SoVote

Mar/3/22 11:05:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am listening with great interest to the speech of the member opposite. To use, on such an important subject, words accusing his political opponents of being “crass” and referring to them as an “infection”—

47 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:05:29 a.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

10 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Mar/3/22 11:05:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad I am able to continue, because the interruption to our important debate on this international crisis is actually in the third section of this motion, which makes it absolutely an inappropriate debate to have. I take the opportunity to say that we stand with the Ukrainian people and we stand with the Government of Ukraine. We stand with the free world and we stand with those who value the international rules-based order. We stand with our colleagues and like-minded companion countries, such as the EU, the U.K., the U.S. We stand with the vast majority of the countries of the world at the U.N. that voted to condemn the actions of Russia and Vladimir Putin. What we do not want to engage in today is a debate about energy security, although it is an important debate. We do not want to engage in talking about our climate change initiative, although it is another important debate, or talking about weaning us away from fossil fuels or about a 21st century energy policy that guarantees Canada will have the energy security we need. These are important debates, but today's debate should be about Ukraine. It should be about an international crisis, and I am frankly embarrassed that we are actually having to deal with this issue while the world is facing such a crisis. I would hope that all members stand in solidarity with Ukraine and continue to do that.

249 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/3/22 11:07:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad I have the opportunity to ask this question, because I believe that the member is missing much of the context for the critical importance of the third part of this motion. We are coming into another growing season. I come from one of the breadbaskets of the world, and Ukraine is another one of those breadbaskets of the world, providing food security for much of Europe and much of the world. The current government seems to be unaware that energy policy has a direct impact on global food security, whether that be directly through things like nitrogen-based fertilizer, which is a miracle of modern agriculture that allows massive increases in global food production to be able to feed the world, or whether it be in the fuel that is required to run the equipment to put the seed in the ground and harvest the crop. Would the member acknowledge that his calling the conversation around energy security—which relates to food security, which relates to poverty reduction, which relates to all of these very important subjects—“an infection” is misguided? Would he acknowledge that the conversation is needed to ensure that the world has peace and security both in Ukraine, going forward, and—

214 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:08:33 a.m.
Watch

I have to allow for other questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

11 words

Secretary

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Mar/3/22 11:08:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful opportunity to talk about the nearsighted nature of the Conservative Party. The hon. member is talking about the upcoming growing season as though this motion is going to have any effect on the ability to provide food for the world from Ukraine. What will provide an effect on ensuring that the Ukrainian breadbasket continues to provide food for Europe is stopping this war. It is stopping this war, and that is what we are focused on by sanctioning the government of Russia, by continuing strong measures, by working with international partners. We are not short-sighted. We are getting the job done.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/3/22 11:09:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from what I understand, the Conservative motion is suggesting that we can resolve a dependence problem by creating a new dependence. That seems about as logical as having a Liberal lead the Conservatives. To me, the government's position is less clear. To date, the government has invested $20 billion of public funding into a pipeline that even the private sector did not want. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm today that increasing the transfer and production capacity of western oil is not a solution to the geopolitical problems we are seeing today in Ukraine?

97 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Mar/3/22 11:09:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am intentionally not going to answer that question in the fullest sense of the word because I want this debate to be about Ukraine. I do not want to be sidetracked by the third part of the Conservative motion. I would like us to focus on Ukraine and on what we can do in this House to stop that aggression by Russia and have that debate about energy self-sufficiency, which is a valuable debate, at a future time. I welcome working with the Bloc on a future debate in that regard.

95 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:10:39 a.m.
Watch

I see that there is some heckling going on and maybe some people trying to answer that question. I ask them to wait until it is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

39 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/3/22 11:10:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely appalled to see the Conservatives' use of talking about children going hungry as a reason for us to spend billions on a pipeline. We are dealing with a world crisis of people dying in the streets, being killed, and they see this as another reason to turn on the taps of taxpayer money. We have spent $121 billion in subsidies to big oil in the last seven years, $75 billion on carbon capture, $21 billion on TMX and $1 billion on the abandoned wells, and the Conservatives are talking about using a humanitarian crisis for more. Will the Liberals agree with us that this motion is undermining Canada's reputation of standing up for Ukraine because the Conservatives are more interested in satisfying big oil?

130 words

All Topics

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Mar/3/22 11:11:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would easily say yes and I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his ongoing work on this issue. We need to unite in this House to talk about the important issue of Ukraine, but we must also continue to talk about the important issue of climate change. We will do that at a future time. I look forward to that ongoing conversation.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

Mar/3/22 11:12:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Repentigny. Today, we are being asked once again to participate in a very important debate on the situation unfolding in Ukraine. To present the Bloc Québécois's position on the Conservative motion, I would like to read it point by point. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is proposing “That the House: (a) condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine”. We completely agree with point (a). However, we were expecting that, a little later, they would make suggestions about possible additional sanctions to punish Vladimir Putin and Russia for the unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. We were also expecting them to propose additional sanctions on the oligarchs. The member then suggests that the House “(b) stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”. Again, no one could be against that. We have said many times over that we stand with the people of Ukraine. We are not going to stop standing with them now. We would have liked to see some proposals, though. What more can we do on top of the humanitarian assistance we have already sent to support the people of Ukraine? Will the government increase the $10 million cap it set to match the donations Canadians make to the Red Cross? We are waiting to hear. Will the government lift the visa requirements that are still in place for Ukrainian refugees? These people are fleeing with a small suitcase, can barely find a place to sleep, and yet they are being asked to fill in 14 copies of forms in a language that is probably not their first language. They also have to pay fees to be able to seek refuge in Canada. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, Canada is allowing people to cross the border at Roxham Road without a visa but cannot lift the visa requirement for Ukrainian refugees. We were expecting the Conservative motion to propose ways to meaningfully demonstrate our solidarity with Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian Canadians. We then jumped to point (c) thinking that we would see proposals for sanctions to punish Russia, Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs who support him. We expected to see proposals in point (c) to help Ukrainians, Ukraine and our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian origin, but no. What then did we find in point (c)? It suggests that the House “(c) call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater, recognizing energy as vital to Canadian and European defence and security, allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe, and being consistent with environmental goals in the transition to non-emitting sources of energy”. If that is not a basely self-serving argument, I do not know what is. Honestly, even if we decided to go that route and build pipelines, despite the fact that it would first of all go against the idea that we need to phase out fossil fuels, the conflict would, hopefully, be long over by then. What would be the purpose then, other than to export the dirty oil produced in western Canada? It would have no other purpose, because our German friends cannot rely on Canadian oil and gas to replace Russian oil. That is a bogus argument. What we find in point (c) is a bad idea masquerading as a solution. More than that, it is an idea that would hurt Ukrainians. Why? This morning, our friend Paul Journet, in La Presse, reported that some oil companies in western Canada are owned by Russian oligarchs who are still free from Canadian government sanctions. I would have expected the Conservatives to tell us that they are also going to impose sanctions on the oligarchs who hold shares in western Canadian gas companies. No, they are not proposing sanctions against these oligarchs. However, if we help these oligarchs, we are helping Russia and therefore hurting Ukraine. This contradicts points (a) and (b) in the motion that the House “condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine” and that we “stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”. What the Conservatives are proposing means giving more cash to Russian oligarchs who have shares in western Canadian oil companies. Is that how we want to help Ukrainians? Is that the great idea of our Conservative friends to help Ukrainians? All the Conservatives want to do is help their oil industry, period. There is no other explanation. I can name names. How about Roman Abramovitch, who owns 28% of Evraz, which supplies steel for pipelines? That is interesting. How about Igor Makarov, Coastal GasLink's primary shareholder? These are oligarchs who are still dodging sanctions, and we would sure like to know why the Government of Canada has not yet imposed sanctions on them. If only the Conservatives had put forward the idea of punishing these oligarchs too. Let me reiterate: The chief of staff for Alexei Navalny gave the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development a list of oligarchs who should be sanctioned, and that was long before the invasion of Ukraine. We had that list. The Government of Canada had that list. When will it impose sanctions on all those oligarchs? Today, the Conservatives actually want us to send more cash their way and help them help Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine. We wholeheartedly agree with parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but how could we possibly support the part (c) the Conservatives have put forward in this motion? Never in a million years would we support that kind of thing because supporting the Conservatives' proposal would hurt Ukraine. If the Conservatives had been the slightest bit reasonable and honest in their desire to help, given the climate crisis as well, they would have said that this proposal will need to be accompanied by energetic measures, no pun intended, to undertake the green transition and significantly reduce the amount of oil and gas in our economy. Once again, they come up with no such proposal. They are simply proposing that we consume even more oil and gas and export it to other countries so they can continue consuming it, which runs completely counter to the idea that we need to start the transition immediately. Allow me to reiterate: The Bloc Québécois is voting against this motion. We take no pleasure in doing so, but we have no choice. My colleague from Repentigny will most certainly provide even more reasons why, from an environmental perspective, the Bloc Québécois cannot subscribe to a motion like this one.

1171 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/3/22 11:22:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague from the Bloc failed to read the part in part (c) that references the need for a transition to non-emitting sources of energy. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to members from all other political parties who seem to think this is somehow about a big oil vendetta. The reality is that the energy security situation in Europe has been funding the war in Ukraine. It is now high time for us to acknowledge the fact that we need to ensure there are ethical sources of energy that do not get into the hands of despots. Would the member acknowledge that this is not simply about oil, but about the ingredients that are required for things like fertilizer? With an upcoming growing season in Ukraine, this would be absolutely essential to ensuring that the people of Ukraine have not only energy security, but long-term food security as well.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/3/22 11:23:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, it does not take a pipeline to send fertilizer to Ukraine. Second, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz himself says that Germany should reduce its dependence on oil and start transitioning to green energy as soon as possible. The Conservatives are offering to sell him more oil. However, that is not what is needed. The Germans themselves are saying this is not the direction they should take. Why would we not heed the advice of our European allies in the context of this crisis and provide them what they need to begin the green transition? Quebec is especially well placed to help in that regard.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/3/22 11:25:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am seeing that the Liberal government is going to vote for the Conservative motion. The mask is coming off. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Conservatives are courting a Liberal to be their leader, given that the Liberals seem to be in exactly the same camp as the Conservatives on the energy issue. I do not know how to respond to my colleague's comments. Even if it were true that the Germans, who want to switch to other types of energy, needed Canadian oil and gas, we would not be able to supply them in a reasonable period of time. By the time we got it done, winter and the war would already be over. We need to stop lying to ourselves, and we need to stop trying to help western Canada's oil and gas industry.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/3/22 11:26:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised the Liberals are coming out to support the Conservatives. They have had 6,800 backroom meetings with big oil, and there have been more oil subsidies under the Liberals than under the Stephen Harper government. I want to ask my hon. colleague a quick question. I have seen the map of Canada. To get a pipeline from Alberta to the Atlantic it has to cross Quebec, which has just cancelled the Saguenay pipeline because it undermines our international Paris obligations. Does the hon. member think the Liberals and the Conservatives are going to force Quebec to put the new pipeline through?

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/3/22 11:26:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam President, that is an excellent question. We saw the Liberal government force B.C.'s government to agree to let a pipeline cross its province. Quebec is fundamentally and irrevocably opposed to a new pipeline going through. I hope that our Liberal colleagues are not suggesting that they are prepared to force a pipeline down Quebeckers' throats.

58 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Mar/3/22 11:37:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all four of my grandparents were born in Ukraine. I have visited three times and sunk my hands into that rich soil. Ukraine feeds much of Europe. I listened to the last two speeches, and a commenter from the previous speech stated that pipelines do not deliver fertilizer. A century ago, our nitrogen sources for crop production came with the warning “store high in transit”. Today's fertilizer is not produced that way. For the farmers in my hon. colleague's province, where does the nitrogen they use come from, and for the farmers in Ukraine who supply Europe, where does the nitrogen come from?

109 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 40