Thank you very much, Chair.
I have some empathy with what Mr. Bergeron said, but I also want to agree with Rob Oliphant. We have spent some time doing this study and we have listened to witnesses. We need to put forward a report and recommendations.
To have a motion that actually presumes it is the major report in many ways and that kicks aside the report doesn't seem to me to be wise, nor is it in keeping with good committee procedure. I think it should not have happened.
At the same time, I know that Mr. Chong talked about the fact that the Ukraine study is separate. It's not. This is about Ukraine. This is about the very complex issue we're dealing with. This is about the fact that there is no right or wrong, black or white, in terms of how we deal with some of the complex problems of energy needs in Europe right now and how that butts up against sanctions that we are willing to make. Those are not easy answers. They are not black or white. They are not simple answers. We need to have listened to people, which we did, and we need to come up with a report that reflects what we heard. Then we can talk about recommendations.
I think I agree with Mr. Zuberi. This motion should not have been made, because it suddenly makes everything we have done and the time we have spent listening to witnesses into wasted time. It presumes that the rest of this committee does not have an opinion, that the rest of this committee did not hear witnesses and that the rest of this committee doesn't have anything to say in a report. For me, that is a little bit disrespectful of this committee and what we have been doing. It makes our time wasted, so to speak.
We have come to the end of the hearings on this. Let us do what committees always do. Let's have our analysts present us with their report. Let them go about listing what we heard from witnesses. Let them put some recommendations forward for us. Let us put some recommendations forward from us. Let us do it the way we always do, with a report.
For me, what is bothersome about this motion is it is back to everyone saying that we all agree that Ukraine is important, that Canada stands firmly, that all the political parties stand with it, and then we take these little cheap partisan political tricks and throw them on the table. Why, for once, can't we act with some kind of integrity about the way that these hearings, these discussions, of Gazprom went on? We heard a lot of things from witnesses.
I also agree with Rob Oliphant when he said the discussion about how Canada sends energy to Europe is not for this committee. It is for trade and it is for natural resources. It's both a domestic issue and an export issue. It's not our issue.
What we want to talk about is how we stop the money going to Russia that in fact feeds its war effort. How do we stop that? How do we stand firm on the things we want to do? Canada has been one of the strongest supporters—we have heard everybody saying it—of Ukraine and we have moved forward. We, in fact, are even talking now of adding sanctions to those who are responsible for what is happening to Vladimir Kara-Murza. We're adding things all the time. We're still there and we should all be moving forward in that direction.
As for the issue about whether the turbine is now moot, the issue about whether the government should have done it when it did, we're second- guessing everything. When people make decisions at certain times—governments and people—they do it based on the environment in which they are sitting at the time, or what is there, what they see and the choices they have to make. This is exactly what the government did then.
Whether or not our report will tell us, as we heard, that it may be time to move forward, to move on, not to continue with going around with Gazprom, is another story, but that will have to wait for us to table a report and to table recommendations. Jumping the gun, second-guessing this committee, making this committee seem as if its work is not important after all the time we spent listening to witnesses would be exactly that: wasted time.
I know that Rob talked about disrespect. I think that's disrespectful of all of us in the room. We're all here on the committee. I think we all care about the issues. I understand the intent behind the motion, but I think that it's too soon for that kind of motion to come forward.
I think, as Mr. Zuberi said, this should actually be a recommendation. As we discuss it and we discuss a report, we can deal with it that way. If we continue to subvert the committee process for all parties, coming up with how the processes work, what we do, what a report is, how we have recommendations on a report, then why bother to have committees at all? Why bother to waste the time of witnesses and the time of this committee to actually listen to those witnesses?
We have moved forward since this committee began this study. Lots of things have happened. We've heard from a lot of people. I think we know very clearly that while Europe is in immediate need of energy right now, they have energy for the next year. The big question, then, is what do our Canadian natural resources and Canadian trade do about that?
We've heard about that. We heard about what our Deputy Prime Minister had to say. We have a report to table and we have recommendations on that report to move forward. To subvert this process by throwing in some motion at the end of the day—and, I might add, by taking away the ability to ask a question from the last questioner, who would have been a Liberal—is disrespectful.
It's clever. It's a clever ploy. We all know that we do that. Everybody says, “I know when I'm going to move my motion so I can stop anybody else from asking questions.” Is that what we really are about as a committee, or are we really, as a committee, looking at finding good answers? In this instance, when we're talking about an illegal war waged by a man who is bent on being sociopathic, or whatever you want to say about him, that is what we should all be focusing on. What do we do? How do we do it? How do we cut the legs out from under Vladimir Putin and his war effort?
There are a lot of other countries that can supply immediate resources to Europe. There's Kazakhstan, which is not siding with Russia in this war. We have Norway. We have Scandinavian countries that have oil and gas. If what we're really thinking about is just an opportunity for Canada to make hay and for Canada to go out there and set up a new industry of fossil fuels and build infrastructure to do that, that's not what we're meant to be discussing. We're meant to be discussing whether Europe can have energy to heat itself and to run its factories over this period of time, and how we develop a long-term strategy through which Canada can take a part, but that's not for us to discuss. That's for trade and natural resources to discuss.
I think what we need to do is talk about whether we should continue with the turbine thing or, as many people have asked, is it moot? I don't know. Let's have that report tell us what we should be saying and what we should be doing.
We know that Germany is interested in Canadian energy. We heard that at this committee, but Germany came and met with our Minister of Natural Resources and talked about hydrogen. They talked about low-fossil fuels. They talked about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.