Evidence of meeting #10 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 27th, 2025 / 1:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
There has been a lot of discussion by some of the witnesses over the course of these meetings about investing in projects. The investment has to come from somewhere. It's great to talk about this stuff when it's other people's money, but primary industries are the only real way to generate new capital and new wealth.
The recent layoffs at major companies in Alberta like ConocoPhillips, Enbridge and Imperial are a trend that is disturbing and could undermine economic success in the near future. What measures do you believe are necessary to restore investor confidence?
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
We need to be competitive in both our fiscal measures as well as environmental measures. To speak to the emissions reduction plan and address climate change, which the committee is studying, we have to bring in policies that reduce emissions in a way that does not frighten away investment. When companies choose to invest, whether it's to grow their production or build a clean energy plant, a hydrogen plant, their boards of directors generally ask three questions: Is this project, this activity, going to produce enough revenue to cover the cost of capital? Is it going to cover the cost of financing and operating costs?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
Ms. Miedema, you have five minutes.
The only witness we have so far is Ms. Savage.
Liberal
The Clerk
I've written to them and asked them to return, but I have not yet received a reply.
Liberal
Liberal
Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON
Ms. Savage, thank you for sticking with us.
I'd like to get your perspective on climate competitiveness and how we strike, as a nation at all levels of government, a balance, so that as we address the climate crisis, we do so in a way that also maintains and enhances our ability to thrive as an economy.
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
Thank you. I am encouraged by some of the more recent dialogue on backing away from hard, rigid emissions targets and looking at results and climate competitiveness.
I look at one policy that has worked and is working to both reduce emissions and attract investment—industrial carbon pricing. I believe it's effective at doing both. People ask how it attracts investment. Investment decisions for many projects—and I work on a lot of projects in the energy transition space—hinge on being able to create revenue. Revenue can be crated by selling the carbon credits that a project generates. The economics of a lot of these projects are not there without a price on carbon. The carbon credits are the one thing that can make some of these projects work.
If it's priced properly—and by priced properly I mean it's not so high that you see carbon leakage, and it's not so low that it's ineffective—and if it's left to the provinces to implement, it can work very well. I say the provinces must implement, because they're closer to the industries. They regulate those industries already, and they know them extensively. If carbon markets are performing properly, we don't need to layer other regulations on top. We don't need an emissions cap. The TIER system in Alberta can bring down emissions in oil and gas and power generation. That's one tool that can be effective in climate competitiveness.
Liberal
Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON
Thank you.
We heard earlier today that Alberta and Saskatchewan are emitting higher than we need them to as a nation to reach our targets. We understand why.
You said that, if the industrial carbon price is too low, it won't be effective. Does that indicate that the industrial carbon price is currently too low?
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
I think the TIER program, which is Alberta's industrial carbon price, has been in place since 2007. It's on its third iteration. It gets tweaked and reset, and the targets and the stringency get changed from time to time. I think you're referring to the freeze in carbon pricing, under the TIER program, at $95. I think there is concern that jumping up to $170 by 2030 is going too far too fast, and it would create some concerns with competitiveness. Now, $95 is a lot higher than what it was a few years ago, and it's finding that right sweet spot where you can be effective at reducing emissions and not frighten away investment.
However, I think there's an opportunity—to get back to your climate competitiveness question—for the provinces to have better collaboration. We're not going to get this right on either reducing emissions or attracting investment if we don't have collaboration between the provinces and the federal government.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
Thank you, Mr. Fanjoy.
Now the floor is yours, Mr. Ross, for five minutes
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Welcome back, Mr. Swampy.
The word “reconciliation” is thrown around in the House of Commons on a regular basis, yet you stated that Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau refused to meet with the National Coalition of Chiefs. What needs to change, at the federal government level, to achieve economic reconciliation?
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Coalition of Chiefs
What has to happen is that they have to even the playing field. I think one of the biggest problems we had when Trudeau was in power, and the National Coalition of Chiefs and the Aboriginal Equity Partners had a coalition of 31 leaders signed on as owners of the northern gateway, was that he refused to meet with us. He even announced, when he cancelled the project, that he had never spoken with an indigenous community member who was in support of the project. Of course he didn't, because he wouldn't meet with us.
This is the kind of exclusive political institution we've become in this country. We don't listen to both sides of the story. I tell first nation leaders that they have to listen to the proponents. You can't let environmentalists tell you not to meet with them because, once you meet with them, you start to realize these are Canadians. These are Canadian engineers, technicians and scientists who are there to protect the environment. They want to protect the environment just as much as first nation people. With the amount of resources, money and time they've committed to integrity systems, safety systems and environmental protection plans, they'll understand, appreciate, be confident and provided security for them to ensure that their communities are going to be protected against any environmental damage.
That's what reconciliation is all about—being involved and getting extra consideration for the indigenous communities to come on board and be included in these projects. The first nations have to act in the same way that inclusive political institutions act, and that is to hear both sides of the stories. We elect them to become informed, and, if they're refusing to become informed by both sides, they're refusing to make an informed decision. That's what's happening right now in Canadian politics. We're so polarized that many people are not listening to the other side of the story.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Savage, just briefly, you mentioned some of the massive amounts of investment that have fled this country due to the fact that projects simply cannot get built in this country.
Is the development of the Major Projects Office not just an admonishment of the system that consecutive Liberal governments have set up in this country, in which projects simply cannot get built and it's easier to put your money in a different country?
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
I think Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, gives a complete workaround for some of the laws that have inhibited investment. There's a potential workaround for the tanker ban, the emissions cap and all of the things that industry says hold back investment, so I think that's an acknowledgement that we have a problem in Canada and we can't build things.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Do you think the workaround will work, or would it be better to repeal all of those Trudeau-Guilbeault, Liberal-era pieces of legislation?
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
Ultimately, a lot of that needs to be repealed. That's going to take some time. Repealing legislation does take some time, especially if you have to consult indigenous groups on some of it. The workaround is an acknowledgement that the legislation doesn't work. Bill C-69, in particular, needs some significant rewrites. It's an acknowledgement that needs to be done over time. We're not going to track the investment long-term if we keep those laws in place.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
It's particularly with Bill C-69, given the constitutionality question around that.
Could you expand on the challenge that this poses from an investment perspective?
Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual
Bill C-69 has been declared unconstitutional. There's been a rewrite. Most lawyers think it's still going to be found unconstitutional. It's being challenged again. Some of the tests that are in Bill C-69, they're in section 22, are climate tests, sustainability tests and tests that cost a lot of money and create a lot of uncertainty for companies trying to invest. There is uncertainty when you don't know what the outcome is.
There are political decisions throughout the legislation that create uncertainty. Project proponents want to know that you're not going to have political interference midstream in a project approval, or worse yet, at the very end after you get through an approval. There are significant changes that have to happen in Bill C-69 in the long run.
