Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

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

Thank very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to further add on to what Ms. Goodridge said—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is it on that point of order?

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

Yes, it's very much on that point of order.

The motion that was recirculated today prior to question period is very much an attack on Alberta. All it does is talk about Alberta. The preamble is the exact same preamble as we originally debated on Monday, so I'm actually concerned that we don't even have the appropriate motion.

The fact that Mrs. Goodridge asked to have the actual proper motion circulated—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—and I think the fact that it has not been sent to all of the members needs to be addressed before we continue down this road.

If that could happen, that would be fantastic.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on. I'm going to get the clerk to speak, if that's okay, Mr. Angus.

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

Certainly. I'll wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to go to the clerk to speak on Mr. Patzer's point of order, just to provide clarity to committee members on what the motion is and what has transpired.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Thomas Bigelow]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today the committee members were sent the amended motion, the adjourned motion as amended. The preamble of the motion still makes reference to Alberta and Saskatchewan. The section of the motion that was amended on Monday, by the amendment made by Mr. Simard, touches the final paragraph of the motion. It removed “in Alberta” after the words “orphaned wells”, and it added the word “federal” in front of the word “regulations”.

In the French version of the motion, Mr. Simard's amendment removed the words “in Alberta” and added the word “federal” after “regulation” in the last paragraph.

I speak in English to address the question that's being posed. The preamble does indeed still reference Alberta and Saskatchewan, as that section of the motion was not touched on Monday. Merely the bottom paragraph was indeed amended, and that is indeed the text of the motion that has been circulated today.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order. Thank you for waiting patiently, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I had to step out for five minutes, so in case I missed something, could you just give us a replay of the last five minutes? I'm not sure if I missed a point.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. That's not a point of order, but thank you for letting us know that you're leaving.

I'm going to go back to you, Ms. Goodridge. You have the floor, and you can continue with your debate.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really interesting. Process is often ignored and people think that it doesn't really matter, but often, clerks recommend against having preambles in motions, because preambles are not actually the motion.

The problem is that this preamble is a direct attack on Alberta. It is a direct attack on Alberta. It says:

Given that:

There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned wells in Alberta polluting farmland, waterways, and air;

The number of abandoned wells in Alberta are set to increase by an additional 1,800 to 2,000;

These additional abandoned wells will cost more than $200 million to clean up;

The Government of Alberta sent back $137 million because they failed to use the funds provided by the Government of Canada to clean up abandoned wells and create jobs in the pandemic;

The Government of Saskatchewan used their allocated funds in their entirety to clean abandoned wells and create jobs;

Companies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities;

Orphaned and abandoned wells present an economic opportunity to support energy solutions like geothermal energy.

I don't understand, Mr. Chair, how a normal person reading that would not see that as an absolute attack on the province of Alberta and on Albertans.

The motion has been amended and was expanded.

We know, as of 2020, that Ontario had somewhere in the range of 900 inactive wells that could become orphaned should companies go bankrupt. Overall in Canada, based on 2020, there were about 130,000 inactive orphaned and abandoned wells. If there are 130,000 in Canada, and we're saying that there are 1,800 or possibly 2,000 in Alberta, that's a very small percentage of the total overall number of abandoned wells.

It's really frustrating. As an Albertan, I'm not going to sit here and be mansplained that somehow it's okay that—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Go ahead.

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

As the old white guy in the room, I always need explanations.

It's Ms. Dabrusin's motion, and she doesn't look like a man, although I've known guys who had hair longer than hers—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You're doing it right now, bud.

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

Is Ms. Dabrusin mansplaining? How is the mansplaining working here?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, that is not a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

This is why this is so embarrassing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I'm just going to remind everybody to raise your hand.

On a point of order, if you would like to debate—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Why are you looking at the Liberals?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm looking at everybody. I'm turning my head left and right.

Please use the points of order for points of order. Please use your time to debate. If you want me to put you on the speaking order, I will, and your turn will come up. Feel free to debate as you wish when your turn comes.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Now I will go back to Ms. Goodridge to continue on.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I would like to continue my remarks by giving you a sense of the situation in Canada.

An article in Le Devoir reported that 92 wells were problematic, according to a government report published in 2023. It's really a problem across the country.

I will not sit here and somehow have someone say that this is absolutely A-okay, that we should be having this and that we should be debating and voting on this motion and that it's absolutely fine because the motion itself includes all of Alberta. The preamble, which is the first thing that people are going to see, is absolutely a full attack on my province and on hard-working people.

The part that really frustrates me is that there weren't conversations and work during the pandemic trying to make sure that government money was being spent appropriately and that it wasn't going to groups like GC Strategies and all kinds of consultants who were getting rich claiming to be in the indigenous procurement space. Some of this is really important.

The fact that the government is now putting really inflammatory language in their preambles critiquing the Government of Alberta for properly spending money to clean up these wells and not having a full conversation is very frustrating but—