44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 24, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Mr. Brad Vis: It's Canada's number one riding.
Mr. Gerald Soroka: I think it is number two.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, a piece of legislation that would formalize the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This agreement offers the chance for us to look back on the opportunities that Canada had on the world stage and some of the context as to where we are now with Ukrainian trade and, more generally, European trade as whole.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe found itself in a tough spot. Almost overnight, countries had to look for new sources of energy, oil and gas. They needed to act fast. Canada was in a prime position to fill that void, to be the reliable country that Europe needed in that critical moment, but what happened? We dropped the ball. We did not seize the opportunity. Germany, for example, one of the most advanced nations on earth, had to scramble to keep houses warm in the winter when Russian natural gas was no longer an option.
In an era when we talk day and night about green energy and reducing emissions, Germany had no choice but to look toward other sources of energy to power the country. Why were we not prepared? We tied our own hands with endless red tape, long wait times and bureaucratic hurdles. Our energy industry, once a global leader, has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, unable to act when the world needed it the most.
We did not just fail Ukraine or Europe; we failed ourselves. We missed a golden opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on the world stage, to help Ukraine in a tangible way and to quickly divert European reliance on Russia. This is not just about missed business opportunities. It is about missing the chance to do good when it was needed the most.
There is a narrative we need to correct. The idea that all oil and gas is created equal and that it all has the same environmental footprint is simply not true. Canadian liquid natural gas, known as LNG, is among the cleanest in the world. If Europe were to replace its current oil and gas imports with Canadian products, there is a good chance we would be replacing imports from countries that have lower environmental standards. Our oil and gas sector has invested heavily in technology to minimize environmental impact.
It is not just about economics; it is also about responsible energy production. Using Canadian LNG would offer European countries a cleaner alternative to what they are strongly sourcing. This is an important aspect when looking at trade with other countries. We need to make sure we are creating access to our reliable and clean energy for Ukraine and other European nations.
It is a win-win situation, one that would benefit both our economy and the global environment. When we talk about missing opportunities, we are not just talking about financial gains. We are talking about missing an opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on global carbon emissions, something the NDP-Liberal government should care deeply about. Instead, Canada missed out on this opportunity. We could not help Ukraine with energy reliance, and we could not help the rest of Europe either.
There is another layer to this as well, an ethical one. If we do not step up, Europe has no choice but to buy oil and gas from dictatorships that do not share our values, places where human rights and environmental concerns take a back seat. We have a moral duty to offer a better alternative, and Canadian LNG is that alternative.
Ethics matter. Where we get our energy is not just a question of economics or even of environmental protection. It is a question of values. When Europe buys energy from autocratic regimes, what message does that send? What sort of behaviour does it endorse? These regimes do not think twice about suppressing their own people or destabilizing their regions.
We saw this immediately after the onset of the war in Ukraine. However, this is not an isolated situation. There are several exporting countries that fall under this umbrella of unethical or autocratic governance.
Canada stands as a beacon of democracy and human rights on the world stage. When people buy Canadian, they are not just buying a product. They are buying into a set of values, values that respect human dignity, prioritize environmental sustainability and advocate for peace. Imagine if Europe could shift its dependency from other oppressive regimes to a country that shares its core principles. It would not only send a powerful message to the world but would have a direct, positive impact on our allies such as Ukraine. By strengthening our energy infrastructure and expanding our LNG capabilities, we can offer that alternative, an alternative that aligns with the values we hold dear in both Canada and democratic societies around the world.
Last year, the leader of the official opposition hit the nail on the head when he spoke about Canada's missed opportunities in the energy sector. While Europe, including Ukraine, was scrambling for alternatives to Russian gas, we sat on the sidelines. Why? It is because we lacked the necessary infrastructure and political will. Our inability to provide Europe with a viable alternative made it turn back to less than ideal options.
The leader of the official opposition was absolutely right. We had a shot at not just benefiting our economy but also elevating our role on the global stage. We could have been the solution that Europe, including Ukraine, was desperately searching for. What stopped us was red tape and a lack of foresight from the Liberal government.
This is not just about energy. It is about seizing strategic opportunities when they present themselves. As we discuss Bill C-57, I urge all of us to reflect on the broader implications of our international trade policies. We are always looking at the possibilities of strengthening our free trade around the world. However, we must also address missed opportunities that have significant global impacts.
This bill will likely bring up the topic of energy as it develops, a sector where Canada has failed to take the lead at crucial moments. The leader of the official opposition was clear last year about the shortcomings of the Liberal government. We need to move beyond the endless paperwork and bureaucracy that stall progress. I cannot help but stress that Canada had a chance to supply Ukraine and Europe as a whole with our natural gas, which is a cleaner, ethical option compared to what they are getting now. Instead, European countries, including Germany and Ukraine, were forced back to less desirable options because we did not have the infrastructure to support their need.
As we consider Bill C-57, let us not just look at words on the paper. Let us think about what those words mean in the context of Canada's role on the world stage. Are we simply going to be participants or will we be leaders?
As we look to possibly expand our trade with Ukraine, let us also make sure we are positioned to make the most of similar opportunities in the future. It is not just about economics. It is about taking a stand for cleaner and ethical trade that benefits us today and sets us on the right path for future generations.
I look forward to questions.
1273 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not really certain what kind of question there was in the member's long statement, but I know he is saying he wants the bill to pass before Christmas.
With any trade agreement we need to make sure that everything is proper for both countries. We do not want to see one country taking advantage of another, and right now Ukraine is going through a war situation. The whole purpose of this free trade agreement is to make sure that it aligns not only with Canadian values but also Ukrainian values, and make sure that it is also economically viable for each country. As well, there are morals and values that should be placed forward in this free trade agreement.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that everyone tries to fearmonger a lot and talk about the issues they are having. What I am talking about is replacing liquid natural gas with either coal or other types of energy that are very reliable.
I love how people talk about going to wind and solar. Every time we seem to save one tonne of carbon in Canada, we go to solar energy that is produced mainly in China, which uses coal electricity. It produces two or three tonnes more than what we take out, and we are saying how green this is. If we are talking about the climate crisis around the world, why are we not limiting the amount of emissions that are coming out of China? Why is our first choice always to go to China in order to get things built? This is why I propose we go with natural gas in countries such as those in Europe to offset all the carbon emissions that China is producing in this world.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member misunderstands that we are actually talking about the free trade agreement with Ukraine. I am really not certain why he keeps bringing up China and talking about how it was a free trade agreement that Harper signed. It was never a free trade agreement. He is well aware of that, yet he continues to push that aspect. After 10 years of being in operation, there have not been any trade issues related to that.
I think the member needs to focus on Ukraine as opposed to China.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
