SoVote

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/3/22 4:42:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a serious question for the member regarding my home province of Alberta. We have some of the largest oil reserves in Canada. From this motion, what I am hearing is that they wish to develop these sites and export some of this. However, China has a huge interest in many of the domestic companies here in Canada, particularly in Alberta, some companies with upwards of 50%. We can look back as far 2008 with the Nexen purchase of Canadian oil companies. Does the member support the profits of these companies, largely owned by China?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

Mar/3/22 4:43:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was another very good question. In fact, when I sat on the government's side of the House, I was part of a government that moved to restrict China's ownership of vital Canadian resources. This is an area the current Liberal government failed to act on. We are now seeing rare earth mineral companies being bought out by state-owned enterprises. That should stop. I also believe, though, that if companies operate in this country, we should be able to monitor their activities to ensure they are not working against Canada's national interests as well. I would support moves to do that when it comes to China's ownership.

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

Mar/3/22 4:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague from the Maritimes, it has been brought up whether there was an ask for this type of resource. The Polish ambassador came to me a couple of years ago. What he could not understand was why there was not an LNG place on the east coast close to Poland, as they were building a very large reception centre. He outlined exactly what he thought would happen, which has happened today. He was very concerned. We have had people approach us. The Polish ambassador was in my office very concerned, asking for our natural gas.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson

Mar/3/22 4:45:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was another great question. Sadly, our allies in central and eastern Europe were far more aware of the dangers of Russia than our friends in western Europe, and in fact, even too many in the foreign policy establishment here in Canada, but we can move today. We cannot undo what was done but we can move forward. There is a proposal in Newfoundland and Labrador to take advantage of their natural gas resources, which would be the closest point to Europe and the best partner for Europe to meet some of its needs for natural gas. As well, the large LNG facility in Saint John, New Brunswick, is currently an import facility. There are plans to reverse it so that it will be an export facility. Again, it is closer to Europe than other points on the Atlantic coast. We should move forward as partners with Europe, taking full advantage of our strategic resources to ensure that our allies are strong and protected, and that countries like Russia are not able to threaten them and weaken their positions because they supply resources and places like Canada do not.

191 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/3/22 4:46:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the House this afternoon about the horrific situation unfolding in Ukraine and also about the Conservative motion that seeks further action in response. At the beginning of last week, my family had the pleasure of welcoming another child, Augustine Anthony Genuis, born in safe and approaching ideal circumstances, surrounded by family in a warm and secure place and with the assistance of a medical professional. A couple of days after that, following the vile and illegal invasion of Ukraine, I saw an image posted of a little baby born in a subway in Kyiv, where subways are being used as bomb shelters. It is hard to imagine, after our own experience, what it must be like for a family to have a child born in a subway turned into a bomb shelter. I kept thinking about that juxtaposition, the experience of my child and the experience of this child. The comparison of circumstances powerfully brought home for me the injustice of what is unfolding. There was a baby born in a subway and, yes, there are other images, like a young couple getting married in a bomb shelter and then immediately joining the territorial defence force. Politicians, beauty queens and everyone in between are taking up arms for the defence of their country, and there is a prime minister prepared to stand with his people no matter what the cost. The images demonstrate profound injustice but also inspiring resilience, a will to survive and a will to endure. The Ukrainian people have faced so much injustice in their history, but they have always endured, preserving their faith and their hope: faith and hope in God, in country and in the power within themselves to bend the arc of history toward justice. There is no difference between my child and the child born in a Kyiv subway, except the lottery of birth circumstances. It breaks my heart to think of what that mother and father must have gone through and be going through. In one sense, I will say, that child is also profoundly blessed. The child is blessed to be part of the great Ukrainian nation, a nation that will never die. I stand today with all members of the House in deploring the violence going on and expressing my solidarity with the brave Ukrainian people in their ongoing struggle. As Stephen Harper said, whether it takes five months or 50 years we will keep insisting on the freedom and independence of the Ukrainian nation within secure borders established and agreed to in the Budapest memorandum. What starts with a commitment to solidarity and with prayers must continue to include concrete action. The criminal Putin regime has a long history of seeking conflict and violence in order to counter its own unpopularity at home. This war was not a response to unmet demands or security concerns. Those demands kept shifting and ignored past commitments made by that same regime. This is a personal war of choice by a regime that wishes to distract attention from its own problems. This regime has failed to deliver on promises to improve the Russian economy and has instead used every tool at its disposal to enrich regime-connected elites instead of seeking the kind of broad-based growth that would benefit ordinary Russians. Now it is doing even more damage. This is a cynical and brutal war of choice. The people of Russia have noticed. Large anti-aggression and pro-Ukraine protests happening inside Russia show that Putin's efforts to use a foreign war to rally support for his regime at home are failing. This is encouraging news. I salute the courage of the thousands of Russians who have gone to protest and have already been punished by the regime. Alexei Navalny is calling on Russians “to take to the streets...to fill prisons and paddy wagons with ourselves” and to fight against the war. This is the face of the true Russians. They are people with the same aspirations for peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law as we see in every country where the people are allowed to be heard. The internal opposition to Putin is growing and the world must stand with that opposition by imposing debilitating sanctions, crippling the capacity of the Putin regime and inducing even his former friends and collaborators to side with the opposition. As Ukrainians bravely fight Putin's invasion and as Russians rise up to resist Putin's tyranny at home, we must do all that we can do as well. I love Ukraine, but it must be said as well that this is not just about Ukraine. Ukraine is the front line in a fight that is truly global and that we must win. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have global agendas that seek to overturn hard-won norms of national sovereignty and international rule and instead seek to create a reality in which power is the only law. President Xi is watching what happens in Ukraine to determine possible action against Taiwan, but the agendas of these leaders are not limited to Ukraine, Taiwan, the Baltic states, the South China Sea or the Canadian Arctic. These agendas are global. As Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Let us not make the same mistake today that the appeasers made in the 1930s. We know what these might-makes-right agendas have led to if not confronted. They lead to global war, to the concentration camp and to the Gulag. We either stop this now or we will be forced to stop it later. Inflicting a defeat on Putin today is not just helping the survival of Ukraine; inflicting a defeat on Putin today is necessary for preserving the peace and stability of a world in which power is not the only thing that matters. Ukraine will either be Putin's Afghanistan or Putin's Czechoslovakia, and we must make sure that it is the former. It is great to see the momentum and solidarity in the House right now, but we have seen this in the case of past crises and we have seen how the will to respond can fade over time and as other issues come into the headline. Responding to this attack on Ukraine, on international peace and stability, is going to take time, endurance and sacrifice over the long term. We will need more and tougher sanctions, the expansion of matching programs for humanitarian support to include more organizations, further diplomatic pressure to isolate the Putin regime and support for the right of Ukrainian people to determine their own international alignment through their own elected representatives. One critical area in which Canada can and must play a role is energy policy, and our motion today calls on the government to work to relieve the reliance of our European partners on Russian gas. Europe is heavily reliant on the import of Russian gas, and gas exports feed Putin's war machine. It is time to starve Putin's war machine, and Canada can play an indispensable role by exporting its own natural gas, giving our European friends and allies an alternative. Some members of the House seem to think that we should not be talking about gas exports right now, but focus instead on general expressions of solidarity instead of on pushing practical solutions like this one that weaken the Putin regime. I do not agree with that. I think now must be the time to talk about what we can actually, practically do to help Ukrainians and starve Vladimir Putin's war machine. What is the point, after all, in expressing solidarity if it does not lead us to explore and answer questions about what we can do specifically to stand with Ukraine and weaken the war machine that is attacking Ukrainian people? It must be said that there are some members of the House who are going to be ideologically opposed to certain energy developments in Canada regardless, but I ask all members to look at the particular facts of the situation in front of us and to recognize that increasing Canadian energy exports to Europe is vital for the security of the world. If we are going to win this fight against Vladimir Putin, if we truly recognize the importance of Ukraine, we have to recognize the magnitude of the impact that relieving Europe's dependence on Russian gas would have. As well, I do not believe it is a choice between concern for the environment and concern for security. Some of our European partners right now, as an alternative to being too reliant on Russian gas, are also reliant on coal, and they face this challenging choice between Russian gas and coal. Canadian natural gas is cleaner than coal, and it is better from a security perspective than Russian gas. It is a win-win. The stakes are so high, and I believe we must do all we can to stand with the Ukrainian people and to defend our values.

1533 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 4:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech today and congratulate him on the birth of his second child, safe and healthy. I certainly want to reiterate my support for the people of Ukraine and condemn Putin for his unprovoked attack and war of choice. The member mentioned that we should be doing all that we can to support Ukraine at this time and look to practical solutions that would stop this now. Does the member actually believe that if this motion should pass, it would somehow tip the scales in the short term for the people of Ukraine? Is it not actually a huge distraction from where we should really be putting our energy right now?

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/3/22 4:56:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a small correction, it is my fifth child, but I lose track as well, so it is fine, and I thank the member for her congratulations. What is a motion? This is not legislation. We have limited tools as the opposition. This is an expression of the opinion and the will of the House. Then hopefully it is up to the government to respond to the will of the House. This motion is a tool we have as the opposition, so we are putting it forward. We are asking the House to express itself to the government in recognizing the importance of this issue of standing with Ukraine and confronting this issue of Europe's energy security. Of course, a motion by its nature is non-binding, but let us pass the motion to send a clear message to the government calling for that action, and then hopefully it will lead to further steps afterwards.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Mar/3/22 4:57:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. He gave a very moving, compassionate speech. He spoke at length about Ukraine, what that country is going through, and what Ukrainians are experiencing. I think it touched everyone in the House. However, besides the war in Ukraine, today’s motion also involves natural gas pipelines, which my colleague alluded to at the very end. One thing I totally disagree with in his speech is the anticipated shortage. OPEC is prepared to increase production, so there will be no oil shortage. Of course, there is a risk of a natural gas shortage in Germany and Italy, but that risk is minor. How can Canada become an exporting country when we know that, according to estimates, it would take about 10 years to build the infrastructure that would allow us to export oil and gas to Europe?

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/3/22 4:58:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my view is well known in the House. It is that I do not think it should take 10 years to move these kinds of projects forward. We need a process in this country that allows us to build critical infrastructure more quickly, and we have presented proposals along those lines. I have to disagree with the implication of the member's question that energy security is not a problem. The European Union has said repeatedly that energy security is a problem. Different politicians with different perspectives in Europe would have different proposed solutions, but I think there is an agreement across the political spectrum that energy security is critically important. It is easy to take that security for granted here in Canada, but in places around the world that do not have the same domestic capacity to produce energy resources, it is a huge problem. As for saying that Europe can rely on countries in the Middle East as opposed to Russia, there are multiple potential security challenges. For Canada as a free democracy with high environmental standards to be exporting energy resources to relieve our European friends' dependency on countries that are not democratic is a smart move for global security and is good for the environment.

213 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Mar/3/22 4:59:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also would like to congratulate my friend and colleague on his newborn. I liked a lot of what he had to say when it came to human rights, and his work around human rights is certainly something we need to commend. What I am deeply concerned about, and I will not be as nice as my friend from Fredericton, is that I believe this motion is disingenuous in terms of time and building more pipelines to the war in Ukraine. We are not even a week into this war. The EU and Ukraine have not asked Canada to build more pipelines. They are asking for visa-free travel, for ways to get displaced people into our country. They need arms and they need funds to sustain themselves. I actually find it deplorable that the Conservatives are exploiting this tragedy for a position they had a week before this war. They are going to carry it on for years to come, despite what is happening in Ukraine. That is how we feel about that.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Mar/3/22 5:00:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a week before the war we of course thought pipelines were necessary, and a week before that, because we were right then and we are right now. This is a critical issue of security. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept the implication of the member that we should put out nice words of solidarity but not actually talk about practical solutions. He is free to disagree with our proposals on practical solutions. That is what the House of Commons is for. It is to debate those things. However, now is the time to talk about what we can do concretely to address the energy security challenges that have fed this crisis.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/3/22 5:01:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a Conservative motion today, and I will be speaking as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. The Conservatives are conflating several ideas and issues. They legitimately condemn the invasion of Ukraine and affirm their solidarity, which makes total sense. I have nothing to add in this respect. However, they are also promoting the construction and approval of new natural gas pipelines. The logic seems to be unassailable. If Russia supplies Europe with oil and gas, and if we want to punish Russia, Canada must present itself to Europe as another source of oil and gas. The problem is that the proposal is commercially unrealistic and politically and environmentally irresponsible. The importance of oil and gas to the economy and the geostrategic location of Russia are undeniable. Oil and gas played a role in Russia’s recovery from the severe economic and social crisis that shook the country between 1990 and 1997 as a result of the harsh neoliberal policies put in place at that time. The hike in the price of oil and gas resulted in significant tax revenues for the Russian government given the tax on exports, but it must be said that the economic policies put in place by Moscow at the time went beyond the single issue of oil and gas. In Vladimir Putin’s second term in 2004, state-controlled companies in the energy sector, including Gazprom, Transneft and Rosneft, who are still operating today, took on a key role in the new dynamic. However, the Russian economy does not depend solely on its oil and gas industry. Its economic policies are diversified. We should not assume that this would have a miraculous effect, although cutting supply would undoubtedly have a considerable impact. Canada boasts that it was the first country to ban the importation of Russian oil. That is rather convenient, because it has not imported Russian oil since 2016. That works just fine. Let us get back to the motion. In a motion on Ukraine, the Conservatives are proposing that we encourage the approval and construction of natural gas pipelines. Listening to some of the Liberal members, we cannot be sure how our colleagues across the aisle will vote, but there appears to be agreement at least with the idea behind the motion. Those who are following the parliamentary debates on television, whom we welcome, can see the words “Invasion of Ukraine and naturalgas pipelines” at the bottom of their screen. That is the title they can see at the bottom. It would be hard to find a more fallacious connection. The motion would have absolutely no impact on the conflict in Ukraine. Europe does not have an oil and natural gas supply problem. No country has called Canada for help with oil and gas. In the case of oil, no one has mentioned the possibility of a shortage. The OPEC countries were very clear that they will be increasing production as needed. In the case of natural gas, the Russian banks, through which energies purchases are made, are excluded from the sanctions and can therefore do business as usual. If Europe absolutely has to find other sources of oil and gas, some countries can take action in the short term. That is the case with the United States and Algeria, for example, who have gas pipelines connected to ports that could export to Europe, but that is not the case for Canada. It would take several years before Canada could approve and build its gas pipelines and send a little liquefied natural gas to Europe. Does anyone think that the war in Ukraine will last 15 years? We hope not, of course. The proposal we are debating today consists essentially in selling a dream to Alberta. That is what we would call opportunism. There is worse still. Today, in an article published in La Presse, Paul Journet reported that Russian oligarchs are invested in fossil fuels in western Canada. That means that the motion, if it were to be adopted, would help the Russian oligarchs. It is that simple. Should we not have the same courage as the Europeans and seize their assets? That, however, would involve going against Canada’s worship of oil and gas. In the short term, then, the proposal is insignificant in scope. However, one can defend the idea for the medium and long term. I am not saying that I agree, because I do not. I am saying that it is defensible. That said, if one chooses to defend it, it is on the condition that one stops pretending that there is a link with the war in Ukraine. It is also on the condition that we are all prepared to live with the consequences. What are the consequences? First, there are environmental consequences, because natural gas is a fossil fuel, an energy of the past. I readily admit that we need it today. Does it make more sense to see a future over the medium or long term based on natural gas or do we feel the energy transition will have to be completed in the next 15 years? Personally, like my colleagues, I choose the second option. Second, there are political consequences, because the proposal assumes that Russia will have to be isolated from Europe in the long run. I would hope that, should peace be re-established, the goal would not be to stigmatize, threaten, humiliate and impoverish Russia in the long term. What would happen, if we did that? That would certainly not be in Canada's best interests because if Russia is isolated it will jump right into China's arms. That is the gamble we have been making for years and look at how it has turned out. Russia will, of course, align itself with China. Is that what we truly want? The fundamentally hawkish and aggressive approach the Conservatives have taken in this motion will ultimately serve the interests of China. Although the Conservatives claim to want to isolate these so-called rival powers, they will ultimately ensure that these powers become best friends. Is that the right thing to do? Obviously not. We expected to see Canada use the crisis to promote its fossil fuels. We nevertheless hoped it would be a little more subtle than this. Right now, Canada is about as subtle as a bull in a china shop. Let us think about the transition. Let us come up with a solution that will show some real solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This means that we will have to think outside the box and avoid the echo chambers, because this proposal will get us nowhere.

1124 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 5:09:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his very logical approach to the discussion we are having today. On Monday, we had a midnight debate on supporting Ukraine. What I am hearing in the discussion is that now we are rehashing some of the things we have already agreed with. What we are putting on the table is something we have not discussed, and it would be a longer-term project. Could the hon. member comment on the use of the House in supporting Ukraine, versus going down rabbit holes?

94 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/3/22 5:10:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not realistic to think that hot air balloons filled with natural gas will be departing for Europe tomorrow. I understand that my colleague is asking whether this idea has some potential in the long term. The answer is unfortunately no, because we need to think about transitioning in the long term. Even if it were possible and realistic in the long term, would it be something we would want to do? I do not think so. I think we have moved on.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Mar/3/22 5:10:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in Europe, tens of millions of people do, in fact, rely on natural gas to heat their homes, and Russia is funding its war machine from those exports. I understand the member's point that we cannot build a pipeline overnight, but in his speech I noted that he kind of shrugged off the energy needs of European consumers by saying that OPEC could increase its supply. OPEC countries have their own shameful histories of exporting war and using their resource income to finance wars as well. The European Union has, in fact, very clearly said that it needs partnerships with countries such as Canada to supply its energy. Will the member acknowledge, as natural gas is still an important commodity that is necessary for the world economy, that it ought to come from a democratic country such as Canada? It should not come from OPEC and certainly not from Russia.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/3/22 5:12:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I readily acknowledge that natural gas is important to the economy, even if we will eventually have to move on from it. When we talk about transition, we are not talking about throwing everything overboard from one day to the next. That is not what transition is about. We are doing things intelligently. There are sectors where you do not want to throw anyone out on the street tomorrow. We have to do things in a planned, strategic, and thoughtful way. That is the issue. Now, my colleague acknowledged in his question that the oil and gas pipelines would not be built overnight. Basically, we are talking about something impossible and hypothetical, and I do not even understand why this solution is being mentioned at this time. If the natural gas has to come from countries that my colleague describes as democratic, some countries, such as the United States, are in a much better position to ensure that supply in the short term because they have pipelines that can be connected to ports that allow for the exports.

181 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/3/22 5:13:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is extremely disturbing that the Conservatives have chosen to put forward a motion that is more focused on their political agenda than on the humanitarian crisis that is before us. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is calling for the government to expedite the refugee process and to simplify family reunification and visa-free travel. Should we not be focused on these measures instead of talking about an expansion to pipelines, especially in the face of a climate crisis?

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/3/22 5:13:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we absolutely agree, 150%. That was one of the points we made earlier during question period. That is part of our position. We have to work on that. Also, if there are going to be sanctions against Russia, and there must be sanctions when such an aggression is committed, these sanctions have to be better targeted. I gave the example of Russian oligarchs investing in fossil fuels in western Canada. If we promote fossil fuels in this region, we are serving the interests of the Russian oligarchs. Therefore, we could also have the courage to do what Europe has done and seize those assets as well.

109 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/3/22 5:14:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague has already said, no European leaders have asked us for Canadian gas. Worse still, is this entire debate not becoming one big greenwashing exercise, even though there is no such thing as green oil or green gas? Instead, we should be thinking about a transition, which is what the European leaders are asking of us. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/3/22 5:14:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right.

6 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 40