44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/3/22 10:29:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, La Presse newspaper published an excellent article by Paul Journet this morning about the Conservatives' obsession with building pipelines and exporting fossil fuels.
He wrote that there are two obstacles standing in Canada's way. First, competing countries are already lined up to supply Germany.
He mentioned Norway in particular and wrote that time is not on Canada's side. It would take a few years to get a liquefaction plant up and running, but the war has prompted the German chancellor to speed up his energy transition.
Paul Journet quoted the German chancellor as saying, “the faster we make progress with the development of renewable energies, the better”. The chancellor then added that his finance minister calls renewable energy “freedom energy”.
Does my colleague not believe that, rather than using—
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 10:53:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberal environment minister recently said, “The solution to global energy problems is not to increase our dependency on fossil fuels”. He continued that the best way to improve the energy security of European countries is to simply reduce dependence on oil and gas “regardless of where it's coming from”.
I am glad to see that the minister recognizes that increasing our dependence on oil and gas is not the way to respond to the climate crisis. However, despite that recognition of the problem, the Liberal government is still giving billions of dollars of subsidies to the oil and gas sector and purchased a pipeline. It is also the only government in the G7 under whose watch pollution has increased.
Will the Liberals listen to their own minister and finally stand up to the oil and gas sector and hasten the transition to a clean energy future?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:39:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague in the sense that the text of this motion could have actually been a bit better, with all due respect to my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills. I think that now is a pivotal time for us as a country to look at the endowments we have, and how we partner with our allies to provide the tools that are needed. This member talked about, for example, the transition to a low-carbon economy. That requires critical minerals. Our allies in Europe rely on 98% of those being imported from China.
Will the member at least recognize, even if she does not agree with the text of the motion and the prospect of pipelines, that the foreign policy context has changed and we need a serious conversation on how Canada fuels, feeds and powers the world?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 12:04:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for his remarks. Natural gas is clearly about defence and security. That is why there has been a raging debate in Europe about Nord Stream 2. It is why Germany just cancelled Nord Stream 2 in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is why Donald Tusk, then prime minister of Poland in 2014, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, asked the European Commission to come forward with a strategic framework to address the fact that Russia is intimidating Europe with the use of natural gas. In that strategic framework, the European Commission said that the European Union should partner with Canada in an energy partnership on natural gas precisely to counter Russia's threats in eastern Europe and in Ukraine.
Natural gas produces the nitrogen that fuels the world's food supply. European farmers today are facing a crisis in skyrocketing fertilizer prices caused by natural gas shortages from Russia. There has been a massive drop in fertilizer in western Europe of 10%, and it could lead to serious crop failure and a drop in crop yields this year. It happened a century and a half ago in 1853-56 in Ukraine, in Crimea, during the Crimean War and led to skyrocketing food prices around the world. This is why energy is important. It is not just about defence and security, but also our food supply.
239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:40:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ukrainians are fighting for their lives in a war financed by Russian energy exports. Dependence on Russian natural gas threatens Europe’s energy security and fuels Putin’s war machine. The world needs Canadian energy to displace conflict oil and gas now and for a peaceful future.
Will the government agree, today, that an east-west energy corridor is vital, not just for the Canadian economy, but also for global energy security and a world where dictators like Putin cannot finance war?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 3:48:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a legitimate question.
What the member from the Green Party ignores is that, often, natural gas is replacing far more carbon-intensive and dirtier fuels such as coal-fired electricity plants. When we talk about using natural gas, what we are actually doing is taking a much higher-polluting source of energy and replacing it with a much lower-polluting source of energy. That, in itself, is a win.
Of course, we dream of the day when we are all powered by solar and, who knows, even cold fusion, but those days are not here. We are living in this reality, and right now natural gas can actually provide the global security that we need. I hope all members will vote for this motion.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
However, he used somewhat of a strong word, “activist”, as if all the people who are currently demanding that action be taken to reduce our carbon footprint were all activists.
The UN Secretary-General said this week that it was important, if not essential, to accelerate the energy transition. Ukrainian and other European leaders are telling us that they do not need the oil, and that we should be moving away from fossil fuels and fighting climate change.
Does my colleague think that all of these people are activists?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
