SoVote

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

Mr. Larry Maguire

Mar/3/22 1:28:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct that this is not just energy. There is a food supply requirement here that is probably not going to be met if the Ukrainian people cannot put the crop in for the breadbasket of Europe this spring. It does take energy, and probably the biggest reason we are in the dilemma today is that over the years we have been a bit short-sighted. There has not been the vision to build these pipelines so that they can do two things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and make sure that our allies are not put in the difficult position of being dependent upon a regime like Putin's that can shut the tap off.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/3/22 1:29:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the start of the conflict, the Conservatives have been calling on the government to impose strong sanctions. In this morning's edition of La Presse, we learned from a respected journalist that Roman Abramovitch controls 28% of Evraz, which is supplying most of the steel to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline. We also learned that another Russian oligarch, Igor Makarov, is the main shareholder in Alberta gas company Spartan Delta. These two individuals are on the United States' list of Vladimir Putin's allies. Canada is not ruling out confiscating their assets, at this time. Does my colleague agree with the Liberals? Should we continue to apply a double standard for these individuals or should we immediately impose sanctions on them?

133 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Maguire

Mar/3/22 1:30:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a similar question to one a colleague asked earlier. The more sanctions we can put on Russia right now and perhaps on Belarus, the better off we are in regard to closing off the flow of dollars going into Ukraine to fund the war effort. The oligarchs, the people who have invested in some of these industries, are not immune to that and need to be sanctioned as well.

73 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/3/22 1:31:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the first and second parts of the motion, but it is the third part that I have a problem with, that oil and gas provision, and the way it seems the Conservative Party is trying to take advantage of this as some sort of deal they can make. Would it not be better if we could talk more about humanitarian assistance? International development assistance is only at 0.31% of our GNI this year because of consecutive government decisions to cut. Does the member agree that Canada should be increasing its funding for international development? In the motion, the Conservatives could have asked for that from the government in the upcoming budget.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Maguire

Mar/3/22 1:32:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will go back to the answer I gave to my first question. It is about the lack of vision and the short-sightedness of the government in power today. It does not have the vision to foresee that some of these things might be needed down the road. However, the best time to plant a tree is today, and the best way to deal with the Putin regime taking over and trying to destroy the country of Ukraine and its people is to sanction it as harshly as we can today. Let us have the vision to put in place the types of donations, support programs, military support—

112 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/3/22 1:33:13 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

8 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

Mar/3/22 1:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this chamber. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore. I come here today as a proud woman who is one-quarter Ukrainian, so it is also an honour for me to be here today speaking not only for the people of Ukraine, but also for my ancestors, who come from this incredible nation that is so challenged at this time. When I arrive to this chamber, it is always after giving a lot of thought beforehand to matters of the day, like the opposition motion today. When I wonder about the situation that we find this resilient nation in, the same question comes to my mind that I ask about many of the world's problems and many of the problems we have seen in our nation recently. That question is, how did it come to this? I will give members some insight into that, according to the research I have done. If we look at an article by Bill Browder in AFP, we will see it says that Russia has “a stagnant economy, the most extreme wealth disparity of any major country, and endemic hopelessness that infects millions of ordinary citizens.” It is not a great place for Putin to begin. A New York Times article says this: Mr. Putin has described the Soviet disintegration as a catastrophe that robbed Russia of its rightful place among the world’s great powers and put it at the mercy of a predatory West. He has spent his 22 years in power rebuilding Russia’s military and reasserting its geopolitical clout. The Russian president calls NATO’s expansion menacing, and the prospect of Ukraine joining it a major threat to his country. As Russia has grown more assertive and stronger militarily, his complaints about NATO have grown more strident. Bill Browder goes on to say: Putin also knows that the West has never really held him accountable for his past actions. Since 2008, he has invaded Georgia, taken Crimea, occupied Eastern Ukraine, bombed hospitals in Syria, shot down a passenger plane, and hacked governments and businesses around the world. The West’s response? A few sanctions, removal from the G-8, and the expulsion of a handful of diplomats. How could this happen? Well, Canada does in fact have a part in this. Let us look to the Speech from the Throne. It states, “This is the moment to fight for a secure, just, and equitable world.” However, what do we see? We see the government's lack of action in Venezuela. There is no clear offer to mediate the conflict. It is ignoring the roles of Russia and China, which are scheming together, potentially, for further action. There was too little aid too late, with Digest Venezuela recently saying that 96% of Venezuelans are living in poverty. In Saudi Arabia, we saw very similar inaction by the government against a dictatorship and a lack of democracy. Twitter was used to speak against the kingdom following the imprisonment of civil society and women's rights activists. We saw the government's aid with an export permit of 1.5 billion dollars' worth of arms, yet it dragged its heels when it came to Ukraine. It never spoke up in December 2008 with the murder of the journalist Khashoggi. Let us go to Hungary now briefly, where Orbán's centralized power weakened the rule of law, academic freedom and freedom of the press. The Prime Minister's government refused to take a tougher stance against Orbán. Again I will say that it did not have to come to this. Leading up to this, Canada should not have ignored its investment in Canada's military. Maintaining our NATO commitment to invest 2% on military spending should have been prioritized, but it never was. The Conservative 2021 platform called for intensifying Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces's military training and capacity-building mission in Ukraine, supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons and reinstating the provision of RADARSAT imagery. My colleague who just spoke, the member for Brandon—Souris, indicated that the government has consistently had a lack of vision, a lack of foresight, in the protection of not only Canada but the rest of the safe western democratic world. This also, of course, is relevant when we speak about energy. Members may have seen the Globe and Mail article by Konrad Yakabuski, who said: Canada missed the boat during an LNG development boom a decade ago. It must not make the same mistake again. Yielding to pressure from environmentalists who oppose LNG export terminals and gas pipelines on the grounds that such developments prolong global dependence on fossil fuels, or prevent Canada from meeting its own greenhouse-gas reduction targets, will only end up strengthening the hand of Mr. Putin and his fellow dictators. Members can see that we are not using this opposition motion to divide Canadians. We are giving Canada an opportunity to help the world and defend the world with the use of our clean, safe natural resources. I wish I could say it ends there, with Canada not having done its due diligence and not having done its work in the world, but it goes beyond that. Did members know that Russia is currently a member of the International Court of Justice? It is the very international body that may try Russia's leader and the nation for the war crimes we are seeing. Russia also sits on the United Nations Economic and Social Council. How can it be that this dictator is determining economic and social policy between nations for the entire world? The current membership of the Human Rights Council includes nations such as Eritrea, Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela. I will talk more about these nations momentarily, but they do not have a standard of excellence historically for supporting human rights. Of course, Russia is currently on the UN Security Council too. That is unbelievable. It is not just Canada that has been derelict in its duty of holding this nation to account. It has stood beside other nations of the world that have let this happen. We saw this most recently with the draft resolution A/ES-11 condemning these actions in Ukraine. It is true that dictators are standing with Putin. It is those of Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria. However, the United Nations, an organization that promotes the safety and well-being of the world, has not done its work here. When it comes to the world and natural resources, I turn to an article by Stephen J. Blank, entitled “The Balkans and Euro-Atlantic Energy Security”, where he states, “Russia’s objectives in helping to foment this crisis are clear. They entail restoring its energy hegemony and political leverage over numerous European countries.” In addition, the European Union recently released a report on this, where it stated, “Energy policy is often used as a foreign policy tool, in particular in major energy producing and transit countries.” The commission said: As part of a revitalised European energy and climate diplomacy, the EU will use all its foreign policy instruments to establish strategic energy partnerships with increasingly important producing and transit countries or regions.... The EU will continue to integrate Norway fully into its internal energy policies. The EU will also develop its partnerships with countries such as the United States and Canada. In conclusion, Canada has failed by allowing this situation to escalate and allowing this invasion to take place, and it has done so alongside the world. The government's idea, or that of anyone in the House from the Bloc, the Green Party or the NDP, that we are putting forward this motion only for our interests is untrue. We are standing today for natural resources, for the safety and security of Canadians and for our rightful place in the world as a leader. We are protecting the safety and security of the world.

1358 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/3/22 1:43:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague's speech, I noticed that the Conservative talking point today is that energy policy is part of foreign policy. I see it another way: Are the Conservatives not using foreign policy to benefit their oil?

42 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Mar/3/22 1:43:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sit here every day that the House is sitting. Every day, I hear the Bloc Québécois ask questions on the environment and against the oil sector. It bothers me a lot that his party has suddenly decided that talking about oil is bad when he uses oil as a political tool every day in the House.

63 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/3/22 1:44:14 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I am shocked with many elements raised in this debate. This motion is like a wolf in a sheep's coat. For the Conservatives to tout energy policy as foreign policy in the face of the humanitarian crisis in the Ukraine is deplorable. I appreciate the need to have long-term strategies; however, we must do so with the same spirit and courage as the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Does the member agree that if we were to ask the President how to assist his beautiful country and his beautiful people that oil and gas expansion measures are the last thing that he would ask for?

108 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Mar/3/22 1:44:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for the question, and I really enjoy having her in the House as the new member for Nunavut, but I disagree with what she is saying. I believe that the President of Ukraine, a free and democratic nation, would absolutely support our opposition motion here today and the idea of building pipelines, methods and ways to get our ethically produced, clean natural resources as a gift to all of the world, including his own nation, so I disagree with the member. I believe President Zelensky would welcome this opposition day motion.

99 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/3/22 1:45:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, despite what the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore may believe President Zelensky wants, it is more likely to be consistent with what the Ukrainian lead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last week. Dr. Svitlana Krakowska said, in effect, that the root causes of the war in Ukraine and the root causes of the climate crisis are the same: dependence on fossil fuels. Ukraine stands against them, and for renewables.

74 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Mar/3/22 1:46:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. What this opposition day stands for and what our party stands for is what these other parties seem to be against, and that is freedom, that is democracy, that is world order, that is the rule of law, and guess what? When we have those things, we get better outcomes for the environment, we get better outcomes for women, and we get better outcomes for minorities. They should learn that.

81 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Mar/3/22 1:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her great words. It is not just that we will do everything that we can to help Ukraine at this time; I think our allies and friends in Europe would also really appreciate something to back up the threat to their gas dependence and oil dependence, which is now jeopardized. Would the member not agree?

65 words

All Topics

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Mar/3/22 1:47:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my incredible colleague for Sarnia—Lambton for that question. The member is right, as I am sure she has also read the report from the EU, which states that eastern Europe needs to move beyond its energy dependence on Russia. My colleague is exactly on track with her line of thinking as well as with the EU.

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Mar/3/22 1:57:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the conversation and discussion. I agree that it needs to be had. However, I do not believe that the issue of energy independence and the issue of our ability to use our natural gas to support other good actors in the world and other democratic nations in Europe are separate. I think this is actually key and critical, because the dependence of Europe on natural gas puts Europe in a difficult position. I think these issues are completely intertwined, but I look forward to a further conversation. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

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

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/3/22 1:58:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are hearing from European Union experts in energy and the German minister of economy and energy that this crisis in Ukraine is drawing them to move faster to renewable energy. They are not talking about fossil fuels, and nobody from Ukraine or the European Union has been heard to say once they need Canadian pipelines or Canadian fossil fuels. What does the member think accounts for this debate today?

72 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 40