44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/3/22 10:42:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for defending the Conservative motion that the Bloc Québécois does not support because it does nothing to respond to the crisis in Ukraine. That is something we need to keep in mind.
Neither Europe nor Ukraine has asked for oil or gas from Canada, namely Alberta. In the short term—because we all hope this crisis will be short-lived—there are many countries that are infinitely better placed than Canada to supply gas, countries that already have pipelines and access to ports to export to Europe.
The only way the Conservative motion would produce results is in the long term, if Russia was permanently isolated, which would push Russia into China's camp.
Is that what we want? No.
Does my colleague understand that this war would have to last 15 years before this solution could be implemented?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:40:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech.
We see that the Conservatives are pretty disconnected from reality here in Canada, as well as internationally.
Does my colleague think that what we are seeing in the motion is a case where they are putting their friends' profits, including those who work in the oil industry, ahead of the humanitarian needs of people who are currently suffering in Ukraine?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:41:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one minute is not a lot.
I can say that no one, except for the Conservative Party, believes that the solution to Europe's dependence on Russian oil would be to increase its dependence on Albertan oil.
Here is some food for thought: Is this about doing something for Ukrainians or for Albertans?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 12:15:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we need to rise up to a higher level here, because we are being watched around the world, and this motion brings us to a much lower, much more cynical, exploitive level.
I urge all my colleagues to vote against it. We need to move forward on something that shows that, as a Parliament, we will stand up for freedom for the people of Ukraine and not just for the pecuniary interests of the oil lobby.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 1:15:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we know, things move quickly in politics, and that can cause confusion.
A former Liberal leader wants to run in the Conservative leadership race. Now, we have learned that, according to the Liberals and the member for Winnipeg North, the Conservative motion is no good because it seeks to build a pipeline to export natural gas to Europe.
Can my colleague from Winnipeg North explain to me why it is a bad idea to build a pipeline to export natural gas to Europe, but it is a good idea to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to export oil abroad?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given the brutal invasion of Ukraine, European countries have very much made clear their decision to end dependence on Russian oil and gas. European countries have made it clear, including during this week's International Energy Agency ministerial meeting, of the pressing need for Europe to accelerate the transition to renewables and hydrogen.
We are conferring and working closely with our allies on short- and long-term options for stabilizing and ensuring access to a long-term energy supply. I am engaged directly with our American and European counterparts, and we are steadfast in our support for Ukraine and our European allies.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 2:40:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we, and certainly European countries, would agree that the dependence on Russian oil and gas is a significant problem for Europe that it must move to address. European ministers have made that commitment, including at the International Energy Agency ministerial meeting I participated in earlier this week.
We are working very actively with our European colleagues and with our American colleagues to ensure we are working to help address both short and long-term energy supply issues in the context that Europe and Canada have committed to do, which is in the context of fighting both the crisis in Europe and the crisis of climate change.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 3:44:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just in the title of the motion alone there is a rather odd combination of things. There is something not quite right about the idea of conflating western Canadian oil with the war in Ukraine.
I will take this opportunity to ask a question that may not be very good either. You are six months away from a convention to elect a new Conservative Party leader. Do you not believe that this kind of topic will cause even more division among Conservatives?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:11:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Russia produces 10.4 million barrels of blood oil a day. Canada produces 4.6 million barrels of low-carbon, ethically produced oil a day. Since 2015, the government has been brainwashing the citizens of this country, trying to tell us that oil is a thing of the past. My province of Newfoundland and Labrador has an estimated 50 billion barrels of oil in reserve.
Could my hon. colleague across the aisle please tell us why we should leave that in the ground and let non-ethical oil be produced in the world?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said, there is an immediate energy need in Europe, and 31 countries are coming together to release strategic oil reserves to help the European Union get through this difficult period. Oil is part of the energy mix. It is central to the functioning of economies, but we are in a transition and the motion talks about a time far away from today. The energy mix is bound to change.
In terms of individual projects, they are subject to environmental assessments and a whole process of decision-making. I cannot really comment on the particular reserves that the member is referring to.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:13:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we hope and expect that this war will not last forever.
Since the gas pipeline that could be built to help Ukraine will never be finished or operational in time to actually do any good, does the hon. member agree with me that the project would not only be useless, but could even cause harm?
A number of Russian oligarchs have interests in Canadian oil companies and in some of the companies that produce materials that could be used to build the gas pipeline.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:27:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will take several years to build gas and oil pipelines to Europe. Also, in any case, oil and gas are energies of the past. Hydroelectricity, solar power, wind power and other clean energies are the future.
Can we not agree that, if we really want to help people in Ukraine and our European friends, we should send them energies of the future and not the old stuff, which is already not working and will work even less in four, five or ten years?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
