Evidence of meeting #23 for Natural Resources in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nuclear.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nuttall, I'd like to give you a chance to respond to Mr. Simard's last question, if you have an answer to offer him.
Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners
Thank you. I'd be happy to.
I commend the prior government for stepping up and seeing TMX through. It was a major insurance policy to protect the largest industry in Canada, worth $100 billion pure and 25% of our net exports. The only reason that action took place was the years of disastrous legislation that made private companies leave this country, as they continue to leave—not just in oil and gas, but others.
It's very simplistic to look at that insurance policy solely through the terms of toll rates per year. If you look at the decrease in the differential—the discount for Canadian heavy oil—you'll see that it's reduced that by at least $10 per barrel. By the rough math that I just did, that's at least roughly $1.8 billion per year in additional value. Directly from that are the royalties and taxes that go to building incremental hospitals, schools, roads, etc., every single year, so it's an ongoing annuity.
Honestly, I'm staggered that as a citizen I need to explain why it's important to champion the most important sector of the Canadian economy. The reasons for that should be abundantly obvious.
Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners
I remain hopeful. Rather than taking the course of strategic exemptions from existing legislation, we should admit our mistakes. I have three young children, and I teach them that bad choices lead to bad outcomes. If we can learn from our mistakes, as we should, and can recognize that certain bills are not serving us and are making this country unbelievably uncompetitive, just get rid of them.
I'm incredibly hopeful that our current Prime Minister is going to follow through on much of the positive talk. Industry is very much behind him. I hope for a team Canada approach.
I'm extremely worried about the path that this country is on, and it's oil and gas that can get us off that path. I'm hopeful that we'll see action in the coming months. I'm hopeful that the grand ransom or the grand bargain with the Alberta government yields fruit. I remain optimistic on that.
February 10th, 2026 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Right now, every country seems to be chasing after black gold. Given all the regulations that have been put in place over the years, how is it that we're so far behind when it comes to exports? Did we lack predictability? We know that there are already pipelines that run under the St. Lawrence River, but no one talks about them. I can't believe that we still don't have an outlet to Asia and that we're this limited today. I think we're 30 or 40 years behind.
Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners
I would agree. When you look at us as having the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, our production should be meaningfully higher.
I said in my written commentary that we have willingly ceded market share to other countries, to our demise and to their benefit. Why is that? I think it has been a result of extraordinarily poor leadership over the past 10 years. It's this mistaken belief that this is a sunset industry and we need to transition poor oil field workers and find them jobs, apparently at a battery plant.
This is not a sunset industry. I'm hopeful that under the new leadership, with a much more optimistic tone, there will be a realization that the world needs more Canadian oil and needs more Canadian natural gas. By embracing that and providing an environment that is much more conducive to investment, we can reclaim a lot of the market share we have willingly ceded to other countries.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid
That's your time, Mr. Martel.
We will go to Mr. Clark for five minutes.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. I really appreciate your testimony on this subject.
Mr. Legge, you talked about regulatory certainty and the duplication and overlap between provinces and the federal government, and I certainly think you're on the right track there. That's obviously a pain point for a lot of industries and not just in energy.
As we speak, the federal government is working on “one project, one review” agreements with various provinces and territories: Ontario, B.C. and New Brunswick so far, Manitoba and P.E.I. imminently, it appears, and hopefully all 13 jurisdictions sooner rather than later.
Is that the kind of approach you think we should be taking, or is there something we're not doing there that in your view would make it an even better approach?
President, Business Council of Alberta
The Impact Assessment Act requires substitution agreements with other provinces. What we propose is that the act be changed such that it is as of right: that it is legally embedded that if a project is happening in a province, it is the provincial government or regulator that approves it; it does not have to go through a substitution agreement.
The substitution agreements require the federal government to be comfortable with the provincial government's regulatory approval process. It should be deemed that for a province, given its powers under the Constitution to oversee its resource development, it is acceptable as of right. We would like to see that it does not have to go through the path of individual substitution agreements by province, and that the act be amended such that a project is as of right the province's responsibility if it is happening in that province.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
If we did get substitution agreements with all jurisdictions, which certainly is the intention, it's not everything you would hope for, but would that be a reasonable substitute, in your view?
President, Business Council of Alberta
It's progress. Again, we don't want any of the projects to come into the federal regime first and then deem that they to go into the provincial regime, with a substitution agreement or not. They should just automatically default to provincial.
There are a couple of steps. It's better than the existing structure. It's better than the existing regime under Bill C-69. However, improvements can be made that will make the whole process flow faster with more certainty, allowing each province to determine as of right its regulatory domains.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
That's understood.
Mr. Nuttall, I want to ask you about the MOU between Alberta and the federal government. You mentioned it in your opening statement, and you just mentioned it at the end when talking to Mr. Martel.
Could you summarize your views on that agreement as it stands right now? How do you think it can impact the sector?
Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners
As investors, we're still waiting for a little more clarity on the actual details. I think the broad understanding, as it stands now, is that the government is supportive of a new pipeline, which is terrific. We've spoken to the economic merits to that. Our understanding is that it is being tied to the construction of the Pathways project, which is a roughly $24-billion project intended to make incremental production net zero, at least on a scope 1 basis.
Broadly speaking, I would say we're opposed to the Pathways project. The oil sands are 0.1% of global CO2 emissions. The notion that we can solve the global climate crisis—if I'm going to use those words—by impairing such a massively important part of our economy is extremely simplistic.
It's interesting that, when we look at new coal plant construction in China, just over the next three years, it will totally overwhelm all of the CO2 emissions from Canada. We're placing additional burdens on a sector that is the engine of growth and that can lift literally millions of Canadians at a time out of poverty, when other oil-producing jurisdictions are swinging against the fallacies of net zero by 2050. Essentially, only Europe and Canada are now embracing that. Europe is not an economic model that I think we want to embrace.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
I would also note that China is doing a massive amount of solar and wind and lots of other renewables as well, but we don't need to litigate everything all at once.
Liberal
Braedon Clark Liberal Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS
Can you touch really quickly on LNG exports? The study is about exports. We shipped our first LNG to Asia last year. What are your views on that? I'm sure you have seven seconds now.
Partner and Senior Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners
We embrace more LNG from Canada. We're hopeful that we'll be exporting six billion cubic feet a day by 2031-32.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid
Thank you.
Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nuttall, I want to come back to your comment suggesting that Quebec is a welfare case for Alberta. I like that, because that kind of statement perhaps shows the right interpretation of the oil and gas sector.
Not so long ago, when I arrived here in 2019, my Conservative colleagues spent their time saying that Quebec didn't consume oil from Alberta. When they saw the charts showing that the majority of petroleum products consumed in Quebec came from Alberta, they had to change their tune. So I'm going to try to get you to change yours as well.
From 1970 to 2015, according to federal government figures, we collectively had to spend $70 billion to make oil sands technologies efficient. If we take 20% of that, that's $14 billion coming from Quebec. Do you know how much the federal government and Alberta invested in Quebec's hydro dam infrastructure? They didn't invest a penny. It's shocking, isn't it? They didn't invest a single cent, so much so that Jean Chrétien, in a moment of brilliance, told the Edmonton Journal that if he had offered Quebec what he had given Alberta in government assistance, he would have won every seat in Quebec. I offer that as an example.
In addition, there's something that's been extensively documented called Dutch disease. From 2002 to 2007, Quebec lost 55,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because the energy sector was driving up the value of the U.S. dollar, making us uncompetitive.
Every year, Quebec buys $3 billion in petroleum products from Alberta, and you have the nerve to say that you are the ones paying for our public services, through equalization, and to portray Quebec as a welfare case.
Well, I would humbly submit to you, dear friend, that this is why we have serious doubts when you come here and ask the government to roll out the red carpet for oil and gas infrastructure. Your comments serve the interests of the oil and gas companies. The role of the elected officials here is to serve the public, even if you don't like it, and among those citizens are people from Quebec who have no interest in a portion of their tax dollars being used to defend the interests of the oil and gas companies—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Duguid
For our witnesses, the time given is a member's to use how they wish to use it. Perhaps in another question you might respond, but we are running out of time.
I will go to Mr. Rowe for three minutes, but I understand he may want to share some of his time with Mr. Lloyd.