Evidence of meeting #111 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wells.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The parliamentary secretary of natural resources brought this motion forward last Monday.
Here's an Albertan speaking about his communities and his province, where all of these things happen, including the indigenous communities that are impacted—
October 30th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Can we just engage seriously here at this committee on this serious issue for once—
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
—since the parliamentary secretary of natural resources brought this motion forward herself?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mrs. Stubbs, I'm not sure because it's not stated what the point of order is, but that is getting into debate. It's also getting into personal attacks on members of the committee.
I would ask committee members to refrain from—
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
It's not a personal attack. I'm simply asking if the parliamentary secretary of natural resources could listen to this Albertan talking.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Folks on all sides of the table have conversations. I've asked, respectfully, for everybody to respect each other's time on the committee, members.
Please use your time for debate and raise your hand.
I will ask the member to continue on.
Mr. Dreeshen, that's you.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I said—I was about to close on that—I do think it is important that people understand. When you have $100,000, which would be the average amount that it would cost to be able to reclaim these, the people who are making the money on that are the guys driving the trucks, the trackhoes and everything else that is working, and the labour that is there. That is part of it.
The point I was simply trying to make is that, if you only own surface rights, you might be getting $4,000 or $5,000 per year. That would be the total amount. Meanwhile, you have to go around that. You have to go around the roads that are there. It's much better than having a windmill on your land because those structures that are required there do not—
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
They're much more invasive. That is one of the advantages that you have with oil and gas. I just wanted to mention that.
The way it is read, I believe it covers everything. Again, making it a three-meeting study, I believe, will allow us to get back to some meaningful work and go through from there.
I cede the floor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.
I'm waiting for Mrs. Stubbs because, Mrs. Stubbs, I have you on the speaking list.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for coming to me now.
Certainly, we do look forward to the comments on this topic from the parliamentary secretary of natural resources.
Let me briefly also add my support for this amendment.
As my colleague, Earl, pointed out, we have reduced the number of meetings, given that there are 10 to 13 days left before Christmas, and we do have incomplete reports. Hopefully, that would suffice for the purposes of this motion, if the parliamentary secretary accepts it.
Of course, what would be important, as Earl said, is to have actual experts at the table, first nations leaders and entrepreneurs, as well as the different representatives from the provincial governments. I suppose if the parliamentary secretary of natural resources was extremely serious about this issue, she would include B.C. as well—as one of the three recipients of the federal funding—but that would be up to her.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mrs. Stubbs, we have a point of order by Ms. Lapointe.
Ms. Lapointe, go ahead on the point of order.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
The member would have no ability to determine the degree of the parliamentary secretary's commitment to this motion, or to any other motion, for that matter.
I suggest that was an inappropriate comment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues, once again, I ask that we focus on debating the motion at hand, not on personal attacks against anybody in this committee room. Have respect for each other. I'm asking all colleagues to think, before they debate, about whether their debate is focused on the motion at hand—and not on personal attacks against any individual here at the committee.
I will go back to Mrs. Stubbs, who had the floor.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you.
Certainly, it is a fact that B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan were recipients of the federal funding. Therefore, factually, if this motion—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mrs. Stubbs, we have a point of order on the floor by Ms. Dabrusin.
Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead on the point of order.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
My understanding is that the amendment we are talking about right now refers to all of Canada and, in fact, does not make any reference to any province. I think the issue Mrs. Stubbs is addressing has been dealt with in the proposed amendment.
I don't think we need to debate that further.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you for that.
We're on the amendment—just to clarify for folks. We had an amended motion on the floor. Now we have another amendment to that.
Thank you for that.
I have a point of order by Mrs. Goodridge.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair
That was not a point of order.
This was brought forward by the parliamentary secretary. My colleague was simply highlighting the fact that the original motion needed to be amended to be more inclusive. It's frustrating that they're weaponizing points of order.
