Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

While I agree entirely with Monsieur Simard about the content of that amendment, I don't think putting it in with the other motion would create a very useful study. It would be a study pulled in two directions at once.

While I agree with Monsieur Simard, I'm not going to be supporting this amendment, for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Cannings, it's actually quite timely that you brought up your concern regarding the amendment.

Monsieur Simard, I appreciate your putting forward your amendment.

Chair, I think you made the appropriate decision here. When it was originally proposed, I thought it was a much larger amendment, but clearly the size of the amendment within this general motion is acceptable.

I would like to move a subamendment, and I hope it will be considered friendly, that we strike the wording under subsection (c) and replace it with “the impact of the pipeline cancellation on Canada's contribution to meeting the world's environmental targets.”

In French, it's “l'impact de l'annulation de ce pipeline”—

Now I'm hearing myself in translation, so out of respect for you all, I won't go ahead and skewer the French language.

I just want to move that subamendment and I hope it will be friendly.

The reason I think it's a great subamendment is that it does address some of Mr. Cannings' concerns that it's such a broad issue, the energy transition. It could really be its own study, and what we're looking for is a very targeted study. Therefore, we propose that the subamendment say “the impact of the pipeline cancellation on Canada's contribution to meeting the world's environmental targets”, which I think will give Mr. Simard and Mr. Cannings, and anyone else, a great opportunity to talk about their perspective and invite witnesses to talk about their perspective, but also keep this study very narrowly focused on the Keystone pipeline specifically.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd, and thank you for your comment at the outset. It's just proof that doing things this way sometimes requires a little more patience because people need to see things in front of them before they can effectively discuss it or vote on it.

On that note, could you slowly repeat what your proposed amendment is? Just so we're all clear, is this an amendment to the main motion, or is this a subamendment to Mr. Simard's proposed amendment?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is a subamendment to Monsieur Simard's amendment. I will repeat: Under subsection (c), the subamendment reads, “the impact of the pipeline cancellation on Canada's contribution to meeting the world's environmental targets”.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Again, just so we're crystal clear, is that language in addition to the language proposed by Mr. Simard, or is it supposed to be in lieu of?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It is a replacement of the language by Monsieur Simard.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay.

Mr. Simard, you have your hand up.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I thank my colleague for his open-mindedness, but it doesn't reflect the intent behind the original amendment. Upon re-reading the amendment, I'm thinking that it might have been preferable to read it as follows: “the transition of the energy sector.”

I moved this amendment because I believe we need to think about the transition of the Alberta economy, among other things, and the end of Keystone XL is a time when we can do this.

How can we redefine Alberta's economy? We had an example of this when we did a study on the forestry sector. It was said that Alberta still had considerable expertise in chemical engineering, and that these engineers could be redirected to the bio-economy. I'll give you a simple example.

The purpose of the amendment as I had worded it was to permit, in the context of Mr. McLean's motion, a study of the transition of the Alberta economy. What Mr. Lloyd is proposing is not in keeping with my intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, I see there are some other hands up. I will get to you. I just want to make it clear to everybody what we're doing.

This is what we have. Mr. Lloyd has proposed an amendment to Mr. Simard's subamendment. In the circumstances, we can debate Mr. Lloyd's subamendment. Then, we'll have to vote on it, then vote on Mr. Simard's amendment, and then vote on the motion.

I believe, Mr. Lloyd, you had your hand up before Mr. McLean.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, that is my understanding of this as well.

Mr. Simard, I certainly appreciate your desire to talk about things for the benefit of the people of Alberta, whom I represent. This is a cross-Canada issue. I feel that your proposed amendment to study the energy transition is such a large issue that it could really be the subject of a substantial study by this committee on its own. My effort to put this subamendment forward was not to take away from your desire to discuss the energy transition, but it was merely meant to focus the debate in the context of the rest of the motion, which is in discussions of the pipelines.

I certainly think that my revised wording, and I hope you will agree, is entirely within subject for us to call witnesses forward to talk about the energy transition in the context of the cancellation of the pipeline. I hope you will reconsider and support this important subamendment, which I feel accomplishes both our ends while keeping this debate on the narrow context. Perhaps at a later time, as this committee should deem, we will have that important study on the energy transition as you have requested.

Thank you, Mr. Simard, and thank you, committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'll be quick and I'll add to my colleague's comments.

Mr. Simard, we could use this committee's resources very wisely by limiting a study to six meetings, as we're doing with critical minerals. The study you want to tack on here could take a year in order to scratch the surface about what we need to do in the transition, so in the interest of actually accomplishing something in a meaningful period of time, I think we have to limit the scope here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

Seeing no further interest in discussion, I think we will vote, first, on Mr. Lloyd's proposal to amend the proposed amendment. As convoluted as that sounds, that's as simply as it can be put.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Now we can proceed to continue dealing with Mr. Simard's proposed amendment.

Is there any further discussion before we put that to a vote? I don't see any.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Now we are back to the original text of Mr. McLean's motion as originally proposed. Is there any further discussion on that, or can we move to a vote?

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chair. I did it late to create some suspense.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It worked.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Being new to this committee—this is my second meeting—I haven't had the opportunity to speak to this important motion. I hope the chair and the committee will indulge a short intervention.

The Keystone XL pipeline is so important for the people of my province of Alberta, and indeed the whole country. It is so important, especially considering the context of what we've seen with our neighbours in the United States, with their oil wells being frozen over and water supplies dwindling in Texas and Oklahoma. We've seen the cost of natural gas go from $4 per million British thermal units to, in some cases, up to $1,500 during this crisis.

This isn't just about the energy security of Canada and Alberta. This is about the energy security of North America. Given the context of this latest weather situation in the United States, we have an opportunity to push forward with a study that will explore this cancellation and its consequences. It will give all parties an opportunity to look into this, because it's quite clear that the United States needs access to Canada's world-class energy resources.

Drilling down more into the impact on my riding, there is a company, Academy Fabricators. In one small town of under 1,000 people, this business alone employs 300 workers. I just got an email from them, saying they were bidding on an opportunity to provide pipe for the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that is owned by the Canadian government. They were considered for the work, and the work was given to an overseas company—an Italian company.

Mr. Chair, in the context of this Keystone XL pipeline, a company in my riding and companies across the country—in Sarnia, in Saskatchewan and in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia—are losing thousands and thousands of jobs. We are losing good, hard-working, blue-collar jobs that put food on the table because of the decisions, yes, of our neighbours to the south, but also because of decisions that our own government is making.

Without going too much on that tangent, it is so critically important for our local economies and for our regions that we explore what went wrong with this Keystone cancellation. What could Canada have done better? What could the government have done better to push this to a “yes” with the U.S. administration?

For the sake of the thousands of workers across Canada and the hundreds of workers in my riding at great companies like Academy, I urge this committee to consider voting for this motion. Let's allocate a few meetings for these hundreds of workers who have been sent home without pay because they've lost their jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

I have Mr. Sidhu and then Mr. Simard.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a tough situation for many families, but last week the House passed a motion to establish a committee to study Canada-U.S. relations, including Keystone XL. We're meeting on Tuesday, and I think that would be the best forum in which to debate this. With all due respect, I understand. I have a lot of family in Alberta and I understand it's a tough situation, but I also want to make sure we utilize our time well, because there is another committee, Canada-U.S. relations, that will be studying this as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'd like to quickly explain why I proposed my amendment.

Over the past four years, the federal government has invested $24 billion to support the oil and gas industry, even though, in today's context, the majority of investors are trying to exit the fossil fuel industry.

We went through much the same thing in the lumber industry in the 1990s and early 2000s, when many paper mills closed down. Workers had to be told the truth. Unfortunately, paper was no longer in demand and a transition had to be found for the pulp and paper sector. It was difficult. Many workers lost their jobs. Personally, I feel that the federal government hasn't done enough, but that's another issue.

I feel we need to be honest with oil and gas workers by presenting them with solutions that support the energy transition. That's not passing off the problems we face today. The cancellation of Keystone XL is one of the manifestations of the collapse of the energy sector. It was the same in the Teck Frontier project.

Unfortunately, I'll be voting against the motion because it doesn't address the real issue, which is the transition of workers in the energy sector. Unfortunately, I'll be voting against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I haven't spoken to this yet, so I thought I'd just briefly explain my reason for voting no on this motion.

I would like to support, and I do support, the workers in Alberta. I gave a speech at the emergency debate around Keystone XL, explaining why building this pipeline, other than.... Mr. Lloyd mentioned the workers who have unfortunately lost their jobs through the pipeline construction phase of this. Beyond that, there is just no indication at all that building this pipeline would by itself solve the problems of the oil industry in Canada.

I would strongly support Monsieur Simard's idea to have a study on this great transition, because that's what we need to help the workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. They would get that help more quickly than if we tried to support, and kept supporting, the oil industry instead of moving towards this transition. I feel that we would not be doing them a service by doing this, because this pipeline, were it to move ahead, just wouldn't provide any more jobs in the oil industry in Alberta.

What we need is to make that transition. That's why I think this committee would be better placed to study those issues rather than try to convince the American government to change its mind on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

I don't see any further hands raised.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the discussion and for helping us to have a very efficient and respectful meeting.

Just as a reminder, we're meeting again this Friday, when Minister Ng will be joining us with her departmental officials.

Until then, stay safe. Enjoy your week.

Thanks very much, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.