Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's crucially important energy infrastructure for the whole country.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

All right, folks. We will suspend.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:26 p.m., Wednesday, October 23, 2024]

[The meeting was resumed at 11:01 on Monday, October 28, 2024]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order. We are resuming meeting number 111 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

When we suspended the meeting last Wednesday, we were debating the motion of Ms. Dabrusin as amended.

At the time of our suspension, Mrs. Goodridge had the floor.

Mrs. Goodridge, I will turn it over to you. It's good to see you online. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here today from Fort McMurray.

It's frustrating beyond belief that we're sitting here debating a motion that is so anti-Alberta. I know that members opposite did point of order after point of order the last time we met, trying to justify that having a massive preamble that talks about Alberta only in a negative light is somehow not attacking my province—your province, Mr. Chair. However, it is.

I'm not sure how members opposite can sit there, especially members from the Liberal Party, and continually attack the province of Alberta and just treat it like a cash cow. That's exactly how so many people feel. I know that when I'm home in Alberta, talking to people on the streets, out in the grocery stores and throughout our communities, I hear that they feel like the Liberal government doesn't listen to them. They feel like they are the whipping boy for.... It will very happily take the resource money, but they don't feel like they're supported in any other way by the government.

This motion furthers that, because it continues a negative tone with regard to the province of Alberta, honing in on abandoned and orphaned wells only in Alberta and not even going off fact. It's not like the preamble uses verified facts that came from, perhaps, the Alberta Energy Regulator or other sources. It's literally from a news article, and it has charged language.

However, this is what we've come to expect from a government that shows no mercy when it comes to our province. It's frustrating how it continually puts Alberta in such a negative light. This is one of the challenges that we're going to continue facing on this committee as long as that preamble is part of this motion. It is something that tells every single person in Alberta that they are welcome to work in the energy industry as long as the government is getting some resources revenue from it. However, the government doesn't really respect them.

I don't think that's the kind of message we should be sending to Albertans. That's not the kind of message we should be sending to Canadians. We should be working to unite people, not divide them. This motion, from its very preamble, seeks to divide. It doesn't seek to unite. It's very frustrating as we sit here.

I will continue debating this because, frankly, Mr. Chair, this is an attack on your province. This isn't just an attack on people in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is an attack on energy workers who work in Calgary. Many people actually commute regularly from Calgary to the oil sands, whether they be in Fort McMurray, in Cold Lake or in Bonnyville. There are a lot of people who work throughout Alberta in the energy industry and live in Edmonton or Calgary. However, specifically, they live in Calgary. I talk to many of them on a fairly regular basis. This is one of the things that they find so frustrating. They find that this Liberal government, led by Justin Trudeau, has passed its expiry date and doesn't seem to be interested in finding solutions. Instead, it focuses on dividing Canadians.

This motion here, with the preamble that is such an affront to Alberta, is yet another proof point that this government isn't listening. If Liberal members were really serious, they wouldn't have done point of order after point of order because we were upset that their preamble did, in fact, attack our province of Alberta. They would simply have tried to find some way of not doing it to begin with.

Once you do it, however, you need to apologize, and you need to make things better. There has been none of that from your government, Mr. Chair, which is really sad for the people of Alberta. I think this is one of these places where it is so incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that we are doing things and are keeping in mind the words and the actions we use.

Frankly, this is not something that I can support. This is not something that Conservatives can support. This is not something that Albertans support, because this is a problem.

Until that preamble is removed in its entirety, there is no way we can actually have a fulsome, real conversation on the substance of this motion. The preamble attacks the very province I come from and that you come from, Mr. Chair.

As such, I'm going to cede the floor to my colleagues, but I would urge every single person to vote against this motion. It is not a motion that's been put forward in good faith. If it was put forward in good faith, I'm telling you right now it's not being received in good faith; therefore, it needs to change.

I'm going to cede the floor.

I was wondering if you could confirm what the speaking order is.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The next speaker is Ms. Jones. I have Mr. Patzer after that, and then it's Mr. Dreeshen.

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.

We'll now go to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's absolutely a pleasure for me to speak today on this motion put forward by my colleague, MP Dabrusin. I know it was amended by MP Simard, and we're happy to support the motion as amended.

My colleague who just spoke, Mrs. Goodridge, spoke last week as well. There are a couple of things in her commentary that I really would like to address.

First of all, whenever we bring a motion to the table, it's never about the preamble; it's about the actual motion. What we're voting on is the last stanza in the motion, which is what is calling for action. The rest of it is basically not as relevant. However, if she's offended by a comment, she should not be, because it's just stating the facts very clearly.

I want to run through that motion to start with, because I think it's important for people to understand the context in which this motion is being brought forward.

First of all, if you remember, during the pandemic and subsequent to that, there were a lot of issues around the oil and gas sector and the impact of it on companies, workers and so on. The Government of Canada did a deal, I guess, with Alberta, or they did a deal to invest in the cleanup of abandoned and orphaned wells in the region.

In Alberta, a number of these wells were identified—up to 1,800 to 2,000. In Saskatchewan, a number of wells were identified. That's why these two provinces are mentioned. They are the only two that received federal government money to do orphaned and abandoned well cleanup, which is a responsibility of the provincial governments, not of the federal government.

First of all, that's why they are mentioned in the preamble. Again, the preamble basically has no influence in terms of what the motion is.

The motion itself is calling on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to:

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.

That's the motion that's before us on the table.

My friend seems to be hung up on the fact that two provinces are mentioned in the preamble. One is Alberta and one is Saskatchewan. I reiterate that they are mentioned because they have the largest number of orphaned and abandoned wells. They also are the only provinces receiving federal government money.

The motion itself is very clear, but the preamble does allude to the fact that Alberta sent back $137 million of federal government money that was provided to it to clean up these abandoned wells and create jobs during the pandemic. The whole idea was to reduce pollution, reduce our environmental footprint, clean up the orphaned and abandoned wells and keep Albertans and people in Saskatchewan working and in jobs.

The Alberta government made a choice that it did not want to spend this money. It did not want to clean up these 1,800 to 2,000 orphaned and abandoned wells. That's why it returned the money.

The purpose of the study is to look at those wells. How important is it that they be cleaned up? How important is it that the right federal regulations be in place to hold these companies accountable? It's to look at what the opportunities are for cleaning up abandoned wells and report those findings back to the House of Commons. It's very simple. There's nothing complicated about any of this whatsoever.

I think my colleague is really bogged down with information that has absolutely nothing to do with it but really is just conceived, at this point, as a speaking point for herself.

You know, if she wants to see what a real attack on a province looks like, I'm going to give her the example of Bill C-49. I sat through this committee for over two months while the Conservative caucus filibustered Bill C-49. They used every second of time they could in this committee to bring forward fictitious motions and to make comments that had no real impact whatsoever on Bill C-49. It was an intentional means to filibuster the bill, to hold Newfoundland and Labrador hostage to this committee and to the House of Commons, simply because they did not want to pass this piece of legislation.

Just like the Harper government before them, they did not believe that Newfoundland and Labrador should have any special agreement or rights when it came to oil and gas. They obviously felt that Bill C-49 was going to afford this province once again an opportunity to earn royalties, create real jobs and produce clean offshore wind energy. As a result, they held the bill hostage, and they held our province hostage and our workforce hostage, and they held up big projects.

That, my friend, is what you call holding a province back, and that's exactly what the Conservative Party did. They held back the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they held back the province of Nova Scotia as it relates to wanting to lead clean offshore wind energy in their provinces.

What we are doing today is supporting Alberta, supporting Saskatchewan and supporting a clean environment for Canadians, making sure that when we have abandoned wells that are left behind, there is a mechanism to get those wells cleaned up, to reduce the amount of pollution in the environment but also to create very important, well-paying jobs in these provinces.

No one should be offended by that. I can honestly tell you that there is tremendous support, especially on my side, for Alberta and especially for Fort McMurray, where I have many constituents who live and work. I have family members and close relatives, a sister who lives out there. It's not about being offside with any province.

I take exception to her comments around that. That is not what the motion is asking for at all. The motion is very clear. I don't want to read it over, but I think anyone who can comprehend the language in the bill will see that it is not offensive to any province or territory. Rather, it is a mechanism by which we make sure that abandoned wells, no matter what province they're in—in this case, it happens to be in Alberta—can be cleaned up, and it can be done in a way that is very practical and engaging for the community.

It allows businesses to make money. It allows workers to gain opportunities. It allows the province to be able to talk about the great work they're doing in cleaning up abandoned wells and creating a clean, fresh, new environment to enable other opportunities to proceed. We see this as a win-win situation, so I take great exception to that, because I have a lot of time and a lot of support for the province of Alberta, just like I do for my own province and the other provinces and territories in the country.

Any time we bring forward a motion like this, it is always with the best of intentions. It is never to undermine or to single out any particular region, any particular industry or any particular province. Just like every single day in the Government of Canada and in this country, there are debates around legislation; there are debates around projects, and there are differences of opinion on how we move forward and what is best. I think, at the end of the day, our collective goal is the same, and that is to do the best we can for Canadians.

In this case, the Government of Canada felt that orphaned and abandoned wells, especially when you're looking at up to 2,000 of them in one particular region of the country, are something that we should be addressing as a government. We stepped up to address that and very simply made the funding available so that, when people were displaced during the pandemic, they would have an opportunity to gather other employment, to have new, well-paying jobs created in their economy that they could solicit and work in. They would be able to bring stability to their own income and that of their family and still contribute to their province. This is not a bad thing.

We know it's going to cost over $200 million to clean up these wells, and why the provincial government in Alberta would return $137 million to the federal government without creating those jobs in their own province for their own people, without even putting these contracts out to tender for local companies to do the work.... They were satisfied to allow up to 2,000 abandoned and orphaned wells to just continue to exist, to continue to cause pollution in the economy and in the environment. We know it's having a negative impact, and any scientists or studies that have been done on orphaned and abandoned wells will certainly substantiate that information.

The motion is simple. It's very clear. In my opinion, it's the smart thing to do.

I also want to address a couple of other comments that came up. Obviously, one was with regard to the Alberta piece, so I hope I've been able to clarify that. This has nothing to do with the province of Alberta in terms of giving them a black mark. It has everything to do with giving them a hand up, giving them some assistance on cleaning up orphaned and abandoned wells—which is the right thing to do in Canada—providing them money to create jobs in their local community, to give businesses and contractors opportunities they didn't have.

Again, it comes back to the overarching message that Conservatives refuse to believe in doing anything that is helpful for the environment. They refuse to accept that we are in an environmental crisis. They refuse to accept that reducing pollution is the way forward to a clean economy and to a better world for all of us, and certainly a better Canada. They have only to look in their own province and see what happened in Jasper last year to know that climate change is real and is impacting our communities in a very real way.

When you look at the fact that more than nearly 240 structures were lost in Jasper in that fire, including people's homes, businesses, bridges, roads and other pieces of infrastructure, this is very serious environmental damage that is occurring because of climate pressure. If we don't accept that that is real and start drastically making more changes in society, we're going to see a lot more of it.

In Canada, in 2023, we had 15 million hectares of land destroyed by fire in the environment. This affects animals, plants, communities, people, homes and everything of that nature. Normally in Canada, we would have had fires that would have destroyed probably about 2 million hectares a year, on average. To go to 15 million hectares is huge. It's one of the largest. It is the largest in Canada, and it's a trend that we don't want to see continue. We're also seeing it in other parts of the country, not just in Alberta, but Albertans have had their share of wildfires. Even their firefighters are saying that these fires are different: They're more rapid; they're more aggressive; they require specific and specialized training; they require a response that has not been seen in the past when it comes to these kinds of wildfires.

The experts who are out there in the field fighting these fires are the people who are saying that. That's why, in Canada, we want to set up the fire training facility of excellence. We want to train firefighters across Canada so that they are able to deal with specialized situations and the changing and aggressive wildfires that we're seeing today.

They don't have to look far to know that capping orphan and abandoned wells is a critical part of our response to reducing pollution, to protecting the environment and trying to avoid major wildfires like the ones we saw in Jasper this year. Even in my own riding this year, I've had two communities evacuated, up to 10,000 people at a time. When you live in the north, it's even more complicated. You don't always have a road out, and if you have a road out, it's usually only one road out. That causes serious life-and-death situations in many communities.

Just think: In Canada today, when we are evacuating some of these communities, we're having to do it by air. In my own riding, we evacuated hospitals and long-term care facilities in the middle of the night by aircraft to the nearest other hospitals and facilities. This is what Canadians are dealing with every single day in this country, whether it be floods, fires or major storms. This is what we're dealing with.

We believe firmly, as does the world—except for Conservatives—that this is very much instigated by changes in the environment. We know that our job is to try in every way possible to reduce pollution without having major impacts on the lives of Canadians. I know we're not always going to agree on how we do that. However, surely we can agree that when the Government of Canada gives a province the money to clean up abandoned and orphaned wells that are causing pollution as a means of making the environment a cleaner, more pristine place and to create jobs for people, then the province should at least step up to try to do that.

I'd like to make sure that this is on the record and that people understand that there is a real reason behind doing this. It's partly to create jobs and to give businesses new opportunities, but the huge part of this is the environment, as well, and cleaning the environment, making sure that we have the resources and the potential available that people need.

Mr. Chair, I'm hoping that the motion will pass. I hope that members opposite will see that there's value and importance in this, and that they will not get caught up in the fact that Alberta is singled out. The reality is that Alberta does have these numbers of abandoned and orphaned wells, and the reality is that the Government of Canada is giving Alberta a cheque to deal with it, to create jobs, to give businesses more opportunity, and to clean up these orphaned and abandoned wells.

No one should take offence to it. It is a good program for Alberta, just like it was a good program for Saskatchewan. We want to make sure that it gets implemented and done properly. We don't need to belabour this issue. It's very, very simple; the writing is very clear. I would ask that colleagues support this motion so that we can pass it and move on to the study in committee, where every member will have the opportunity to make whatever points they want to make around this motion. Whether they support it or are against it, they will have the opportunity to lay that out in the committee and to make their points. However, as it is right now, the Government of Canada stands by Alberta. We stand by our policies on the environment. We know that climate change is real. We know that doing the right thing is the way forward. This is the right thing. Including Alberta, supporting Alberta financially, giving Albertans jobs, giving businesses in Alberta a new opportunity for contracts and, at the same time, reducing pollution.... That is a way forward for all of us. It's a win-win.

I would ask all members of the committee to support the motion put forward by MP Dabrusin.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

We'll now go to Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just for ultimate clarity here for everyone, we're on the main motion now. Do I understand that correctly?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

We're on the amended motion.

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

Yes, we're on the amended motion, as we voted in favour of Mario's amendment last meeting. Is that correct? The amended body of the main motion is where we're at, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's correct, Mr. Patzer. The original motion was brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin. It was amended by Mr. Simard, and we are now on the amended main motion.

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

Could I interest you in just reading it out for any of the viewers who are watching, just so that people who are watching know what exactly it is that we are on?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Would you like me to read it out or the clerk?

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

I'd like you to read it out. You're the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I can ask the clerk to have the official copy read out if you'd like, just for clarity.

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

That would be fantastic.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Clerk, would you be able to do that?

[The Clerk]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As suggested, we are now resuming debate on the motion of Ms. Dabrusin, which has been amended. It reads in English:

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 the 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.

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

Thank you very much. I think that helps provide a bit of clarity to help anybody who might be listening to this debate to know what exactly it is that we are doing here.

One thing I find interesting about all of this is that it's actually a recommended practice in the big green book that we all have to not include a preamble on motions, the reason being that when there's a report tabled in the House of Commons, that gives you an opportunity to speak to whatever you would want to say that is relevant to it. It is actually, yes, a recommendation to not provide a preamble on motions for this very reason; therefore, we could avoid motions being politicized per se.

It also helps to make sure that there are accurate or real facts that are part of these motions when they get moved. I think it's important to note that the Alberta Energy Regulator, of course, would have been the natural place to go and look for the correct dataset and information on what the situation is like in the province of Alberta with abandoned and orphaned oil wells.

It's also worth noting that if you go to the Alberta Energy Regulator's website, there's a very thorough description of what an abandoned well is and what an orphaned well is. I think for certainty and clarity it is important to note that there is actually a very strict process that's already in place around what the process is for abandoning a well.

As a committee, we saw the minister's response from the province of Alberta. I'm just going to read from his statement from September 27 again.

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

Chair, on a point of order, I'm just trying to clarify if the member opposite is suggesting witnesses whom we should be calling to speak to this study, or if he is arguing whether we should do this study about how we can support communities in this issue of how they deal with abandoned wells and what the regulations are, and also the opportunities? Maybe it's more a point of clarification, but I'm just trying to figure it out. I'm sure we would all be happy to hear from the Alberta Energy Regulator. They're interested in speaking to this point.

Are we talking right now about witness suggestions or are we talking about whether there's any value in doing a study about abandoned wells at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I think Mr. Patzer, through his debate, will look to clarify some of your comments.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead. The floor is yours.

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

I was just getting started, so I'm sure if the member would allow me the time, she would be able to listen and find out what exactly it is I'm about to say. She can derive from that what she will.

What I was getting at was being factual and making sure, if we're going to have motions before us, that they actually be based on fact and on reason.

I'm going to go back to this minister's statement here, because I was just talking about the difference between abandoned wells and orphaned wells.

The minister in Alberta said, “The motion being debated by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources earlier today was factually wrong and frankly nonsensical. It's extremely concerning that Liberal and New Democrat Members of Parliament sitting on the Natural Resources Committee don't appear to understand what an abandoned well is. For their enlightenment, a properly abandoned well is a good thing—it means the well has been properly decommissioned and does not pose risk of polluting any land. You'd think that an MP sitting on this particular committee would know something about the industry they and their staff are supposed to monitor.”

The reason I read that, Mr. Chair, is that when I was looking on the Alberta Energy Regulator's website, I saw that there is a process in place for how to decommission a well. There's also monitoring that is required for an abandoned well to make sure that there are no leaks. If there are leaks, then it is incumbent upon the company that is responsible for that well to make sure there's a process in place to either stop the leak or continue to monitor it if the levels are below the regulated level of concern.

It's important to know that there is actually already a very strict process in place in Alberta for how to properly deal with an abandoned well.

The difference between an abandoned well and an orphaned well, as you know, is that with an orphaned well there is no longer a company that the liabilities can be attached to. As we know, the Orphan Well Association in the province of Alberta has done quite well at cleaning up the wells. It closed 622 sites in 2023-24 alone, which was up 44% from the year before.

When you look at what they are actually doing in that province, they are doing a good job of getting on top of a very difficult situation. It is one that the province is pushing very hard to make sure is properly taken care of.

Beyond that, we have the issue of jurisdiction. Obviously, natural resources development is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have their processes in place, as I just outlined, in regard to abandoned and orphaned wells and how to deal with them. They are doing what they need to do on that.

When you look at the money that was allocated to the province of Alberta—they were given $1 billion—every penny of it was allocated for cleanup. I think it's important to note that the minister from Alberta did say that they had asked for an extension from the federal government to be able to get these wells cleaned up and to be able to spend the remaining monies, which was $137 million.

When they've asked for an extension, that means they were told no. That means the federal government didn't want them to spend that remaining $137 million, because it didn't agree with the manner in which the province was looking to spend the money within its own jurisdiction, which was its right to do.

I think it's very interesting to note as well that they were looking to partner with Treaties 6, 7 and 8, to spend that $137 million to make sure that these abandoned and orphaned wells could be cleaned up.

I'm just going to read another quote from a letter that the Treaty 7 First Nation Chiefs' Association wrote to Minister Wilkinson, in which they said:

To date, First Nation contractors and the Nations have successfully reclaimed over 1,600 well sites utilizing the FNSRP funds in a safe, responsible, and efficient manner. The transfer of the $134 million from Alberta to FNSRP is required to allow for a seamless continuation of these successes.

That's who they are looking to partner with. It's an organization that has the skill set, the labour force and the knowledge to be able to properly go through this process.

Now, I suppose the Province of Alberta could have spent $137 million on a bunch of random contractors who don't necessarily have the knowledge, the skill set or the wherewithal to get it done, or a track record of getting it done, which is something that we have continually seen this Liberal government do when it comes to many of the different spending scandals. None rings any truer than that of GC Strategies, which got hundreds of millions of dollars to be an IT company run out of a basement and actually did no IT work. That's just one of several scandals that have happened.

When the province is looking to find contractors of this magnitude and success, you'd think that the federal government would actually listen to that proposal and would be willing to enter into and accept the province's request to have an extension to get it done, particularly since it would be the federal government's responsibility to make sure that these wells are cleaned up on first nations land.

That fact is being ignored by this motion. The fact that the Province of Alberta was the one that was willing to work here to see that they would have funding available to clean up wells on their lands says all that you need to know about the intent and the focus of this particular government.

We heard a lot of talk about the preamble. I mentioned earlier that, in the book of practices, it's recommended to not include a preamble in a motion, but I think that when we look at the context of what is in it, it says a lot about the heart of this government. Division is all that I see in here, because we know that abandoned orphaned wells are not an Alberta problem. They're not a Saskatchewan problem. They exist all across this country. If this were about the government tackling the issue of abandoned wells and orphaned wells and their cleanup or their reclamation, seeing them done properly all throughout the industry, then, of course, the preamble would include mention of the fact that this is a lot more than just an Alberta issue.

However, they're specifically pointing the finger at the province of Alberta. I take great offence to that, because there are many people from Saskatchewan who work in Alberta. We hear the joke regularly, and I've heard it said of a few different provinces in the maritimes, so I'll generalize it, I guess. It's that the second largest city in Newfoundland is Fort McMurray. Now, that's because people from Newfoundland, and also from other provinces in the Atlantic region, regularly fly out there to work. There are a great number of people working in Fort McMurray and the area who are from other parts of this country.

I think it's important to note that this is an industry that supports workers across the country, but the issue of abandoned wells and orphaned wells goes far beyond just the province of Alberta. To deliberately write in here, “Well, Alberta didn't do this, but Saskatchewan did that,” is a way of pitting one province against another, the two provinces that just happen to be the biggest energy-producing provinces in the country.

I think that it's not proper for the government to do that. I think it should be focusing on how it can be productive in a way that would unite the country, and in a way that would speak well of the industry that this committee is actually supposed to be working to support, and that is not what we are seeing from the preamble of this motion by the Liberals.

Now, that's also why, when our colleague from the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to include federal regulations in there, at least that brought a little bit of the scope of this motion to where it should lie, which is actually in federal jurisdiction, federal regulations, and not meddling in the province's jurisdiction. I'm grateful that at least my colleague from the Bloc is mindful of provincial jurisdiction and the important role it plays in the way our country operates.

If the government were serious about trying to do something on this issue, then members would have made sure that the scope of the motion was actually proper, and in the preamble they would have indicated that this was about dealing with a nationwide issue and not just trying to dump on one particular region of the country.

Now, Mr. Chair, part of why we are where we are today is also that you still haven't provided this committee with a schedule for our work going forward. The only way I knew what we were up to today was based on the notice of meeting that was sent out by the clerk.

Thank you, Clerk, for that.

Mr. Chair, what's been requested of you numerous times, looking for clarity going forward, is a way for us to best plan out what we are going to do as a committee. It would be a lot simpler to look at scheduling some of these motions that have been put on notice or that are being debated here today. It would be better to have a sense of where and when we could fit these motions in if we actually knew what our schedule was.

That, Chair, is where your role comes into play. I think it would be incumbent upon you to distribute a schedule of what you have planned going forward for this committee. This is something that I have seen regularly from other committees. In fact, when I was a member of this committee previously, that was a regular practice that the chair at the time undertook. They made sure that a proper schedule was sent out to all members, so that we could focus on the work rather than jumping back and forth to all these different studies.

Then there's the fact that we haven't even finished some reports and some other studies that we've almost gotten through. You could have those scheduled out, but you don't. You haven't bothered to put that in writing for us as a committee to see where we are. I think that would be a great place for you to try to at least attempt to show some leadership of this committee. That would go a long way to helping us be able to do our work.

This is why we proposed an amendment to try to strike the preamble from the motion, but also to indicate that this study shouldn't take place until after a carbon tax election, when Canadians can have a say on who's going to run this country going forward. Based on the way things are going in the House of Commons these days, we know that this Parliament probably isn't long on time here. We probably wouldn't be able to finish this study anyway, so we might as well push it off until after the next election.

That was what we tried to do, Chair, but you ruled it out of order. You said we can't strike the preamble, even though it is a common practice listed in the big green book that we shouldn't include preambles in these motions anyway.

If you could provide us a schedule, Chair, that would be very helpful.

We heard the member opposite talk about how the preamble isn't “relevant”. Well, if it's not relevant, then why was it included in the first place? On what I just said about the preamble not being required, you'd think the government would have accepted our amendment to strike the preamble if it's not relevant. If it's not relevant, then why would you use it deliberately as wording, or why would the government use it deliberately as wording, to deliberately slag on one of the provinces of our country? That's very clear. The government has made it very clear what its intent is. Its intent is to point fingers at the province of Alberta and to try to pit one region against the other, which is something it has continually done for over nine years in government. We are continuing to see that from the government with this motion.

I would like members to be serious. I'd like them to take into consideration the fact that Canadians have pretty firmly let it be known to this government that they're tired of their divisive tactics. They're looking for some unity. They're looking for some knowledge, at least, on some of the topics we're talking about here. I mean, if the parliamentary secretary knew a little about what was going on in natural resources, she would know that the preamble isn't even based on facts or on relevance. I think that would go a long way as well. The preamble would have given her a chance to show that she actually knows what's going on in the industry, but it's been made abundantly clear here, with the misinformation that's in here....

Mr. Chair, there's another point I want to talk about briefly. It's about what happened in Jasper. Now, I think it's important to note for viewers that both the current environment minister and the previous environment minister, Catherine McKenna, were told that the forests in and around Jasper, within Jasper National Park, were a tinderbox waiting to ignite. The warning was given a long time ago.

Actually, I believe my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who opened the meeting.... No. I'm sorry. It was the member from Yellowhead. It was the member from Yellowhead's predecessor who spoke about this particular issue on this committee and in the House of Commons about a decade ago already. He warned this government that the conditions were ripe for the forest to ignite around the townsite of Jasper, and for this type of destruction to occur.

The member mentioned that at the time, and both ministers—the current one and the former one—were warned. They were notified that this was a problem and that they needed to deal with it. Catherine McKenna was asked to come to testify at the environment committee about what she knew about the briefings that she received on this, and she said no. Now, if she was so confident in her decision to ignore the warnings that were coming from both inside and outside, then you'd think she'd be able to come and confidently speak about that and her time as minister. She refuses to do so because she knows that she was wrong to ignore the warnings that were coming to her, both from the opposition and also from government officials.

Then, for them to try to equate abandoned and orphaned wells to the reason that the townsite of Jasper burned to the ground is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous, Mr. Chair. It's quite embarrassing for Canadians and for people who live in Jasper that the government would go to those lengths to try to say that was the reason it happened, when we know, based on emails that were made public, that it's abundantly clear that this government deliberately chose to do nothing because of political optics and what would happen if they actually took seriously the job of making sure our forests were properly managed.

I was on this committee previously when we talked to some people within the forestry industry. One of a number of issues they brought up a couple years ago was cleaning up the dead wood that's fallen on the forest floor and all the undergrowth that's in there. That was something they warned us about in this very committee just a couple of short years ago, Mr. Chair, and nothing was done by the government.

Now, the member opposite also talked about letting the experts do their job. Well, the experts trying to do their job were firefighters. When it came time to put out the fire, Parks Canada wouldn't let the firefighters enter the townsite to do their job, so what more...? For her to talk about letting experts do their job when they literally wouldn't let the experts do their job is absolutely appalling. To let the townsite burn the way they did by not letting firefighters in is absolutely ridiculous. It's important to make sure that we have that record straight.

Now, the other thing she talked about was that Conservatives were pointing fingers at her province and region with Bill C-49. Well, obviously, she didn't quite catch the drift of what we were talking about on Bill C-49, Mr. Chair, because at the time, Bill C-49 had no fewer than 37 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. We firmly believed—and there were many experts within the industry and people in her own province who also agreed—that making sure there was regulatory certainty was of utmost importance.

Bill C-49 was the modernization of the Atlantic Accord, which Conservatives supported. However, what we didn't support was the inclusion of the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. At the time that we were debating it here in this committee, the government did nothing to change that and gave no indication as to when it would do so, other than to say, “Well, at a later date we will get to it.” It wasn't until the budget implementation act came through that we finally saw the government take action on changes to the Impact Assessment Act.

Mr. Chair, I assume that you know this, seeing as how you yourself are from Alberta, but the Province of Alberta once again told the government that it is going to be seeking legal action against the federal government because it believes that the Impact Assessment Act is still unconstitutional and that there are still some outstanding issues around standing, ministerial discretion and things like that, amongst other things that are still unconstitutional because they were part of what was ruled unconstitutional before and still haven't been changed.

If the member opposite were concerned about what's happening in her province, then she would want to have absolute certainty in the Impact Assessment Act and not have an unconstitutional element to it still going forward. That's something we wanted to have addressed at that particular time: It's still something we want to have addressed today when it comes to the Impact Assessment Act.

In the study that we were previously on, Mr. Chair, you'll remember that we had multiple witnesses come to this committee and once again tell us that there are still outstanding issues with the Impact Assessment Act. There is no indication that this government is going to take that seriously and seek to have that uncertainty dealt with and resolved in order for private business to have absolute certainty going forward for the next project that they want to build. We know that there is a need and demand for more pipelines to be built in this country. We're going to be at capacity by 2028, and there will be a need for more export capacity in this country.

There are a lot of things going on here that I think ultimately need to be addressed.

Getting back to a different point, Mr. Chair, that's why the schedule would be helpful to this committee. It's so we know where we're at with these things. That way we'll know when our next meeting is going to be on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I know that it says on the screen that we're debating today, but that's not what we're debating today; we're debating a motion that has to do with orphaned and abandoned wells.

Mr. Chair, I think that is where I'm going to wrap up my remarks at this particular point in time. I know that my colleague from Alberta, Mr. Dreeshen, will have lots to say as well. I look forward to hearing from somebody who's from Alberta talk about what's happening in his province on this issue, and not somebody from downtown Toronto, as the parliamentary secretary is.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Before I go to you, Mr. Dreeshen, I want to clarify one point.

Mr. Patzer, you stated that the preamble—the point of discussion previously when we brought forward the preamble being amended, changed or deleted—could be amended, but it could not, because we had a motion on the floor by Mr. Simard. We had an amendment on the floor by Mr. Simard to the main motion, so at that time it could not be amended.

I just want to make sure that you're aware of this and that it is clarified. The preamble can be amended, as I've been advised by the clerk and as has been stated a number of times by the previous speaker. Ms. Goodridge may have referenced that, but I know you just did through your intervention.

I wanted to clarify that, so you understand that it could be done and that members are aware of that.

Now I will go to Mr. Dreeshen.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have the floor.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I had a few comments previously on this motion. I know that, as you were mentioning, the preamble is something that maybe shouldn't be there. Of course, we've had others who say, well, all we're doing is trying to set the stage.

I have a few points to make on the preamble, and I'll go to the part that was presented in the main motion. It moves that “the Standing Committee on Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure”—I don't know which failure we are speaking of—“to clean these wells”. We did have at least a recognition that if we were dealing with national issues, it should be the whole country rather than just in Alberta, so we did cancel that off.

It continues with, “the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells”. Of course, we did have that discussion with Mr. Patzer a moment ago about the difference between abandoned wells, which are at that stage because they are safe—they're still on the books but they are safe, at that point—versus the potential with orphaned wells, because they may or may not be safe. This is the aspect that is there.

However, going back to the preamble, it doesn't say that. It says, “There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil wells in Alberta polluting farmland, waterways, and air”. There's an inaccuracy there. Of course, that, then, becomes part of the actual motion. People get the idea that there is something extremely wrong taking place, but that certainly isn't the way it is.

Then they discuss “regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup”. That's already there. That's what the Alberta energy resources regulatory group is for. It says, “the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up abandoned wells, and report its findings to the House.”

When I look at that, one thing that is significant is the opportunity for cleaning up abandoned wells and the kinds of other things that can be done. There are different choices as to how you're going to deal with that. Are you just going to close them in? Are you going to use them so that you can sequester carbon and then maybe try to regenerate and rejuvenate the pools that are there? That is certainly a discussion that has some merit.

Again, if one can't or doesn't understand what abandoned wells and orphaned wells are, then one is demonizing everything that is taking place.

There's another aspect that I really want to dwell on today. This is where it says, “The Government of Alberta sent back $137 million”—I think it's $136 million, but that's beside the point—“because they failed to use the funds provided by the Government of Canada to clean up abandoned wells and create jobs in the pandemic”. Again, this is a statement that maybe numerically has some sense; however, it doesn't address the true facts. This is what I presented last day: Those dollars that were being discussed, of course, were to have been spent on first nations land. Rather than simply saying that they'd get just anybody to go in there and reclaim it, the Alberta government worked extremely closely with first nations so that they could take on that responsibility.

Of course, it does take a bit of time to make that happen, and therefore it became an issue. One could have said, “We can find some of the other companies that have been doing the rest of it. We can put them into the first nations and push them aside,” but there are two things here. First of all, that isn't how we do things there. Second, it's on federal land. I mean, it's a fact. I know that people are not overly proud of it, but it's a responsibility that the federal government should be dealing with.

Then, if you take a look at the actual numbers, you'll see that it's $133.3 million that was to have been spent out of the $137 million. I guess, if you want to be nitpicky, there's perhaps $3 million that would have been in the fund that the Alberta government could have then maybe cleaned up two wells or something like that with, but that's being pretty nitpicky.

Here, then, you have this government trying to make a point about the irresponsibility of the provincial government, and it all says that. It goes through it. It lays that out constantly in every part of the preamble and in the actual motion, even though we tried to change it a bit—and with you, Mr. Chair, being able to make the change in that motion.

We have all of that, but there is zero recognition for the fact that the government knew that this $137 million was allocated to cleanup on first nations. That in no way, shape or form has come into any of this motion. It comes in only because we know that—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Simard]

Ms. Dabrusin.