Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

There's an old saying that “money talks and bullshit walks”, and we saw this with Canadians incorporating more companies in the States last year than in Canada, which has never happened in the history of our country. Entrepreneurs are starting companies in the States, not in Canada, which is a travesty, and it obviously weakens our country.

TC Energy's CEO said, “the US will continue to be where we'll invest” because “The returns we can earn in the United States are significantly more attractive than they are in Canada.” Canada has seen $54 billion in capital leave for the United States since the Prime Minister came to office.

The United States administration has shortened permitting times to 28 days, while the Liberal government continues to keep antidevelopment legislation in place. What kind of signal does it send to investors if these regulations are kept in place?

[Eric Nuttall]

For at least 10 years, Canada has been the place where good projects go to die. Again, we're optimistic that under the new leadership, those dark days are behind us.

The surest signal that can be sent to the market is eliminating legislation that's very clearly antiquated or was erroneous in the first place. Bill C-69 very clearly and absolutely needs to be repealed. We have such things as a gender-based analysis on the construction of a pipeline. In speaking with CEOs of pipeline companies, I can say they do not understand exactly what that is. We have a ban on tankers and believe the private sector will step up to build a $35-billion or $40-billion pipeline that is, as some have labelled it, a pipeline to nowhere.

There are very easy steps that I hope, for the benefit of all Canadians in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta and from coast to coast, very simple decisions can be made on, and I hope they will be made on an expedited basis. This still impairs the desire of investors to invest in this country and it sends a negative signal.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I have one last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That's your time, Mr. Tochor.

We're going to Mr. Hogan for six minutes.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Legge, I have some questions that I want to direct your way.

You were discussing the challenges, and the opportunities we had to fix some of the challenges. I want to say off the top that I totally agree. The oil and gas sector has been an incredible driver of prosperity. The Prime Minister has said the regulatory framework needs to improve. One of the things the Major Projects Office has to do is identify ways to improve regulatory processes.

I was struck by your list. On five of the six items, we could at least make meaningful progress even without legislative change. Cultural change and regulatory change could get to some of them, and certainly we could look at legislative changes too. I feel that incremental improvement is improvement. We don't want to wait and let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm wondering if you could expand on some of the things you think we could be doing right now, even from a process and cultural point of view, to be more efficient and meet the Prime Minister's goal of having faster approvals and faster action.

[Adam Legge]

Culture eats strategy for breakfast. I've led and transformed a number of organizations where that rings true. We can have all the regulatory change and ambition in the world, but if it isn't being driven down into the public service that these projects are in the national interest, are going to lift Canadians up in their ability to afford daily things like groceries, housing, etc., and will increase Canada's ability to compete for capital, as my fellow witness has identified, we won't make meaningful progress.

The cultural shift needs to happen first and foremost, and it's going to take time and repeated efforts. Frankly, those who can't get on the bus of expedited and competitive regulatory environments and investment climates should be shown the door.

In terms of some of the other pieces, frankly, the move to allow provinces to adjudicate and regulate the projects within their provinces is a step that's happening but should be happening as of right. That requires a change in the legislation, but in practice, it should be happening today. In many provinces, it actually is.

The shift to having all of the pipelines in Canada approved by the Canada Energy Regulator is also a needed legislative change, but I believe that should be happening immediately. Frankly, there is a purview within the Impact Assessment Act for the agency and other regulators to limit the scope of reviews. In the past, they have often taken the maximum amount of time and added interesting academic queries to the regulatory approval process when they have really no material bearing on the actual development of a major project.

Those are a few things that could be done immediately.

For a wholesale change for Canada to ultimately be competitive with our primary competitor, the United States, which, as it has been pointed out, is moving to some timelines as quick as 28 days, we will need to see a combination of both procedural and legislative change.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

By the way, around the ever-expanding consultations, you're so right. That is the space I worked in before I worked for the government. It was not even a “yes” or a “no”, it was a “maybe” and “let's go back”, and somebody felt not engaged. That clearly needs to be tightened up.

You made a comment about using business engagement to fulfill aspects of the Crown's duty. I'm intrigued by that for two reasons. One is that I'm concerned about whether that would be durable in a court, so I'm wondering if there's any analysis your organization has done on that. Second, is there any precedent for that in energy projects that I'm just not aware of?

[Adam Legge]

In terms of the first question about durability, as long as the consultation process that has been embarked upon by business, which is very important because they have a lot of the relationships in the communities that a project will be either operating in or impacting through development.... Business can be a very important function and functionary in that activity. As long as some of those engagements are properly documented, noted and recorded, they can be considered part of the duty to consult.

In terms of examples of projects, the work that Trans Mountain and Ian Anderson did, through a lot of his engagement with the indigenous communities along the route, was a substantive part of the consultation. In fact, there have been some instances where the Crown has, in effect, discharged its duty to the business community given the engagements they've had with indigenous communities.

It is possible, and it's an important part for all parties, but particularly the Crown in fulfilling its duty to consult.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

The last question I have I'll open up to both of you.

When we talk about the overall global context, first of all, I completely believe that demand for Canadian oil can continue to grow regardless of the scenario, whether demand goes up, down or sideways. Demand is always shifting. People want variety. They don't want to be beholden to one particular market. There is lots of opportunity for Canada long term.

Canadian oil and gas production has grown 34% in the last 10 years—globally, that increase was 6%—but if I understand well, there was an opportunity for more. What do you envision as potentially the upside that's available to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Hogan, we're out of time, but I will allow a quick answer from both of our witnesses.

[Eric Nuttall]

It's fair. The Canadian growth rate has exceeded the global average. The largest reason for this is that the quantum of growth is much larger here than in other countries, many of which are in permanent decline. Also, people such as me have been inhibiting that growth rate as well, because there's been a call for companies to prioritize the return of capital over production growth at a time of enormous volatility in the oil price.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We'll have a quick one from you, Mr. Legge.

[Adam Legge]

If I interpret the question correctly, MP Hogan, it's about whether there is global demand for Canadian energy product.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

No, I believe there will be global demand.

It's okay, Chair, we can pick it up in other rounds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We will now go to Mr. Simard, but before we do, I just want to welcome Mr. Gasparro and Mr. Lloyd to the committee.

I believe you're an observer, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Gasparro, you will be an active member, I understand, of the committee for this round.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we begin, I want to make sure that our guests have access to interpretation. Is it working for you gentlemen?

It doesn't seem to be working, as usual. At some point, instead of hearing my voice, you're going to hear the lovely, harmonious voice of the interpreters, who are always friendly and fantastic. Here, it's always important to get along well with the interpreters when you're francophone, otherwise you won't be heard.

It seems to be working now.

Mr. Legge, I was a little puzzled by your opening remarks, and I'll explain why. You spoke about the politicization of decisions, about risk tolerance, in terms of environmental risks, and about apolitical decisions. I find that strange, because as you're probably aware, your presence here is itself political. It's a bit counterintuitive to ask politicians to make apolitical decisions.

The question we are asking ourselves in the context of our committee work is whether the construction of oil and gas infrastructure is in the public interest. What you're doing is political, since you're defending the interests of your members. Do the interests of your members align with the public interest? That's the question we have to ask ourselves. I'm not convinced that building oil and gas infrastructure is in the public interest. I'll explain why, and you can give me your opinion on that afterwards.

The last oil and gas infrastructure that was built in Canada was the Trans Mountain pipeline. It cost us collectively $34 billion, which comes out to a little more than $800 per person in Canada, including children. Earlier, your colleague said that if we wanted shorter wait times in hospitals and less crime, we might need to invest in oil and gas infrastructure. I think the opposite, that we shouldn't do that. That $800 per person might have allowed people to have shorter wait times in hospitals. I don't think that, in the long term, the companies you represent have any interest in investing their own money in infrastructure. If they did, they would have done so in the case of Trans Mountain. In fact, I would remind you that we are still subsidizing the oil companies that use this pipeline at a rate of $7 per barrel.

Not only that, there is something that bothers me even more. I would like to know who your members are, because when we look at the ownership structure of the major oil and gas companies, we quickly realize that about 60% of them are American companies. In a context where we're trying to wean ourselves off the American market, there are large American companies lobbying to ensure that infrastructure projects go ahead.

In short, I'm not convinced that building oil and gas infrastructure is in the public interest, and I'm leaving the environmental aspect aside.

I'd like to hear your opinion. How is building this oil and gas infrastructure in the public interest?

[Adam Legge]

I think to the extent that my fellow witness here came armed with the actual economic impacts of taxes and royalties that have been paid by large oil sands companies.... Oil and gas is the largest export sector of this country. It is the largest taxpaying sector of this country. It is the most productive, as an economic multiplier sector, in this country.

The economic benefits of growing the sector, growing production and getting more production to other non-U.S. markets, in addition to continuing to supply the U.S., are relatively clear given the economic impact of the industry to this country. The wages that are earned in Alberta contribute to everything from pensions to equalization payments. It is a vital and imperative industry. It is in the public interest to continue to grow production and support that through new transportation infrastructure to new markets.

The Trans Mountain pipeline returned $1 billion to the federal government in its first year of operation because of the expanded capacity and export take-away capacity through its operations. Imagine if we had multiple opportunities to expand production and grow exports through other pipelines. We would have incremental returns, and taxes and royalties that are earned. I would argue that the economic impacts of the oil and gas sector and of growing our trade capacity with other markets are strong and compelling.

With the cancellations of everything from northern gateway to energy east, we have lost out on 1.6 million barrels a day of production and therefore the taxation and royalties on that production. We have a huge opportunity lost, and hopefully we can find ways to grow that into the future.

[Eric Nuttall]

If I may, and with respect, Monsieur Simard, where do you think your province's $17 billion per year of transfer payments come from? They're funded from—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm going to stop you there. We have to look at the full picture of what equalization does. If we look at Quebec's trade balance, we see that the value of what it sends to Alberta is higher than the value of what it receives. You also have to factor in the tax credits that the oil and gas sector receives. I mentioned the purchase of the pipeline. I've been here since 2019, and I've seen the emissions reduction fund come and go—it was supposed to reduce the sector's carbon intensity, which never happened. The environment commissioner came and said that it was, quite simply, a subsidy given to the oil and gas sector.

I would go even further and say that the main beneficiaries of the oil and gas sector are the shareholders. The oil and gas sector, from 2021 to 2024—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That's your time, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll come back to that, I'll be pleased to do so. I'm pleased with your comment today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Perhaps you can work a response into one of the other responses to another member.

Colleagues, we're a bit behind. I've been probably too permissive today in allowing folks to go over their time, including some of our witnesses. We have Monsieur Martel, Mr. Clark and then Monsieur Simard.

I'm going to reduce the time, Mr. Tochor and Mr. Gasparro, to three minutes at the end, so prepare your questions accordingly. You're devastated, I know, but that's what we do in this committee. We devastate folks.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm going to write a very strongly worded letter.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

It will be to the Speaker, I hope.

Mr. Martel, you have five minutes.