Thank you.
Why don't I bring us back to where we are at?
I had brought a motion, and it was amended by Mr. Simard. The amended motion would be 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 of Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure to clean these [abandoned and orphaned] wells [in Canada], the impacts of the pollution of 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 is the amended version of the motion that I had brought. I think where we are right now is with an amendment to this motion that was proposed by the Conservatives and that would actually remove the full preamble.
For some reason, the Conservatives want to remove reference to the number—the “1,600 abandoned and orphaned wells [that are] in Alberta”—and to the fact that they're “polluting farmland, waterways, and air”. They are also seeking to remove that “[t]he number of abandoned wells in Alberta are set to increase by...1,800 to 2,000”, as well as the cost of cleaning these abandoned wells, which is the third point: that the “additional abandoned wells will cost more than $200 million to clean up”. They are also seeking to remove the reference to how the Government of Alberta returned the federal funds, the $137 million of federal funds, that had been provided to the province to clean up the abandoned wells.
They're also removing reference to the fact that the “Government of Saskatchewan used [all of] their allocated funds” to clean up the wells and to “create jobs”. They are seeking to remove the reference that “[c]ompanies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities”, and they are also seeking to remove the reference that “[o]rphaned and abandoned wells present an economic opportunity to support energy solutions like geothermal energy”. All of that would be removed under the proposed amendment.
Furthermore, they would remove reference to “the impact of this failure to clean [up] these [abandoned and orphaned] wells”, reference to “the impacts of the pollution of not cleaning up”, and reference to “the costs of cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells”.
Basically, the motion would be streamlined down to something that wouldn't actually be studying the costs and pollution impacts of these abandoned wells or studying what the federal government has done to try to support Alberta, and did to support Saskatchewan, in actually trying to address this.
That's where we are.
I oppose these proposed amendments because I think that they detract from the real purpose and importance of this study, which is how we support people in our country to clean up farmland, waterways and air with regard to these abandoned wells.
It's my proposal: that we vote against this proposed amendment from the Conservatives. I'm hoping that everyone is ready to vote on that.