Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My expertise is resource geopolitics and indigenous engagement in Canadian resource development, and I'll focus my brief remarks on those issues.
To briefly set the context, the COVID pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have heightened our awareness and concerns about the security of our supply chains. As a top global exporter of oil, gas, lumber, nickel, uranium, grains, oilseeds and other resources, we are being turned to by our allies as “friend-shoring” becomes not only an economic imperative but a security imperative.
Canada is the largest oil exporter of any OECD country, and the only OECD country in the top 10 globally for proven reserves. It is not an exaggeration to say that the energy security of our allies in the decades to come will rely on Canada's continued exports of significant quantities of oil and gas. The consequences of becoming reliant on authoritarian regimes to supply the world with their biggest source of energy are dire, as we are seeing in Europe already.
The programs that NRCan and EDC have to support businesses in the oil and gas industry are important to continue, but as discussed here, Canadians get back much more than what governments put in. According to a recent report by Peters & Co., the oil and gas industry alone will be providing over $50 billion in royalties and taxes to federal and provincial governments in 2022.
As all sides of the political spectrum are committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, one of the best opportunities the federal government has to both address the need to supply more energy and resources to our allies and advance the economic and social well-being of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples is to provide low-interest, guaranteed loans that enable indigenous people to take equity positions—ownership stakes—in major projects. Doing this can de-risk projects, attract investment and allow development to happen at a faster pace; ensure that indigenous interests are included when environmental, cultural and safety issues are being decided on; and provide stable, own-source revenue streams to those communities. The Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation is an example of such a model, and it has provided significant financial support for the recent equity position in seven pipelines in the Athabasca region by 23 communities, as well as in the northern courier pipeline system deal with eight indigenous communities, also in northern Alberta.
Despite the incredible own-source revenue opportunities in the sector, the federal government has not made such loans available to indigenous people for deals in the natural gas and oil industry. In my opinion, this is an error.
This brings me to TMX. It is widely anticipated that the government will sell TMX to an indigenous consortium when it is completed, something I believe can be transformative in terms of the revenues it will generate and the economic self-determination it will provide. I hope all parties will support a deal when the time comes.
I'll note that my colleague, Calvin Helin, is well placed to answer questions on first nations' involvement and interest in major resource projects.
I also want to iterate that in my opinion, the wrong lesson to draw from TMX cost overruns is that oil and gas is a money loser for Canadian taxpayers. The correct lesson, in my view, is that a pipeline that could have been built for $7 billion 10 years ago now takes well over $20 billion due to our—