SoVote

Mar/3/22 3:17:55 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for her suggestion and we will see how we can deal with that.

18 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Mar/3/22 3:18:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Agnes Macphail, I note that this is an absolutely wondrous place to be part of and to sit in. It is our symbol of democracy. I, for one, feel just as emotional every time I step into this place as she did. We are heading back to our constituencies for a couple of weeks to do the work that our constituents expect of us. We will be coming back on March 21. It is my honour to ask the government House leader what business we can expect at that time.

96 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 3:18:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope all members have a productive two weeks working in their constituencies and being with their families over the March break period. This afternoon, we are going to continue with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we begin the report stage of Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update. On the week we return, March 21, 22 and 24 shall all be allotted days.

78 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 3:19:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to follow the recognition of Agnes Macphail, a proud person who came from East York. We have a park named after her in my community. As a woman, I am glad that she helped pave the way for people like me to be here to speak. I would like to begin by clearly stating that our government, the whole of this Parliament and I condemn President Putin's invasion of Ukraine. All of us in this place stand with Ukraine, and we have stated that clearly and over and over again. It is a great moment of unity in this place. I must say, we can speak a lot about divisions and what divides us, but on this point we have been absolutely united. However, at a time when there is much talk about healing divisions, I am concerned that we are mixing, within this motion, issues upon which we have unanimously agreed with a very important debate that we should and can have on energy projects. It is unfortunate. Just days ago, we unanimously passed a motion brought by the member for Etobicoke Centre that condemned the unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine that was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that stated we stand unwavering and united in our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. That motion has been passed already by everyone, unanimously, in this place, so I would like to take a moment to highlight our unity in this place. While we can often disagree vehemently on many issues, on this one we are agreed. I respect the member opposite who brought forward today's motion, and I hope he will agree with me that we should amplify this unity and that we very much all stand together. We may debate issues of energy security and energy policy, but this does not mean that we are not united in principle. I would like to make sure that, as we come to the end of this debate today, it is something we amplify. Let us take a moment to talk about Russian oil and gas, and energy security. First, we have not imported Russian crude since 2019, and we are now imposing a ban on the importation of Russian oil and gas products going forward. This will not impact Canada's energy security based on our low imports. How about Europe's energy security? Today, the International Energy Agency released a 10-point plan to reduce the European Union's reliance on Russian natural gas, and it was an interesting read. The suggestions include replacing natural gas supplies from inside the EU and nearby non-Russian imports; accelerating the deployment of new wind and solar projects; maximizing generation from existing, dispatchable, low-emission sources such as bioenergy and nuclear; speeding up the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps; and accelerating energy efficiency improvements in buildings and industry, among other suggestions. I think it is important that we keep this plan in mind as we discuss the things we are debating today on energy projects. The motion that has been put forward by the member opposite calls for natural gas projects to be approved in Canada to meet Europe's energy security needs. Europe's energy needs are immediate and it takes time to build a natural gas project. Even assuming there was a project that today was fully financed and had full regulatory approval, it would need to be built, and that requires time. It is just a practical fact, and time is important to consider. Our only LNG facility at an advanced development stage is not scheduled to start shipping to markets until 2025. As we are talking about immediate needs, let us talk about all the ways that we can support Europe at this time. Since it is part of the debate question, let us quickly review how projects are approved under the Impact Assessment Act. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is responsible for coordinating Crown consultations with indigenous people for all federally designated projects. Those projects are listed in regulations commonly referred to as the “project list”. Project assessments look at a proposed project's broader impacts, both positive and negative, including environmental, economic, social and health, for the benefit of Canadians. The process is timely and efficient and is coordinated with the provinces and territories to reduce red tape and duplication. Our goal is one project, one assessment. The process is predictable, effectively engages stakeholders, and identifies potential issues with project proposals early on. We consult all potentially affected indigenous communities in reviewing major resource projects, and that is key to fostering sustainability, ensuring thorough and credible assessments and providing regulatory certainty for project proponents. In the case of impact assessments of major energy projects, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada leads an integrated assessment and works collaboratively with life cycle regulators like the Canada Energy Regulator to draw upon their expertise and ensure that safety and other key regulatory factors are considered as part of a single integrated review. The agency also leads a dialogue with stakeholders and other co-operating jurisdictions to ensure an efficient and coordinated process that considers the views of Canadians. The single integrated assessment for designated projects is conducted through a panel review process and fulfills the legislative requirements of all relevant acts. Life cycle regulators participate in engagement and Crown consultation in all stages of the regulatory processes to encourage relationship building and seamless transition as the life cycle regulator carries out responsibilities to monitor project compliance with conditions throughout the project life cycle. This approach guarantees that every project review follows a consistent and neutral process, while retaining the specialized expertise of Canada's regulators. Project reviews are done on an ad hoc basis. The default deadline for reviews of major energy projects such as pipelines is 300 days with the option of setting a deadline of up to 600 days, if necessary. Decision-making under the Impact Assessment Act is based on the public interest. It is a decision that will account for all of the positive and negative impacts of a project. The act also requires that the minister publish the reasons for the public interest decision and demonstrate how the impact assessment report and the additional factors that must be taken into account were considered. This significant step provides information to Canadians about how project decisions are made. The act also requires the minister issue a decision statement that includes conditions with which the proponent must comply. These conditions include measures to mitigate a project's effects and follow up on environmental assessment predictions. Our government strongly believes that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. We know that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment and that effective and credible assessment processes support investment in resource development in Canada and maintain our economic competitiveness. Our government is committed to a robust federal assessment process that is based on science and indigenous knowledge, protects our rich natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous peoples and supports our natural resources sector. The impact assessment process is designed to do just that. As I reach the end of my speech in this debate, I believe combining the issue of support for Ukraine with the question of energy policy is inappropriate for today. We have, as a whole and undivided in this place, stated our support for Ukraine. Similarly, as a whole we have condemned the actions of President Putin in invading Ukraine. We are united in our support and condemnation. We need a more thoughtful review and discussion about our approach to energy security around the world. Let us do that.

1291 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 3:29:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

40 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Mar/3/22 3:29:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me ask my colleague a question that is predicated upon 12 years of projects that were advancing on the west coast of Canada that one by one fell off the table once her government came to power seven years ago. They did so because of a regulatory environment that was punitive to building energy projects in Canada. As a result, they built energy projects in Russia. Can she take some accountability that maybe now is the time to start building energy projects in Canada, not five years from now?

92 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 3:30:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not actually fundamentally agree with the proposition as it was stated by the member opposite. We are working with indigenous communities, industry, workers and people across Canada to make sure that we are engaged in responsible natural resource development that takes into account creating good jobs right across our economy and at the same time protecting the environment. These are important things, and Canadians want to see us taking both into account.

76 words

All Topics

Hon. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.)

Mar/3/22 3:31:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2014, I had the distinct privilege of conducting a pre-election assessment for the entire country of Ukraine for the National Democratic Institute in Washington, D.C. I was part of a delegation of five or six members. At that time, it was clear to us that Ukraine was struggling to become the modern democracy that it has since become. Unfortunately, I think a choice was made by the official opposition to conflate and to confound two extremely important subjects. One is the state of play in Ukraine and the other is the legitimate question about exports of fossil fuels to that region. That has divided this House in a very unfortunate way. Could the member maybe address why it is so important for us to keep the tone of this debate, to keep these subjects separate and apart, as important as each of them is, given the tragedy that is unfolding today in Ukraine?

158 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Mar/3/22 3:32:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that question takes us to the point where I tried to leave off when I was speaking, which is that there is a very real debate that we can have in this place in a conversation about energy security, energy development and natural resources. These are important issues that face our country and face all of us. At the same time, there are certain points that we need to amplify to everybody back home in our communities. We need to amplify areas where there is unity, because we can agree and we can be reasonable in the work we are doing in this place and show our communities that we are always working in the best interests of Canadians. We may have different views as to how we reach those best interests and how we reach those goals, but we are all here united, trying to get the best work done. Our Canadian constituents right across the country need to see that. They need to see that we are working together and they need to have it amplified when we do have that unity. They need to know that we can work together and that we do stand together for Ukraine.

203 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mar/3/22 3:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that all of us in the House, as my colleague mentioned, are standing in support of Ukraine and, hopefully, moving toward peace. I found it very cynical that the official opposition decided to take this time when people are literally fleeing for their lives to make the issue about a pipeline debate. I am wondering if she could share some of her thoughts about that.

69 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Mar/3/22 3:34:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is an important place for these debates to happen. I am not going to take away from that importance, but really, given the unity in this place in wanting to show support for Ukraine, should we not be discussing all of those really important ways that we have come together and can continue to come together to show that necessary support?

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Mar/3/22 3:34:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View. I do not think any member of the House or any Canadian can not think of the devastation that is going on right now in Ukraine. The images that we see through social media and on the news are absolutely devastating. They are heartbreaking, and our hearts go out to the people in Ukraine and to Ukrainian Canadians across the country. Part of this motion is to stand with the people of Ukraine, and we should think about what that means. It does not mean standing with a sign or a hashtag; it means actually doing things, doing deliverable, measurable things that are going to make things a little better for the people of Ukraine in this incredibly dark hour. One of the things that we are asking for to show how we stand with the people of Ukraine is visa-free travel. The government has so far said it is not doing it. It has steadfastly, adamantly refused, and it has come up with a reason. I heard the minister's remarks today that there may be some pro-Russian people who would therefore be able to come to Canada, so the government is proposing some alternative immigration streams. The fact of the matter is that leaders deliver. They find ways to deliver things in tough times, and these are the toughest times for the people of Ukraine. To hear excuses as to why we cannot have visa-free travel is absolutely unacceptable for me as a parliamentarian, for Ukrainian Canadians and of course for the people of Ukraine. What we are offering is different immigration streams. As a former member of the immigration committee, I can say that there are enormous backlogs in every single immigration stream. These backlogs are in the hundreds of thousands, so how will setting up a new immigration stream in a system that is already bogged down, backlogged and not working actually going to stand with the people of Ukraine and deliver? I ask that in all earnestness to my colleagues across the way. We saw a bureaucratic system try to evacuate Afghan interpreters and Afghan people during the fall of Kabul. The last thing we need is another bureaucratic mess like that. I am begging my colleagues across the floor to please have visa-free travel for Ukrainians. It is absolutely critical. What we know as well is that the second part of our motion is dealing with energy security. Forty per cent of the natural gas in the European Union is being provided by Russia. We also know that since December, President Biden has been lobbying nations that produce natural gas to try to take off the pressure from natural gas coming from the Russian Federation. Canada is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, but unfortunately we actually cannot help. Why can we not help? It is because we have a no-pipelines government, a government that refuses to take the steps necessary to get this resource to tidewater. Up until now, that has just caused absolutely devastating economic losses across this country. In 2019, Canada spent $18.9 billion importing foreign oil, and of course this included oil from the Russian Federation. Imagine if that were Canadian oil that we did not have to import. In fact, we export far more oil than we import, but all of the imports are coming to the east coast of Canada. Again, why? It is because we have no way to get oil and oil products to the east coast. Why can we not do that? It is because we have a government that has made a determined choice to make that impossible. There are consequences to these actions. Can members imagine what would be happening right now if Europe was getting its natural gas from Canada as opposed to Russia? The decisions we make here can actually have implications far beyond our borders. I know there are conversations and discussions about renewables, and those being the way to go. Of course, everyone wants to move more toward a greener world and economy, but the facts are the facts. It is estimated that natural gas consumption will increase by over 20%. In fact, it is going to increase by close to 22% by 2040, so the need for Canadian natural gas is only going to increase. Yes, there are cleaner ways to deliver energy, such as solar and other things. We know this, but right now natural gas is replacing things such as coal-fired electricity plants. Natural gas is way greener than coal. Why the government continues to fight about this, I cannot understand. How can it not see the importance of energy security not just for Canada, but for stability around the world? Canada can play a critical role in that. Think of where we would be if the energy east pipeline had been built. We would be exporting liquefied natural gas to Europe. It would be a great source of stability and security. When we talk about needing security, I want to briefly talk about our own security. Canada's CF-18s were scheduled to be out of service in 2020. That was the end. However, the government decided to reinvent a process that had already been done and now we may not get replacements for the CF-18s until 2025 at the earliest. That is five years well beyond their natural life expectancy. When we look at a crisis such as what is going on in Ukraine, we need bold action. I want to thank the government for the actions it has taken, because it has, but we need it to do more, to do it faster and more urgently, especially when we are looking at having refugees come without visas. I have to go back to that and how critically important this is, because I can bet that if this is a special stream immigration program it will take forever. It is already going to be coming in a couple of weeks. The government could lift visa requirements now. That would help people now. It would not be a program that was going to be designed in a few weeks, then take who knows how long to implement, and then deal with the backlogs already at CIC. I request that the members of the government vote with us on this motion. I know they condemn the invasion and are trying to stand with Ukraine, but they can do so much more. Let us vote for this motion. Let us get Canadian energy to be a safe and secure source of energy, not just in Canada but around the world. It will bring stability all across the globe.

1136 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 3:44:39 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair and not directly to a member. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

30 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Mar/3/22 3:44:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the question actually was, but I will say this. As I said in my speech, the need for natural gas is going to go up by an estimated 22% by 2040. We can pretend that we are going to live in a world where we do not need natural gas and that renewables are going to magically take over all of our energy needs. That world does not exist. Until it does, we actually need things such as natural gas. Why do we not use the cleanest, safest natural gas in the world to help countries around the world and, of course, help Canadians and the Canadian economy?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Mar/3/22 3:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we can all agree on condemning President Putin, and we stand in solidarity with Ukraine. However, I am deeply concerned. The member talked about things we should be talking about, such as visa-free travel for Ukrainians coming to Canada, and ensuring that there is more money going through the Red Cross and matching those funds. Instead, what do the Conservatives do? They decide to exploit a war and put partisan Conservative pipeline politics into the situation. It is totally and absolutely unacceptable. I hope my colleague can speak to whether he personally thinks that this is the right path. We should not be focusing on pipelines today. We should be focusing on how we can help Ukrainians right now and on the best way we can support Ukrainians, because I find this shameful.

136 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/3/22 3:46:34 p.m.
Watch

Again, I know that the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has been around for a long time and can answer that, so I would ask anybody else who is thinking out loud to maybe try not to think out loud. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

48 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Mar/3/22 3:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you are making me feel old. The nature of that question, quite frankly, is shameful. Energy security is one of the reasons why there has been such an issue with appeasing Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. The threat of natural gas being shut off to Europe was a tool he used to try to exert his influence. We can actually do multiple things at once. Maybe the New Democrats can only do one thing, and say, “We can only do this, and therefore we do not think about that”. We can actually think about planning for a future where Canadian natural gas can provide energy security around the world, while we do other things. We in the Conservative Party, in the opposition, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/3/22 3:47:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Dufferin—Caledon is aware of what the Ukrainian delegate to the IPCC, Svitlana Krakovska, recently said. She said, “Human-induced climate change and the war against Ukraine have the same roots, fossil fuels, and our dependence on them. We will not surrender in Ukraine and we hope the world will not surrender in building a climate-resilient future”. Do these words have any impact on the member's support for this motion?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 40