SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 5:15:03 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 5:16:43 p.m.
Watch

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

46 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/3/22 5:16:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 5:16:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall Ottawa March 3, 2022 Madam Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 3rd day of March, 2022, at 3:43 p.m. Yours sincerely, Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor, Ian McCowan The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

110 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 5:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

29 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Bittle

Mar/3/22 5:19:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to attempt time travel. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

29 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 40