are moving upgraded bitumen, as opposed to exporting raw bitumen. Studies have been done along the Keystone pipeline. Informetrica, in 2006, studied the issue of exports of raw bitumen and came to the following economic analysis. At a rate of 400,000 barrels per day of export of raw bitumen, 18,000 jobs are lost.

Here is an indication, by Informetrica, that for every 100,000 barrels of raw bitumen that are exported, we are looking at 3,000 or 4,000 jobs that are lost, which could be there. The building trades could be there and the energy sector could be there, both in terms of upgraders and refineries as well. We are not talking about figures such as those sometimes cited by our friends on the government side. They will throw out studies that are promptly dismissed, because unfortunately in each of those cases, when we look at the studies themselves, they are not credible.

When we have the credible studies that show what the economic impacts are, we have simply not had any understanding from the Conservatives of what the impacts are of putting all the eggs in the basket of raw bitumen exports.

(1030) The Alberta Federation of Labour also did an economic analysis, which they submitted to the National Energy Board, on Keystone XL. It showed that, as a result of the raw bitumen exports going through Keystone XL, we would be losing at least 40,000 Canadian jobs. That is a considerable amount. When we think of the growth in the energy sector, the loss of 40,000 potential jobs is extremely significant for our economic future.

What we are seeing in study after study, whether it is done by Informetrica, Robyn Allan or the Alberta Federation of Labour, is that we are simply giving away a resource without putting in place the smart economic policies that allow for the value-added jobs that need to come with that resource. We can talk about the shut down of Interfor in New Westminster, B.C., and the subsequent export of raw logs that resulted, or the shutting down of smelting and refining of our minerals, losing more jobs than we have gained in the mining and quarrying sector.

We can also talk about the export of raw bitumen, and losing as a result tens of thousands of potential jobs. In every one of those cases, we are talking about ordinary families struggling to get by under phenomenally heavy debt loads that get worse every year as a result of the policies of our federal government. Rather than those families getting relief and an economic plan in place that would actually make sense to fully develop those resources and have value added, we see a government hell-bent on exporting those jobs.

We have seen from a number of very credible observers and analyses that, obviously, there is an impact. I would like to come back to the issue of climate change and pipeline safety because those issues are also germane to the debate that we are having today. As I mentioned earlier, there is an annual evaluation of how Canada is doing called the “Climate Change Performance Index”. In 2013, out of 61 countries evaluated by the Climate Change Performance Index, where do members think Canada stood? Do members think Canada was in the top 20? Well, it was not. Was it in the top 30, 40, 50? No.

We placed 58th under the current government. Placing 58th out 61 countries in the 2013 Climate Change Performance Index is not an “F”, it is being thrown out of the program. It is lamentably bad. There were countries that did worse. There were three of them. Kyrgyzstan was 59th, Iran 60th and Saudi Arabia was 61st. Obviously, if what we are seeing around the world are other countries taking climate change seriously, we have to get with the program. It is not just Canadians who feel that way. President Obama referenced this in connection with Keystone.

He said very clearly that Canada, being a climate change laggard, had to start taking very concrete action on climate change and the environment. President Obama could not have been more clear. Therefore, if Keystone is not approved, it is as a result of the failure of the Conservative government to take any sort of action on the environment and climate change. Being 58th in the world clearly shows that. I also mentioned pipeline safety. We have seen a doubling of the number of spills across Canada, which is of increasing concern to Canadians.

We believe in our leader, the member for Outremont and Leader of the Opposition, who has said repeatedly that we need to put in place a national energy strategy. We need to ensure value-added production in this country. We need to ensure that we have the top level of pipeline safety, and take action on climate change, of course, but also take action on the environment. We need to start transitioning to clean energy. There is a trillion-dollar market worldwide, which is going to double over the next decade. Canada gets very little of that.

In fact, in very real terms, the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that are coming from clean energy simply are not reflected in the Canadian economy. Therefore, folks across the country who will be looking in 2015 for real leadership can look to the NDP to put in place that national energy strategy in co-operation with the provinces, which will bring those value-added jobs and clean-energy jobs for all Canadians.

(1035) Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the comments on climate change made by my colleague. My question is simple. Could he table in the House the number of flights he has taken back and forth across the country this year. Also, when is his flight, either tonight or tomorrow? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by that. We are having a serious debate on value-added jobs and the environment and, as usual, the Conservatives do not seem to have anything to add to the debate.

It is sad when we think of the hundreds of thousands of value-added jobs we have lost under the current government and the appallingly poor reputation this country has now as a result of the Conservatives' inaction on climate change. Out of 61 nations worldwide, we rank 58th; however, all they can do is bring ad hominem attacks on individual MPs. That is exactly what many people have referred to as the “bullying” that takes place from the Conservative government. The Conservatives attack people.

We had the Minister of Natural Resources say that anyone opposed to the northern gateway pipeline was some kind of a radical. In my province of British Columbia, that is three-quarters of the population. Three-quarters of the population are saying that it does not make sense to threaten thousands of jobs that depend on a clean environment for the 104 full-time on-site jobs that we would get through the northern gateway project. The Conservatives need to start listening to the public, and they can start by listening on the topic of value-added jobs. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech today. I find the motion and his speech somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, he is saying that the New Democrats are bringing forward the motion because they want to have more jobs, processing and upgrading this product here in Canada. On the other hand, he is saying that they are bringing the motion because of their concerns about the environment and greenhouse gases. Surely, if we do more processing and upgrading, that would contribute to emissions. I don't know what his solution to that is.

I am also concerned that the NDP wants to manage the economy and make decisions for the private sector about where it should do things, and so forth. That is somewhat contradictory and confusing. At the same time, the New Democrats are saying their concern is that this will increase oil sands production. They have said before that they are against the Keystone pipeline because of that. They say it will increase it by 830,000 barrels per day, yet they support the energy east pipeline, which will carry 1.1 million barrels per day.

In other words, it will carry more than the Keystone pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels a day. How does the NDP explain these contradictions? I must say that it leaves me a bit baffled. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult task, but I will try to make the Liberals a little less confused. They do seem to be very confused on the policy positions they are taking. I would start off by saying we have been clear that we think west-east pipelines, with refining and upgrading taking place in Canada, will reduce a huge dependence on foreign supplies of oil.

Oil is being produced in the Middle East and shipped around the world, which is not a smart environmental initiative. That is happening on an ongoing basis. The Conservatives are looking at exporting raw bitumen. We are saying that a sensible national energy strategy would reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of oil and increase our energy security while we are transitioning to a clean environment economy. We have made no secret about that. What I find confusing is that the Liberal leader has said, on the one hand, that he is for the environment. On the other hand, he has said that he is for Keystone.

He says he believes that the CNOOC takeover of Nexen made good sense, even though most Albertans were opposed to that as well. We have a Liberal leader who is all over the map. I am certainly hearing that when I go door-knocking. The reality is that we do not know where the Liberals stand, yet they seem to stand with the Conservative government pretty well every day. What Canadians are looking for is a new government that will take a new approach and listen to Canadians. Canadians will say no to the old rhetoric of the past that came from the Conservatives and Liberals.

I am convinced of that. (1040) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks the environmental and safety risks create a deficit. The environmental repercussions come at a real-life cost to Canadians. That cost is not offset by the jobs that are created from developing these resources, even if the people with those jobs invest in the local economy when they do their shopping. Does it not create a deficit when we decide to develop something without taking full advantage of the gains available to us? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to salute my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue , who is now part of our natural resources team and who, each day in the House, stands up for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. There is a real contradiction here. There is no balance right now. As the member just said, pipelines are not as safe. The number of pipeline leaks has doubled. Our record on climate change is horrendous. We rank 58th out of 61 countries, just above Kazakhstan. Canadians know full well that we can do better and that we need to do better.

We need a government that realizes that we can take care of our environment, create jobs with green and clean energy—which has enormous potential—and that we can also upgrade the value of industries such as the oil industry, where those value-added jobs are currently going. The majority of oil used to be refined and produced in Alberta. Now, with the Conservative plan, very little of it would be. We are concerned that tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. We need to take a balanced approach, and the NDP will do just that in 2015. [ English ] Mr.

Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech today. He is talking about an energy strategy. Obviously, he says that the NDP seems to now support a west-east pipeline, so I am glad to hear that. In that case, I would ask the hon. member if he would then be supporting Bill C-3 ,

an act to enact the aviation industry indemnity act and so on, particularly

part 5, which would amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to introduce new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. This is an area of regulation that does need to be increased. We want to have sensible policies to make sure we do have a strong energy security plan going forward. I ask the member if he will support that bill and if his party supports that bill, because it is very reasonable.

Second to that, the fact is that the way the market works, if we cannot go through a pipeline, the other options are things like railways, trucking and so on. Does he understand that by opposing all pipelines that go north-south or that would go to international waters, he is actually putting that product to other lines that are not as safe as pipelines? I would just ask him to think about those things, because most trains go right beside streams and lakes.

Has he considered that, and has he considered that the methods the NDP is using right now would actually cause more challenges for our product environmentally?

(1045) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has a little over 30 seconds. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, with 30 seconds, I do not know where to start. I am reminded of the Prime Minister 's contradiction from one day to the next in question period; the member contradicted himself from the beginning to the end of his questions. Basically, this is the reality. On the west coast of British Columbia—and the member should know this—the government has closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station. It shut down the marine traffic control centre.

It shut down the emergency oil spill response centre. It held a press conference to say that it was going to do something about security, and we know that the rescue vessel that they had for the press conference ran aground. We have a government of Keystone Kops, but it is putting the coast of British Columbia at risk and it is putting the lives of British Columbians at risk. We will not stand for it. We are going to keep standing up for British Columbia— The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources . Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to have the opportunity to clearly lay out the absurdity of the NDP's position on the Keystone XL pipeline, in general, and resource development. I am hoping we may finally receive a clear and consistent statement from the NDP on its anti-development agenda. Its policy chaos and political opportunism of the last two years has been incredibly difficult for me and Canadians to follow. Let me begin by stating our government's position on Keystone XL.

We support this important project because it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians and billions in economic growth. It is an important project for the Canadian economy and, as the U.S. State Department confirmed, it will not significantly exacerbate the problem of GHG emissions. The fact is that pipelines are the safest method to transport oil, with a safety record of over 99.999%. We have taken action to further improve this record.

We have doubled the number of annual audits, increased pipeline inspections by 50% and imposed strict fines for Canadians who break our strong environmental protections. We are also requiring that companies operating a major pipeline in Canada demonstrate $1 billion in financial capacity, to ensure they have the ability to clean up after any spill. Our government believes we must develop our economy while protecting the environment. I am proud to say we are doing just that. This is what Canadians want and what our government is delivering.

It is no wonder that a broad coalition of Canadian political leaders, industry and business groups, as well as labour unions, has formed to support our plan and the Keystone XL pipeline. The problem is that the NDP has refused to listen to anyone who disagrees with its position. It is, not surprisingly, ignoring the thousands of businesses across Canada that support Keystone XL and the voices of Canadian business in Canada, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Council of Chief Executives. They also will not listen to the elected leaders of provincial governments across Canada.

The provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have shown strong support for this project. They have been sharply critical of the NDP and its anti-development agenda. The Premier of Saskatchewan went so far as to say that the NDP leader was betraying Canadian interests. The Premier of Alberta agreed, berating the NDP leader for not showing national leadership. The NDP will not even listen to its own provincial cousins, who have also supported this project. The leader of the Saskatchewan NDP was clear when he said, “...I support the Keystone XL pipeline...”.

Of course, the NDP has also decided to ignore the labour unions that it claims to represent in this chamber. Buzz Hargrove, the former member of the Canadian Auto Workers, who was a leader in the labour movement for decades, chastised the NDP for its anti-Keystone position. I remind members opposite that he said we should not stop the expansion of the work in the oil sands, nor Keystone XL. We need the jobs. It is not just Buzz Hargrove who opposes the NDP's position.

Canadian labour unions, such as Canada's building trades, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the USA and Canada, the General International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers know that the future prosperity for Canadian families lies with the responsible development of our natural resources. That is why they publicly support major energy infrastructure projects.

Chris Smillie, the policy director for Canada's building trades union, which represents more than 450,000 Canadians, concluded that the NDP appears to be “more of a fringe group still rather than the official Opposition” and that: The NDP would be very bad for workers and the entire Canadian economy. They haven't risen to the task.

Finally, the NDP will not even listen to the science. When an over 2,000 page technical scientific report on Keystone XL, done by the U.S. State Department, was released, the NDP dismissed it. Instead, the deputy leader of the NDP dismissed its findings without even a cursory review.

(1050) This report concluded that: ...approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.” It added that its denial would therefore have a negligible impact on emissions. The common theme in the support given by all these organizations and people across Canada for Keystone XL is the thousands of jobs and the economic growth this pipeline would create.

Canada's natural resource sector currently contributes to the employment of 1.8 million Canadians, almost 20% of Canadian jobs. Canada is a leader in mining, with over 50% of equity for mining projects raised in Canada. We have the third-largest reserves of oil in the world and we are the second-largest producer of uranium. Whether it is natural gas, metals, minerals, or forestry, Canada punches above its weight. This is something all Canadians should be proud of. Unfortunately, the NDP has never shown any pride in these facts.

It is hard to find a time when New Democrats say anything in support of Canadian industry. The NDP wants to shut down the employment of tens of thousands of Canadians in Canada's nuclear industry. These are highly skilled positions that pay well and contribute significantly to Canada's engineering and scientific workforce. In response to a 2008 Greenpeace survey, the NDP said: Canada's New Democrats do not support nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is dangerous, prohibitively expensive and far from a solution to climate change. Or to quote the leader of the NDP: I want to be very clear.

The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada. New Democrats are also opposed to the use of shale gas in Canada, even though the decision to pursue its development is solely under the purview of the provinces. In their ideological opposition to resource development, they do not even respect provincial jurisdiction. New Democrats cannot even unite to support the forestry sector, which employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

The member for Winnipeg Centre stated that we should not “...be talking about a better way to cut down more trees and build with material that begins to rot the moment you use it.” Finally, the NDP's opposition to the oil sands could not be clearer. Famously, the NDP leader says that the oil sands are contributing to Dutch disease by hollowing out Canada's manufacturing sector, even though this industry is employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country. In Ontario alone, there are 500 manufacturing companies that are supplying the oil sands.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters say: The fact is that all Canadians stand to benefit in very real ways from the wealth created by these developments.... If I had the choice to listen to the NDP or the very organization that supports Canadian manufacturers, I know where I would stand. Economists across the country, including our former governor of the Bank of Canada, have all debunked this myth. The NDP, though, refuses to listen. This blatant disregard for the benefit of the oil sands is not surprising. The NDP's former environment critic called for a moratorium on oil sands development.

The leader of the NDP personally wrote the foreword to a book by Andrew Nikiforuk, praising the author's insights, which included shutting down the oil sands by 2030 and imposing a massive carbon tax to discourage their use. The NDP's opposition to the oil sands is even more apparent when the topic of pipelines is discussed. The NDP has opposed every pipeline that is currently before a review panel, prior to hearing the evidence, and many that are not even at the stage of a review panel. For a party that says it respects science, it would appear that it does not at all.

The NDP is opposed to the northern gateway without hearing from an expert panel on the safety of the pipeline. It will not even wait for an application from Kinder Morgan for its Trans Mountain pipeline before coming out as firmly opposed to the project.

(1055) On Keystone XL, New Democrats are not content to argue against Canadian jobs in Canada; they must also go to our largest trading partner and argue against Canada. They sent their deputy leader to Washington, D.C., to argue against Canadian jobs, followed shortly afterward by the leader of the NDP. In fact, following the meeting with House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader said that Canadians are opposed to pipelines. I can only imagine what the leader of the NDP told her in that meeting.

I would have hoped that as a country we could keep our disputes internal; instead, New Democrats have decided to argue against Canadian interests to our most important ally and trading partner in the U.S. Finally, I would like to touch on the topic of refineries, as New Democrats have talked often about this subject. Our government is, of course, very supportive of the refining sector. We have lowered taxes for these companies, just as we have lowered taxes for companies across Canada.

We are also supportive in principle of a pipeline going from western Canada to the east in order to provide low-cost Canadian crude. Canada is a refining powerhouse, refining more oil than we use in Canada. We currently export more than 400,000 barrels of refined product to the United States every day. Canadians are justifiably proud of their refinery sector. The New Democrats, though, have a completely incoherent position when it comes to refineries and building pipelines to the east coast. First, they want to institute a job-killing carbon tax that would hit refineries the hardest of any industry in Canada.

Their 2011 election platform planned to raise over $21 billion from their carbon scheme. In fact, the leader of the NDP is counting on $21 billion in revenue from his carbon tax, the centrepiece of his economic plan. To win the NDP leadership, the leader of the NDP promised to go beyond the carbon scheme, but that is only the beginning of the NDP's policy incoherence on refineries. New Democrats support refineries, but not the pipelines that would transport the crude oil to them.

They say they do not want to subsidize the oil and gas industry, yet the only way to institute their refinery plans is to use government tax dollars to build refineries. Of course, refineries are owned by oil and gas companies. I am sure the members opposite are shocked to hear this. Finally, New Democrats say they support pipelines going east in order to support refinery jobs in eastern Canada, yet they are opposed to line 9B, the only pipeline that has been officially proposed to do precisely that.

The leader of the NDP has been very clear in saying, and I will translate, “We cannot reverse the flow of the Enbridge Line 9 pipeline”. Through this reckless position, New Democrats are putting 500 refinery jobs in Lévis in jeopardy. To quote the head of Valero, which owns the refinery in Lévis, and again I translate, “The project aimed to reverse the flow of the pipeline between Montreal and Sarnia is a necessity, and its failure would put into question future investment at the Lévis refinery, which could lead to its eventual closure”.

For a party that claims to support a pipeline going east and refineries, the NDP has a strange way of showing it. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Our government will continue to support responsible resource development to create jobs and economic growth across Canada. There are over $650 billion worth of projects being proposed in Canada over the next 10 years. These projects would create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic growth. We must seize the opportunity before it is lost to us, but we must do so while protecting the environment.

Our government's plan on responsible resource development provides a balance of environmental protection and economic development. The NDP's plan will only kill Canadian jobs and economic growth. In conclusion, our government will continue to aggressively defend our interests on the international scene and seek to have Keystone XL approved. We will not apologize for defending Canadian jobs and we can only hope that the NDP will do the same.

(1100) Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was riveted by the presentation from the member opposite in the way she tried to cast the positions that have been taken on this and other issues by the official opposition. It reminded me very much of what the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Conservative delegates the other day, when he said that he did not give a darn what the opposition said or, frankly, what Canadians said about any particular issue.

That is why I want to ask and probe a little further about comments the Prime Minister made about the President of the United States, because he said the same thing about him on the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. He said he will not take no for an answer. In fact, he said, “We haven't had that [no] but if we were to get that, that won't be final.

This won't be final until it's approved and we will keep pushing forward.” I want to ask the member if she would explain to us why the Prime Minister of Canada would be so outspoken and irreverent, speaking in these terms to the elected leader of the United States of America on an issue within the boundaries of that country. Mrs. Kelly Block : Mr. Speaker, I find that question very curious. I would think the answer is obvious. It is the role of the Government of Canada to continue to aggressively act on behalf of the interests of Canadians.

As I said, our government will continue to aggressively defend our interests on the international scene and will seek to have Keystone XL approved. I do not know why the member is so confused and needs clarification on that point. That is the role of the Government of Canada: to ensure the best representation of our interests, both at home and abroad. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member alluded to the carbon tax being proposed by the NDP, even though I do not think the party explicitly said that.

However, her party's position in the prior election looks eerily similar to what the NDP said in the last election. Could the member explain the difference between her party's promise and the NDP promise? Mrs. Kelly Block : Mr. Speaker, when we look at the position that our government has taken as opposed to the position the opposition has taken, we can see that our position is very clear. Let us talk a little more about their position. The NDP supports refineries but not pipelines. The NDP says it does not want to subsidize the oil and gas industry, yet it wants government tax dollars to build refineries.

The former NDP environment critic called for a moratorium on oil sands development, yet now the NDP wants more refineries built to process oil sands crude. The NDP does not care about independent, comprehensive scientific reviews. It has already decided it is against projects that support Canada's energy economy and the jobs that come with it. While the NDP's position is incoherent and contradictory, we will continue to champion a sensible approach that protects the environment while supporting the economy.

(1105) Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar 's speech was well researched and demonstrates why she is such an effective member of Parliament. I want to comment on a number of elements of her speech. She talked about the immediate dismissal of President Obama's scientists by the New Democrats. They did not even bother reading the State Department's report on science; they just immediately rejected it. It is almost like they are deniers of science.

The lack of trust the New Democrats have shown in President Obama and his scientists is of deep concern. I am also stunned that the New Democrats are prepared to dismiss, out of hand, the teamsters, the building trades council and to dismiss the wisdom of Buzz Hargrove when it comes to this issue. When this government brought out an environment policy, Buzz Hargrove supported it. The New Democrats want to dismiss these Canadians as second rate and do not want anything to do with them. The last point I want to comment on is that the New Democrats want to propose more refineries in Canada.

This would cause emissions to skyrocket in our country. They support a carbon tax on increased emissions. I guess they could get more tax revenue that way. Mrs. Kelly Block : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague could not be more right. Our government is playing a leadership role and taking significant action to address climate change. We have comments from Chris Smillie, the policy director for the Canadian building trades, which represents over 450,000 Canadians, who concluded that the NDP appeared to be more of a fringe group still, rather than the official opposition.

I suggest the New Democrats have to develop a more coherent policy position if they want to be credible in the eyes of unions across the country and Canadians. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, something I would like to pick up from my friend from Nova Scotia is the Prime Minister 's diplomacy with a bat in New York and in Washington. He said, “I won't take no for an answer”. This is the strategy of the current Prime Minister who has been lacking in strategic coherence on a whole number of files, but in this one—

(1110) Mr. Leon Benoit : Come on, you do not believe that. Mr. Nathan Cullen : I am sorry, is he handling the scandal in the Senate very well? Is the slow peeling-off of the Band-Aid working out strategically for the grand master right now? No. In the Keystone issue and the promotion of Canada energy abroad, we are looking at a Prime Minister who says that to the U.S. government that he “won't take no for an answer”.

I would like members, and my friend from Saskatchewan across the way, to imagine for a moment the reverse scenario, that of a U.S. president visiting, say Toronto, and talking about a contentious project that was mostly based in Canada that had all sorts of controversy about it for Canadians. I would like members to imagine this U.S. president would come to Canada and say, “I don't actually really care what the decision from the Canadian government is, America will not take no for an answer from Canada”.

Could members imagine the natural and appropriate outcry from the Canadian government, from the official opposition and from Canadians in general, to the idea of a foreign leader coming into our country and saying “no is not an option”. It speaks of a certain arrogance and a lack of tact that has created the very uncertainty in the energy sector for which the Conservatives are responsible. They cannot simply bully and bulldoze their way over serious and legitimate concerns. The Prime Minister has expressed no regret for such a statement and for such arrogance.

Does my friend think that was a tactically intelligent thing to do, to go and essentially dismiss the U.S. President and the U.S. government and their opinions over such an important issue as the building of a significantly long pipeline? Mrs. Kelly Block : Mr.

Speaker, if we are to talk about coherence, let us talk about the resource policy of the no development party: oppose any project that creates jobs in the oil sector; lobby the U.S. government to oppose Keystone XL and the 140,000 jobs it would create for Canadians; oppose the nuclear sector and its 30,000 jobs; oppose clean energy initiatives such as the Lower Churchill project; and oppose the forestry sector and its communities.

While the New Democrats oppose everything and would destroy hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs with their reckless agenda, our Prime Minister and our government will continue to support responsible resource development to create jobs and economic growth across Canada, here at home and in the United States. [ Translation ] Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and attempt to contribute to this debate on an NDP motion because the Liberal Party recognizes the importance of a national energy strategy.

As Alberta's Premier Redford said, it is important for our economy, for job creation and for the future of our middle class. [ English ] The NDP motion states: 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 do not think Canadians would be surprised by this motion from the NDP, but they will be disappointed, yet again, by a lack of commitment to natural resources development and, most important, the creation of economic opportunity.

It is nice to know that some people are watching our debate today. The canadian building trades Council has tweeted, “Cnda needs to get the #keystone debte right. Did u know almost 2/3 of bitumen will be upgraded in facilities built by skild trades workrs?” First, the amount of production from the oil sands and from Alberta generally is well above the capacity we are going to see from the existing pipelines. Even if Keystone is built, even if, as I hope is Energy East is built, obviously following the proper environmental regulations and processes, there is still excess capacity.

More important, what the building trades council is saying is that much of this bitumen will be upgraded. Moreover, what the NDP seems to fail to comprehend is that even if we have more upgrading and refining in Alberta or in Canada generally, the product is not all going to be consumed in Alberta or even in the rest of the country. It is going to have to be moved somehow. Why would the New Democrats be opposed to the best means available to move the product, which obviously is pipelines? That is the point and that is where the NDP motion today makes absolutely no sense.

The NDP members seem to be conflicted about what their reason for this resolution is. If it is actually because they want to create jobs in Canada, it is illogical economically. If it is actually about the environment, it is not realistic because we know that more and more oil these days is being moved by train, so there are alternatives. Nevertheless, first, it is important to get Keystone built because pipelines are the best way to do this and the safest way to move oil, in my opinion. Second, it is important that we get access to that U.S. market and other markets, which is why Energy East is so important.

This misguided motion really fails to recognize the importance of our energy sector. It fails to address the need to get our natural resources to those markets about which I have talked. It is disappointing to see the NDP approach in a week when we witnessed the premiers of British Columbia and Alberta coming together and working together to advance a Canadian energy strategy, which will help Canada develop its resources responsibly, while promoting clean energy and reducing carbon emissions. Those should be our objectives.

Unfortunately, there is an absence of this kind of leadership in Ottawa, both within the NDP and within the Conservative government. The Prime Minister has failed to advance strong environmental policy in our country, including transparent oversights, tougher penalties and a price on carbon pollution. Even though Conservatives talked about it in previous elections, they have not moved on it at all. This inaction has had serious consequences for our environment, our reputation internationally and our economy.

It is having serious consequences right now in terms of creating the social licence in the U.S. to get the approval that Keystone requires. That is letting down the producers and letting down Canadians across the country, particularly in the province of Alberta and also in Saskatchewan. If we do not demonstrate to the world that we as a country are serious about the environment, we will find it harder and harder to export our resources to global markets.

(1115) If we follow the NDP approach, we would end up moving backward, instead of building a better future for our middle class. Once again, the NDP is attempting to score cheap political points with a motion condemning the construction of a vital piece of energy infrastructure, despite the fact that it has come out in support of similar projects in other parts of the country. The Liberal Party supports building pipelines to move our energy resources to market. These projects cannot ignore very serious concerns about aboriginal rights, responsible development and strong, environmental protections.

Instead of opposing energy development, foreign investment and job creation, in my view, the NDP should engaging in the discussion on a national energy strategy, which would provide stable growth in an environmentally responsible fashion. That is the challenge. That is the balance that has to be achieved here. The NDP motion instead provides clear evidence that its party does not recognize the importance of Alberta and all of western Canada to our shared future. The NDP argues that the Keystone XL project should be rejected because it would increase the development of the oil sands.

In fact, its candidate in Toronto Centre has said “we need some kind of moratorium on further development” on the oil sands. I hope my hon. colleagues will be commenting on whether they agree with that point of view. I hope I will have a chance to ask them about that during the questions and comments on their speeches. To me, that is not a realistic or responsible approach. The fact is that if we listen to people who are experts on energy internationally, they will say that whether we like it or not, we will consume petroleum products for decades to come.

Should we be trying to deal with that and reduce the emissions from those products, both in their production and consumption? Absolutely. Should we be moving to renewables? Absolutely. However, the fact is that we are going to use them and it is going to take a long time to move away from them. We should move quickly to do the things I just described to help our environment, but it does not happen overnight.

If the NDP is arguing this in terms of rejecting the project because it will increase development, at the same time we have its party leader wholeheartedly supporting the Energy East pipeline, which would move more oil from the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada and for export abroad than Keystone would. If it is really about emissions, it does not make any sense. The New Democrats are doing this because of the environment, which they were arguing as part their argument and which is a contradictory argument that it is an element of what they are saying.

It does not hold water in view of the position in relation to Energy East. In fact, on August 1, the NDP energy critic and the mover of today's motion, said that the Trans-Canada Energy East pipeline was a “win-win” for Canada . What is fascinating about the NDP position is that Energy East has projected to increase oil sands development 30% more than Keystone XL would do. It is 1.1 million barrels per day versus 830,000 barrels per day. It is not logical. Someone has to ask how serious this motion is. It looks like a typical, hypocritical move from a party that has difficulty being consistent on the big issues.

Just like the Conservatives, the NDP leader and his party do not understand that the job of the Prime Minister is to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources, help create Canadian jobs and help create a responsible and sustainable way to get those resources to those markets. Even the NDP leader's provincial counterparts do not support his position on Keystone. We know the history of the NDP in Saskatchewan is deep and rich, and I respect that.

In September, Saskatchewan NDP leader Cam Broten soundly rejected the federal party's stance on the pipeline and noted that approval of the Keystone XL project was in the best interests of Saskatchewan. This motion also reminds us that, in the view of the NDP, a vital part of our economy is a disease, effectively. That is unfortunate.

(1120) When our Liberal leader was in Washington recently, he told an audience, an audience actually of American liberals, that we in this party support Keystone XL. We support Keystone, because having examined the facts and accepted the judgment of the National Energy Board, we know that it is in the national interest. It would not eliminate all our economic problems, as its most ardent supporters might suggest, nor would it precipitate the end of the world as we know it, as its most vocal opponents contend.

On balance, it would create jobs and growth, strengthen our ties with the world's most important market, and generate wealth and jobs. It would offer much-needed flexibility in the constrained continental energy delivery system. Most of all, it would be in keeping with what I believe is the fundamental role of the Government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources and thereby create jobs for Canadians and help provide better lives for our people, which is what we are here for. It would help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.

The NDP approach is to oppose this project, which is akin to opposing the development of our Canadian economy. That is not leadership. Neither is the Conservatives' approach, though. Whether it is the bullying around Keystone and northern gateway with their one-sided approach to regulation in Bill C-38 or their demonization of people who care about the environment, the message from this right-wing government is clear: This is a black-and-white, us-versus-them world, and one is either with us or against us; we are not going to take no for an answer. That is not realistic.

In his own words, the Prime Minister “couldn't care less” what Canadians think. After eight years, here is what the so-called friendliest government the Canadian energy industry has ever had has accomplished. We are further than ever from a sensible policy to reduce carbon pollution. The government has failed to move the yardstick on one of the most important infrastructure projects of our generation, the Keystone XL pipeline. It has needlessly antagonized our closest friend and most important market. It has failed to gain access to the growing markets of the Asia-Pacific region.

It is time that both the Conservatives and the NDP got behind projects like Keystone XL and stopped acting like Keystone Kops. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to our colleague's comments. It is ironic and very curious. I seem to recall that it was the Liberal leader who went to Washington and said that the strongest middle-class jobs in Canada right now are in the resource sector. That raises the question of why he would want to export basically unprocessed oil. We would be sending 40,000 jobs to the south. It does not make sense.

I wonder if he would explain this contradiction from his leader. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, the basic problem I see with my hon. colleague's argument and with the NDP's argument is that they are viewing it as an either/or proposition. Either we stop Keystone and force all this to be processed in Canada or we are going to lose all these jobs. I laid out for her the fact that even the building trades council told us that two-thirds of the bitumen that would be coming would, in fact, be processed in upgraders in Alberta and perhaps in Saskatchewan.

I also talked about the fact that even if we do refine or upgrade more of it in Canada, we would still have to move the resulting product, because we would not consume all of it in Canada. We are talking about how we would get the product to markets around the world. The NDP has completely failed to recognize that this would help us create the jobs it said it is in favour of. (1125) [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I found the Liberal leader's remarks in Washington last December quite disturbing.

Not long ago, the Obama administration clearly stated that before even beginning to consider the project, it would have to ensure that environmental parameters were in place. Right after that, the Liberal leader expressed his unequivocal support for the project and made some pretty harsh comments about the positions environmental groups have taken on the issue. That was a major misstep for a leader who claims to care about the environment. How can he possibly justify such statements? To top it all, the next day, the Liberals asked a question in the House about the need for a better environmental framework.

I would suggest that next time, the Liberals think before they act, especially when they are in other countries. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. However, I suggest he take a look at statements his leader made in other countries. He made statements critical of the Canadian government and Canada's position. Sure we have problems here. Sure we disagree on some things, but I am very proud of the fact that, unlike the NDP leader, our leader chose not to attack the Conservative government when he was in Washington.

The other weakness in the member's argument is that he claims they will reduce oil sands development while stating that oil sands development will create jobs in Canada. They have to choose one or the other; they cannot have it both ways. [ English ] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points for my friend. First, does he, the Liberal Party, and his leader realize that when they sanction Conservative efforts and policies, they sanction all the policies in that agenda?

They are saying that the environmental assessments that have been torn apart by the government and the changing of Canadian law to allow pipelines to be rubber-stamped are also sanctioned by their party, because to condone one is to condone the other. The process by which the Conservative government arrived at promoting this pipeline, and the gateway pipeline in northern B.C., which I think his leader opposes, is the same process. To suddenly say that the Conservative energy policy is terrible but that the Liberals agree with it is not really a tenable option to have.

Second, this idea that when travelling abroad, Canadian leaders, such as our New Democratic leader, should never voice any concerns about Canadian policy, particularly such a wrong-headed policy as the one being promoted by the Conservatives, and that it is somehow undiplomatic, seems patently bizarre. The only thing his leader could do is go down to Washington and congratulate the current Prime Minister for his energy promotion.

While that makes them friendly, and I know that the grand compact may come together, it seems strange that the only thing he and his party think is tenable for Canadians to do when abroad is simply agree with whatever the government of the day has to say. We need to tell the Americans that there is a second view on energy policy in Canada.

All the ads being paid for by the Canadian government in Washington, all the lies being repeated in the promotion, and the arrogance that has been suggested by the Prime Minister in saying that they will not take no for an answer and that this is a no-brainer project, is not in agreement with the majority of Canadians. When our leader went to Washington and said that, I do not know why the member sees that as such a problem. To say that conversation is important is a Canadian value. That is what we promoted when we were in Washington, Canadian value—

(1130) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax West. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley will start listening, because I am trying to answer his question. It is unfortunate that he mischaracterized completely our position and what our leader said and did when he was in Washington. To say that we have sanctioned the Conservatives' energy policy or their environmental policy would mean that he has to have had his ears plugged for years. He certainly did not listen to my speech if that is what he thinks.

He certainly has not listened to any of the speeches members on this side of the House have been making for a long time. Where the NDP have really blown it is that they fail to understand the economics of this. They fail to recognize that the product we are talking about will be refined where it is cheapest to do so, which is typically near a large urban area. However, they decided they wanted to interfere in that process, that they should decide where the bitumen is upgraded and the oil refined.

They have failed to recognize that even if they are right that they should be determining where this should be done, the resulting product would still have to move somehow. How would it be done unless there are pipelines like Keystone and energy east? [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe : Mr. Speaker, one question comes to mind following my hon. colleague's remarks. What people need to understand is that there is no longer any difference between the Liberal and Conservative positions—absolutely no difference, zero.

The Liberals are simply saying that the Conservatives inadvertently made a couple of statements that did not come out the right way when they were in the United States. That is the only argument they have left. Let us be clear: all complex questions in relation to the environmental framework have gone out the window. Now the Liberals are on their side. That is why there can be no progress on the natural resources file. No one trusts this black-and-white thinking when it comes to resource development. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, clearly, my hon. colleague did not listen to my speech, so I suggest he read it.

He could look at Hansard tomorrow, or the blues later today, and read my speech. I explained some of the many differences between us and the Conservatives. However, what I find strange, unfortunate and disturbing about the NDP is how little they understand economic realities and the fact that petroleum products will be refined where it is cheapest to do so. In some cases, it is done in Alberta, which is good. However, the NDP believe that if they form the next government, they will decide where it will be done. That does not make sense.

We all know what happened in the Soviet Union and other places where efforts to control economic development did not turn out very well. The fact is that refining all these products here in Canada is not realistic. Furthermore, we need a way to move the products once they are refined. Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from Ottawa Centre . We experienced this in Quebec: we stripped our land of its natural resources and shipped them to other countries as quickly as we could.

Rip it, strip it and send it so others can build bridges and all sorts of things. We experienced this. At some point, we realized that it was not a brilliant approach and we learned our lesson. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not learned from the past or from others. I believe they have not learned because they do not want to. They do not want to know, as we say. They have their blinkers on and they just keep going, without caring about anything and without looking past their noses. As the Prime Minister said recently, they don't care. (1135) [ English ] However, the New Democrats care.

That is why we have presented this motion today, the motion presented by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster , whose personal commitment to this issue I really admire. [ Translation ] There are two main problems with the Keystone project. First, it is a mismanagement of our natural resources and our economy and, in a nutshell, it is a mismanagement of our future. The Prime Minister 's government is obsessed with natural resource development, often to the detriment of other sectors of our economy. All it wants to do is export our crude oil.

As the premier of Alberta said, moving crude oil is like destroying a plot of land, selling it and then handing the farm down to the next generation. If we want to properly develop the Alberta oil sands, we have to meet three basic conditions. First, we have to do it in an intelligent way. That means that we have to consider our long-term interests, which, I believe—and this is very important—include protecting our environment and everything that sustains us. The third condition is that we have to think about the future, especially that time when the oil will be gone.

What the government is proposing does not meet any of these three conditions. I would like to quote Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

At the National Energy Board hearings on the TransCanada Keystone project held in December 2007, he said: What we fear is that the consequence of this particular action will be to deny Albertans literally thousands of high-paying, long-term jobs in upgraders and refineries....[E]very barrel of bitumen shipped down the Keystone pipeline or other similar proposed pipelines is a barrel of oil no longer available for value-added production and job creation here in Alberta. However, the government is stubbornly insisting on going forward with this project.

With such an approach, it is not surprising that Canada now has a trade deficit even though we had a surplus when the Conservatives took office. I have other important concerns. In 2010, the oil sands accounted for 7% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. That is expected to rise to 14% by 2020. Like the Liberal governments before them, the Conservatives—other than one leader who never became Prime Minister—do not take climate change seriously. However, there comes a point where we must do just that. Since 2006, the government has been promising to regulate emissions from the oil and gas sectors.

If I am not mistaken, it is now 2013. Nothing has been done for seven years. Is this because of ill will or incompetence? Seven years seems like a long time to wait to resolve such an important issue. Worse yet, the Conservatives think that others are not aware of what is happening. They are a bit like children who believe that they can behave however they like and still get whatever they want. Unfortunately, that is not how things work. We know that President Obama has serious doubts. Although he says so in a very diplomatic fashion, the reason for his doubts is quite clear.

President Obama said that he would evaluate the project based on whether or not it will significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. He added that there is no doubt that Canada, at the source, could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release. What was our Prime Minister 's response? He said that he would not take no for an answer. We have to wonder what he will do. Maybe he will close the embassy in Washington. The Prime Minister does love to close embassies.

He is looking to set an all-time record for closing embassies, on top of his records for issuing gag orders and muzzling scientists, to name just two. Maybe he will send a few important ministers to Washington to make a lot of noise, as he likes to do. However, he will do absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the problem, which is his poor environmental management. (1140) [ English ] We know that colleagues on the other side are very skeptical of root causes. We heard a few months ago that the root cause of terrorism was terrorists.

Well, I think that for the Conservative government, the root cause of climate change is probably climate. I think it should take the issue a bit more seriously. [ Translation ] That is all typical of this government's attitude. Make a whole lot of noise, but do not take any meaningful action. That is also typical of the Conservatives' short-sighted approach. If we want to manage our natural resources properly, we have to think about the environment and climate change; we have to think about the future of Canadians and younger generations.

We have to think about what we will do after, what we will do to break our dependence on fossil fuels. We need to focus more on green technologies, and we need to offer high-quality jobs here in Canada, not elsewhere. I do not think that the members on the other side of the House are paying attention to what I am saying or what my colleagues in the official opposition have to say about this. That is too bad, and it all comes down to their attitude, which is that it does not matter what happens as long as it is not in their lifetime.

Unfortunately, this government's attitude is already having disastrous consequences for this planet. It is people like you and me who are paying the price, in Canada and around the world.

(1145) [ English ] Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I noticed recently in an

article that the candidate for Toronto Centre said that we need some kind of moratorium on further development. That is certainly a little alarming. I believe she was referring to the oil sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I wonder if my hon. colleague feels that is really the right way to go. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, that is a very technical question. I thought I heard the term moratorium, which I did not really use, so I find it difficult to put this into context.

However, the fundamental principle for the development of this resource, as with all our natural resources, is to proceed intelligently by creating jobs here in Canada and preserving our environment. [ English ] Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way said that members on this side of the House are not listening to them. I am sure she would agree that our responsibility is to listen to Canadians. We are listening to Canadians in the union trades, provincial premiers, including NDP provincial premiers.

The voters in British Columbia were pretty clear in the last election when New Democrats told the truth about their position on pipelines. We saw exactly where it got them in that province. It is not our side of the House that needs to start listening to them. It is the New Democrats' responsibility to start listening to Canadians' positions on this pipeline development. It is coming from their own union shops and NDP leadership across the provinces, provincial premiers. What value does the member opposite put on the comments and concerns of provincial premiers on this topic? [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, we really have nothing to learn from the other side of the House when it comes to listening to Canadians across the country, experts and officials. Unfortunately, if there is a government that does not listen to the people, it is the current government. Indeed, my colleague seems to forget that we are in the House to represent our constituents. It would not be the first time that someone across the way fails to properly understand how the parliamentary system works. Let us talk about listening.

Former premier Ed Stelmach said that shipping raw bitumen is like scraping off the topsoil, selling it, and then passing the farm on to the next generation. They spoke about the unions. However, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said that there were fears that this project would effectively deprive Albertans of thousands of good jobs. Would my hon. colleague like me to go on? I could give many other examples. [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to expand a little on this point.

Clearly, the government opposite does not care about the 40,000 jobs in processing bitumen, nor does the Liberal opposition care about that. My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party, when he was in Washington last week, dismissed environmental concerns that have been expressed by Americans and Canadians. Now we learn that the Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre does not want to participate in a debate on climate change. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what this says about the commitment of both the Liberals and Conservatives on these important issues. (1150) [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, with regard to jobs, it has been clearly shown that exporting our jobs to the U.S. will certainly not benefit the Canadian economy. In terms of climate change, the approach of the Conservatives—along with the Liberal governments before them—consists of burying their heads in the sand, hoping that the problem will disappear by itself. I am sorry, but we are dealing with our future and the future of our younger generations. I will oppose this. [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is not just about one project.

It is about leadership, policy and the future of our country. Make no mistake, what we are talking about is how to responsibly develop our natural resources. This is not a new debate in this country. For many years, we have talked about the whole myth of Canadians being hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the notion that we could only take our raw materials and send them abroad. Clearly that kind of approach is the past. What we are looking for is the future. The Conservatives are clearly living in the past. We know that. There is no question. In fact, they do not even apologize for it.

They just talk about getting this raw material out, sending it to someone else, and that is fine. Rip it, strip it and send it, as they say. We are saying that is not responsible development. We have heard that not only from people who look at the need for value added to create more jobs but also from people who are looking at what is happening in terms of the effects of this rapid development. Let us look at scientist Dr. Schindler's work on the effects of the rapid development, which was commissioned by the current government. It is about responsible development. The government is in the past.

Rip it, strip it and send it. We know where it sits. In fact it was very bizarre when most recently our Prime Minister was in New York, not addressing the UN General Assembly as all responsible world leaders who were in New York were doing. Let us remember, our Prime Minister was in New York when the General Assembly was sitting and most world leaders were speaking to the General Assembly about the vision of their country, dealing with the major issues, be it on Syria or be it on climate change. Our Prime Minister did not show up even though he was in town.

He was addressing the Canadian American Business Council, which is a good group to speak to. We spoke to that group when I travelled with our leader to Washington. He was speaking to them about the need to push this project. Now what is interesting about that is that most people thought our government was being hosted by the Canadian American Business Council. It turns out that taxpayers paid for this audience, $65,000 of taxpayers' money so that the Prime Minister could have an audience to push his agenda. It was quite shocking.

This information got out because the bill was sent by mistake to CTV as opposed to the embassy, but that is kind of how these guys manage things. It was $6,500 for coffee, by the way. I thought it was outrageous enough to have a $16 juice, but this was $6,500 for coffee. This was the approach the government took, but we know what it is about. We know it is the past. It is the old idea of not being able to do value added, so it will just rip it, strip it and send it, and that is the vision. This debate is also about the other vision for development in this country. We believe we should have value added.

We believe that we should take the resources that we have been given, our future for future generations, and be responsible with it. It is not just about hurrying it out the door and getting it over the border. It is about actually doing value added. That is why New Democrats are putting this issue on the table. We agree with those who say we should look at the effect of the pipeline for Canadian workers and what it means in terms of the future. The future means looking at beyond a year or two years or three years.

It means looking at it over a period of time to see the effects of these kinds of projects on our economy and on our environment. Our leader has been straightforward in saying that we need sustainable development, which is not the case with the government's agenda. What is shocking is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party would have us believe that it is concerned about the environment and responsible development. The Liberals jettisoned that.

In fact what happened, which was shocking for many of us, is that when the leader of the Liberal Party went to Washington, he shocked a lot of people when he said that he was not going to criticize the policies of the present government. He did not believe that was his role, and I will come back to that later. Then he went on to advocate for and promote the Conservative government's agenda on the pipeline.

(1155) What was strange about that was that he was saying on the one hand, “I will not criticize the government abroad”, and I think we will understand why that is a problem in a second, but then he went on to say how he supported the government's agenda on this pipeline project. Many people were quite confused. They thought the Liberal Party still believed in sustainable development or some notion of responsible development, and that when it came to this new Liberal leader, the Liberals would actually take on the Conservatives on irresponsible development. However, he did not do that.

It was surprising, because he then criticized our leader for going to Washington to explain our policies of responsible development. I was with our leader when we met with business leaders and members of the administration. We talked very frankly about the need to have good relationships and about the need to have responsible development, and they quite agreed. In the United States right now, this topic is being debated very robustly. As a responsible opposition, we are debating it here today because we think it is important.

Our visit to Washington was to say how we disagreed fundamentally with the government on the environment in particular. When the government decided to rip out environmental assessments at the federal level, not to participate responsibly in talks on climate change and not to follow up with commitments, we believed it was our responsibility as the responsible official opposition to let people know, especially our friends in the United States, our closest ally, what our vision was, and we got a very warm reception from them.

It was confusing for many people when we heard the leader of the Liberal Party saying that we should not do that when we go abroad. That is not leadership. Leadership is when we talk to our friends and allies about our vision. I will give some detail. We were talking about the need for value added here in Canada. They understood that. Why? In the United States, and most government members probably do not know this, it is prohibited for states to export crude. They do not allow the export of crude, in other words, unrefined petroleum, in the United States, with the exception of Alaska.

If we think about that, it is the exact opposite of our government. Our government encourages the export of unrefined and raw materials that are not value added. The Conservatives think it is great. They say we should go ahead and do it. We send our raw materials down to the states. They will refine it and we will buy it back. It is not responsible. It is the past, and we need to look to the future. However, when the Liberal leader went to Washington, he said that looking at this particular project, it was a good project and it would create jobs.

He actually said it would create jobs in the United States, so it really was confusing for Canadians. Whose jobs is he promoting, Canadian jobs or American jobs? I understand Conservatives do not worry about that, but when the leader of the Liberal Party goes to Washington and starts promoting a project that he acknowledges will create American jobs, we have to wonder what kind of vision he has. He went further. He dismissed any criticism of Keystone as political games.

When the leader of the Liberal Party promotes the Conservative agenda in Washington and suggests that outsourcing jobs is good for Canada, we have to challenge that vision. The notion he argues that official opposition or opposition leaders should not go to Washington to critique the government is so offside. Before President Obama was president of the United States, he went on a world tour to say how he was different from then-sitting President Bush. If we are to have responsible leadership in this country, we need a responsible leader. We have a responsible leader in this party.

I would challenge anyone to look at our vision, compare it to the vision of the past, of the Conservatives, or the confused vision of the Liberal Party and decide who is serving Canada's interest. I would argue it is the NDP, and that is why we brought the motion to the House for debate today.

(1200) Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, his colleague, the opposition critic for natural resources, made the observation that imports of foreign oil by tanker from the Middle East is bad for the environment and that it is better to use Canadian oil. Let us imagine for a moment that his colleague, and the member, are genuine about the arguments they are making today.

We know that a pipeline going east would allow eastern Canadian refineries the opportunity to refine lower-cost Canadian oil and thereby protect jobs in this important but challenged industry, like they say they are trying to do. I am wondering if he could explain why then his party is opposed to Line 9? Mr. Paul Dewar : Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate the problem with the government. As I said in my comments, it is living in the past. It still believes in the idea of just rip it, strip it and send it. We believe in value added. Contrary to whatever

interpretation she has of my colleague's comments, I can tell her that our policy is just that, value added. It is important to look at that. When I look at what the government has done, it has ignored the opportunities to do value added. It is simply looking at the short term. When we are dealing with our natural resources we cannot just look at the short term because that undermines the future for our next generation. It also undermines the capacity of our economy to grow in a responsible manner.

Therefore, when we look at what the government is doing, it is just saying to get the stuff out of here, rip it, strip it and send it. That is not a vision. That is, at the end of the day, doing what was done in the past. Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I note that my colleague said that his party and his leader were looking out for the interests of Canada, yet we have a quote from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall who said that the NDP leader is “betraying Canadian interests”, and “What [the NDP leader] and the NDP are doing is being quite destructive in terms of getting this important pipeline approved”. If we are looking out for Canadians, for jobs, for opportunity and for economic growth, those are the kinds of things that we need to keep Canada on track for long-term prosperity. I wonder if my colleague has any comments about what Mr.

Wall has said, since they are both part of the same philosophical base. Mr. Paul Dewar : Mr. Speaker, in the last

part I was not sure if she was saying that Mr. Wall and our party have the same philosophical base. I am not sure if she was meaning to say that. I agree with Premier Wall on the Senate. In fact, yesterday was a historic day when the Saskatchewan legislature passed a very important motion to abolish the Senate. We do not agree on everything, but Premier Wall led on this issue and he should be listened to on the abolition of the Senate. I still point to the fact that it is important to do value added. The government is not looking at that.

We want to create jobs here, not in the United States, and that is what its policy is all about. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things I would like the member to clarify for me. I can understand the rip it, strip it and send it quote because they do a lot of that in my community of Nickel Belt with the mines, but I would like him to explain. I am not sure if I heard correctly that the Canadian government spent $65,000 to bring in some people so they could try to convince them that they need our jobs. Do they need our jobs?

Then he said something else about not being allowed to export raw material from the United States, yet the government is trying to convince them that we should do that with our raw material. I am not sure if I understood correctly. Could he clarify that for me please?

(1205) Mr. Paul Dewar : Mr. Speaker, I would love to. It is true. The government paid $65,000 to basically rent a crowd. It was an important crowd to talk to. We talked to the Canadian American Business Council when we were in Washington, but it invited us and hosted us. The government paid $65,000 of taxpayers' money to have an audience that would be receptive to its message on the pipeline. It was $6,500 just for the coffee. It is outrageous.

The other thing he mentioned, and I will underline this point, was that with the exception of Alaska, in the United States it is prohibited to export crude, in other words, unrefined petroleum. It has to be refined. Why is that? It is because the United States understands value added. That is the problem with our government. It is living in the past. It does not understand. We need to create jobs for the future of responsible development. That is what we are arguing as the official opposition, different from the Liberal Party and different from the Conservatives. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working member for Vegreville—Wainwright I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the motion by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster . As members know, global economic forces are undergoing a fundamental shift, and energy is a critical part of that transformation. Canada is being confronted by both daunting challenges and extraordinary opportunities for energy resources. Our sole customer, the United States, is now destined to become the world's top energy producer.

Other potential international buyers of Canadian energy, until now, have been out of the reach of our energy producers. This disadvantage is about to change. The Government of Canada is taking action, responsibly and safely, to propel Canada's energy sector into a new era of sustainable prosperity and security and a brighter, more promising economic future for all Canadians, their children, and their grandchildren. Here is why our energy sector will continue to prosper. The International Energy Agency predicts that global energy demand will rise by more than a third within the next 25 years.

More than 95% of the expected increase in energy demand will come from non-OECD countries, with China and India leading the way. The IEA also predicts that 25 years from now, fossil fuels will continue to be the world's dominant source of energy, accounting for more than 60% of global energy demand. People in countries like China, Japan, South Korea and India know full well the extent of the resources that we have here in Canada, and the obvious practical advantages of shipping from our west coast. They also understand that Canada is a reliable source of energy in a frequently unstable world.

Clearly, the time is right for both producer and consumer. We need to diversify our markets, and they need to diversify their sources of supply. As a result, the international demand for Canadian energy will only grow. Canada cannot stand still and miss these opportunities. We cannot and we will not. Throughout the world, energy security is the common coin for industrial development and is fundamental to the growth and stability of nations. Energy security supports political stability and economic prosperity.

The practical question of ensuring energy security on a global basis is a growing challenge, but one for which Canada is uniquely equipped to play a key role. A key point to remember about energy security is that only 20% of the world's oil reserves are not controlled by state companies, and 60% of that free enterprise oil is located right here in Canada. As I have indicated, by the end of this decade the U.S. is expected to be the world's biggest producer of oil. However, it is expected that the United States will still need to import about 5.5 million barrels a day.

Canada has more than ample resources to fill this need. Canada has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, some 172 billion barrels, about 169 billion of which are in the oil sands. As extraction technologies advance, the oil sands could yield nearly twice that much, well over 300 billion barrels. That would make the oil sands the biggest oil reserves in the world. The expansion and diversification of energy markets is a priority of the Government of Canada because it is crucial to jobs and economic growth.

Natural resources deployment directly and indirectly supports 1.8 million jobs across our great nation, contributes close to 20% of our nominal GDP, and generates billions of dollars in tax revenue and royalties to help fund government services to Canadians. Canada's energy sector has proposals to build and improve pipelines west, south, and east to ensure that we have customers for our energy products. However, to preserve and grow Canada jobs and revenues for social programs, we must bring our resources to international markets and the faster-growing economies in the world. That means building pipelines.

(1210) The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would feed western Canadian heavy crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast—refineries, by the way, that currently rely on Mexico and Venezuela for feedstock. In addition to Keystone XL, two pipelines have been proposed to deliver crude from western Canada to ports on our west coast for distribution to markets on both sides of the Pacific. We are rapidly developing the infrastructure needed to service these markets. No fewer than seven liquefied natural gas export terminals have been proposed for the west coast.

Three of these have been granted the long-term export licences they need to deliver LNG to markets in Asia. The first could be in operation as early 2015. There are also proposals to adapt two existing pipelines to bring oil from western Canada to eastern Canada for refining and potential export. Pipelines moving oil from Alberta to Quebec to New Brunswick would be among the most expansive and ambitious stretches of energy infrastructure in the entire world, and they would contribute greatly to the energy security of Canada and all of North America.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the pipeline projects proceed in a manner that is environmentally responsible, economically feasible, and socially beneficial. We have the resources and we are determined to reach out to other nations, both as markets for Canadian energy and as partners in responsible energy development. Our role as a responsible developer of energy is well known, and it is reflected in our government's commitment to the environment and to creating an opportunity for prosperity for Canadians in every region of the country. Our approach is in sharp contrast to the NDP.

While we support the responsible growth for our energy resources in an environmentally responsible way, the NDP has opposed every effort to expand our markets and create jobs for Canadians. While we go overseas to fight for Canadian interests, jobs, and economic growth, the NDP sends its leader and deputy leader to Washington, D.C., to argue against those jobs. While our government has listened to Canadians employed in our energy sector from coast to coast to coast, the NDP has ignored and argued against these jobs as somehow detrimental to Canadians.

We have nothing to learn from New Democrats when it comes to expanding our markets and to expanding our opportunities for Canadian workers. We will continue to fight for Canadian jobs while the NDP, with this motion today, is fighting to stop the development of important and critical infrastructure projects for our nation. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and neighbour from the Yukon for his speech, although the last few paragraphs were somewhat heavy on rhetoric.

As he knows, we both come from resource development communities, regions that have relied and will rely on natural resource development for generations to come. He made some mention of the two pipelines through British Columbia, the bitumen pipelines, both the Kinder Morgan and the gateway. I do not know if he made reference to whether he supports them or not, and I would be curious to know if he is supportive of one, or both, or neither. The question today is about Keystone XL, of course. As my friend knows, we both have significant activity in the forestry and mining sectors in our regions.

Particularly in forestry, the raw export of forestry products—just sending out round logs—has been a huge problem for northern B.C., Yukon, and northern economies in general. I just lost another mill in one of my communities in Houston, another 250 jobs, and I am sure the member has stories too. The policies promoted for raw export have been deeply problematic for the resource sector, because we do not add any value. This project also is raw export, this time bitumen.

I wonder if the member has any comment on that as a policy promoted by the government, considering all the job losses that happen because we do not create the value added, as industry could be doing here in Canada as opposed to elsewhere.

(1215) Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, industry and these opportunities do not work in a vacuum. Expansion and utilization of Canada's resources, whether we export them in raw fashion or whether we have value added here in our country, do not work in isolation. The development of resources comes with innovation and technology that support a whole group of different sectors in the Canadian economy. That is all excellent. The hon. colleague heard me talk about the eastern pipeline opportunity that would move oil into refineries in the east, so of course we are looking at value-added opportunities.

We are also looking at moving raw exports into markets that need that product at this time. We will continue to do so. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague recognizes that the policy of the Conservative government in failing to enact or bring forward real and serious regulation of greenhouse gases is one of the things that is making it so hard to gain support in the U.S. for the Keystone XL pipeline. I will ask the member a related question.

In September 2013, Saskatchewan NDP leader Cam Broten soundly rejected his federal party's stance on the Keystone XL pipeline and noted that approval of the Keystone XL project was in the best interests of Saskatchewan. As we heard earlier in the NDP House leader's twisted logic, does that not mean that the Saskatchewan NDP leader supports the entire Conservative government agenda? I wonder if my colleague agrees. Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, certainly that was something he came out and said almost immediately after becoming the NDP leader. It does show that we are not driving a personal agenda here.

We are driving an opportunity for all Canadians. It is something that is shared by labour unions, workers across our country, leaders of the NDP at the provincial level, and provincial premiers. Canadians are asking us to move forward with this measure, and we are responding. I will quickly take a moment to address the GHG topic the member mentioned. The report out of the Obama administration was clear. It said that the Keystone XL pipeline will not contribute in any significant fashion to greenhouse gas emissions and that the denial of that pipeline would not change anything nominally on that front. Ms.

Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was not informed by the members of his party who are on the natural resources committee, because their own witness testified on the matter of value added and said that the reason there are no refineries being built in western Canada is that they are not economic. No one is preventing those companies from building them, but then, economics was never one of the NDP's strong points.

In the realm of myth-busting, I want to ask the member for Yukon this question: is Keystone XL the first pipeline to move crude oil across the United States? Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and fellow member of the natural resource committee. She does a fantastic job on that committee helping her riding out, and indeed all Canadians. This is an interesting point and a great question. We are being led to believe that this is the only pipeline going into the United States. However, there are nearly 4.3 million kilometres of oil and gas pipelines across the United States.

Between 2009 and 2011, the U.S. added 6,844 kilometres of new crude oil pipelines. They are safe, they are effective, and they are efficient. In fact, here in Canada, we have hundreds of thousands of kilometres of pipeline already in existence. This is just another pipeline. It has greater technology, it is a greater product, and it presents a greater opportunity for Canadians. That is why this government is going to support this pipeline project.

(1220) Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : 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.

(1225) 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.

(1230) 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. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite from Alberta, and it made me shake my head. Members opposite are in a hurry to ship out our natural resources without adding any value to them whatsoever. The problem is what is happening right now in Alberta.

Alberta is running a $2 billion or $3 billion deficit right now as a result of the lack of revenue from its resources as the world market changes. New Democrats have suggested that what we should be doing with our resources, in this case bitumen, is processing them in Canada. There are 40,000 jobs expected to be created as a result of that pipeline. Instead of sending it across the border and creating 40,000 jobs there, and I have nothing against my American friends, we would like some long-term jobs here.

I ask the member why it is he would not like to ensure that 40,000 families sustain long-term jobs here in Canada. Mr. Leon Benoit : 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— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Questions and comments, the hon. member for Halifax West. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright today, for the most part.

Similar to what I said earlier, he pointed out that Canada is refining more than it uses already, and we are probably going to be refining and upgrading more in the future. Even if we do that, how does he propose to move it if there are no pipelines? That highlights the illogic of the New Democrats' point of view. They are pretending that they support jobs, but if one listens to anybody who works in the industry, as I did recently when I was in Calgary, they will say that there is already a slowdown.

Things are not happening now in terms of job creation in upgrading and so forth, the things that create jobs here in Canada, because of the lack of access to markets. Yes, we need the energy east pipeline, but they also tell me that the Keystone pipeline is very important. I do not think it helps when the Prime Minister goes to the U.S. and says that we will not take no