Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Dreeshen, I'll just ask you to pause for a moment.

We have a point of order by Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I just want to again ask my colleague for relevance. We're not here debating Bill C-69. We're actually here debating a motion and a subamendment to a motion that deals with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe, for your point of order.

Mr. Dreeshen, I would just ask you to keep it relevant to the motion at hand, which was presented by Mr. Sorbara, and the subamendment on the inclusion of Timmins—James Bay stakeholders and community, as presented by Mr. Falk.

Please state the relevancy to the subamendment and how it connects.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually how this goes is it takes another five minutes to go back and state the same types of things to prove the relevancy that was associated with it. If we don't deal with Bill C-69, if we can't therefore properly dispose of the discussions associated with Bill C-50, and if we then can't properly look at and be prepared to look at decisions with regard to Bill C-49, then anything we talk about within our own communities is held up by this blockage of legislation.

Of course, the things that happen in Timmins—James Bay are relevant to the discussion taking place here. You have people—the indigenous community—come, and you ask whether the government is overstepping its reach or whether they feel that they are back in a colonial era. That was the last topic we were talking about. Those are community people, specifically to Timmins—James Bay. We could go to that.

We look at the egregious parts of the Supreme Court ruling, which will affect Timmins—James Bay people. If we have something else that we put into legislation and then merrily go along our way, saying that the government said this is true.... Well, guess what? The Supreme Court doesn't like that one either. Why did the Government of Ontario, or why did this group, or why is it....?

I'm trying to remember. I think the first nations have taken the government to court too. I think this has happened on our carbon tax, but that's a different story. I would agree that that is perhaps outside this.

However, I really think it's relevant. How can you not say that the Supreme Court is making decisions, and they affect everybody's riding? They do. I believe that is certainly significant.

I fly over that part of our country twice a week. Unless it's at night, I take a look down there, and I see this amazing country we have. I know we have six time zones from one side to the other. I know there are only three provincial capitals that are north of the 49th parallel. I know that a massive amount of our population is within 50 miles, or 80 kilometres.... This is just to prove that I'm bilingual in math. That's where our population is; and those decisions, then, are made for the breadth of this nation and for communities, and they don't see what this country is like.

Yes, it concerns me, therefore, when someone says, “Yes, but Alberta, you want this,” or, “B.C., you want this,” or, “Saskatchewan is not being reasonable.” It's coming from a government that doesn't care, because its decisions are made for what it believes...for those who are hugging the U.S. border. Therefore, the Inflation Reduction Act and all of these kinds of things are significant, because where do you think all that action is going to come from? Where are all these billions of dollars going to be spent? They're going to be spent right next door. That's what we're going to see.

Quite frankly, no one has challenged them and asked if that's the right thing to be doing. When they say they're going to put billions of dollars into this project or that project, well, here's how they're doing it. They are basically saying to the States and the municipalities, “It's not going to cost you a dime. We're going to develop all of this, and we'll find out some way to get this back from the proponents later on. It's not going to cost you a dime.”

How sustainable is that, first of all? It's a lot more sustainable if you're the U.S. than it is here, because we look at the way our economy is tanking compared to the U.S., and so they have this flexibility. It's still wrong, but they do have this flexibility to continue in a wrong way for a lot longer than we do.

It's going to take a lot of nerve to say, “Here's where our strengths are.” We know that Canada can produce natural gas. We know that the world needs natural gas. We know that different parts of our nation have different strengths and different ways of creating energy. The worst part, though, is when one part of the country says, “We don't like yours, so shut it down and we'll do all we can. We will partner with like-minded individuals who really don't believe that your type of energy is the kind of energy that Canada should have.” Again, they don't make it too far off the 49th parallel when they come up with decisions like that, so I guess that's where we find this disconnect that we have as a nation.

Take a look at all of the potential natural gas we could have in Quebec. Go get it. We could use it, but that would take the narrative away from how we want to use all of our energy, we want to use.... We already have this area flooded, so now we have this green energy coming out of hydroelectric power. As long as nobody goes back and thinks about what it was like prior to that, and as long as we ignore the displacement of animals and humans, and so on, to get to that stage, then it's great. Everyone should be happy.

I remember as a kid—I guess I wasn't a kid at that time—when the Red Deer River was dammed. There are friends of mine who lost land. It had to be sold so that they could dam up the river. For years after, people loved it. It looked good, because you could put a sailboat on it and everything looked fantastic, and that must be environmental—until you saw these trees popping out. They pop up once the lake-bed has deteriorated. We know the methane that comes out of those. We know that any of the minerals and the toxic minerals that are associated with it will then get dissolved. We know all of those sorts of things, but it looks good. I congratulate the people in the community who take this facility and use it in a positive way. I don't go back and complain about it.

I'm not complaining about what the people in Quebec do. As a matter of fact, even if I were an eco-environmentalist, I wouldn't go to Quebec—if they were getting ready to go and flood the whole place to get their hydroelectric power—and tell them they couldn't. I'd say, “It's up to you. You make that decision,” but don't come back to me and say, “Hey, Alberta, we don't like your oil and gas, and we're going to stand up here and we're going to make sure you don't get to do that.” I see. Is that the duplicitous...? I'm not sure whether that's true—it may be two ways of looking at things, but—

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

That's not actually what the word means.

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

I had no idea what the word was when you said it in the first place, but anyway, that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order by Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Quite truthfully, look it up in the dictionary: “Duplicitous” has a very specific meaning. If he doesn't know what it means, then he shouldn't be using it in this place, and certainly not to other members of this committee. Learn what the word means before you start saying it to people.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for your point of order.

Mr. Dreeshen, I'm going to come back to you.

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

I stand corrected. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that you ruled on the word before. Perhaps at the time we should have had a dictionary, so that all of us could have been informed of the seriousness of that particular term.

That's the thing about points of order—you have to go back a ways to figure out just where you were in your thoughts, but I'll try not to go over many points.

I was talking about how you can respect other Canadians and why that is important. I mentioned having gone to Central America on parliamentary business and having the Bloc there, as well as the Liberals and the NDP. Of course, we were in government at that time, and the Bloc basically said, “We love Canada and we love Quebec—two great countries.” That part I.... Anyway, but they still said that, so it was the case that they knew that if we have a strong Canada, it strengthens them. They're a part of it, and they can move forward.

Now, in the last eight years, they see one group being pitted against the other. This group doesn't work. Everyone hates each other, and they sit back and say, “Ah, we can't be part of this group. Look at how dysfunctional this country is.” Well, it took only eight years to use a different mindset, in their case, to make their own point, but it's the reality.

We see that happening. I really think it's something that we should recognize, because I remember when we had this major issue with aluminum coming in from China, and basically all they had to do.... It came in, actually, through Mexico, but it would go into China, and they would do some little thing to hook it up and say, “Okay, now it's a product of Mexico, and then we can bring it into the U.S., and we can bring it into Canada,” and that was going exactly against the aluminum industry in Quebec. We stood up for Quebec's aluminum industry, because what was taking place was wrong.

Some days it would be nice to know that people thought about the rest of the country in the same manner, and so, Mr. Chair, I believe that.... I can see that you are looking at the clock. I thank you for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order by Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'd like to clarify something for my colleague Mr. Dreeshen in connection with what he just said.

The amendment concerning aluminum in the free trade agreement was made because some members of the Bloc Québecois had organized a protest in the region, where most of the aluminum comes from. Unfortunately, the Conservative MP from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did not join in, leading to criticism from various sides.

My colleague said that everyone got together to support the aluminum sector. But one key person was missing, his colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. At the time, it may well have been preferable for me to do business with Mr. Dreeshen than the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in order to support the aluminum sector.

I just wanted to point that out amicably to my friend Mr. Dreeshen.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for providing that intervention on a point of order and for context to that.

That was a great job by the interpreters for making sure that was clear all the way through. Thank you.

Colleagues, at the end of that point of order, I know Mr. Dreeshen was wrapping up [Inaudible—Editor] finish. Just before we do maybe finish the meeting today, because we are at time, we have a small item that I wanted to ask colleagues about for just a moment, with your indulgence, to deal with an administrative matter.

The clerk circulated a budget a while ago related to a meeting we had on October 16 with Suncor CEO Rich Kruger. This is the first time we've had a chance to discuss this since that meeting took place. I want to get your approval for the budget. Is there agreement by members to adopt the budget in the amount of $4,500 by unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, colleagues.

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

On a point of order, Chair, I had more to say. I'm not sure I believe that you more or less said I was finished, but I see the clock.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Dreeshen, you were not finished in your debate and you still have the floor. We will end there today.

The meeting is suspended. Thank you.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:01 p.m., Monday, December 4]

[The meeting resumed at 6:36 p.m., Wednesday, December 6]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Since it's now 6:30 p.m., I need to interrupt the current proceedings before the committee. Pursuant to the order made by the House on Monday, December 4, 2023, the committee is meeting at this hour to consider Bill C-50 at clause-by-clause. Because of this interruption, the debate on Mr. Falk's subamendment stands adjourned.

I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

I would like to remind committee members that, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Monday, all amendments had to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4 p.m. yesterday. As a result, the chair will only allow amendments submitted before that deadline to be moved and debated. In other words, only amendments contained in the distributed package of amendments will be considered. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number—it's in the top right-hand corner—to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you'll need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Subamendments must be provided in writing. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Finally, pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved; the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

I would like to welcome our two witnesses, who will assist us in our debate tonight. From the Department of Justice, we have Barbara Winters, legal counsel—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—and from the Department of Natural Resources we have Cori Anderson, director, sustainable jobs.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50.

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. Now on a point of order, I recognize Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I note that the order adopted by the House.... You read the section about what would happen at 8:30, which in my view is quite draconian, but in any event, it was adopted by the House.

The House order also says that the committee shall meet at 6:30 p.m. You, of course, started this meeting substantially after 6:30 p.m., which is a violation of the House order, as I think you'll have to acknowledge. Is it your intention to allow the full two hours envisioned by the House, or do you intend to interrupt proceedings at 8:30, which would limit the clause-by-clause debate further than what was the intention of House?

Again, you were supposed to start this meeting at 6:30. You did not start it at 6:30. Will you interrupt the meeting at 8:30, limiting the time for debate, or will you allow the full two hours, as envisioned by the House, for debate on clause-by-clause?