SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/9/22 6:47:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to represent the riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in this place. Two things in particular about my riding are that it is very involved in the energy sector and it has a large Ukrainian community. People in this riding are asking me what we can do to support Ukraine in the midst of this horrific invasion by Russia. I think they understand just how critical energy supply and security are in combatting the Russian invasion and allowing Europe to impose the kinds of sanctions that will effectively starve Putin’s war machine. So much of the Russian economy is dependent on the export of gas and other energy-related projects, so Canada’s critical contribution could be to supply the vital energy resources to Europe and to other parts of the world, to displace their dependence on Russian gas. We have been asking these questions as the opposition. We have been calling on the government for years to recognize the economic opportunities associated with our oil and gas sector and to do more to support the construction of pipelines. We have also called on it, particularly in the context of the Russian invasion that we are seeing, to recognize that building the energy infrastructure we need to displace Russian gas in Europe is not just about the economy. It is also about security. It is about doing our part to support Ukrainians who are resisting by saying we want to give our European friends, allies and other nations around the world an alternative to buying oil and gas from Russia. It has been interesting that since we have been raising this question, the government is more willing to broadly say that it buys into the idea. There is some language in the G7 communiqué that speaks about working together to phase out dependency on Russian energy, so it is encouraging to see that. The government is starting to talk the talk in response to some of these opposition questions, but what we do not see from the government is a willingness to step up and take action and walk the walk, to recognize that if we are going to displace Russian gas in Europe, if we are going to do our part to be able to supply energy resources to Europe, it is going to mean that we build up that infrastructure and make legislative and policy changes that allow us to move quickly to get those energy resources to where they need to go as quickly as possible, recognizing that the world is in a war. We are in this very acute security situation, and doing our part should mean re-examining the antienergy policies the government has put in place in the past. It would be good for our economy to do these things, and these are things the Conservatives have been calling for for years, but recognizing the particulars of the situation we are in. Now is the time to be thinking about, for instance, repealing Bill C-69, which makes it very difficult for us to build pipeline infrastructure. We need to have a faster, smoother process for getting infrastructure approved so that we can support Europe in being able to impose energy-related sanctions on Russia and end its dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is not going to be good enough to just talk the talk, to just say the words of solidarity, and to say that we stand with Ukraine, but then to actually fail to make the legislative and policy changes that are going to help achieve that result. If Canada believes this G7 communiqué it has signed on to and the words that ministers are now starting to say about sanctioning Russia, about having the kind of debilitating sanctions that will stop Putin's tanks in their tracks, and if the government is serious about these things, then it has to think about the kinds of changes we can make that are going to support the development of our energy sector and the export of those energy products, in particular to Europe. Therefore, I want to ask the government if it is really serious about this. Are these just words, or are we going to see concrete action with respect to Canada playing a greater role and contributing to global energy security?

733 words

Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs, Lib.)

May/9/22 6:51:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the ongoing tragedy unfolding before our eyes in Europe is one that I know everyone is concerned about. Regardless of political persuasion, we are all sickened by what Russia is doing to its neighbour, so it is no surprise that this is one of those issues before Parliament where opposing parties sometimes will largely agree. For one thing, we share the view that this war represents a defining challenge for the democratic world. We also agree that Canada must work with allies to provide equipment to help Ukraine's brave soldiers fight off this unprovoked aggression. All parties support the democratic world's punishment sanctions: a package that includes a Canadian ban on imports of oil, gas and other petroleum products from Russia. Furthermore, we are united in doing everything we can to deal with this humanitarian disaster. We also share the member opposite's belief in the critical importance of energy security, and the need for Europe and the world to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependency on Russian oil and gas. There is nothing here that he needs to convince us of. It is clear that the world must stand up to Russian aggression, and that is what we are doing. We are taking all the measures I have just cited, and are working closely with our allies to help Europe wean itself off of this dependency. I would invite the member to consider our government's work with industry and provincial governments. The Government of Canada has identified Canadian industry capacity that can increase production by up to 200,000 barrels of oil and the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of natural gas. These exports will give America, now the world's largest LNG exporter, more leeway to export its petroleum products to Europe and other markets. I would agree that this alone is a relatively small proportion of the amount of Russian oil and gas that we have to displace, but solidarity matters. The U.S., Brazil and other nations are also stepping up. We would once again urge members opposite to consider the International Energy Agency's 10-point plan to end its dependency on Russian gas. It includes moving Europe more aggressively toward alternatives, such as increased imports of LNG, renewables and hydrogen, and that is exactly what we are doing with our climate plan. It is one that includes a strategy to build a Canadian hydrogen industry that could help fill this void. On that note, I am pleased to say that Germany's ambassador recently referred to Canada as a potential hydrogen superpower. What I just outlined really illustrates why it would be the worst time to abandon Canada's clean energy transition. We all have a job to do here. We all need to step up to protect the interests of Canadians, but also the interests of allies around the world.

482 words

Context: House Hansard - 67 - May/9/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/9/22 6:55:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the parliamentary secretary framed her comments as if there was sort of wide agreement in the House on this issue. Certainly there is wide agreement on some aspects of our response to the horrific invasion of Ukraine, but there are clear differences in that the government does not seem to support the development of the critical infrastructure that is necessary to actually achieve the objective that the parliamentary secretary is talking about; that is, to end Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. This is particularly clear in the fact that on March 3 in this place, my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills put forward a motion that was about the invasion. It had a number of points that I think members all agreed on, but then it said: ...call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater, recognizing energy as vital to Canadian and European defence and security, allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe, and being consistent with environmental goals in the transition to non-emitting sources of energy. That motion was opposed by the government. Conservatives put forward a motion supporting Ukraine with that specific language around energy, and the government opposed that motion. Why?

221 words