Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have resources and the will of committee members is to continue. We currently do have resources until three o'clock, and we even may get further resources as advised and asked for by our colleagues. Unless.... It's the will of the committee to continue studying this important topic and the amendments and subamendments where we're at, so we'll keep on going.

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

When we did our original raising of hands, it was to continue til 2:30, and now that it is 2:30 and about to go beyond 2:30, I just wanted to make sure what the direction of the committee for today was going to be, but—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

I had requested that this subamendment be put in writing. Are we going to be getting it in writing?

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

Mr. Chair, should we suspend for five minutes so we can get translation?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I believe the clerk has received it.

If it's the will of the committee to suspend for a few moments to get the word “Sudbury” and other items translated, we can do so, but if it's the will of the committee to proceed, we will just keep proceeding, as we do have resources currently til 3 p.m. and, hopefully, momentarily we'll get it in our inboxes with the translation in place.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Let's continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Let's continue.

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

I'm sorry, Charlie. I tried to get us to suspend so that you would have a chance to get the text of the motion, but I guess the government wants to continue.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I just wanted to assure my colleague MP Patzer that I look forward to inviting many witnesses from Sudbury on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

We'll go back to you, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All these bills, Bill C-49, Bill C-50and Bill C-69, which is from a previous Parliament, obviously have a far-reaching impact across this country.

If I recall correctly, after I moved my subamendment, I was speaking to the types of witnesses we would need and the importance of them. I moved the subamendment because we need to hear from witnesses from all across the country.

Mr. Chair, I promised you earlier that I would talk about the good people from southeastern Saskatchewan—actually, south Saskatchewan, the southeast corner of my riding. Geographically it would just be the due south of Saskatchewan there in Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch. It's a great part of the province, a great part of the country.

There are going to be witnesses coming from that region for sure, but, as you know, the reason we have the subamendment is to make sure we don't forget about other parts of the country that are going to be impacted potentially by Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 but also if we do not make changes to Bill C-69. We do know this is the “don't build anything” bill, as it's now become and as we've heard numerous times in committee, whether this committee or industry or environment or any other. Even in finance we hear that regularly. I think it's important that we make sure we address Bill C-69 with witnesses from all over.

I know some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are looking forward to bringing witnesses as well. They are obviously going to be bringing in multiple witnesses for multiple pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-49 or Bill C-69. I'm sure they will be very keenly interested in Bill C-50, because the fate of Bill C-49 is going to be tied to what happens with the just transition as well, since they are from part of the country that generates its electricity largely from coal and other means. They will also be disproportionately impacted by all the pieces of legislation we're talking about in the motion, the common-sense amendment and the subamendment.

I spoke a little bit about the jobs that are going to be impacted in Saskatchewan. I spoke a little bit about what's happening in Alberta as well, and in Atlantic Canada. I think it's important that we get a good list of witnesses.

Really, people are going to be concerned and talking at length, I would imagine, about the Supreme Court ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry.

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

On a point of order, through you, Chair, we are, to my understanding, dealing with a very specific subamendment at this point in time in the debate about bringing Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 to this committee for study, two pieces of legislation that are very important for Canadians.

I'm not too certain as to the member's comments. Are they with regard to this subamendment or are they with regard to something else?

I'm not seeing the connection there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I would ask you, colleague, on your subamendment, because you're on the subamendment on Sudbury, to focus the debate and relevancy of your subamendment to the amendment, which is to the main motion.

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

Thank you.

The subamendment is obviously about hearing witnesses from all across the country because, as I was elaborating on, the folks from Saskatchewan.... I would definitely make the point that greater Sudbury is home to the largest integrated mining complex in the world. Mining, mining supply and mining services are key economic drivers for the community. These employ somewhere over 14,000 or 15,000 people in Sudbury. I know the member opposite is aware of that, as well. That's 15% of the population. When we talk about where we're going to get witnesses from....

This is why we have a subamendment in place that will hopefully bring in folks from Sudbury. That's why we specifically want to include it. It's 15% of the people in that area. Certainly, when we talk about regional impacts in Ontario, oil and gas is 28% of the energy sources. A lot of that would be used to provide energy for the mines in Sudbury, which is why it's important we hear from folks in that area.

We don't want the people in rural Ontario to be forgotten around the table when we're discussing what the energy transition is going to look like. I think Conservatives have done a very good job of speaking about the impacts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada. We're just getting started, Mr. Chair, on talking about the impacts this will have in Ontario, as well. I'm from Saskatchewan and we have colleagues from Alberta at the table here, again. That's why most of our time so far has been about those regions. We like to represent our ridings the best way we can. We are also going to make sure other parts of this country are not forgotten. That's why the subamendment is happening.

I know the current government has openly admitted they are more than willing to forget about other parts of the country based on how they vote. I would think, Mr. Chair, this is offensive to you, given the fact that you are from Alberta. One of your own ministers took a shot at you by saying there's no representation around the table from the west, regarding why there's no carve-out from the carbon tax. Hopefully, you didn't take that one from your own colleague too much on the chin. A little friendly fire—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Sorbara has a point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I want to make sure we're dealing with the subamendment.

Could the member, through you, Mr. Chair, continue to focus on the subamendment? If the member wishes to bring it to a vote, he can bring it to a vote. We can deal with it expeditiously.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

I would ask, Mr. Patzer, that you focus on the relevancy of Sudbury. The subamendment we're focused on is one you brought forward. Once you're done with it, we can put it to a vote, if you like. If not, the floor is yours to keep building your debate and rationale about the importance of your subamendment.

I know some of your colleagues also want to interject at some point.

The floor is yours.

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

How rude of me; my colleagues haven't had a chance yet. I'm sure we'll get to them soon.

As I was saying, Mr. Chair.... I was speaking to the subamendment. I was talking about energy and power generation in the communities of Ontario, particularly Sudbury, which is why I moved that common-sense subamendment about including a specific region of Ontario that will be part of this 28% of oil and gas used for the grid in Ontario.

Conservatives want the country to know that we care about the entire country. Just because I'm from Saskatchewan does not mean I don't care about the energy future of Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and the territories. That's why the common-sense subamendment to a very strong, common-sense amendment was put forward.

Within that 28% of oil and gas for Ontario and rural Ontario.... Boy, that's 10,482 megawatts—a substantial amount of power generation out there, which will be impacted by what's going on with these bills. Bill C-50 will deal with that 28%, but if Bill C-69 is not addressed and dealt with first, there's no point in talking about Bill C-50 and what we're going to do with that 28%.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.