Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's wonderful to be here and to be able to defend my home province of Alberta and Alberta's energy industry, which unfortunately is under attack at just about every single opportunity that this federal government—this NDP-Liberal government—has. They choose to wedge, divide, stigmatize and throw Alberta out with the bathwater.

This is my home province and this is your home province, Mr. Chair, yet they must really not like you, bringing forward a motion like this and putting you in a really tough spot, because I know that you have many constituents who work in Alberta's energy industry. I often talk to them when I'm travelling to Ottawa.

I almost always travel through Calgary and actually have an opportunity to consult with many different Albertans who work in Alberta's energy industry and live in places like your riding, Mr. Chair. I don't think they would like a motion that is so overtly anti-Albertan. To many of them, this is very frustrating.

To many Canadians, Alberta has always represented a beacon of hope, prosperity and a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers we're a tough competitor that refuses to lie down in the face of adversity, but for far too many elected officials across the country, Alberta is simply a cash cow. That's how we're treated.

Unfortunately, to go one further, to the fringe eco-activists we're point-blank the enemy, and to the environment minister, the Liberal-NDP environment minister, who has made no bones about how much he dislikes this industry, we very clearly are the enemy. However, to me—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Goodridge, I'll just ask you to hold for one second. We have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

It's just that I thought this motion was about the challenges and the opportunities with orphaned and abandoned wells. I'm just wondering if the clerk could reread the wording of the motion, because I don't.... The debate doesn't seem to be quite lining up for me. I'm just confused.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On the same point of order, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on, Mr. Genuis, before I recognize you on the point of order.

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. If members require clarity on where we are, and for the new members here today, that's something we could look at doing, but I'm now going to a point of order by Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

When I first got here, I asked the clerk to email me the motion, which is a service that I think is available to all members. It doesn't require a point of order or an interruption if you want to see the motion.

Points of order are regarding alleged violations of the Standing Orders, and Ms. Dabrusin hasn't even alleged any such violations. I would suggest that in the future she simply allow the speaker to speak without undue interruption.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, I see you, Mr. Angus.

Thank you, Mr. Genuis, for your point of order.

Mr. Angus, go ahead on your point of order.

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

Thank you.

I asked a similar thing the other day, because I find that what's concerning is that the Conservatives keep going down into very paranoid rabbit holes and making claims that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Maybe they're playing for the cameras back home, but I think that, as far as our committee goes, it's very important.

Maybe they aren't and I could be misreading that entirely. If we read the motion and if we were actually talking facts, then I could sit and listen to them all day, but right now I really am wary about having to go down these rabbit holes with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just on the same—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I am going to Mrs. Goodridge on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I also have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll recognize you in one second, Mr. Simard.

I have Mrs. Goodridge on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another opportunity by the Liberals, and the NDP in coalition, to try to silence us. I was very clearly speaking about how Alberta is under attack by this government on numerous occasions. It is very much relevant given the section in the motion that was proposed by Ms. Dabrusin, who is in fact the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, which mentions only the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Therefore, it is very relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, I will go to you on your point of order in a moment.

Colleagues, you have the opportunity to debate. Please do not use points of order for debate. I can put you on the speaking order. You can have all the time you need to debate the points and merits you'd like to, but not through points of order.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead on your point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today reminds me of the theatrics we experienced during our study of Bill C‑50. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, Mr. Genuis, but there are currently five Conservative Party members here instead of the usual four. That happened during the study of Bill C‑50, too. There were five or six Conservative members, and non-permanent members of the committee took the liberty of raising points of order.

For the committee to function as it should, and to break the current impasse, I would like to get a ruling from you, Mr. Chair, about which members of the Conservative Party, and which members of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, may speak. Can only permanent members of the committee speak and raise a point of order, or can anyone do so? If anyone can, my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, has nothing to do this evening, and I would be happy to invite him to come spend his time here with me.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think it's critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

I think you're asking in your point of order for clarification on voting members and speaking members. All members are able to come to committee and participate in the committee hearings, but only certain members are allowed to vote. Our clerk has a record of the members who are able to do so.

I hope that clarifies it for all committee members.

Committee members, I hope we will have a productive meeting, be able to get through this motion and maybe get to a vote today. Most importantly, I hope we can have a good debate amongst colleagues around the table and proceed forward. I've had a number of requests, maybe for clarification or from a misunderstanding of where we're at, on what the motion at hand states. Just to make sure all members have the motion that was brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin and amended by Mr. Simard, perhaps I can ask the clerk to go through it before I turn it back to Mrs. Goodridge. This is to ensure that our colleague who has joined us today and the others at home are all in the right place and have a good understanding of where we're at.

Before I go back to Mrs. Goodridge, I will ask the clerk to read the amended version.

Go ahead, sir.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion as amended reads as follows:

Given that:

There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil 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.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure to clean these wells, the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the costs of cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the federal regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup, and the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up abandoned wells, and report its findings to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

I hope that clarifies that.

Ms. Goodridge, it's back to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. After all of that drama, it is wonderful to get back to this motion.

It's interesting how the preamble is so anti-Albertan. You, the chair—a fellow Albertan—have been given an opportunity to read this twice and have refused. I think that's partly due to how anti-Albertan the sentiment is in this very motion. Frankly, Mr. Chair, I don't blame you. I wouldn't be reading this if I were you, either. This is part of the frustration Conservatives have with this motion.

It would be different if this had been brought forward by someone who wasn't the parliamentary secretary. However, it is very clear, because it came from the parliamentary secretary, that it came by edict from the minister. It means it came by edict from the Prime Minister. This is what they want discussed. This wasn't some random person sitting on this committee who decided to bring this forward. This was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

We know this is one of the most centralized PMOs in Canadian history, so it isn't something that just happened by haphazard. They decided to attack Alberta because they didn't know any better. This is a deliberate attack on Alberta, Alberta's energy industry and Albertan workers.

This program put forward by the federal government was to get energy workers to work during the challenging time of the pandemic. One of the complicating factors the members probably don't understand is that most of the workers who perform oil well cleanup are contractors. During the pandemic, the contract workforce had some struggles, because they normally don't own their own equipment. They lease it. They were in these struggling spaces where, oftentimes, their leases were in challenging circumstances. They had to retool and get new equipment, so this couldn't be operationalized with a snap of the fingers: “Go and clean up a well.”

This required a little more planning because of the dire situation and how long it took the federal government to come up with the money. It wasn't something that was rolled out in the first weeks or months of the pandemic. It was something that came in after a bit of a delay. Frankly, it saved many contractors. It was an opportunity for many contractors who were unemployed to rehire their employees, get their contracts for equipment back and save chunks of this space.

However, it didn't happen at a time when it was absolutely needed. It happened after a little delay. Because of its scope, the program was rolled out. Unlike the federal government, the provincial government that I was a member of at the time decided they weren't going to allow shell companies to do the work and perhaps, at some point, give some crumbs to indigenous partners. They wanted to engage them in meaningful work and make sure indigenous communities benefited in material ways.

There are a number of examples of these programs having massive impacts on a variety of different indigenous communities, whether it be directly in jobs or in different financial impact benefit agreements. It's more complicated than just snapping your fingers and saying, “Here's a whole bunch of money—get this out the door as quickly as possible.” That's not generally the best way to get value for a dollar. However, this government doesn't seem to always abide by getting the best value for Canadian dollars.

One of the pieces that gets to me, as an Albertan and as someone who was very proudly born and raised in Fort McMurray—a community under attack, at every possible opportunity, by this NDP-Liberal government, and one that is at the forefront of not only Alberta's energy industry but also Canada's energy industry.... Many of the benefits we have are the direct results of the amazing and hard work done every single day by the people who put on hard hats and steel-toed boots and go to work in -40°C or 30°C weather. Day in and day out, they miss Christmases, Easters and Thanksgivings. They miss children's dance recitals and hockey games, and they do that to keep the lights on. This NDP-Liberal government continually attacks them.

One of the arguments brought forward by the parliamentary secretary is that they only talk about Alberta and Saskatchewan because only Alberta and Saskatchewan got the money. Fact check: that's not true. Actually, B.C. also got the money, but they casually decided to leave out the NDP government in British Columbia when it was deciding to do their attack on the energy industry because it doesn't serve their narrative.

This is something that Albertans know all too well. This is part of the absolute frustration that so many Albertans come to my office with to share their frustrations—that the government cherry-picks. It comes here saying, “Oh, we only mention those two provinces because those are the only two provinces.” No, there are abandoned oil wells across the entire country. This isn't just an Alberta-Saskatchewan thing. This isn't just an Alberta-Saskatchewan-British Columbia thing. There are wells in Ontario. There are wells in Quebec. There are wells throughout the country. Again, this NDP-Liberal government likes to have its whipping boy be the province of Alberta.

This is something that is exceptionally troubling. It is something that I don't think we can continue doing because this tells Albertans that, to this NDP-Liberal government, they just don't matter. After all of these conversations and all of this space, I hope that this common-sense amendment that I'm going to bring forward will be accepted by the members of this committee because I believe that I and my colleagues have given a number of relevant pieces to this. I would like to amend this motion. I'm going to amend it as follows.

I propose removing the preamble in its entirety and adding this:

Given that:

The Chiefs of Treaty 6, 7, and 8 have all asked for an extension of time for First Nation communities to properly utilize federal funds allocated for orphan wells;

The Chiefs ask the federal government to return the money to the Alberta government so it can be distributed back to First Nations for the use of cleaning up orphan wells;

It is the legal and jurisdictional responsibility of the federal government to ensure the proper clean up of orphan wells on First Nations land;

The federal government revoked the funds which would be used for remediation and reclamation of more than 3,000 orphan wells on First Nations lands and territories.

Then after “the Standing Committee on Natural Resources”, I suggest striking the following:

begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure to clean these wells, the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the costs of cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the federal government regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup, and the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up...wells, and report its findings to the House....

Then replace it with “report to the House that the federal government should return the money allocated to Alberta for First Nations to use to clean up wells on reserves, which are the responsibility of the federal government.”

Mr. Chair, I think it is incumbent on us to realize that we should not be dividing Canadians. We should be working to provide hope. We shouldn't be continuing to attack the industries and the people who work in those industries, and we shouldn't be pitting one region against another. After nine years, we have, hopefully, learned that pitting one Canadian against another doesn't work long term. It creates hardship. It creates pain. It creates frustration.

I really do believe that this is a very common-sense amendment that shows that this natural resources committee respects Alberta, respects its jurisdiction, respects the jurisdiction of the Government of Alberta and, most importantly, respects having true reconciliation with first nations and indigenous communities when it comes not only to these well cleanups but also to being partners in prosperity.

Mr. Chair, I would urge every single member to consider this motion and to vote in favour of it. I believe that it has been sent to the clerk, and it should be distributed to all members here shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your amendment, Mrs. Goodridge.

I know the clerk has received a copy, but we do not have a copy in French at this point. I'm going to go to the clerk in a minute.

Mr. Angus, I have you also with your hand up. Are you on a point of order, or do you just want to add your name to the speaking list?

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

I would speak to the amendment, but if it's not in French, I don't think it's possible. I don't think she can bring this forward if she hasn't done the work to make sure it's done properly.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, that's obviously false.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you—