Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 21st, 2024

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

There you go.

Anyway, that is not at all the intention of this motion, and it can be placed around it after that, however that might be.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

We're going to go to Mrs. Stubbs on the amendment.

Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you, colleagues, for raising this important issue.

Of course, I support the intent and the point behind the amendment that Monsieur Simard has proposed. I would, of course, just note curiously that in 2020, I and Conservatives proposed a private member's bill called the environmental restoration incentive act, which was explicitly designed to create a time-limited, sunset-claused tax credit to allow for flow-through share provisions for small and medium-sized operators producing 100,000 barrels or less. It was deliberately not for the big companies because one of the problems that is facing those smaller companies is their inability to access capital in order to meet their commitments as a result of the Redwater decision.

In 2020, my bill did not get past second reading. It was supported by members of the Bloc, by members of the NDP and by members of the Green Party. The Liberals, of course, rejected it and then defeated it completely.

There's a lot of context in which this issue is being framed here that isn't quite accurate, but certainly as an Albertan who lives in and represents a riding that is driven by agriculture as well as natural gas, heavy oil, oil sands and conventional oil development, these are all issues that matter deeply to Albertans. These are issues that Albertans will hold the Alberta government to account on, as they should.

I would also note for colleagues here that, of course, it was the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper who implemented into law the concept of the polluter pays principle. It was, in fact, the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper that started to remove the vast majority of subsidies to Canadian oil and gas companies. To the credit of the Liberals—although I've had to defend them from their friends in the Bloc and the NDP over the years on this issue—they continued to eliminate more.

It should be very clear that common-sense Conservatives do not believe the oil and gas and energy industries need to be subsidized. I can't remember if maybe my Liberal colleagues were all elected in 2020, but I sure was. I sure do remember them rejecting the common-sense, sunset-claused bill that would have done exactly what they are now saying they want to do, while protecting taxpayers and keeping that responsibility on the private sector, but here we are today.

Now, insofar as this issue around federal funding for this topic, which is completely in provincial jurisdiction and for which I am confident Albertans will hold their Alberta government to account.... Obviously, I find it totally reasonable and logical that federal MPs in a federal committee would investigate and find out what happened with regard to that federal funding for this express purpose.

I would also say, of course, that there is no possible way, if we proceed on this study, that full representation from the Alberta government and full representation from the regulatory agencies and the governments in each one of the provinces would be able to appear here, talk about what they're doing, talk about what is happening and share the facts.

To Professor Simard's point—I wish one day maybe I can be in a class with him—naturally, Alberta is not the only province with this issue. In fact, there are very significant issues in Ontario around this issue, and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which is, of course, why I raised the initiative in good faith, working with members of other parties to tackle this particular issue in 2020, but it was defeated by the Liberals.

Now, obviously, I would assume that, as we get into the logistics of this study, we will ensure that both the regulatory agencies and the provincial government representatives of every province that must be here to account and answer these questions from federal members of Parliament be given the time and the space to do that in this committee. We cannot allow this to be a thing where we all talk amongst ourselves and where people from other provinces and other places pretend to know better than the provinces, the places, the elected people, the policy-makers and the regulators where all of this is actually occurring.

Of course, I have no problem with the issue of methane. We ought to be able to discuss all that between provincial governments and federal governments. I don't know that it requires a specific inclusion in this motion, but I understand why that's being raised as well. Of course, common-sense Conservatives do believe in the polluter pays principle because we are the former government that implemented it.

On that note, however, clearly you can see that we are in principle supportive of this only with Monsieur Simard's amendment, who eloquently and accurately articulated that the vast majority of this issue is provincial jurisdiction, but, of course, we as federal members should ask for transparency and accountability where it involves us.

Lastly, Chair, I would like to hear from you or the clerk exactly where we are in the schedule, so that, exactly to the point that MP Angus made, we can actually, for goodness' sake, do our jobs here on behalf of Canadians and complete the work that's ongoing to get those products and those deliverables out the door.

Naturally, we Conservatives wouldn't support just adding in yet another study of an extremely important issue when we haven't closed off previous work and reported out. That is our job.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I'm going to go to Mr. Patzer next.

Mr. Patzer, you have the floor on the amendment.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Shannon, for saying it so eloquently, and also my other colleagues around the table who talked about provincial jurisdiction, the need to respect that and the role provinces have to play when it comes to natural resources. I find it quite alarming that there seems to be a lack of awareness from the government side on this and on the importance of the way our federalism is supposed to work, but they seem to like the top-down approach anyway.

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose a subamendment that we strike the preamble and just.... It would read “and that the study not take place until after a carbon tax election is held so that Canadians can vote out this tired, out-of-time NDP-Liberal coalition government.”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes.

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

That way, it makes it clear about the scheduling, to the issue that Mrs. Stubbs raised earlier in regard to making sure that we finish the work this committee is actually already engaged in. That way, it would allow us to properly align where we are at with things.

I think that when we look around the news watch and see that there are.... Most likely, there are a couple of members sitting at the table who are already asking for the Prime Minister to step down. I don't think that we are going to be.... This particular government won't be around much longer anyway, so I do think that it would be better suited for us to finish the work that we are on right now. We can bump this one down the road—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—but let's just finish the work that we have first, and let's do this subamendment here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Before I go to your point of order, because I was just waiting.... I didn't want to cut him off because he was in a deep thought.

Before I go to the point of order, I was just about to tell you—and this might address this point of order—that your subamendment is inadmissible because it doesn't deal with the body of the amendment. It deals with the preamble, as you've stated, and it is inadmissible. I just want to let you reflect on that for a moment.

I'm going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

Thank you.

I would have said that it was inadmissible on two other points. One is that we are on an amendment and we have to vote on the amendment before we can do a subamendment, but secondly, as much as I appreciate my honourable colleague deciding to do the high stick as he went by on the ice...and hey, fair play. I've done that many times—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

—but you cannot tie the hands of the committee's future work in a future Parliament. He knows that, but anyway, can we get this thing...? I'd love to get this done before one.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. Thank you.

I think I've clarified for Mr. Patzer.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, Chair. We need to hear the schedule, as I asked, before we can continue with this debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll get back to you in a moment on that, Mrs. Stubbs, but—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's material to members' conclusions.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Sure.

I'm going to go back to you, Mr. Patzer. Then I have Mr. Dreeshen next.

I will confer with the clerk on that momentarily.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Actually, I have had my front teeth knocked out by a high stick before, Charlie.

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

It wasn't me.

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

It wasn't you, no. It was friendly fire, actually, is what it was. It has happened.

The point of my subamendment is pretty clear, really. It's emphasizing the need to schedule this down the road, but it also just points to the fact that we're not going to have time to get to this. By the time we finish the work we're doing, the time is up on this government. We've seen it already. Taxes are up. Costs are up. Crime's up; time's up...right?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I think we need to be focused on reality, and the reality is that we have some important work already in front of us. Let's focus on the work that's already at hand. Let's get that completed.

Like Charlie said, we have at least two ministers who haven't shown up yet, so let's get those ministers here. Let's get the study that we're working on finished, and then we can figure out from there what's going on. By then, I think.... If they can complete their letter to the Prime Minister demanding he resign—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

If they have nothing to hide, call a carbon tax election so Canadians can decide.