Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much.

In your opening remarks, I think both of you talked about the geopolitical situation and the danger of being trapped by the U.S. market. You also talked about the importance, in order to build infrastructure, of eliminating the risk associated with investing for private investors. Personally, I don't think they're going to put a lot of money into it if the public sector doesn't get involved. I'll tell you what really bothers me.

When you look at the major players in the Pathways Alliance, which represents 80% of all oil producers, you see that 60% of them are linked to American companies. If the idea is to have a more resilient economy to protect us from our dependence on the Americans, I find it quite strange that we're prepared to invest public money in infrastructure that will serve mainly American interests. That means that the profits they generate are generally returned to American companies and that they'll have considerable control over infrastructure that will become strategic.

In your opinion, given the ownership structure of these companies, isn't it inconsistent to decide to invest in infrastructure, perhaps with taxpayer money, when we know that it will ultimately serve American interests?

[Dan McTeague]

Mr. Simard, the battle over where we would seek investment money has already taken place, and it goes without saying that the United States is involved, given our geography.

It must be said that the money invested in extracting and exporting our resources has a positive impact on the entire economy. We can talk about what is subsidized by the federal government, whether it be 7% or another percentage, but we cannot deny the $20 billion, or even $30 billion a year, that go back to the Canadian economy. Nor can we deny the revenue that the federal, provincial and even municipal governments generate as a result of this industry.

Does the reality of where the capital comes from prevent us from getting money from the U.S.? I don't know, but when we talk about the U.S., one of the things I have to point out is that Canadians have no purchasing power because of the weak loonie. The lack of interest in our economy, whether from the United States, Japan or Europe, is costing us 22¢ a litre. We need to tell everyone that Canada is ready to receive investments, which will have enormous benefits for the vast majority of Canadians.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. That's your time.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I will add to that very quickly. I just want to say that the companies we're talking about are publicly traded. It may be American money, but anyone can have a share in those. It would be great if more pension plans in Canada were willing to invest. They're getting money from the California pension plan, some companies, and not for local teacher ones.

That money will come. The way I envision the de-risking is with indigenous loan guarantees. Those would be government-backed loans going to indigenous communities. I think that's a good way to get some Canadian content, prevent economic leakage and also build that case for consent.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. That is time.

Now we will move on to our third round of questions, which will be mine. The clerk will keep me on track here.

Let me start with both of you.

I get concerned when people easily use the word “we”. That “we”, in royal terms, has been used a lot here. I should make it clear that what Conservatives want is for the private sector to be able to build major energy infrastructure, to create jobs and to contribute taxes, royalties and revenue that provide the programs and services that all Canadians everywhere value. It's not that the government ought to subsidize it, except that Canada is in this position because this very government has killed two intergovernmental export pipelines in the last 10 years, and no private sector proponent will go it alone, which is why a provincial government has had to put a group together.

TC Energy, which dropped Canada's name from its title, for example, says, “the U.S. will continue to be where we'll invest.” They say, “The returns we can earn in the United States are significantly more attractive than they are in Canada”.

This question is for both witnesses. Since competitiveness and Canada's beating the United States are now more imperative than before, despite the two opportunities that the Liberals killed—with which Canada could have been self-reliant, sovereign, affordable and independent from the United States, and which would have been in service many years ago—what do the witnesses have to say about the schedule of policies, bans, mandates, laws and taxes in Canada's domestic regulatory federal framework, which the U.S. has none of?

You might want to touch on the oil and gas cap or the Canadian electricity regulations. Both are mentioned in the MOU, by the way, but nothing concrete whatsoever has been done to remove them.

[Dan McTeague]

I would simply say that the Canadian government has certainly signalled, whether it has realized it or not, that Canada is not open for business. Our decision that we must have everything based on net zero—a philosophy that has so far been very disruptive, if not damaging, to the Canadian economy and to consumers, notwithstanding the credence we attach to it—is sending a signal to the rest of the world that Canada is not the kind of place you want to make business dealings with. Because there are so many conditions, most people simply walk away from it.

The reality is that it's not hurting those businesses. It's not hurting those who are sitting on the side saying, “Let's get more subsidies for our net zero.” It's actually hurting Canadian consumers. We are seeing oppressive amounts of pressure on Canadian businesses and consumers, such that we're seeing the effect of low growth in our economy, compared to that of our peers.

We're also seeing a world in which the pursuit of many of these projects and policies, whether that be the three carbon taxes—the one carbon tax we got rid of and the two others—the clean fuel standard, the OBPS, the industrial pricing carbon tax, the narrative around emission caps or the whole idea of electric vehicle mandates.... All these things are wonderful in a vacuum, but their effect thus far has been highly damaging and very corrosive to the Canadian way of life, and it has taken away the ability of Canadians to believe that there is going to be a future that indeed is one that will deal with prosperity, as we've seen previous generations bequeath to the next generation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Those are all policies that the United States, Canada's biggest competitor and now aggressor, does not impose on itself federally to hold itself back.

Ms. Exner-Pirot, go ahead.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I'll just quickly add that there is investor interest in Canada right now. We are seen as a place that is maybe doing things differently, maybe to go on, but our policies are not matching that rhetoric. There is a lot of anxiety that we're going to miss this window that we've been granted, and there's so much more we could do to unleash this investment. Dan has mentioned some of it, but the discussion paper from ECCC on OBPS, talking about moving to a $130 price, is just chilling everything in this town.

On the clean electricity regulations, we understand there's a carve-out, but we don't know what that's going to look like. We don't know what the carbon price is going to be on the end of it, so it's still a matter of uncertainty where no one wants to invest in any kind of electricity infrastructure that's natural gas-fired, because no one knows what it's going to look like on the other side.

We are still very much in a scenario where there's too much uncertainty. People want to spend. They're looking at Canada, but there's no place for money to stick.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

We're 11 years in with the collapse of investment from Canada into the United States in a historical anomaly that started in 2015 and has been getting worse ever since.

I don't know if, to wrap up, either of you has comments on the importance of the inextricable link between energy and economic and national security, especially in the current geopolitical context. I'd invite you to comment on that to wrap up.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I can start.

It's obvious, from the last several trade delegations, what Canada's superpower is. The way we're leading new negotiations, we are expanding trade relationships and leading with oil and gas, and I would also say uranium. I think Canadians in general, in the last year, have become much more aware of how important this is to Canada's standing in the world and to our economy. I think politicians have a lot more leeway than they did a year or two ago to make some changes to really let that sector shine.

We have so many great resources. We have such great companies. The private sector wants to build and spend. It's not looking for subsidies, for the most part. It is just looking for clear rules and a reasonable return on investment, and that can translate into not only economic growth, but also soft power influence.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

I'm done. Maybe there will be another opportunity, but we will now go for a full five minutes to Monsieur Guay.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Exner-Pirot, it's good to see you again. Thank you for coming to the committee.

I sit here and I'm baffled, because I think the word that the Prime Minister uses is “pragmatic”, and I feel that I'm hearing a non-pragmatic position, particularly when I sit in the House of Commons, because in the past government there were all these regulations and I hear you saying that everything was over-regulated, making nothing happen. The previous Conservative government got nothing done because they had zero regulation, and it ended up in court. It ended up with the first nations—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Let's just stick to facts and not absolutely lie like that.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Chair, it's my time to [Inaudible—Editor].

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Yes, I am the chair, but stick with facts.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

There were a lot of contests in the courts. There were a lot of protests from the first nations. So, in a world of complete deregulation and no consultation, we can't get anything done. In a context of over-regulation, we can't get anything done.

What are you suggesting as a middle ground, as a pragmatic ground? I do agree that we are resource-rich, and I do agree that the purpose of this study is to see how we can get more exported. What is that middle ground that the government should be looking for?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

That's a great question.

I'll say, on LNG, that we're finding something of a middle ground, and I would say it's been very important. We have great resources; we know that. We have a great market to get into, but for both B.C. and the federal government to say that we want to go to Asia, that we want this LNG and that we will allow it to proceed has been very helpful.

I think, obviously, that an interprovincial oil pipeline is the most contentious of the things that we're discussing. It's still very difficult. On the middle ground, make it clear.... We follow the duty to consult, section 35, in Canada, and adding UNDRIP on top of that has muddied the waters. I think that's very clear, but the courts have been pretty consistent in saying that we need it. We have a duty to consult and accommodate. It's not a veto. We don't require consent, but we will do our very best, operating in good faith as the Crown, to meet any of your objectives and to accommodate and mitigate the impacts on treaty and aboriginal rights. We know what it is, but sometimes it's still muddy, I think, in how we communicate that.

On the regulations, really, it's about certainty. Again, with ECCC.... I'd say there's very good rhetoric coming from the government, but ECCC is still doing things that seem to contradict both the MOU and the signals that were going to China and India. Saying that we're going to have another revamp of the OBPS and try to increase the price to match the headline price, undermining the markets that we already have, I think is very unhelpful.

The methane regulations...proposing regulations that are different, even the time frame, from what the MOU with Alberta just put forward. Clean fuel regulations.... Again, the regulations were put in two years ago, and they have already been shown to not be working, so now we have to make new amendments to those. It's so difficult, as you know, for the private sector to look at a case, make the business case and figure out what their return is going to be when the regulations are changing so much.

In this country, we desperately need consensus on energy policy. I think we're closer than we have been, but on the policy side, some of the policies that pre-existed the current government are still there as a fly in the ointment.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

What do you think, Ms. Exner-Pirot, of the MOU signed between the federal government and Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I thought it was a very good MOU but, again, as you know, some of the elements have not been formalized. We know that there's a carve-out for the clean electricity regulations, but we don't know what that looks like. We know that a lot of this hinges on some April 1 industrial carbon price agreement, but we don't know what that's going to be. We don't know when we're trying to reach $130. We don't know if TIER is going to be respected or if there's going to be a carbon tax replacement, as the discussion paper seems to make clear.

I think the mood was buoyant in Calgary in November, but also the green taxonomy was introduced, so several things have happened on the policy front since the MOU was signed, mostly from ECCC, that are again muddying the waters and making it unclear to investors what they should be doing.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

If I can rephrase what you just said, if all of this becomes clear, which I think was the intent of the MOU, this would provide certainty for the investors. Is that correct?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think that, if the MOU is implemented with reasonable carbon pricing, yes, that will be a very improved situation. It will get to FID on Ksi Lisims and PRGT, and hopefully to an oil pipeline as well.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you, Monsieur Guay.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Of course, it sounds very clear that there have been 11 years of uncertainty that started in 2016, and today, in 2026, there's still a lack of certainty.

Thank you for a fantastic meeting and a discussion that is absolutely critical to Canada's economy and to our international standing in the world, since this sector underpins the entire Canadian economy.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Madam Chair, I don't know if it's the proper time, but I would like to present a motion at the next meeting and present it in camera, if agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Yes, I think there's agreement. Thank you, Mr. Malette.

Is there anything from any other colleagues? No, except for giving me shit for my editorial comments, which is fair game.

Thank you, colleagues.

To our witnesses again, I certainly encourage you to follow up with written input if there's anything that you didn't get to, because that is the only way in which MPs can include your extra feedback in the committee's report or in a supplementary report, should somebody decide to do that.

That is all the time we have today with this panel. I want to thank the witnesses again for being here.

Our next meeting will be on Thursday, February 5, when we will continue the current study.

If everybody agrees, the meeting is adjourned.