44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/3/22 11:27:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by reminding members that we are deeply mired in a global climate crisis, which is recognized by all the experts. Governments around the world are mobilizing in the face of this crisis, although some are doing more than others.
We were just beginning to get out of the health crisis when Russia decided to attack Ukraine. This was a vicious attack, a clear violation of international law and a direct blow to the European community. Like many nations, Canada has chosen—and rightly so—to impose sanctions on this belligerent government, this dictatorship that seems impervious to all diplomacy as it refuses to even consider the most rudimentary thinking towards resolution and appeasement.
History will provide compelling academic explanations of what we are witnessing today, although there is no way Russia's current behaviour could ever be endorsed. However, today is not the day to hold this history workshop. Instead, we have a duty to take a very serious look at the Conservative Party's motion. My colleague from Montarville did a great job breaking down its three main points.
The Bloc Québécois has already made public statements that reflect the messages in points (a) and (b). We condemn the Russian Federation and its president, and we stand with the people of Ukraine, no matter where in the world they are. The Ukrainian diaspora that has chosen Quebec will be supported. It goes without saying that we will stand with them and help them. Just this morning, my riding office was getting calls from people who want to take in Ukrainians.
The problem is with the next point in the motion. The most outrageous part of this Conservative motion, because yes, it is outrageous, is that the Conservatives mention Ukraine but then do not propose any form of assistance. Instead, the motion would help develop Alberta's oil and gas industry, which is something neither Europe nor Ukraine are asking for.
The Conservatives do not even hide the fact that they are suggesting that promoting pipelines and other energy projects is the solution to the conflict. This solution would most certainly represent an unprecedented setback to the real progress that Europe has made over more than 10 years in improving the climate record of many of its member nations, and it would further reinforce global dependence on fossil fuels, a dependence we so desperately need to overcome.
There is no need for any of us to play innocent. We all know it, so let us just say it: For some businesses and some people, war is unfortunately a sorry excuse to fill their pockets.
Let us start by establishing that nothing could be done in time to relieve Europe's dependence on Russian energy, certainly not before the current violence ends for good.
I urge all members to be realistic and show some basic practicality. What the motion is proposing would require the construction of new pipelines from Alberta to the Atlantic, crossing Quebec. This is a 20-, 30- or 35-year project. However, GNL Québec, the only officially submitted pipeline project for exporting liquid natural gas to the Atlantic, was not expected to be operational until 2025-26. Both the Quebec government and the federal government rejected it. The now defunct energy east pipeline project estimated that it would take five years to get up and running, but it, too, was rejected by Quebec and scrapped in 2017.
This motion tells us that the answer to generations of oil wars, of which there have been several, is apparently to entrench fossil fuel dependency even more deeply by building high‑carbon infrastructure that would lock in fossil fuels beyond the middle of the century and speed us into an era of climate conflict.
The oil embargoes and price shock of the 1970s sparked major initiatives to break our dependence on fossil fuels. Sweden, Brazil and France have projects. Quebec has turned its wealth of drinking water into a forward‑thinking energy catalyst and an economic jewel for Quebec.
The momentum has stopped, but climate science and the acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions have not. We know the peril that lies ahead. In fact, on the very day this motion was tabled, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its umpteenth report on the impact of climate change, which, far from warming our hearts, instead makes for chilling reading.
How did the Conservatives come up with a motion like this? Does the official opposition not see any other ways of helping Ukraine?
Here are a few ideas that we could implement. We could suspend visa requirements for coming to Canada. We could expand the sanctions to Belarus, which partnered with Russia in the annexation of Crimea. We could charter flights to Canada to bring in Ukrainian refugees who are stranded in overcrowded camps in neighbouring countries.
Earlier, the parliamentary secretary was bragging about how Canada was the only country to ban imports of Russian oil. That is because we have not imported oil from Russia since 2016. Could the government please come up with some more practical solutions?
Some countries are seizing the financial assets of Russian oligarchs, but we also need to look at their participating interest in Canada's oil projects. My colleague even named names. The Canadian oil and gas industry could start by taking a look in the mirror. A steel company owned by oligarchs should never have been allowed to get involved in the Coastal GasLink pipeline project, and that should be rectified immediately.
The western oil industry has been playing a key role in creating this Russian energy crisis for decades, as part of a lobby led by the American company Exxon, which wanted its share of the pie in Russia. Their partnership continued into this millennium. Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, a company that operates in Canada under the name Imperial Oil, personally received one of Russia's highest honours, the Order of Friendship, from Vladimir Putin in 2013.
Imperial Oil and its partnership with the Russian state oil company even brought Rosneft into the Alberta oil sands. The explicit goal was to transfer technological know-how so Russia could take advantage of new technologies to boost its industry—and the Kremlin's coffers—back home. In a 2012 article in the Financial Post, Claudia Cattaneo described Rosneft's arrival in Canada as a “landmark alliance” and the focus of a “new oil age”. Putin launched his first invasion of Ukraine and annexed Crimea two years later.
If we really want to stand up to Putin, support Ukraine and keep the lights on in Europe, here is what we have to do: We have to switch to renewable energy. Russia does not control renewables. In fact, Europe has been working on plans to accelerate the energy transition for years now. Given that German Chancellor Scholz put the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on hold even though his country and Italy are the western European nations most dependent on Russian natural gas, the EU probably knows what it needs to do. A February 24 article in the Washington Post covers the details. I encourage my colleagues to read it.
Greater economic rapprochement with the Russian dictatorship did not cause it to forget its ongoing geostrategic ambitions. What we need to do is accelerate the energy transition at an aggressive pace. Enough with the small steps. It is time for great leaps. We have to invest in projects that augment America's and Europe's energy security and reduce their carbon footprint.
This motion has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. Point (c), in particular, does nothing to address the energy needs of Europe, which, by the way, has not asked Canada for anything of the sort. Using a tragic international conflict to play politics domestically is frankly cynical.
Ms. Krakovska, the head of the Ukrainian delegation at the IPCC negotiations, was clear when she said, “Human-induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots—fossil fuels—and our dependence on them”. She went on to say, “we hope the world will not surrender in building a climate resilient future”. When she mentions the world, that must include Canada.
I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois believes that we must listen to what Ukraine is telling us, be attentive to the real needs that we have the capacity to meet and, above all, not give in to the temptation to exploit the situation before us.
1453 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:38:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not understand. I have also been here for over half an hour. Why are the Conservatives, the official opposition, linking food and fertilizer? I will explain why.
Because of the current climate crisis, people in many countries are going to die of hunger or will have serious food-related issues. That is the problem. Climate change is also a food security issue for the entire global population. It is also a health issue for the entire global population. That means thousands of people around the world. Tens of thousands of people are dying in Canada because of climate change.
Can we try to look to the future, rather than always relying on an industry of the past?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:40:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I do not know, but I get the impression that there is some confusion. Earlier it was about food and pipelines. Now it is about nickel and oil, and there is talk of sharing our wealth.
In a past life, I was a teacher. When I had a student in my class who had problems learning, I did not tell him that I would teach him extra math lessons. I had to start by figuring out what the problem was. If his problem was with French and I offered him lessons in math, that did not work.
We have to begin by looking at what is being asked of us, what the people want and what they need, instead of offering them something just because we have it. We have to begin by looking at what the people need.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:41:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one minute is not a lot.
I can say that no one, except for the Conservative Party, believes that the solution to Europe's dependence on Russian oil would be to increase its dependence on Albertan oil.
Here is some food for thought: Is this about doing something for Ukrainians or for Albertans?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:41:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the IPCC confirms that 3.5 billion people are extremely vulnerable to climate change, and 70% of those living in that precarious state are women. As we approach March 8, I would like to point out that women will be the main victims of climate change.
This brings me back to the government's actions. Tomorrow, the government will provide an update on the Bay du Nord project and the minimum 300 million barrels of oil. Knowing the consequences that this decision will have on climate change and women, will the Bay du Nord project be approved, yes or no?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:42:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment announced that he would provide an update on the Bay du Nord project on Friday. Friday is tomorrow, not 10 months from now.
Usually, when a person schedules a press conference to make an announcement the next day, it is because that person has something to say and they already know what it is. I will ask my question again. Will it be yes or no to the Bay du Nord project and its 300 million barrels of oil in the middle of a climate crisis? It is not complicated.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:43:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to members that the only environmental assessment that the government should be concerned about is the IPCC report. The UN Secretary‑General says that it is the most damning scientific report that he has ever seen. This is serious.
The government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary tell us that we must listen to the science and make evidence-based decisions, but what does the science say? It says that there is no such thing as clean oil and definitely not 300 million barrels' worth of it. Science has confirmed that unchecked carbon pollution is forcing the world's most vulnerable towards destruction today and right now.
Therefore, Bay—
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
