SoVote

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Mar/3/22 11:37:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all four of my grandparents were born in Ukraine. I have visited three times and sunk my hands into that rich soil. Ukraine feeds much of Europe. I listened to the last two speeches, and a commenter from the previous speech stated that pipelines do not deliver fertilizer. A century ago, our nitrogen sources for crop production came with the warning “store high in transit”. Today's fertilizer is not produced that way. For the farmers in my hon. colleague's province, where does the nitrogen they use come from, and for the farmers in Ukraine who supply Europe, where does the nitrogen come from?

109 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/3/22 11:38:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not understand. I have also been here for over half an hour. Why are the Conservatives, the official opposition, linking food and fertilizer? I will explain why. Because of the current climate crisis, people in many countries are going to die of hunger or will have serious food-related issues. That is the problem. Climate change is also a food security issue for the entire global population. It is also a health issue for the entire global population. That means thousands of people around the world. Tens of thousands of people are dying in Canada because of climate change. Can we try to look to the future, rather than always relying on an industry of the past?

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/3/22 11:40:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I do not know, but I get the impression that there is some confusion. Earlier it was about food and pipelines. Now it is about nickel and oil, and there is talk of sharing our wealth. In a past life, I was a teacher. When I had a student in my class who had problems learning, I did not tell him that I would teach him extra math lessons. I had to start by figuring out what the problem was. If his problem was with French and I offered him lessons in math, that did not work. We have to begin by looking at what is being asked of us, what the people want and what they need, instead of offering them something just because we have it. We have to begin by looking at what the people need.

148 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:41:21 a.m.
Watch

I would like to note that the member has one minute to answer. The hon. member for Repentigny.

18 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/3/22 11:41:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, I am honoured to rise and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. At this moment, when our world is confronted by horrific violence and naked aggression, the footage of children hiding out in bomb shelters has shocked the world. It has shocked all of us and made us understand the importance of standing as a democracy and standing for freedom. As New Democrats, we believe that we stand together in the House for the principle of the right for people to make their own decisions, and when our neighbours are in crisis we reach out and help them. The New Democrats and I certainly support the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine. Yes, the Parliament of Canada stands solidly with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills tells us that what we should do with this is undertake measures to ensure that new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built out to Atlantic tidewater. I am actually appalled by the cynicism, and the exploitation of a humanitarian disaster to promote, once again, the interests of the oil sector. I know there are many on the Conservative backbench who would take that position without even blinking, but I have always had great respect for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Such a stunt should not be played at this time in our history. This motion could have talked about the need to deal with Russian disinformation and the need for a strong position by our Parliament. We would have supported that. We could have talked about the need to help with visas and the refugee crisis that is clogging the Polish border. All of us could have stood together as a Parliament and supported that. We could have talked about the growing food crisis that we are facing. Ukraine is one of the world's bread baskets. We could have talked about the crisis of that war and what it means for global food supplies, but the Conservatives are not interested in that. The Conservatives' fundamental view of the world has always been to take as much public money as possible and blow it on oil and gas. Even though oil and gas is making enormous profits, the Conservatives want the public to pay for it. Now they have decided that a humanitarian crisis is another good reason for them to shamelessly promote something like this. I am actually embarrassed that, as the world is looking for solidarity and a vison of democracy, freedom and rights, we are here having to play games promoting the interests of oil and gas once again in a petrostate such as Canada. As the Ukrainian crisis comes to us, I think ironically of two other important points that have happened this past week. One is an IPCC report that says the window for saving this planet is growing very short. The UN talks about the creation of an “atlas of human suffering”. I have never, ever actually heard Conservatives talk about the climate crisis. They talk vaguely about it. I was listening to the CBC as I was driving to Ottawa the other day. The story was about baby boomers. They were interviewing a couple of boomers who were saying, “We set out that we were going to spend the inheritance of our children and we ran out of money”. That is what we are doing here once again. Our generation is standing here, selling off the future of our children in order to make extra profits: not just profits, but extra profits for oil and gas. I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party, if they keep talking about international standards and international law, to note that Canada has failed in every international commitment we have made in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, and we are spending our children's inheritance right now. The third element that I think is important is, of course, that we found out that we are now on the hook for $21 billion of taxpayers' money for the TMX pipeline, and that we are going to spend enormous amounts of taxpayers' money promoting the export of bitumen overseas as a Canadian public policy, which is going to be covered by the taxpayers. We are going to get into some of these pipe dreams of the Conservatives. It is a pipe dream ideology that betrays workers and is fundamentally unsound economically because it is based on the massive use of taxpayers' money again and again. It is, of course, undermining the very future of our planet, earth. I was thinking of buying myself a map of Canada that I could give to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, because if we look at the map of Canada, we see that to get a pipeline from Alberta to the Atlantic we have to cross Quebec. I am not from Quebec, but Mr. Legault is kind of a conservator. He shut down the Saguenay LNG pipeline. Why was that? He shut it down because it would undermine Canada's international obligations to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. This was a $9-billion project that would have certainly benefited many jobs in Quebec, but he made the decision that he was not going to invest here. Of course, the Conservatives do not want us to know about the fact that they could not even get a pipeline built to tidewater, because to do it we would have to get across Quebec and Quebec is saying no, as it has obligations. They are talking about how this is somehow all about helping, that it is a humanitarian project that is helping the planet. Those are falsehoods. It is also a falsehood economically, because right now in north American there are at least a dozen LNG projects that are going nowhere and have gone—

1011 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:48:21 a.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

16 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/3/22 11:48:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am still new here, but I believe chapter 13 states that we are expected to show respect for one another and differing viewpoints. What I have been hearing repetitively from the member opposite is absolute disrespect, whether it be to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills—

51 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:48:51 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member's comments are debate and not particular to a point of order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

23 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/3/22 11:49:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised. Whenever the Conservatives get challenged on misdeeds and misrepresentations, they are more touchy than a European football player who falls on the ground and pretends their knee has been hurt. This is abusive. Here we go again.

43 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:49:19 a.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

16 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Mar/3/22 11:49:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members are expected to show respect for one another, and what we just heard was absolute disrespect and is going to create disorder in this chamber.

28 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:49:36 a.m.
Watch

Members can challenge the parties. I would ask the hon. member to maybe be a little more judicious in his response. I did not find the hon. member was showing disrespect to a particular member. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

43 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/3/22 11:49:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will take this moment to apologize to any European soccer player who has never played the game and never shown a great propensity to lie on the ground and howl. I apologize to them greatly. We are dealing with something serious here. We are dealing with a party that is using a humanitarian disaster to exploit falsehoods. I will call that out and I will not be silent, because they are trying to fake out Canadians that there is somehow an economic argument. Let us throw mindless amounts of money that will somehow get to Ukraine and make some money. If members want another example, it is like coming upon a horrific car accident, and as we are trying to pull people out of the car accident, someone is climbing over them and saying, “Hey. I'm from Abe's Honest Used Car Service. Let me sell you a car.” This is not what we do in the middle of a humanitarian disaster, because right now, as I said, 12 major LNG projects are not going ahead. Things are not further ahead, but the Conservatives want to build a pipeline of 2,000 kilometres. In Europe right now, stocks in clean energy have taken off. Why have they taken off? It is because Europe knows that its future is in clean energy. Let us talk about Conservative mathematics, and certainly Liberal mathematics too, because the Liberals are now on the hook. They bought a pipeline because Kinder Morgan knew it did not have the financial capacity to build a $5.4-billion pipeline. It went to the Conservative government in Alberta in 2014 and asked it to backstop the TMX pipeline. Alberta said no since the money was not there and the economic case was not there. The Conservatives and big oil accused the Liberals of hating the oil sector, so the Prime Minister signed up and hooked us into a pipeline that is now at $21 billion. Here is the thing. We paid Kinder Morgan for selling us a leaky pipeline and it used taxpayer money to give the CEO bonuses for hoodwinking us. Here is the other thing that is important to know in the scam that we are dealing with in continually giving money to big oil. The cost overruns are locked in at $7 billion. Those are all the extra overruns in the pipeline. For the tolls that run the oil through the pipe, all the extra costs are being paid for by the taxpayer. Not only are we paying $21 billion, but every barrel of bitumen that goes overseas from here on in will be paid for by the taxpayer. That is a pretty good deal for big oil and, again, it is being paid for by the taxpayer. However, that is perfectly normal mathematics in the world of the Conservatives, who think that this is how money should be spent. Why is TMX so fundamentally important to the ideology of the Conservatives and the Liberals? It is because they were never focused on supplying Canada's energy needs. They were not interested in that. They stand and rant about how Saudi Arabian oil, Venezuelan oil and Nigerian oil are coming down the St. Lawrence, but it is not true. Quebec refineries are not using that. This is about export. Why is export so important? It is because none of the emissions of burned bitumen count as part of Canada's total. Right now, our emissions total from exports is more than all the emissions in Canada combined. Talk about the burning the planet. We are looking at an increase of 1.2 million barrels a year thanks to TMX and thanks to the money that is being invested by the government. I will refer to a recent article in Forbes Magazine from January 28, 2022. It says that big oil is using the big tobacco playbook because they realize they have lost the argument in Canada on the energy crisis. People don't believe them anymore. What they have done is turned to export. They are looking to create markets in the global south. They are looking to China, where there are lower standards. That is the economic model and none of those burned barrels of bitumen in places like China or in markets in India will ever be counted in the global total. That is how we burn the planet while getting to net zero. The Conservatives have tried to tell us that this pipeline is some kind of humanitarian grain mission. We do not deal with food in pipelines. I know the Conservatives would love to add it in the mix, but it is not there. However, they keep talking about how this is a clean fuel. The problem is that Canada has failed on this time and time again. I will refer members to the problem with methane. The Prime Minister made a promise of cutting 45% by 2025. We never got there. Now he is saying we are going to get to 75% by 2030. I mention methane because if we cut methane emissions on natural gas, then we can say this is a transition fuel. However, methane is a planet killer. Everybody knows this, but we have not seen the industry take any steps to deal with methane. We can do this. I talk to people in the industry. We can get to zero on methane, yet this planet killer is leaking out of abandoned wells, leaking out of pipelines and leaking out of refineries. What do they do? Of course, they go to the government and say, “Help us.” The Liberal government has held 6,800 backroom meetings with the oil lobby since the Liberal government came in. The Conservatives say the Liberal government is against big oil, but it is just a myth. We have had $121 billion in oil subsidies. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has come forward and said it wants $75 billion in carbon capture. We are paying $21 billion for TMX. We are on the hook for $1 billion for abandoned wells. Then big oil came forward asking to be given money to deal with methane, and the government gave them $132 million to clean up methane. Now here is the thing. What were the goals of the methane reduction program? Number one was to attract investment. Number two was to increase competitiveness. Well, that is not saving the planet. Then down at number three was finding some equipment to help reduce methane emissions. Why does this matter? It is because the environment commissioner has said that Canada, which used to be a world leader, is now at the back of the G7. This methane reduction program was not used to deal with the planet killer. It was used as a subsidy to big oil and it allowed them to increase production. What the environment commissioner also found was that they are not even tracking any of the background emissions. They do not even know how bad methane is. They have not bothered, yet we are writing cheques for $134 million and we do not even know how it is spent. Meanwhile, the planet is burning. The Conservatives have a whole series of myths they try to perpetuate about how hard done by the west is on this and how hard done by oil and gas is. This is a group that is belligerently fighting for billions in taxpayer subsidies to support the typewriter when the rest of the world is moving to the cellphone. I want to point out one of the myths I have been hearing. It is that rules on environmental standards in Canada are somehow scaring off investments. That is simply not true. I refer members to a Wall Street Journal headline that says financial giants are quitting what they call “one of the world's dirtiest oil patches”. That is something they also do not want us to know. Canada's—

1344 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:58:34 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

14 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Mar/3/22 11:58:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the member and he is doing his best as a member of the fourth party to hold the opposition to account. However, he has five minutes left. Could he maybe return to the motion and debate the motion? It has been probably six or seven minutes since we had any discussion that has anything to do with the motion.

66 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 11:58:57 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member and all members know that there is some latitude during debate. The motion does speak about energy, so the hon. member's speech is relevant. However, I do want to remind the member, if it goes to the wayside a bit, to please come back to the motion at hand. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

61 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/3/22 11:59:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that if the truth hurts, too bad, so sad, because the Conservatives have taken the crisis in Ukraine, the humanitarian suffering, the deaths, the murder of innocent people, turned it around and said this is a great opportunity for them to take billions in taxpayers' money to promote the interests of oil and gas. If they do not like the mathematics of how bad that is, then they should not be in the chamber. Too bad, so sad, because this is their motion. We could have been debating anything of substance. Instead, we are debating Conservative mythologies. As I was saying, over the last few years, 60 financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank, HSBC Holdings plc, Hartford Financial, the Japan Petroleum Exploration, have all pulled out of Canada. Why? It is because of the lack of a plan to deal with the climate crisis. Not only are the Conservatives misrepresenting the facts in terms of the horrific humanitarian crisis, but they are misrepresenting the facts to workers because the transition is here. We see the potential. Calgary Economic Development and Edmonton Global are saying that if we start to invest now in clean energy, we are looking at an additional $61 billion for the provincial Alberta economy. If they continue with business as usual, there will be only $4 billion. Year in, year out, we see drops in employment in the oil sector and that is not because people are being mean to them. It is because industry is cutting jobs and making more profits. That is the thing. That leads me back to the Forbes comparison. Forbes says that having lost the debate in Canada on the climate crisis, oil and gas have shifted, like big tobacco, to the global south, where the number one plan is to make some claims about greenwashing, shift massive exports to the global south where it does not count and then only invest enough in clean tech so it looks like they are doing something. Meanwhile, the market has moved beyond, and it has moved beyond in a substantial way. What we have been given, time and time again, by the Conservative Party is a fake, failed mythology when, year in, year out, jobs in the oil patch have gone down and the opportunity for a clean-tech economy is staring us in the face. There is a huge potential, but if we do not meet that, then we are consigning our children to no future. To get back to the motion at hand in a very clear way, I have seen a lot of ways the Conservatives and the Liberals will bend over backwards to give taxpayers' money to big oil, to excuse all manner of abuses of accountability and to go along with all manner of fake claims about dealing with the crisis, but emissions have continued to rise, year in, year out. We are talking about the future of our planet, but we are talking about it now, within the context of a global crisis, a humanitarian crisis where people are dying. They expect more from us than this gaudy attempt to claim that our best response to Ukraine is to spend billions of dollars on an unproven, unplanned, unidentified pipeline, when the Europeans are already moving toward clean energy alternatives. This is exploitative and crass. I have enormous respect for my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, so I will offer an amendment in order for us to come together and show a higher standard. I move that the motion be amended in paragraph (c) by deleting all the words after “Government of Canada to” and substituting the following, “greatly increase humanitarian aid for Ukraine and for countries bordering Ukraine that have already accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees and provide targeted supports to ethnic minorities who have faced discrimination in their attempt to flee Putin's war in Ukraine.”

662 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 40