44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 3, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 3:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join this debate on the tragedy taking place in Ukraine. In 2016 and then again in 2018, I attended the OSCE, which is the organization for security and co-operation in Europe, for parliamentary missions first in Tbilisi, Georgia, and then in Berlin.
Russian aggression, territorial interference and misinformation campaigns were always uppermost in the discussions with member states. Economic actions, specifically the disruption of oil and gas supplies, were the threats that underlined the discussions, but there was always the fear that if there was not compliance, Russia would use its military might to make its point. Of course, the Russian representatives to these meetings always denied any such motives, stating that any actions they might contemplate were at the urging of patriots within those nations. They were not believed then, and they are not to be believed now.
The co-operation they sought on the Nord Stream project was a great example of Russian manipulation. Using the European and North American fixation on green strategies and policies, they effectively produced campaigns to demonize hydraulic fracking, thus stigmatizing research and development in this area. By encouraging agreements with new gas pipeline projects for themselves, they knew that they would be able to keep these markets to themselves. These misinformation campaigns sadly have been active on Canadian soil for years. I am a firm believer that we should neither glorify nor demonize any of the energy sources that we have been blessed with, that we should remain stewards of our land and that we should also approach energy security with our eyes wide open.
At the OSCE meetings that I attended, my Ukrainian counterparts were very blunt about what one could expect from any agreements made with Russia. They referenced the original Minsk agreement, which was a failed attempt at a ceasefire aimed at halting the Russian-backed separatists who had seized swaths of territory following Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. The Minsk 2 deal, which set out military and political steps, remains unimplemented, primarily because of Russia's insistence that it was not party to the conflict and therefore was not bound by its terms. The actions of this last week, and Ukrainian assertions about Russian aggressions, made it abundantly clear that they were right all along.
We can comment further on how this all came about, but the real focus now is that Ukraine has been brutally attacked by Russia. What can we do now? How can we help Ukraine? How can we ensure our own sovereignty stays intact? How must we react to the threat of nuclear escalation? How do we react to a Russian leader whose personal reality is that of a Cold War dictator? Countries around the world have made strategic moves that include banning Russian aircraft over their territory, as well as a series of sanctions placed on major Russian players. There are many more details to come in these areas, and hopefully these impacts will be such that they will not allow Russian oligarchs to slip through.
There have been ambassadors expelled, as well as embassy officials recalled. All are actions designed to help make the point that Russia has chosen to isolate itself on the international stage. The misinformation campaign led by Russia Today is being handled by individual communication companies. As we speak, these companies have taken RT off the air. Had the CRTC pushed this earlier, it would have been helpful, but kudos to the industry for stepping up.
Having spoken to leaders of the Ukrainian community in Alberta, they firmly believe that we must ensure that humanitarian aid is available, that safe passage to Canada can be facilitated, that troops will be supplied with the necessary armaments and that full pressure will continue to be applied to Putin and his regime. Actions such as Russia's removal from organizations such as the G20 and the OSCE were also suggested, as was the implementation of visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada.
On the issue of our sovereignty, there are lessons to be learned. Germany has now seen fit to increase its military spending to 2% of GDP. It and many other European nations have realized that they cannot be held energy hostages, and that a global analysis of this reality is now needed more than ever. This is part of a long-term fix, but no country is better suited to assist in this than Canada. We await the Liberal government's acceptance of this reality.
Sovereignty also means dealing with the reality that Canada shares an Arctic border with Russia. We have let this reality slip from our consciousness, but a reawakening is necessary for us as a nation.
There needs to be a serious plan for Canada's Arctic that will address the aging NORAD early warning system, fix our broken military procurement system and ensure that we will work closely in collaboration with Scandinavian countries and the U.S. to ensure Arctic peace and security.
The threat of nuclear action, which is Putin's latest veiled threat, is something that is disconcerting to all, but this is a reality that exists when leaders seek and attain ultimate control of their people. Perhaps the outpouring of support for Ukraine from within Russia, the potential of real economic collapse, not just for the political and financial elites but for the Russian people as well, and the current international condemnation will become strong enough for Putin to find another path or for the Russian people to find another path for him.
On the issue of energy security, I want to put on record segments of the address I gave in July of 2016 to the OSCE meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia. I stated that, for Canada, energy security and clean energy transition go hand in hand. Energy efficiency and renewables are key parts of the equation. According to the International Energy Agency, improving energy efficiency alone could get us nearly halfway to Paris commitments, while improving global energy security.
As part of its energy union strategy, the EU aims to enhance its energy security solidarity and trust by diversifying Europe's sources of energy as well. As we can see, energy security truly is a global challenge that calls for strong, multilateral co-operation among our countries.
Energy is the backbone of any economy, and thus of our security. A healthy energy sector must be able to support the day-to-day needs of our people, sustain the growth of our economies and contribute to the sustainability of our environment and natural resources. According to the International Energy Agency, even with proposed diversification, the world's demand for energy could grow by nearly one-third by the year 2040.
I went on to state that Canada is a stable democracy with a strong economy. We represent a secure, reliable and ethical source of energy for the world's future. The Canadian oil and gas brand, as well, is well respected throughout the world by those who are knowledgeable about the industry. We have some of the strongest regulations on the planet. We demand that oil and gas activity be monitored, that producers properly respect landholders and that companies adhere to the rules of proper reclamation.
When it comes to the fossil fuel debate, all we ask for is honesty and fairness. The profits, royalties and taxes that come from this industry build our schools, fund our hospitals and allow us to contribute to help alleviate global poverty, yet we are demonized by so-called environmental activists that see fighting Canada as a soft target, one where public pressure will slow down development. Meanwhile, foreign interests, some engaged with renewables and others with non-renewable fuels, including their own oil and gas interests, are able to hold back one of the most responsible and ethical producers from expanding and reaching foreign markets.
I concluded with my challenge for those that do us economic harm to compare what we as Canadians contribute to the world, as far as safety, security and respect for human dignity is concerned, with those countries that presently sell their oil to us. I believe the answer was clear.
The time for Canada to step up has never been so critical. The Liberal government has failed to recognize that oil and gas is vital to Canadian and European security. We need to get new pipelines built to tidewater to displace Russian natural gas. Russia supplies 40% of Europe's natural gas and uses this to intimidate Europe and Ukraine, threatening to cut off supplies to Europe. If supplies are cut, people will freeze, industries will shutter and Europe's GDP will plummet.
Conservatives stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and over one million Canadians with ties to Ukraine. We believe that Canada must strengthen our own defences and renew our commitment to the NATO alliances in the face of the threats of Russia. As Conservatives, we know that Canadians must take Russian aggression seriously. We know that Canada's security is inextricably tied to that of Europe and that now is in the time for us to acknowledge that fact with action.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:01:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I think about the things I have heard, when I have been there in eastern Europe and had an opportunity to speak to those people who are looking at their own physical security, I think that is really the critical aspect of this. I know what has happened in order to stop pipelines going through Ukraine, which is the reason the Nord Stream projects were there and the reason that Germany decided it would be able to bypass the pipeline, but it would be $2 billion a year that Ukraine would not get. Those are the types of things I am talking about, when I say there are actors out there who are making this difficult for everyone. I do not blame those who are environmentalists for saying they want to have something better, because I 100% agree with that as a process. I just want it to be fair and balanced, and I do not want it come from foreign countries trying to protect their own interests.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:03:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Courage has a home country, and that country is Ukraine. Courage has a people, and that people is the Ukrainian people. Ukrainians’ resilience is legendary and once again in full view today. Ukraine is the world’s inspiration and its strength, the strength to join forces against Vladimir Putin.
The Ukrainian people survived Stalin, the Nazi occupation and the yoke of communism. They are invincible. Today, Vladimir Putin’s forces are meeting with the ferocious resistance of a deeply proud, intrepid people whose love for freedom and for their history, culture and democracy is unconditional.
The collective response to this blatant, unprovoked and highly reprehensible offensive has so far been exemplary. Like all of us, I hope that it will be effective and decisive, that Putin and his friends will clearly fail, and that other dictators considering the same course of action will understand the risks and consequences of doing so.
I must point out that this response is not a simple affair. It is complex, a daunting challenge. It is based on the unprecedented collaboration of a large number of countries that instantly saw in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a threat to democracy and freedom around the world, to international security.
It is a multi-pronged response, namely diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, financial and even logistical, in terms of the procurement of military equipment. There is also the cybersecurity component to counteract cyber-attacks, the new weapons of war, as well as the other components taking place in real time, such as the growing refugee crisis the conflict has caused.
We have seen a complex, coordinated response to the greatest threat to global security since World War II, a response designed to show a concrete and undisputable resolve against a dictator and to suffocate the Russian economy. That said, the greatest threat or challenge to effective decision-making is the oversimplification of the issues at hand. I wonder if today's motion does not fall into the trap of oversimplification.
What do I mean when I say that this motion may fall prey to oversimplification? While clauses (a) and (b) are definitely worth repeating, they are well understood and supported by all in this House. In other words, we all condemn Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation in no uncertain terms for what it has done. We stand four square behind the Ukrainian people, an extraordinarily courageous people fighting for the universal values of democracy and freedom against a shameless tyrant who has joined the hall of infamy, a room he shares with the bloody dictators of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Meanwhile section (c) of the motion is vague. What measures is the opposition talking about to ensure that new natural gas pipelines could be built to tidewater in the east? Are we talking about weakening the environmental assessment process that was recently modernized to obtain public and stakeholder buy-in to allow projects such as pipelines to be built across the diverse political landscape of this country and withstand the inevitable court challenges from opponents? Are we talking about creating a pipeline Crown corporation? Are we talking about the public financing of pipelines or about governments underwriting the private financial risks of pipeline builders? Are we suggesting suppressing provincial permitting processes?
Also, I find that part (c) of the motion abstracts from context, both present and future contexts. The present context is necessarily focused on helping the Ukrainian people under attack today through military aid, humanitarian support and air tight sanctions that are bringing to bear the heaviest financial and economic consequences on Putin's Russia and its oligarchs.
The present context is also necessarily focused on immediate energy needs. We know that natural gas accounts for 40% of the EU supply and Russian crude oil accounts for 25% of the EU's supply of crude oil. Fortunately, EU countries have a cushion in terms of oil reserves and 20 European Union countries are members of the International Energy Agency. They are thus obliged to hold at least 90 days of oil reserves. Fortunately, summer is coming and energy demand will fall.
As we speak, governments are working together to direct new supply to the European Union. As President Biden said in his state of the union address, the U.S. will be making supplies from the strategic oil reserves it has available. In fact, 30 other countries, including Canada, are joining the U.S. to release 60 million barrels of oil to stabilize the global energy market.
How else is the motion perhaps simplistic and therefore not immediately helpful? It gives the impression that building a pipeline is a fairly simple thing to do, but pipelines cannot be built in a day. They are not a tap we turn on and off. They are massive, financially and logistically complex, time-consuming enterprises. In addition to construction, there is, as I have mentioned, the environmental assessment process and the related efforts to obtain the agreement of communities along pipeline routes. We are past the days when projects could go ahead without environmental assessments, when the public, including indigenous peoples, could summarily be circumvented.
Finally, the Conservative motion abstracts from the longer term context, which involves numerous other dimensions. These dimensions include the fight against climate change, which is well under way, especially in Europe where efforts have been ongoing for years. Kadri Simson, the European Union Energy Commissioner, is quoted as saying that the strategy is ultimately “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible”.
Like Canada, the EU's plan is to become carbon neutral by 2050. European countries intend to, like Canada, synchronize electricity grids, among other things. Germany's very recent apparent reversal on building nuclear power plants points to what the future of energy in Europe might look like, a mix of non-emitting sources of power.
999 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 4:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition motion. I am sure nobody will be surprised by this, but I regret to inform the House so early on that I will not be supporting this opposition motion.
This motion we have before us has nothing to do with Ukraine. This is a motion about pipelines. It is extremely unfortunate the Conservative Party of Canada would bring a motion to this House about pipelines under the guise of trying to be supportive of Ukraine.
This is so glaringly obvious to me, because nobody would every disagree with the first two clauses of this motion. I do not think there is a Canadian out there who does not realize the vast majority of Canadians stand with Ukraine right now. There is no one who follows politics closely, or even remotely follows politics, who does not realize that every party in this House supports the Ukrainian people, supports what they are fighting for and condemns Vladimir Putin.
The first two clauses in this motion are moot because we already passed unanimous consent motions of this support. We already talked about the different things we can be doing in Ukraine to make the situation there better and to properly support Ukraine as it is going through this extremely difficult time.
It all comes down to the third clause in this motion, which is a clause about pipelines. It would have been much more genuine had the Conservatives just shown up here today and said that they had a motion about pipelines, presented their motion saying that they want more pipelines, like they do so often in this House, and just called it for what it was.
Instead, Conservatives come in with this motion with these two additional clauses in it to somehow suggest that this has to do with Ukraine. This is just wedge politics they are doing right now. It is feeding to their base, which is so dead set on oil being the only solution.
We listened to what the Conservatives said today about energy security. They talk about energy as though oil is the only option for energy. They use the terms energy and oil interchangeably because they see oil as being the only option when it comes to energy.
I will talk about this motion in the context of it being a motion about pipelines. Let us just assume for a second that that was genuinely what the Conservatives wanted, that they came in here to talk about pipelines. It does not make any sense even from a pipeline perspective. The Conservatives keep talking about these new pipelines and the eastern European countries, and the other countries, that will supposedly be saved by them, but why is it that Conservatives think Europe wants to transfer its dependency from one third country to another third country? They do not want to do that.
As a matter of fact, the European commissioner for energy, Kadri Simson, said that the Russian invasion made their vulnerability painfully clear. She stated, “We cannot let any third country destabilize our energy markets or influence our energy choices.”
We have the energy commissioner for the European Union saying they do not want to be dependent on any third country for their energy sources, but then we have the Conservatives coming in here and saying that we need to build pipelines so we can make them dependent on us. The same commissioner for energy for the European Union said that they had to be “boosting renewables and energy efficiency as fast as technically possible.”
Even if the European Union was looking to diversify and get some of this oil, even though the commissioner said it is not, it is not interested in oil as a source of energy. It is interested in renewables. That is what it is saying. Even if the Conservatives are coming from a well-intentioned place on this and really thought that these pipelines were about the security of Europe, those in Europe are telling us that they are not interested in them. They do not want to be dependent on another country and they are very much interested in looking for a very fast transition to renewables. That is not to mention the fact that building these pipelines will cost billions of dollars and will take years to complete.
Europe has made it clear that it is comfortable with its current reserve situation for this winter, but has to start looking toward next winter. It has also made it clear that it is not interested in being dependent on another country, and that it is interested in renewables as a form of energy as quickly as possible. Most of the western world is on board with this and understands it, the European energy commissioner knows this, four parties in the House know this and I would say the vast majority of Canadians know this, yet somehow the Conservatives come in here and are completely unaware of it. I am left wondering why they are doing this. Why do they think they need to put this forward? Do they genuinely think this is plausible? Let us remember that the European Union has said it is not interested and this will take years to build and a lot of money. Why are they doing this? Is it just to shore up their base and prove to their base that they are fighting for oil and gas? That is the only thing I can conclude as the motivation for bringing forward such a motion today.
In conclusion, I will say that I am more than willing to tell my Conservative colleagues across the way, all members of the House and all Canadians that I am not interested in pipelines. I am certainly not interested in the government subsidizing pipelines. I do not think there is a role anymore in this day and age for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing pipelines. Does that mean I am completely naive to the amount of oil we use? No, I am not. I am fully aware that to make the vast majority of the products in this room, if not all, we used oil, whether directly or indirectly. I am also aware that the technologies we need to be investing in and subsidizing are those that provide options to make these products differently so we can put different things into the various products we are currently making out of oil.
This is the default reaction from the Conservatives all the time. They always say that we need oil and that we will not be getting off oil tomorrow. I get that, I agree with that, I understand that and I am not dismissing it at all. However, I am saying that my personal opinion is that oil is not the solution long term. When we talk about building pipelines, we are talking long term. We are interested in 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. There will always be a dependency on some form of oil or gas and I get that, but hopefully not the degree of dependency we have today. We need to move away from this.
I surely do not support this motion, and I think it is shameful that the Conservatives are using a crisis on the other side of the world to promote their agenda.
1242 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 4:31:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava. This translates to “Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes.”
As Canadians, we are united in our disgust and opposition to Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war in Ukraine and the mounting loss of innocent life. We are deeply sympathetic to the struggle of Ukraine’s people for we understand Russia’s military assault is an attack on our own freedoms. This war threatens Europe’s stability. It could be ruinous to the rules-based multilateral system that has existed since 1945, which Canada helped create, and is the basis for our shared prosperity.
We support President Zelensky’s courageous leadership, as well as the heroic counterpunch of the Ukrainian army and civilians who have taken up arms to defend their way of life, a way of life that is similar to our own here in Canada. We are awestruck by the defiance of Ukrainians in the face of Russia’s military might and their willingness to fight, whatever the cost. Canada must continue to stand with Ukraine.
Indeed, the Government of Canada has responded quickly, in conjunction with our allies the United States and Europe, to Putin’s aggression in eastern Europe. Humanitarian and military aid has been promised and provided to Ukraine, punishing economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia and soldiers have been positioned along NATO’s eastern front. As well, the federal government has responded to calls for more action. I, along with many others Conservatives on Saturday, called for the closing of Canadian airspace to Russian air carriers, as our European allies had done. Ottawa soon did, and on Tuesday night Washington closed U.S. airspace to Russian air carriers.
We also insisted that Kremlin-controlled Russia Today television, which broadcasts Russian state propaganda, be removed from Canada’s airwaves. That too happened after Canada’s telecoms acted. After pressure mounted to end Russian oil imports to Canada, the federal government also decided it would ban crude oil imports to our country. This was a symbolic first step since Canadian refineries had not purchased Russian crude since 2019. However, last year’s petroleum imports from Russia totalled approximately $350 million. The Liberals corrected their omission mid-week by including refined petroleum products to the oil ban.
This is all necessary work, but it is not enough. Putin continues to push westward without fear of the consequences. Thus, it is necessary to realize that sanctions do not win wars. Soldiers and citizens with weapons do. What we are witnessing in Ukraine is the attempted overthrow and brutal destruction of an independent nation state.
As we engage in this debate, I know that in churches, train stations and home basements across Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are praying for peace as the sounds of sirens ring out warning of more Russian air strikes. Hospitals, playgrounds and even Babyn Yar, the Holocaust memorial site, have been hit by indiscriminate missile attacks. It is all sickening. Canada must do more to help our Ukrainian friends and allies.
It was in this vein that after Crimea was illegally seized by Putin, the previous Conservative government took military steps in 2015 to better arm and train our allies in Ukraine through Operation Unifier. Today, Ukraine should be provided arms and the financial resources to purchase weapons, especially to destroy tanks and aircraft.
As well, Canada should move quickly to grant asylum to Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression just as we did in 1956 when Hungary was occupied by the Soviets, but we must also recognize that what Ukrainians want foremost is arms, not sanctuary. Indeed, when the U.S. government asked President Zelensky if he wanted to be evacuated from his country to avoid being captured or, worse, killed by Russian soldiers, he replied, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” Ukrainians are asking for help to fight Russians and Canada should not hesitate a moment to provide them with whatever weapons they need to protect their home and fight the Russian military.
Here at home, there are more ways for Canada to help. Canada’s natural resources, our abundant gas and oil reserves, as well as minerals, should be mobilized to help Europe escape its dependence on Russia and China. This dependence weakens Europe in the face of Moscow’s aggression and ensures Russia a large market for its resources controlled by its oligarchs. The west must not continue Angela Merkel’s failed legacy a moment longer. Building Canada’s energy east pipeline to Saint John could have helped offset Europe’s dependence on Russian oil. The Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline could have ended U.S. dependence on Russian oil. This would have made Russia poorer and weaker.
Scuttling these pipelines were policy choices made in Ottawa and Washington, with significant geopolitical consequences. They should be reversed. Canada also is not able to ship our country’s abundant natural resources overseas. We are a trading nation. We have oil and gas to export, but we lack the means to do so. It is past time to build pipeline infrastructure to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and commit to being a reliable energy partner with Europe. The federal government must do whatever it can to advance Newfoundland and Labrador’s LNG export plans. This is because Putin’s ability to cut off Europe from natural gas has strengthened Russia and weakened Europe. Canada can contribute mightily to this strategic challenge with our abundant natural resources, but this will mean ending our federal government’s assault on Canada’s hydrocarbons.
Off the coast of Atlantic Canada, we can also do more. Canada and its partners must eject Russia from the executive management of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Russia should not be allowed to oversee the management of waters on the Grand Banks. No country should expect to benefit from or set economic agreements around the world, like lucrative fishing grounds, when it is smashing a nation elsewhere.
Canada is not at war with Russia, but lessons from Ukraine must be applied to our own sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that unfriendly nations do not recognize borders and are willing to act without fear of consequence. Putin has already moved to claim wide swaths of our Arctic territory as his own, including parts of the seabed in Canada’s north. The vast Arctic Archipelago and surrounding waters, along with its many natural resources, are part of Canada’s sovereign territory. To be ready, we must fix our military procurement strategy. Russia has 40 icebreaking vessels that can operate year round. Russia is building an Arctic navy. Meanwhile, Canada can barely patrol our vast Arctic waters year round with a single vessel. We must also quickly modernize NORAD’s early northern warning system and purchase F-35 jets to patrol ours and allies' skies.
President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and illegal war against Ukraine is a wake-up call for Canada. We must assist Ukraine. We must aid Europe. We must be ready to defend our north. We must be capable of asserting our sovereignty. I stand with Ukraine and believe Canada must help with every resource at our disposal.
Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava.
1243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:46:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the House this afternoon about the horrific situation unfolding in Ukraine and also about the Conservative motion that seeks further action in response.
At the beginning of last week, my family had the pleasure of welcoming another child, Augustine Anthony Genuis, born in safe and approaching ideal circumstances, surrounded by family in a warm and secure place and with the assistance of a medical professional. A couple of days after that, following the vile and illegal invasion of Ukraine, I saw an image posted of a little baby born in a subway in Kyiv, where subways are being used as bomb shelters. It is hard to imagine, after our own experience, what it must be like for a family to have a child born in a subway turned into a bomb shelter.
I kept thinking about that juxtaposition, the experience of my child and the experience of this child. The comparison of circumstances powerfully brought home for me the injustice of what is unfolding. There was a baby born in a subway and, yes, there are other images, like a young couple getting married in a bomb shelter and then immediately joining the territorial defence force. Politicians, beauty queens and everyone in between are taking up arms for the defence of their country, and there is a prime minister prepared to stand with his people no matter what the cost.
The images demonstrate profound injustice but also inspiring resilience, a will to survive and a will to endure. The Ukrainian people have faced so much injustice in their history, but they have always endured, preserving their faith and their hope: faith and hope in God, in country and in the power within themselves to bend the arc of history toward justice.
There is no difference between my child and the child born in a Kyiv subway, except the lottery of birth circumstances. It breaks my heart to think of what that mother and father must have gone through and be going through. In one sense, I will say, that child is also profoundly blessed. The child is blessed to be part of the great Ukrainian nation, a nation that will never die.
I stand today with all members of the House in deploring the violence going on and expressing my solidarity with the brave Ukrainian people in their ongoing struggle. As Stephen Harper said, whether it takes five months or 50 years we will keep insisting on the freedom and independence of the Ukrainian nation within secure borders established and agreed to in the Budapest memorandum.
What starts with a commitment to solidarity and with prayers must continue to include concrete action. The criminal Putin regime has a long history of seeking conflict and violence in order to counter its own unpopularity at home. This war was not a response to unmet demands or security concerns. Those demands kept shifting and ignored past commitments made by that same regime. This is a personal war of choice by a regime that wishes to distract attention from its own problems. This regime has failed to deliver on promises to improve the Russian economy and has instead used every tool at its disposal to enrich regime-connected elites instead of seeking the kind of broad-based growth that would benefit ordinary Russians. Now it is doing even more damage.
This is a cynical and brutal war of choice. The people of Russia have noticed. Large anti-aggression and pro-Ukraine protests happening inside Russia show that Putin's efforts to use a foreign war to rally support for his regime at home are failing. This is encouraging news.
I salute the courage of the thousands of Russians who have gone to protest and have already been punished by the regime. Alexei Navalny is calling on Russians “to take to the streets...to fill prisons and paddy wagons with ourselves” and to fight against the war. This is the face of the true Russians. They are people with the same aspirations for peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law as we see in every country where the people are allowed to be heard. The internal opposition to Putin is growing and the world must stand with that opposition by imposing debilitating sanctions, crippling the capacity of the Putin regime and inducing even his former friends and collaborators to side with the opposition.
As Ukrainians bravely fight Putin's invasion and as Russians rise up to resist Putin's tyranny at home, we must do all that we can do as well.
I love Ukraine, but it must be said as well that this is not just about Ukraine. Ukraine is the front line in a fight that is truly global and that we must win. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have global agendas that seek to overturn hard-won norms of national sovereignty and international rule and instead seek to create a reality in which power is the only law. President Xi is watching what happens in Ukraine to determine possible action against Taiwan, but the agendas of these leaders are not limited to Ukraine, Taiwan, the Baltic states, the South China Sea or the Canadian Arctic. These agendas are global. As Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Let us not make the same mistake today that the appeasers made in the 1930s.
We know what these might-makes-right agendas have led to if not confronted. They lead to global war, to the concentration camp and to the Gulag. We either stop this now or we will be forced to stop it later. Inflicting a defeat on Putin today is not just helping the survival of Ukraine; inflicting a defeat on Putin today is necessary for preserving the peace and stability of a world in which power is not the only thing that matters. Ukraine will either be Putin's Afghanistan or Putin's Czechoslovakia, and we must make sure that it is the former.
It is great to see the momentum and solidarity in the House right now, but we have seen this in the case of past crises and we have seen how the will to respond can fade over time and as other issues come into the headline. Responding to this attack on Ukraine, on international peace and stability, is going to take time, endurance and sacrifice over the long term. We will need more and tougher sanctions, the expansion of matching programs for humanitarian support to include more organizations, further diplomatic pressure to isolate the Putin regime and support for the right of Ukrainian people to determine their own international alignment through their own elected representatives.
One critical area in which Canada can and must play a role is energy policy, and our motion today calls on the government to work to relieve the reliance of our European partners on Russian gas. Europe is heavily reliant on the import of Russian gas, and gas exports feed Putin's war machine. It is time to starve Putin's war machine, and Canada can play an indispensable role by exporting its own natural gas, giving our European friends and allies an alternative.
Some members of the House seem to think that we should not be talking about gas exports right now, but focus instead on general expressions of solidarity instead of on pushing practical solutions like this one that weaken the Putin regime. I do not agree with that. I think now must be the time to talk about what we can actually, practically do to help Ukrainians and starve Vladimir Putin's war machine. What is the point, after all, in expressing solidarity if it does not lead us to explore and answer questions about what we can do specifically to stand with Ukraine and weaken the war machine that is attacking Ukrainian people?
It must be said that there are some members of the House who are going to be ideologically opposed to certain energy developments in Canada regardless, but I ask all members to look at the particular facts of the situation in front of us and to recognize that increasing Canadian energy exports to Europe is vital for the security of the world. If we are going to win this fight against Vladimir Putin, if we truly recognize the importance of Ukraine, we have to recognize the magnitude of the impact that relieving Europe's dependence on Russian gas would have.
As well, I do not believe it is a choice between concern for the environment and concern for security. Some of our European partners right now, as an alternative to being too reliant on Russian gas, are also reliant on coal, and they face this challenging choice between Russian gas and coal. Canadian natural gas is cleaner than coal, and it is better from a security perspective than Russian gas. It is a win-win.
The stakes are so high, and I believe we must do all we can to stand with the Ukrainian people and to defend our values.
1533 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech today and congratulate him on the birth of his second child, safe and healthy.
I certainly want to reiterate my support for the people of Ukraine and condemn Putin for his unprovoked attack and war of choice.
The member mentioned that we should be doing all that we can to support Ukraine at this time and look to practical solutions that would stop this now. Does the member actually believe that if this motion should pass, it would somehow tip the scales in the short term for the people of Ukraine? Is it not actually a huge distraction from where we should really be putting our energy right now?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:59:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I also would like to congratulate my friend and colleague on his newborn.
I liked a lot of what he had to say when it came to human rights, and his work around human rights is certainly something we need to commend. What I am deeply concerned about, and I will not be as nice as my friend from Fredericton, is that I believe this motion is disingenuous in terms of time and building more pipelines to the war in Ukraine. We are not even a week into this war. The EU and Ukraine have not asked Canada to build more pipelines. They are asking for visa-free travel, for ways to get displaced people into our country. They need arms and they need funds to sustain themselves.
I actually find it deplorable that the Conservatives are exploiting this tragedy for a position they had a week before this war. They are going to carry it on for years to come, despite what is happening in Ukraine. That is how we feel about that.
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 5:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his very logical approach to the discussion we are having today. On Monday, we had a midnight debate on supporting Ukraine. What I am hearing in the discussion is that now we are rehashing some of the things we have already agreed with. What we are putting on the table is something we have not discussed, and it would be a longer-term project.
Could the hon. member comment on the use of the House in supporting Ukraine, versus going down rabbit holes?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
