Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Oh no, I have lots of things here that I can keep going with. I've actually had the floor all along, in fact.

It's nice to have multiple colleagues with me around the table, though. It sure is nice. I respect all of the things my colleagues have to say and I appreciate the input that I get, but let's get back to the business case. I think that's of utmost importance. That was supposedly the biggest thing that was going to prevent Canada from being the LNG provider around the world.

As recently as May, Canada said it was in talks with two companies to possibly accelerate LNG projects there that could ship gas to Europe within a few years.

We've heard multiple people, though, talking about some of the timeline issues. We've heard that throughout this study as well. I mean, the business case is right there. There are some good numbers. I was talking about the million tonnes per annum that are going to be provided by Qatar. There's a lot going on.

I'm just trying to get the right numbers for everybody. It's right here.

...QatarEnergy's efforts to address energy security and transition towards renewables. “In Qatar, we are increasing production to 126 million tons per annum, and we have another 16–18 MPTA out of the US next year. We are doing it in the most responsible way as far as emissions are concerned with [carbon dioxide] CO₂ sequestration”.

There's a business case being made elsewhere around the world for two very important things that we have in Saskatchewan and Alberta. That would be carbon capture as well. They're talking about using that over in Qatar. They're using it in the United States. That's part of the IRA as well.

We're looking at emissions reduction, the business case and good jobs. That's what we're looking at here.

I would appreciate the committee's support for this motion. There's clearly a moral case for this around the world.

I've laid out some of the human rights issues with Qatar. I think it would resonate with my friend Mr. Angus that people in Qatar are not allowed to be part of a union. We talked about that. “Prohibitions on independent trade unions” is the exact term from the report. We're talking about good union jobs, but also human rights workers who are being forced in there from other countries as well.

Canada has a great workforce. We have the highest standards for human rights around the world. We have a fairly robust regulatory environment, but we've heard about the pancaking of regulations too. It would be nice to be able to unpack some of that.

We have a business case. Let's get the business case. Let's get the business rolling. Then we can fix some of the regulatory issues that have come up, as we've seen with Bill C-69 being ruled largely unconstitutional as well. I think we're going to get a chance, hopefully, to address that in the near future. I think that will play a part in Canada being able to be a global LNG supplier.

There is a proposal now for a new plant in northern B.C. Tourmaline, I think, is the name of the company. They're looking to have an LNG export facility off the coast of B.C. just south of Alaska. Of course, that would be the opportunity to supply Asia with LNG.

When we look at where Japan is located—one of our allies—we see that we're the closest route to Japan. We also have the strategic advantage of our winters being a natural advantage in making LNG because of the temperatures we have. That's a strategic advantage that Qatar does not have in making the production of LNG more economic. Again, that goes to the business case that exists for LNG here in Canada.

I think I've made my point clear. I hope that I can count on my colleagues across this committee to support this motion. It sends a message that Canada has all of the things the world needs when it comes to energy production, and also human rights.

The business case exists, so I think we should get this done. Yes, there is a moral case and there's a business case. Let's do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Your motion is on the floor.

We have a speaking list, and the clerk has been keeping close attention on it.

We're going to go to Mr. Dreeshen, and then Monsieur Simard, Mr. Falk, Mr. Aldag and Mr. Angus.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but in the interest of fairness, and without wishing to challenge your decision, I think that I had signalled to the clerk first, when my colleague Mr. Patzer had just begun to present his motion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Our view is the same as yours, Mr. Chair, which is that Mr. Dreeshen was signalled first.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

The clerk looked up and saw Mr. Dreeshen, and we have you next. We'll go to Mr. Dreeshen and then go to you.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think I was actually ahead of Mr. Dreeshen. I made eye contact with both of you, and you were looking for somebody at the end of the table who wasn't there.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, for your intervention, but I did not see you. These two gentlemen had their hands up quite quickly, and the clerk identified Mr. Dreeshen first—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I put mine up as soon as you spoke.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's the ruling, from what we've determined. We'll go to Mr. Dreeshen.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay, then I make a motion to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's your prerogative.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I challenge the chair because my hand was up before anybody else's hand.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Aldag had his hand up as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, we have Mr. Aldag on the list as well.

We have you a little later down the list, but thank you, Mr. Aldag, for being quick with your hand as well.

I'll ask the clerk about the process. Mr. Falk has asked to challenge the chair because he believes that he had his hand up first, so I'll ask the clerk about what we do next.

Do we go to a vote on challenging the chair?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Patrick Williams]

The question before the committee is this: Shall the chair's decision be sustained?

If you vote for the chair's decision to be sustained, it is to uphold it. If you vote against it, it is to overturn the chair's decision. That can be accomplished in the same way that any other vote is accomplished in the committee: by obvious consensus, by raising of hands, or by a recorded division.

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We want a recorded division. Okay.

The question is on whether my decision that we go to Mr. Dreeshen and then to Mr. Simard is upheld. Mr. Falk has challenged that decision.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm sorry. I have a question.

I don't know if that is what we are debating. I think that Mr. Falk wanted to go ahead. That's what I was—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That is correct. I apologize.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That it's Mr. Dreeshen and then Mr. Falk is what we need to vote on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, that's correct—as opposed to Mr. Simard going after Mr. Dreeshen.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a point of order.

I just want to clarify that we'll be voting to uphold your decision on the speaking order as being Mr. Dreeshen, Mr. Simard, Mr. Falk, and then Mr. Me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I am me.

Is that the order we're going in?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

My understanding is that Mr. Falk challenged the chair because he isn't second, so we should keep it simple. It's that Mr. Falk goes second. That's what we're going to vote on.