Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[David Novog]

I look at the energy picture as a whole—energy demand across multiple sectors in terms of thermal energy and electricity energy—and one thing I tell my students and people when I talk to them is that no single technology will be able to meet the coming demands in a clean and reliable manner. It's going to take a mixture of large baseload generation, like hydro in Quebec and nuclear in Ontario, combined with battery storage and renewables. As renewables grow and battery storage grows to complement that, and as baseload continues to rise, I see opportunities across all of the energy sectors.

My expertise lies in nuclear. I'd say regarding export opportunities in nuclear that there's not only the big flashy sale of selling a reactor. We also have hundreds of companies in Canada in the nuclear supply chain that are globally integrated into builds and refurbishments around the world. The support for those companies is going to be key for ensuring their success as nuclear doubles or triples over the coming decades.

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

Along that same line, do you think we should focus on our mining and exporting of uranium, or building and renovating existing nuclear reactors, which you started talking about?

[David Novog]

I think chemical and uranium mining across Canada has been a huge success story. We supply some of the best-grade uranium in the world to multiple countries. That export opportunity will continue to grow.

In terms of nuclear reactors, we've done an excellent job in Ontario at refurbishing and making the best use of the construction we already have. Over the next decade, growth will certainly.... The market operator in Ontario has said that we will be short 17 gigawatts of electricity, so hundreds of thousands of homes' worth of new electricity capacity will need to be built in Ontario. That will certainly require the construction of new reactors, not just in Ontario but also in other provinces as their growth catches up.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have 20 seconds.

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

I'm good, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Wrapping up, we have Mr. Hogan for three minutes.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. I've always learned something when I have talked to you in the past.

Mr. Novog, we haven't met, but I want to dig into some of the things you've said, particularly around workforce challenges.

I think people don't always appreciate how many people can be employed by projects in the nuclear space. As you noted, we have multiple projects being considered domestically, and we want to support and grow our ability to export that expertise and the products—the sales and technical services, as you put it in your opening remarks. We need 17 gigawatts, or hundreds of thousands of homes' worth of new electricity. That's also tens of thousands of employees and workers who will need to be trained up.

Can you give the committee a sense of the mix and the scale? What per cent will have to have university degrees versus trade school training versus training on site plus some other combination of skills? What are your thoughts on where we should be putting our focus as a federal government?

[David Novog]

The details would be in our workforce study, done here at McMaster, and in a comparable study done by the Canadian Nuclear Association. In general, today's nuclear sector employs about 50,000 to 80,000 people, depending on which parts of the supply chain you credit. Doubling nuclear capacity will almost double those numbers. We're looking at growth of about 50,000 to 100,000 new workers across Canada.

Many are in the skilled trades. If you wanted a rough number, approximately 70% are in trades and skilled trades. That area gets a lot of attention because it amounts to a very large number of new people, and you can couple that with growth in mining, oil and gas and so on. Also, it's really the same skill sets. The pipefitters and welders.... These kinds of hard-core skilled trades are really going to be an area where Canada needs to pay attention.

However, 30% will be the engineers, scientists and subject matter experts who require a university degree or even advanced degrees, Ph.D. degrees. In these areas, the training time frame is much longer. It takes longer to generate a Ph.D. or a subject matter expert. It's important to start that skill-up today to be ready for five or 10 years from now, because generating new experts takes a long time.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

The chair tells me I'm on my last 30 seconds.

In terms of interoperability on the advanced degree side, is this a thing where we can take somebody who is a mechanical engineer, for example, with a focus on oil and gas and re-skill and retrain them for nuclear? What does that look like?

[David Novog]

It's a great question.

For a long time, the nuclear sector thought that would be a pathway for gaining new employees and experienced people—the sector-to-sector transitions you mentioned—but what we've seen over the last several years is potential growth in the oil and gas sector, export markets and so on. Holistically, when you look at spending and growth in defence, oil and gas and nuclear, you're looking for the same people in multiple sectors. An integrated federal perspective on that would really help ensure that universities are set to meet the demand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Hogan.

I'll give a big thank you to our witnesses today. I think you saw that my colleagues were indeed very engaged in the very stimulating dialogue.

As was suggested earlier, we invite you to submit briefs if there were some points you think weren't covered or if you want to re-emphasize some of the points you made. We would welcome that.

Thank you, colleagues. We're going to suspend for about five minutes while we get ready for our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Welcome back. We'll resume the meeting as we start our second panel.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta, and Eric Nuttall, partner and senior portfolio manager at Ninepoint Partners.

I have just a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

You'll each have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Legge, we're going to start with you. You have the floor.

[Adam Legge, President, Business Council of Alberta]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today.

I'll focus on the largest barrier to Canada supplying the world with energy: the Impact Assessment Act, a.k.a Bill C-69, and major permitting systems that stand in the way of billions of dollars of investment and, ultimately, improved prosperity for Canadians. Simply put, the process, timeline and political uncertainties inherent in this act and federal permitting systems are such that few companies will risk the time and cost to apply for approval.

There are six key barriers embedded within the act and systems.

One, late-stage politicized decision-making creates unpredictability for a years-long, high-cost process.

Two, there are duplicative reviews and regulators because of departmental and jurisdictional overlap.

Three, excessive timelines are unpredictable and prone to delays that impact construction timelines.

Four, regulators' low risk tolerance causes reviews to stray from focusing on mitigating only the largest, unique and material impacts.

Five, uncoordinated post-impact assessment permitting by multiple regulators can delay construction.

Six, there is a lack of consultation clarity. Unpredictable indigenous consultations weaken reconciliation efforts, indigenous participation and investor confidence.

I applaud the current efforts of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to improve upon the existing regime. The Bill C-5 approach, however, creates a dual-track system of project winners and losers, without fixing Canada's broader approval challenges. What's needed is a comprehensive legislative overhaul of the act to enable all major projects in Canada to get reviewed and approved quickly and efficiently, with predictability and without political interference.

What does an ideal system look like? Well, in the next two months, the Business Council of Alberta will release a major report on project approval reform, and we'll provide that report to this committee.

The following six key changes will create an optimal impact assessment and major project process.

One, ensure that projects are reviewed by the right level of government and regulator by requiring that projects built in a province be reviewed by that province as of right, moving approvals for all federal pipeline projects to the Canada Energy Regulator under the CER Act and ensuring that we have “one project, one review, one decision”.

Two, remove late-stage political decisions by adopting a two-stage project authorization process wherein stage one is an early political decision on whether a project is in the national public interest and stage two is an independent, apolitical determination of how a project can proceed by the regulator.

Three, reduce timelines and stop their extension by creating an absolute maximum timeline of two years under the IAA, with efforts to shorten that to be competitive with the United States; shortening the CER timelines to a maximum of 250 days, with even shorter timelines for lower-risk projects; and eliminating opportunities for political interference to extend timelines.

Four, rightsize the scope of reviews by reintroducing the concept of standing, focusing only on the unique risks associated with a project.

Five, streamline permitting and conditions by making the designated regulator responsible for coordinating all federal permit reviews and decision-making, and by aligning permit decisions with the final decision of the impact assessment.

Six, clarify indigenous consultation by ensuring that Crown consultation properly considers and utilizes businesses' engagement as fulfilling aspects of the Crown's duty; ensuring that consultation aligns with the maximum review timeline; and building capacity for indigenous communities to participate in and benefit from projects and, if desired, to own an equity stake.

We also ask the government not to forget about cultural change. The system was designed to ensure that bad things don't happen when major projects are built. Thousands of public servants were hired to carry out that mandate, but they viewed and continue to view their role as one limited to their own zone of expertise or responsibility. This has created challenges that have kept us, and risk keeping us still, from achieving the goals of prosperity and more meaningful economic reconciliation.

We need the process and public servants to view project approvals through an economic and prosperity lens. Canada and the public service require a culture that ensures that we build big and ambitious things, and that we build them quickly and safely for the sake of Canadians' well-being and prosperity.

These changes, both real and cultural, will enable project proponents and investors to have confidence in Canada as a place to invest, while still protecting environmental, social, economic and indigenous rights and domains. If we wish to enable Canada to grow its economy, diversify its global trading network and make Canadians better off, these actions and changes must be made urgently.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Legge.

We'll—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I didn't speak up earlier, but I think my friends in the interpretation service were finding the pace a little fast. We want to keep them healthy, and I think they need to catch their breath. We should be careful about how fast we speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I'm sorry. I should have noted that.

Mr. Legge, you finished in plenty of time. In the Q and A, we can have a more measured pace.

We'll go to you, Mr. Nuttall, for five minutes.

[Eric Nuttall, Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners]

Thank you very much for the invitation to give testimony on the critical need for Canada to increase its energy exports, an absolute imperative for both our energy sector and Canada at large.

I'm going to apologize in advance if some of my remarks seem overly blunt. I am no politician, but it's time for someone to finally speak the unvarnished truth on this topic.

I come before you with an urgent call to action. We live in a world where the demand for oil continues to set record highs. Late last year, the International Energy Agency stated that under its base scenario, the demand for oil will grow until at least 2050.

Despite decades of future demand growth, the world is hurtling towards a supply crisis. In 2012, oil production from U.S. shale began its ascent. Since then, U.S. shale has accounted for 117% of total non-OPEC production due to production falling in other countries, making it by far the single-largest source of incremental barrels of the past decade plus. Importantly, it's estimated that due to geologic maturity and investor demands, U.S. shale production has now peaked.

What does this mean? The rise of U.S. shale was extremely destructive to the oil market, resulting in several price crashes, an exodus of investor interest and ultimately a meaningful drop in spending on exploration and long-lead development projects. As a result, not only is the United States' oil production forecast to peak this year, but so too is total non-OPEC production, with 75 of the 79 non-OPEC countries now in permanent decline.

Why does this matter? It's because non-OPEC production accounts for a staggering 68% of the global oil supply. Normally, this would not have been the profound challenge it is, as OPEC has historically had meaningful excess spare capacity, offering a form of insurance against declines elsewhere. This is no longer the case.

Since April of last year, OPEC has unwound most of its curtailed production that was shut in during the demand shock of COVID. Similar to non-OPEC countries, it has not been investing in meaningful incremental capacity. We estimate that OPEC only has 1.5 million barrels per day of excess spare capacity, which amounts to a meagre 18 months of demand growth.

The world has never before faced the energy challenge it faces now. Given an incremental 19 million barrels of demand growth by 2050, accelerating decline rates from existing fields, peaking U.S. shale, peaking non-OPEC production and imminent exhaustion of OPEC spare capacity, I pose this simple question: Where will the necessary future production come from?

This is where Canada comes in. Canada is gifted with the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, and it produces 5.5 million barrels per day to the highest environmental standards anywhere on the planet. We have nothing, and I repeat nothing, to apologize for. This production benefits all Canadians, from coast to coast, through royalties and taxes. Canadian Natural Resources, Suncor and Cenovus—Canada's three largest oil companies—collectively paid $16.9 billion in royalties and taxes in 2025. This compares to $16.2 billion in taxes paid in 2025 by Canada's six largest banks.

Despite this windfall, we have for the past 10-plus years purposefully and intentionally practised economic self-flagellation, inhibiting our oil and gas sector with penalizing legislation and excess costs, all rooted in energy ignorance and a misguided notion that Canada can play a pivotal role in lowering global emissions. No other country in the world would do this to itself, and all we have accomplished is to willingly cede market share to other countries—many of which have far lower environmental standards—at a profound economic cost to us. This insanity must end.

What should we do? Canada today has modest excess pipeline capacity and, through several expansion projects, will increase pipeline capacity by up to 770,000 barrels per day by 2030. This is not enough. It is crucial to maintain excess pipeline capacity, as the price of all 5.5 million barrels per day of production is set off the one marginal barrel: one barrel of production more than pipeline capacity and the price of all 5.5 million barrels per day falls.

We are now up against the clock, as it is estimated that it will take at least eight years to build a new major pipeline, taking us beyond the 2030 time frame and risking a repeat of widening price differentials that would significantly impact revenue, royalties and taxes. We estimate that a single pipeline of one million barrels per day would generate an additional $5 billion in new royalties every year. This would be enough to hire 13,000 new doctors and provide health care to almost 17 million Canadians.

Eight-hour wait times with our children in an emergency room is a choice. Failing and inadequate infrastructure is a choice. Neighbourhoods—such as mine in Toronto—getting burglarized on a weekly basis due to insufficient police budgets is a choice. We do not have to live like this.

We have an enormous opportunity in front of us. To seize it, all we need to do is recognize one inalienable truth: The world needs more Canadian energy. With the looming supply crisis in the years ahead, we are one of only four countries that can rise to meet the call in a world where, despite what we are told, not a single purchaser of oil cares about a barrel's carbon footprint, but rather its affordability, availability and reliability.

More Canadian oil production means a higher quality of living for all of us. To not recognize this generational opportunity and to continue to impair our industry by not making new pipelines an urgent national priority backed with action versus more talk would be the equivalent of economic treason.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Nuttall. I gave you a little extra time.

We are now going to questions. We are going to start with Mr. Tochor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Nuttall, at the last meeting of this committee, Lisa Baiton from CAPP highlighted that the changes to the methane regulations in the MOU with Alberta will cost the industry over $14 billion. This is the same government that lost $670 billion in major natural resource projects, including the west-to-east pipeline and the pipeline to the northern Pacific.

Do you have faith that this grand bargain gives certainty to investors, when over the last decade this government has continued to keep projects in the ground?

[Eric Nuttall]

I've renamed the grand bargain the “grand ransom”. It appears obvious, I think, that the current government is tying a new pipeline to initiatives such as Pathways, which is, by most recent cost estimates, roughly a $24-billion project.

You point out that additional costs for this industry are a negative for several reasons, the largest of which is that capital is very mobile. I run the largest energy fund in Canada, so we have a choice every single day: Where do we invest our clients' dollars? Is it in the United States or Canada?

It should seem obvious that there are two jurisdictions taking two very different approaches. I worry that adding incremental costs onto this sector, especially at a time of volatile oil prices, will disincentivize the flow of funds back to Canada and harm our sector's ability to grow production at a time when there's a global call for incremental supply.

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

Have you read Mark Carney's book?

[Eric Nuttall]

I admit that I bought it on Kindle and skimmed it with a keyword search.

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

It is difficult for investors and Canadians to square that seven years ago, he was professing that we had to keep it all in the ground and now, to get votes, he's saying something different. It seems like investors are not believing either version of Mark Carney.

My colleague, MP Stubbs, put forward a motion to pass the Canadian sovereignty act, which would repeal Bill C-69; Bill C-48; the federal industrial carbon tax, which the U.S. does not impose on its country federally; and the oil and gas cap, which will kill 54,000 jobs and cost the Canadian GDP $21 billion by 2032.

What signal does it send to investors like you when Liberals claim they want to build a pipeline, but they vote against the motion to repeal antidevelopment laws like the “no new pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, and the tanker ban, which is Bill C-48?

[Eric Nuttall]

Let me address the bad, and then I'll finish with the good.

The past 10 years have been devastating for global interest in investing not only in Canada but in the Canadian oil and gas sector. I think every major economic statistic validates that view.

I think there is growing optimism on the part of the oil and gas industry—my source for that would be speaking directly to many oil and gas executives—that the tone has meaningfully improved. We have gone from a country that seems to want to shoot itself in both the foot and the head simultaneously to one that is recognizing the impact that oil and gas have on our economy. At least through words, it is signalling a growing championing of that.

I think there remains a lot of skepticism about whether much talk—a year of it—will actually translate into action. We're very hopeful for that. This sector is on the cusp of a major bull market, and all that's needed is for government to get out of the way and eliminate.... You mentioned several pieces of legislation.

I can quote several CEOs of major Canadian midstream and pipeline companies who have said—going back to my earlier theme that investment capital is highly mobile—that they still prefer, even with all the talk of the past year, to allocate investment dollars to the United States versus Canada.