44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/3/22 11:24:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have sat in for about a half hour of the discussion so far in this debate. I think the member opposite is missing the point that this is not just about Ukraine. For the last week, we have seen an invasion by Russia into Ukraine that completely changes the geopolitical dynamic we have seen over the last 30 years of the post-Cold War period.
Of course, I love to sometimes chide my Conservative colleagues, but I think this is a sincere conversation that needs to be had about the endowments Canada has, whether in food, energy or critical minerals. Would the member at least recognize that the foreign policy context has changed and Canada has to evaluate how we can support our allies in Europe?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:39:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague in the sense that the text of this motion could have actually been a bit better, with all due respect to my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills. I think that now is a pivotal time for us as a country to look at the endowments we have, and how we partner with our allies to provide the tools that are needed. This member talked about, for example, the transition to a low-carbon economy. That requires critical minerals. Our allies in Europe rely on 98% of those being imported from China.
Will the member at least recognize, even if she does not agree with the text of the motion and the prospect of pipelines, that the foreign policy context has changed and we need a serious conversation on how Canada fuels, feeds and powers the world?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have some interventions in the House before this one, and I have lamented the idea that the text of the motion is focused quite narrowly on pipelines and natural gas. I think this House should be having a conversation more broadly about food production, energy and critical minerals, because those are what will be extremely important in Europe in a changing foreign policy dynamic.
As a member from the province of Nova Scotia, I think of the Goldboro LNG project. The text actually talks about pipelines, but it makes no mention of the actual liquefied natural gas facilities that would be important in exporting to Europe.
Would the member opposite at least recognize or acknowledge that in transitioning energy to Europe, this type of infrastructure would be extremely crucial, in addition to looking at existing pipelines without building new ones?
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:28:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding my respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, as has been noted in the House, it is unfortunate and there has been an obvious condemnation of the idea to support Ukraine through the use of pipelines for natural gas. I take note that, yes, the situation in Ukraine is going to have bigger geopolitical dynamics in Europe on energy security.
Would the member agree with me that this conversation should go beyond pipelines to Canada's natural endowments and how we can help supply our allies across the world with food and critical minerals that may be necessary, as well as energy, including renewables, and that the scope of this motion could have been expanded if worded in a different fashion?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:47:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth.
I would like to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing forward this conversation today. I have sat in this House and listened to the debate, and I do agree with some of the colleagues who have expressed their displeasure with how the actual text of the motion is worded. I agree with that, because it starts to implicate our unity in standing for Ukraine and brings in elements that, although important to discuss, can sometimes create a divide in this House. I will explain that.
For those Canadians who might be watching at home and asking what an opposition day motion is, it is the opportunity for the opposition parties to raise issues and to allow us to vote on their texts. Such a motion is non-binding on the government, but it does allow us to have conversations. Let us look at the text of the motion that has been put before us here today.
First, it is essentially condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is not one member in this House who does not agree with condemning that unprovoked and illegal action.
Second, it is a broad principle of support for Ukraine, for Canadians with Ukrainian heritage, and just generally for the idea that we would be there for the country. Again, I do not think there is any member, or indeed any Canadian, who would be against that principle. We have shown unity and we need to continue to work in that regard. I agree with that.
The last part of this motion is a call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure natural gas pipelines could be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater. It is about trying to protect European defence and security and allowing Canadian natural gas to replace Russian natural gas.
What I have advocated before in this House, and what I wish the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had done, is to take a more global view of the changing foreign policy situation. What I would submit to this House is this: On February 24, we saw not only a Russian invasion into Ukraine, which is terrible and horrific, and we have all condemned it, but also a further attack on rules-based international order and western liberal democracies.
As I listened to commentary in this House today and in the days past, what I want to encourage my colleagues and Canadians to understand, notwithstanding the fact that no one has a crystal ball on what the days ahead will look like, is that February 24 is a change in time. It is the end of the post-Cold War period.
I mentioned that I am 31 years old, born in 1991. From the fall of the Soviet Union until February 24, we have seen relative peace in the world, notwithstanding conflict. We have not seen this level of state-to-state engagement. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly pointed out, this is not just about an attack on Ukraine; it is an attack on all of us.
I think that warrants a conversation about Canada's position in the world. I support what we have done to date on the sanctions, on the liquidity for Ukraine, on the military hardware and on the work that our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has done to create pathways for Ukrainians who want to come to Canada. Again, I think we are unified in that.
However, there is a conversation. The text of this motion is too narrow. We have to look at all the natural endowments that we have in this country and how they become part of our foreign policy and our way to help support other western liberal democracies around the world. The reliance and dependence of Europe in particular on Russian natural gas has been pointed out, and 25% of imports of crude oil are from Russia. What has not been discussed as much is the importance of critical minerals and how reliant Europe is on China for those minerals.
I want to look at what we have seen, not just in Ukraine but also in votes at the United Nations, and how China and India have abstained. We look at China and Russia's axis, and indeed in the two years I have had the privilege of being in this House, we have seen human rights atrocities from China. We have seen the situation with the two Michaels. There is a changing geopolitical dynamic. I do not want to sound alarmist, and again no one has a crystal ball, but I think the sands are shifting around the world. I think that there is a mature conversation that needs to be had in this place about how Canada moves and positions itself in the changing dynamic.
I would submit to my colleagues that European parliamentarians are thinking about this. They are thinking about their energy security. They are thinking about their food security. There is a tension, as we know, between Canada's movement and the global movement toward a low-carbon economy and the continuation of fossil fuel products to support energy security right here today. We have heard that play out among our colleagues in the debate.
Colleagues have rightly pointed out that we do not just turn on the switch. The investments and initiatives of the government do not just result in a six-month turnaround. I would argue that whether it be green and renewable transition or the interim energy transition for Europe, Canada has a role to play in both. We have a role to be there in the next 10 years as Europe looks to reduce its reliance on Russia and China,.
On food, let us understand that Ukraine and Russia are two major important players in the international food system. It is very difficult to plant a wheat field when Russian tanks are driving through those fields. It is very difficult for Ukrainian farmers to be tending to their crops when they have to carry guns to fight Russians in their own country. That is going to have implications around the world.
What can this government do? What can we do as parliamentarians to provide recommendations on how our Canadian agriculture can be a backstop? Again, we are almost at the spring season. These things do not turn around overnight, but I think the implications will last beyond just a few months. This is a longer-term play. We have to understand through a foreign policy lens that the world has fundamentally changed.
I want to talk about the text of the motion. I have highlighted, of course, that I wish the issues had been separated. We could have let the Ukraine situation be a united front and we could have had a more nuanced discussion on Canada's role in the world vis-à-vis our critical minerals, our food capabilities and the like.
When I go back to the text, there is no mention of actual LNG facilities. We talk about pipelines. There is no mention of the fact that we should actually be examining existing pipelines and perhaps whether they could be repurposed to support a quicker response to Europe in the interim.
In my home province of Nova Scotia, Goldboro LNG was a proposed project. There is no mention of the fact that if we ship natural gas through a pipeline and we want to get it to continental Europe, we actually have to liquify it so that it can be transported. I would argue respectfully that not taking this into account is another flaw of this particular motion.
I am going to leave it at this. I think we can all agree that we condemn Russia's invasion into Ukraine. We can all agree that we need to continue do everything possible and explore the tool kits of what we can do to provide to the Ukrainian people. What we need to have is a more nuanced conversation about Canada's role in the world, and whether the geopolitical change we have seen in the last week is something of a short-term development or if it will be more nuanced in the future.
I take the view that this is going to have implications for at least a decade to come and that we need to have a serious conversation about how we collectively, as parliamentarians, can have respectful dialogue and give recommendations to the government to respond accordingly.
1448 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:57:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. When we look at the situation Germany was in, given its reliance on Russian natural gas and the complete foreign policy change Germany has taken, which is fundamentally a change, there are vulnerabilities to our allies in the world regarding food security and energy security. For colleagues like me, who agree on the need to transition to a low-carbon economy, that also includes critical minerals. The European Union imports 98% of critical minerals from China. When we look at that dynamic, we ask what our role is in the western world to provide the tools that are going to be necessary to transition to a low-carbon economy, and also what our role is in providing the fuel that is going to be necessary to get Europe through the next five to 10 years, given the uncertainties we are seeing in eastern Europe.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:59:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have looked at and watched the proceedings of the European Parliament. When we actually look at the chancellor in Germany, that country has just invested in two LNG facilities to be able to backstop the fact that they know there is going to be energy insecurity. Am I in support of making a transition? I absolutely am, but let us not mistake that Europe is asking not only for energy on a transitional basis for the next five to 10 years, but also for the critical minerals that are going to be important to make the transition my hon. colleague is talking about. They are both extremely important. It is that nuance. It is not black or white; it is gray and in the middle. We have to be there on both accounts.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
