Evidence of meeting #91 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
This is similar to G-11, which was previously carried by this committee. Again, consistency is important, and this is part of a group of amendments with a separate coming into force.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I don't see any further debate.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to G-22.
Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
We are once again proposing to correct an error in the language used in the French version.
We want the two bills to be consistent, so we propose replacing the wording “qu'elle précise” with “précisé”. We adopted the same amendment in the case of another clause.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I don't see any further debate.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 170 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
There are no amendments to clauses 171 to 184. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Okay.
(Clauses 171 and 172 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 173 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
Mr. Patzer.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We would be good to group clauses 174 to 184.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you.
Shall clauses 174 to 184 carry?
(Clauses 174 to 184 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
(On clause 185)
Now we have G-22.1.
Ms. Dabrusin.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Again, it's maintaining consistency. However, I'll just note that this amendment makes it clear that royalty owners are not party to a unit operating agreement and do not have to approve it. The unit operating agreement is an agreement between the working interest owners and would not involve the royalty owners.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I don't see any further debate on G-22.1.
I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm sorry. We were just wondering if there would be a further rationale as to why. Is there an example, specifically, of where this would come into play? What specific case would this be used for?
That's for the sake of us trying to make sure, for absolute clarity, when giving this type of approval to something.
Liberal
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You moved the amendment, so if you have an answer, that's fine.
Through the chair to Ms. Dabrusin, if she wants to answer, that's fine, too. If the officials have an answer, I'm fine, as well. However, I would think the parliamentary secretary would have some comments on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
Officials or Ms. Dabrusin, would you like to add any further clarity?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
The provinces have supported it.
I think the officials would be well placed to answer the question in more detail.
Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
I'll turn to my colleague Cheryl McNeil.
Cheryl McNeil Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
Thank you.
This is with respect to where there would be petroleum pools found that straddle different administrative boundaries. In that instance, the parties would work together to agree to a unit operating agreement. The unit operating agreement deals with property matters—the unitization of rights and interests—while the other deals with procedural matters and how the working interest owners would make those operational decisions.
That would be the difference between the two.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you.
To Ms. McNeil, on the transboundary pools, the assumption is that this is interprovincial. However, are we dealing in any way, shape or form with Canada-U.S. boundary pools? Has that been taken into account in this particular discussion?
Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, these amendments could work with respect to both domestic pools and those that would straddle international boundaries, such as Canada-U.S. or Canada-France—for example, with Saint-Pierre and Miquelon off the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Does this also deal with international waters? Is it a similar type of argument you would have there?