SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 253 - Nov/22/23

Nov/22/23 6:57:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who made an eloquent speech on this very issue previously. It is outstanding to me that the Liberal government would think that the priority of what to do with the Ukrainian government right now is to try and impose a Canadian carbon tax on Ukraine and then, at the same time, vote against providing the ability of Canadian companies to establish free trade and manufacturing facilities back and forth in munitions, during an illegal war. There is a coalition between a former and still, really, KGB agent, Putin, who is in an unholy alliance with China and Iran, trying to attack these dictatorships and trying to attack democracy around the world. The government has not banned and declared the Wagner Group, which is in this report, as a terrorist group. It has not abided by the resolution of this House for many years now, and still refuses to declare the IRGC as a terrorist group. I do not know why the government is so opposed to declaring these organizations as terrorist groups and letting them operate in Canada, while not providing our ally, Ukraine, what it needs.

201 words

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

Nov/22/23 6:58:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington to the chamber this evening and to rise to continue debating concurrence on the 10th report of the foreign affairs committee, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”. Before I go on, I will tell members that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon. As this report deals with our support for Ukraine, I would like to focus on three key recommendations related to energy and food security, not only for Ukraine but also for our European allies as well. The first recommendation I will touch upon is recommendation 12: That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines as long as sanctions remain in effect. Last December, the natural resources minister said that Canada was revoking the exemptions to sanctions that allowed a Montreal company to repair turbines for the natural gas pipeline operated by the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom. The world was aghast. As background, in July, Siemens Energy was granted an exemption to Canada's sanctions against Russia to repair up to six turbines for this pipeline, which carried natural gas from Russia to Germany. The federal government defended its decision by saying that it was “calling the bluff” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Canada had accused of withholding gas exports to Europe. I question if this is the position of our ally Ukraine. Is that what it asked for when it came to the turbines? Once again, the government miscalculated at a great cost to our allies. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated, “the government's decision to suspend their own sanctions is a slap in the face to the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour.” He continued by stating how important it is that we hold firm in our resolve with Russia: “If we aren't, then Russia will simply continue to escalate their pressure”. That is exactly what it has done. It has weaponized energy against the Ukrainian people and, indeed, against our European allies. Instead of standing firmly with our allies, Canada has turned its back on them in their time of need. As usual, the government has not considered the long-term consequences of its decisions by allowing Russia to manipulate the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, and this may have far-reaching consequences for global energy security, not to mention our own international relations. With its ill-thought-out policy, the government has once again sent the message to our international partners that Canada is not reliable. The world came calling for Canada's abundant supply of LNG but, in true form, the Prime Minister and his Liberal cronies shut the door on its allies. Why? We learn that, for the first time in the history of free trade negotiations, Canada is again betraying Ukraine by adding a carbon tax to our free trade agreement with Ukraine. I will ask the question again: Is this what Ukraine came to Canada asking for? The Prime Minister has the audacity to virtue signal and, in essence, double-cross Ukraine by making the carbon tax part of the agreement. Ukraine does not want our carbon tax any more than Canadians want it. That is why the Conservatives oppose the ineffective carbon tax here in Canada and in Ukraine. Ukraine is looking for a reliable trade partner, not to be force fed a carbon tax. Ukraine has not requested it and has not requested that we export the Liberal government's empty ideology. Instead, Canada should focus our trade agreements on areas in which we excel, such as agriculture, technology, LNG expertise, grain storage and the so many other areas I could list. Members remember that the Conservatives negotiated the first trade agreement with Ukraine back in 2017 and fully support free trade. The member for Dufferin—Caledon mentioned in his speech yesterday that the Liberals voted against an amendment that would allow Canadians to build munitions requirements that would allow Ukraine to win the war. The Liberals believe that by imposing their useless carbon tax, Mr. Putin will turn tail and run. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Conservatives also proposed that we would both provide civilian nuclear technology and sell our civilian-grade uranium from Saskatchewan to power nuclear plants that would give emissions-free electricity to Ukrainians to replace bombed-out electricity plants. I guess it made too much common sense because, in true Liberal custom, they did not include that in the agreement either. Again, I reiterate that Ukraine needs Canada to be a reliable trading partner and ally. Putin has stated numerous times that Ukraine is not a nation but rather a state of Russia. Timothy David Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, told the foreign affairs committee that the major issues in this conflict, territory, neutrality and security, have “never really been the problem.” He explained, “Putin was never actually fighting a war about NATO”; Putin was “fighting a war to destroy the Ukrainian state.” Let us go back 100 years, to the death of my great-grandparents in the Holodomor. It seems the Canadian government is hell-bent on fighting a war to destroy Canadian energy that would bring stability to Ukraine and our European allies. The current Liberal regime is determined to rob the world of reliable energy security that would, in turn, provide sustainable and clean energy sources, preventing our allies from being forced into vulnerable reliance on an authoritarian regime. We can and should contribute with sustainable clean energy solutions, reducing our allies' dependence on single suppliers and creating a more geopolitically stable international environment. We can contribute clean energy solutions that align with climate change goals and demonstrate our leadership in both energy security and environmental responsibility. That is not to mention the economic benefits this would bring to Canada in a time of skyrocketing inflation brought on by eight years of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister also stated that there was no business case for Canada to build LNG export facilities. However, in the last two years, the U.S. has built eight such facilities, partly using Canadian gas, adding value to it by liquefying it and then exporting it. At the foreign affairs committee, we continue to look at the food and fuel effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this week, Trevor Kennedy from the Business Council of Canada testified that there was, and continues to be, a business case for infrastructure to export Canadian LNG. Canada should have played a role in Ukraine's and Europe's energy security, and it should still do so. There are eight billion people in the world, and four billion of them owe their lives to the use of synthetic fertilizers, in particular, supplemental nitrogen. Nitrogen is produced from natural gas through the Haber-Bosch process. Canada should also be there for Europe and Ukraine as a fertilizer supplier, supplanting supplies from Belarus and Russia. I will come back to this point in a minute. Another recommendation I want to touch upon is recommendation 6: That the Government of Canada continue to strengthen global food security, and the role of Ukraine as one of its guarantors, and join the efforts with Ukraine on the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the Global South.... In July 2022, Ukraine's title of the breadbasket of the world was once more becoming a reality when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports. Unfortunately, a year later, Russia pulled its support for the deal, and the world was once again thrust into further food insecurity. The international community watched in despair as Russia now used essential commodities to gain world domination and control, now using food as a weapon. If we were able to ship our fertilizer, our potash, to eastern Canada from Saskatchewan by rail, we would not have to rely upon Belarusian and Russian fertilizer, We would be able to step in and fill the gap to ensure food security for not only Canada but also other parts of the world. I have shared this earlier in other speeches: On my own farm, we have used more Russian and Belarusian potash over time than we have our own from Saskatchewan. We have used more imported urea from Russian sources than our Canadian-made fertilizer from western Canadian gas, because we do not have a pipeline that brings natural gas to eastern Canada. It would be possible to bring Saskatchewan potash more affordably into eastern Canada by rail if our train cars were not hauling so much crude to eastern refineries. There is much we could do. Canadians have paid the price for the Prime Minister's “all socks and no substance” policies. Now, unfortunately, the world has to pay a dear price for the same Liberal rhetoric in the form of energy and food insecurity. The foreign affairs committee made several recommendations with respect to Russia's illegal war against Ukraine. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to stop supporting pro-Putin policies, as it did by signing off on the six turbines for Nord Stream. It is time for the Conservative common-sense plan that would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our own people in this country. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

1623 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Nov/22/23 7:08:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could justify his comments around forcing an ideology on Ukraine, considering that it has its own homegrown carbon pricing system. It was a co-operative partner in the development of this agreement and urged us to pass it. Could the member make this make sense?

54 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can answer very simply. Is this what Ukraine needs? Is this what it came to Canada asking for? I have not heard any speech or anything from the Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, any Ukrainian representative or any member of Parliament asking us to negotiate a carbon tax into our trade agreements. If there is evidence, I would be open to looking at it. That is not what it needs right now. It needs a reliable partner in all of the areas that Canada has expertise in and exporting a carbon tax is not one of our Canadian pieces of expertise.

104 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/22/23 7:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it very disturbing that Conservatives are trying to rewrite history. President Zelenskyy was in this very House calling for all parties to support the trade agreement with Ukraine. We had the Ambassador of Ukraine endorsing the trade agreement with Ukraine. Ukraine is going through an incredibly difficult time. I know Conservatives try to minimize the horrific bombings and attacks that are taking place daily as Ukrainian citizens die, but what happened yesterday was a betrayal of every single Ukrainian and Ukrainian Canadian by the entire Conservative caucus. Conservatives rose as one not to vote about the details of the trade agreement, but to say they opposed in principle a trade agreement with Ukraine. My simple question, through you to the hon. member, is this: How could Conservatives betray Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians in such a nefarious fashion?

141 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's party ran in every single election against free trade. Our record is perfectly clear. We negotiated with my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and signed the agreement in 2017. As we have heard from other Conservative members in this House, we are solidly in favour of free trade. Where in this free trade agreement is energy security? Where is the partnership and research? Where is supply chain infrastructure and the establishment of a Canadian-Ukrainian agri-food business council? Why would the member say we are minimizing the horrific attacks? I would like to know the basis of that. We stand with the Ukrainian people. We call out the violence there. I have no idea where that comes from.

125 words

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

Nov/22/23 7:11:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was a great pleasure working with my colleague on the foreign affairs committee in the course of the development of this report. We are in a new global cold war. The member correctly describes the way in which access to commodities is a crucial part of that struggle. Canada developing its capacity in areas around food and fuel and supplying our democratic allies around the world in order to make them less dependent on Russia and other hostile powers is a very important part of this struggle for freedom and democracy. That is why Conservatives have championed the role Canada can play in supporting global energy security. Sadly, the Liberals do not understand this. Their anti-energy ideology is getting in the way of Canada playing its global role in defending global security. It is very telling that in an agreement that should have been about supporting Ukraine in meeting its food and fuel needs, supporting Europe with its energy security and a deal that could have included provisions around energy security, the government instead wanted to impose a carbon tax on Canadians as well as Ukrainians, which underlines how wrong it is. This is the big question right now. In their hearts everybody would say they want to help Ukraine, but the concrete way to help Ukraine, yes, crucially, is to supply it with weapons, but to also undermine European dependence on fuel exports as part of the Russian war machine. This is what has been missing. This is what needs to change. I would like my colleague's comments on how important it is to take into consideration the energy security dimension of this new cold war.

282 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:13:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the premise of the question put before me. Canada has so much more it could give toward energy security for Ukraine and our European allies, not only energy security, but also food security. I have raised this several times, both at committee and in this House. Eight billion people are in this world and four billion of them owe their lives to the conversion of fossil fuel, natural gas, to synthetic fertilizers. This has neither been challenged by anyone, nor has it been acknowledged other than by my Conservative colleagues. I would ask those who are opposing the conversion of natural gas to supply to our allies in the form of either energy or fertilizer for food this: Which 50% of the world's people do they not want to see live?

138 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/22/23 7:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member asked what proof he has. The reality is that he was here in this room when President Zelenskyy called for the adoption of the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. He witnessed that. He knows that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada called for this. However, reprehensibly, given the new extremism of the member for Carleton, each Conservative rose in turn yesterday to repudiate all those commitments to Ukraine—

77 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/22/23 7:15:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some confusion here, but the member said that he was splitting his time. He recalls saying that, so I believe the question and comments period should be over and we should be on to the next speech. Many members heard that said.

53 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/22/23 7:15:36 p.m.
Watch

Neither the table officers nor I heard it.

8 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said it in my second sentence. I said that I would be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/22/23 7:16:05 p.m.
Watch

We have to see if there is time for questions.

10 words

Time

Mr. Peter Julian

Nov/22/23 7:16:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if it was not stated, of course, the member could ask for unanimous consent to split his time afterwards, and that is up to the House to decide.

30 words

Split
Time

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/22/23 7:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we agree to unanimously hold that it had been said.

12 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/22/23 7:16:56 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member did say it, and so we have finished with questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

24 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Nov/22/23 7:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the great residents of Dufferin—Caledon. I am going to focus my remarks today on two of the recommendations in this report. It is incredibly timely that we are having this concurrence debate with respect to this report from the committee. I want to start with recommendation 12, which is, “That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines as long as sanctions remain in effect.” I am going to go into why that is significant. First of all, it granted that waiver in contravention of what the committee recommended, which included Liberal members of that committee. It is relevant because that went to a pipeline that aided Vladimir Putin. It aided his ability to export oil. He funds his illegal war in Ukraine with the energy exports and the money he gets from energy exports. As we debated the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, Conservatives took a principled position to vote against that free trade agreement not only for what is in it, but because the Liberals are trying to export the misery of the carbon tax. I know trade agreements are about imports and exports, but what we should not export is the misery of a carbon tax on Ukrainians in the middle of a war. That is one export I bet Ukrainians do not want. Why is that so relevant? It is relevant because Conservatives took a principled position to vote against it due to that and many other aspects of this trade deal. It is a bad deal. We voted against it. We are His Majesty's loyal opposition. Opposition is an act of loyalty. Therefore, when we vote against a piece of legislation in our capacity as the official opposition, we are doing it as an act of loyalty. To have Liberal members accuse us of aiding Vladimir Putin as a result of that is beneath contempt. It is despicable. We should consider that the committee had six Liberal members who put a recommendation forward not to grant a waiver to give a turbine to a Russian pipeline that would pump Russian oil, and they went ahead and did it. Then they have the audacity to stand in this chamber and say Conservatives are aiding Vladimir Putin, the ones who invited a Nazi into the chamber when the President of Ukraine was here. The Liberals say we are aiding Vladimir Putin. It is unconscionable for them to go there. They granted the waiver for that permit, which enables Vladimir Putin to pump more oil. That puts more money into the Russian war machine. They say our act of loyalty as the opposition is aiding Vladimir Putin. This is disgraceful, even by the standards of the disgraceful conduct of the Liberal Party routinely all across this country and, in particular, in this chamber. Now I will turn to recommendation 14, which is, “That the Government of Canada continue to provide significant military, financial and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine so long as Ukraine must defend itself from Russian aggression.” That is what the committee recommended, including six Liberal members, it should do. Yesterday, at the international trade committee, which is studying this free trade agreement, I put forward a motion to expand the scope of what could be included in the review of this legislation. I did that because Conservatives wanted to include increased munitions exports to Ukraine. This would be real help. We wanted to include Canadian industry helping Ukraine increase its domestic capacity for munitions manufacturing. It is relevant because, right now, Canada only sends to Ukraine 3,000 rounds of munitions per month. Does that sound great? Maybe, but Ukraine goes through 3,000 rounds of munitions in one morning, every morning, and the ratio of soldiers being able to survive a war with the ratio of the number of munitions that can be used is directly correlated. By not doing what they should do, which is increase munitions production and help Ukraine increase more munitions, it will cost the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and aid Vladimir Putin in his vicious, illegal war in Ukraine. Now, let us go back. The Liberals are actually doing things that are harmful to Ukraine. They are exporting a turbine that is used to increase Russian revenue from oil and gas. I do not know what the definition of helping Vladimir Putin is, but if I wrote the dictionary, that would be in there. On munitions, how did the Liberals vote on my motion at the committee to expand the scope of the review to include munitions? Let us guess. The Liberal member for Richmond Centre voted no. The Liberal member for Brampton East voted no. The Liberal member for Brampton South voted no. The Liberal member for Ottawa—Vanier voted no. The Liberal member for Nepean voted no. However, they have the audacity to say that Conservatives voting against them trying to export their most disastrous policy in Canada, the policy of deep misery, of two million Canadians going to a food bank, of seven million Canadians eating less healthy food—

877 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/22/23 7:24:08 p.m.
Watch

One moment please. I would like to remind members that, if they want to have conversations, to please take them out of the chamber. There is a debate going on here and the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has the floor.

42 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Nov/22/23 7:24:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can take the heckling. They are heckling because they are losing and they do not like what I am saying. They voted against expanding the scope of this trade agreement to include increasing munitions production, increasing Ukrainian capacity to build their own munitions. We can think about that for a second. All they had to do was expand the scope of what the committee could do. It was a simple vote, yet all those Liberals voted absolutely not. It is disgraceful. They then say that we are the ones who are not supporting Ukraine, but that would be real support for Ukraine. What is not real support would be a carbon tax or carbon pricing, which has never been in a Canadian free trade deal ever. This is the first time. If this is the first time we put this into a trade agreement, we could put in other new things, could we not? They put a carbon tax in for first time, so new things can go in. Where is the section on energy security? Where is the section on LNG exports? Where is the section on seed bank co-operation for farmers? Where is the section on grain storage? They are not there. Why? It is because the Prime Minister is ideologically obsessed with the carbon tax and he wants to spread the misery all around the world. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following: “The 10th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, June 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development with instruction that it amend the same to recommend expanding the scope, either at committee or report stage, of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, in keeping with Recommendation 14 of the report, in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munition exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian Industry.” It is time for them to put their money where their mouth is. The rubber has hit the road. Are they going to support this motion, yes or no? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

401 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/22/23 7:27:38 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind members that the House is still in session and I have not recognized anybody. As the hon. member mentioned heckling, I would like to clarify that I had said that there was a conversation going on. If he is saying that it was heckling, then it would have been from his side as well. I just wanted to clarify that it was from both the government side and the official opposition side. The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

94 words