Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

[Erin O'Brien]

—and what would be helpful to them to increase the overall competitiveness of Canada's LNG sector, but it isn't solely in response to that demand.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Then it was a demand.

Ms. Sletto, I would like you to tell us how to balance the International Energy Agency's zero-emission scenario, which you're no doubt familiar with, with gas pipelines that may be in operation up until 2075.

How do you reconcile the fact that the International Energy Agency has told us that we need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 with the fact that the infrastructure will be in place for 50 years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

There's time for a quick response, Ms. Sletto, please.

[Tracy Sletto]

I wouldn't have much of an answer to that question given our role as a regulator. I think what you're asking about are some of the considerations that might be put to a commission to consider in the context of a specific project that might be brought forward, as opposed to having the regulator opine on those kinds of broad policy matters.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

[Inaudible—Editor] can it be sued if it withdraws the licence in 2050, for example, if it feels—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That is your time, Monsieur Bonin.

Thank you both.

We're on to Mr. McLean.

Mr. McLean, welcome to the natural resources committee. It's perhaps a little spicier than the environment committee that you and I sat on together.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, it's much calmer these days than it was when you and I were members of this committee together. Thank you for the welcome; it's nice to see you.

I have a question, and I hope the chair will give me some space for relevance because it is relevant. Sometimes, whether it's 40 years or the 50 years you're expanding to, those are years when the exporters of LNG are actually making money, so that's what they build their financial plans around. However, the main problem with getting these pipelines, this necessary infrastructure for Canada's prosperity, in the ground is the holdups they have with the Canada Energy Regulator.

If you're measuring yourselves on how badly you're performing in meeting your own guidelines in the legislation to get the timelines met that industry can depend upon, do you know what percentage of the time you're late?

I'll give an example with the northern corridor expansion in Alberta. When you miss by two months, you miss by a year because there is a very short building season. That, of course, is built into the cost of capital that everybody has to account for. The cost of capital goes up, the cost of the project goes up, the timing obviously takes a big hit and the Canadian economy suffers.

Is there some way you can start meeting your own targets for the regulatory deadlines the country and proponents of projects count upon?

[Tracy Sletto]

We expected there might be some conversation around service standards and legislative time limits, and we're pleased to report to the committee. We're actually quite proud of our ability to meet service standards and our legislated time limits.

Since 2019, when the Canadian Energy Regulator Act came into force and the CER was constituted in the way that it is now, we've had more than 4,800 applications brought before us, and those could be from a variety of different kinds of requests that would come to us. We adjudicate toll and tariff matters. We adjudicate compensation matters. We think about export permits and authorizations, and we not only think about but also adjudicate facility infrastructure applications. We've had over 500 applications since 2019.

We have legislated time limits in our act that are very clearly assigned to the work we do. We meet those time limits. We have service standards that we establish very clearly in terms of the types of decisions we make, and as the minister alluded to in his remarks, some of those decisions, such as an export order, we make in two days. For a larger-facility major pipeline application that comes before us, we have, under the legislation, 15 months to conduct that assessment. We meet those time limits.

In totality, we meet our service standards and our legislated time limits, and measure them and report on them publicly 99.7% of the time. We are very transparent about that too. In every departmental results report, we report on our service standards and the ability of the organization to meet them, and we're very much driven by wanting to meet those commitments, both in our act and in the service standards we set for ourselves internally.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

My experience is otherwise. I hear from major proponents all the time about how you miss your legislated timelines. As I said, when you miss by two months, you miss an entire construction season, so you miss by a year at that point in time. I will challenge the 99.7%.

Let me give an illustration of what we're talking about and what it means to the Canadian economy.

We had TMX. I know it's not a gas pipeline, but it's an oil pipeline, and the infrastructure is the same. TMX went from a $7.5-billion project to a $35-billion project. With that $35-billion project, supposedly the tolls of the shippers on the pipeline would have to pay for the extra capital. It was capped at around $21 billion or $22 billion. The excess of that was borne by the Canadian taxpayer at the end of the day, because you can't ship the oil.

It now costs less to ship by train than it does to ship by TMX pipeline, which is ridiculous. We can get to the northwest coast of B.C. at less cost per barrel than we can get along what's supposed to be an efficient pipeline. The issue of delays and the issue of extra costs incurred through your process jacked up the cost of the pipeline by five times.

There are going to be some times when you have excess costs going into the construction of a pipeline like that; let's acknowledge that, but five times is ridiculous. We'd like to find out exactly where that money went, through your organization, and who should bear the cost of that at the end of the day.

Can you help us in that respect, in finding out where that money went? It is indicative, for any proponent that's going to build a natural gas pipeline going forward, of what costs they'll to have to incur in building their financial case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I'd like a quick answer, please. I'll allow it. Go ahead.

[Tracy Sletto]

In response to your question around those costs, I will say that the tolls associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline are a matter that's currently before the commission, and the commission is considering those costs and will make a determination. That toll and tariff adjudication is part of our economic regulatory mandate, of which I spoke earlier, so there are absolutely considerations on the public record right now before the commission, and information is available about the nature of the costs associated with that project.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Thank you, Mr. McLean, for your efforts at relevance, which you did a very good job on.

We're now on to Mr. Clark, to wrap up.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Chair, I understand that colleagues are up against hard departures to other parts of the country, and I don't want to be the reason anyone misses a plane, so I have one quick thing before I cede my time.

I have a motion. I believe all members are aware of it. I'm seeking unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the usual practices of the committee concerning access to and distribution of documents,

(a) up to three associate members of the committee per party be authorized to receive the notices of meetings and notices of motion and be granted access to the digital binder;

(b) that the associate members be designated by the offices of the whips of each recognized party and sent to the committee clerk; and

(c) that the provisions of this motion expire as of Friday, September 25, 2026, unless otherwise ordered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Colleagues, you've heard the motion. I see consensus around the room.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Colleagues, I have a couple of things before we adjourn.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us.

Thank you, colleagues, for your questions.

In terms of dealing with the matter we've had before us—clause 593 and clause 594 of Bill C-15—my understanding is that there was unanimous consent at the finance committee. The clerk will assist me in writing a letter back to the finance committee to say that we have discussed this matter. Unless I hear from any of you on amendments, we will indicate that we heard the matter and no amendments were proposed.

Do I have your agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you for that.

I have one last matter. Colleagues should expect to see the first version of the draft report on the critical minerals study tomorrow, so you'll have your homework over the break week. When we come back after the constituency week, our first meeting will be devoted to the consideration of that draft report.

Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order.

Is that an update to the critical minerals report that was published by this committee in 2021?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That's not a point of order. That is a piece of information. Thank you, Mr. McLean.

Mr. McLean will remember that we were very efficient on the ENVI committee. We asked colleagues from all sides of the House for their proposed amendments so we could deal very efficiently with going through the report, instead of using the line-by-line method some committees have used. We would again ask all parties to submit amendments.

Mr. Clerk, when would you suggest we receive them?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Jean-Luc Plourde]

I will talk with the analysts about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

What would be helpful, Avalon? Is it by next Friday?

[Avalon Jennings, Committee Researcher]

If it can be done by the time we discuss the report....

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Next Friday is a proposed option for us. We have the break week to delve deeply into the report. This way, we can get our first report out the door. I detect that we're going to have a fair bit of alignment but obviously some differences of opinion. That's my suggestion.

With that, colleagues, I will bid you a good break week. Thanks very much for the good discussion today.

We're adjourned.