Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Sure. We will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back.

There are no amendments submitted for clauses 20 to 27. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No, we do not. Okay. We will proceed to the votes.

(Clauses 20 to 27 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 28)

We'll proceed to clause 28 and BQ-7.

Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As you probably know, there have been many references to Canada's obligation to stop moving forward with new oil and gas exploration or development projects if it wants to meet its GHG reduction targets. The Quebec government has legislated to that effect. There won't be any oil and gas development in Quebec.

We heard testimony here along these lines from the Ecology Action Centre, Marine Renewables Canada and SeaBlue Canada.

We're proposing to amend clause 28 as follows:

(a) by replacing line 4 on page 12 with the following: (a) the continuation of (b) by adding after line 9 on page 12 the following: (2) In respect of any portion of the offshore area, it is prohibited to commence any new work or activity relating to the drilling for petroleum after this section comes into force.

I think that this aligns with the testimony shared with the committee. This would help the government remain more consistent with its commitments in the fight against climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I'm going to Ms. Jones, and then to Mr. Patzer.

Go ahead, Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, the intention of Bill C-49 is not and never was to cease oil and gas activity. It's to ensure that we develop the offshore renewable energy sector. A clause in the agreement has already been negotiated and agreed upon by the provinces, so I oppose the motion.

[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.

I think the provinces should be allowed to decide what their future is. If they want to do more offshore oil and gas development and exploration, they should be able to do that, so I am opposed to this particular amendment.

Mr. Chair, would it be okay for me to move my motion that I gave notice of on Friday? I want to take care of it really quickly, if the committee will indulge me for a couple of minutes. I move:

That, given that,

a) According to Statistics Canada: “In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry, Mr. Patzer. Because we're already in a clause right now, you can't move it.

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

Okay. Thank you. I will end there, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Would you like to speak on the clause?

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

I already made my comments on the clause. That's why I was wondering, since I was done with that, if I would be able to comment on my motion.

Is there a point in this meeting when I can move this?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back to debate on BQ-7. After we vote on BQ-7, I can acknowledge you, Mr. Patzer.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Shall BQ-7 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That is defeated.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, before Mr. Patzer moves his motion, I have a question about the Standing Orders.

I gather from the Standing Orders that, during clause‑by‑clause consideration of a bill, a motion can't be moved unless it relates specifically to a clause of the bill. Mr. Patzer must be able to show that his motion relates specifically to a clause of the bill. If he can't, technically, he shouldn't be able to move his motion.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

As I've been advised by the clerk, if proper notice was given, the member can move a motion.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

I just wanted to be on the list after Mr. Patzer.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

I will now go to Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess I will just get straight to it. I move the motion that was submitted on Friday:

That, given that,

a) According to Statistics Canada: “In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024, contributing to the province's year-over-year price decline of natural gas (-26.6%).”; and

b) Saskatchewan's inflation rate dropped to 1.9%, a full percentage point below the national inflation rate,

The committee call on the Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax.

Given that this deals with a provincial matter, I think I would have support from Mr. Simard, in that provincial jurisdiction is a common theme for him.

I think it's imperative that we send the message to the House on behalf of this committee, especially since we heard testimony.... Well, we saw in the Order Paper question, and we've seen repeatedly, that the government doesn't actually track any emissions reductions from the carbon tax. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that it is not an emissions reduction scheme. It's just simply a tax and redistribution scheme.

Therefore, I think it would be good for this committee to really send a strong message that we support the resource sector and the development of the resource sector. Also, I think it would be great for the folks who pay their gas bills, their power utility bills, their fuel bills and their home heating bills to see that this committee takes the affordability crisis seriously.

It would also be for people who want to invest in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in Newfoundland in the offshore that removing this unnecessary tax that is.... It removes a competitive advantage that Canada has. I think it would be important for us to send that note.

Also, seeing that the House did pass Bill C-234 previously, I think it would be good to just be consistent with that theme, and I think that this motion would allow us to do that. I think the proof is in the pudding here when we look at what Statistics Canada has to say about the price decline on natural gas for ratepayers but also about what it did to inflation in Saskatchewan, which is now below the 2% target that the Bank of Canada set out.

Also, the CPI went down 0.1%, which is the first time it has actually trended downward since May 2020. I think that's a key factor, as well—seeing the impact it actually does have on consumers and seeing that the needle is moving in the right direction in Saskatchewan when it comes to affordability by simply axing the tax.

I think it would send a good message to people if the committee would just approve this quick, simple motion. We can send it to the House, and I think that would be a good, quick little report from this committee.

I don't think I have too much more to say. I think we have a good piece of legislation ahead of us. Obviously, we have some issues with Bill C-49 that we still wish the government would address. However, overall, it's important to my good colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, here, for his province to do some things that they want.

With that, I think I will wrap up my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Now we'll go to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you for that.

Thank you to my colleague for defending the people of Saskatchewan.

My focus right now is making sure that we get this offshore wind accord settled. I've spoken to many people in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who expect us to get it done. Therefore, I bring forward a motion to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are voting on the motion to adjourn debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll now go back to clause 28.

(Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 30)

We are on clause 30 and amendment BQ‑8.

Mr. Simard, go ahead.