Natural Resources Committee on March 12th, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

National Chief, I've remembered where we met: It was on October 23, when you came to testify as part of our study on critical minerals. We had a discussion about the infrastructure needed.

Earlier, you talked a bit about the indigenous loan guarantee program. Earlier this week, a witness named Ms. Pruden told us that one of the issues was the lack of technical support. Meeting the various administrative measures related to the loan guarantee program does require some technical knowledge, and she told us that a number of communities were having trouble with that.

We want this to be an efficient and effective program. I don't know what could be done here. I don't know how you see this. Is it something simple and user-friendly? If you have any advice for the committee on that, it could be very helpful.

[Benjamin Green-Stacey]

It's not just the indigenous loan guarantee program, but general barriers include limited access to capital, and I don't mean capital for participation but capital for a surety and bonding. Land tenure on reserve makes it impossible to use property and assets as collateral. It's a major barrier, and any other company or any other corporation that's working in construction just doesn't have to face it. It's not a reality for them.

First nations have unique barriers and challenges to participating in any of these programs or taking advantage of any of these possibilities and opportunities for economic development and success that are not going to be captured within the programs that are not distinctions-based. There are very real and unique challenges associated with the Indian Act legislation that need to be addressed in unique programming for first nations.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

I'll give you a very hypothetical example, but one that's important for us, because we're currently working on opening a corridor for critical minerals to pass through, and there are first nations involved in that. We thought it was a good idea to see if first nations could, through the loan guarantee program, become proponents of such a project.

If I understand what you're saying, there are a lot of obstacles to overcome before a first nation can promote an infrastructure project, because there's no alignment on title to property. That's what I understand from your answer. Nevertheless, do you know of any cases where first nations have owned this type of infrastructure?

In the past, I imagine there have probably been projects where first nations were the proponents. I assume that's been done in the past. If we think of roads that are further north, I suppose that has already happened. Is there a model in place that would facilitate this?

[Graeme Reed]

That's a really good question. The one example that comes to mind is the Wataynikaneyap power transmission project, which was a partnership of multiple first nations in northern Ontario to support energy development to multiple different reserves.

There are others. They're not coming to my mind currently, but I can absolutely follow up in writing on that specific question.

[Benjamin Green-Stacey]

This may not be on specific projects, but certainly to follow up on some of the challenges, the new fiscal relationship is obviously a step in the right direction to get away from programs, but it was underfunded from the start, and the 2% escalator doesn't even match inflation. Challenges for first nations around capacity to participate at any stage of a project's life cycle, including feasibility studies or doing due diligence and technical assessments, are things that programs just aren't going to address.

Again, it's one of those problems or challenges in which if you don't already have it, you're not going to be able to participate fully. It's exclusionary in nature to have programs like the ILGP. They are absolutely great and fantastic, and they will be taken advantage of by those who are capable of doing so and are in a place where they can do that, but for those nations that don't already have that bureaucratic infrastructure and that capacity in place to participate, it leaves them further behind.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If you have any examples of infrastructure projects, whether energy or roads, I'd like you to submit them to the committee and explain how they were done.

Earlier, you said that there are bigger infrastructure issues in indigenous communities. Can you think of any infrastructure projects that are important to you and would help the community, but would also foster economic development? If you have any information to submit to the committee on that, it would be very helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Colleagues, as I mentioned, the national chief is going to have to leave shortly.

National Chief, I wonder if you have about eight more minutes. Is that possible? That leaves us time for a quick round of three minutes, three minutes and two minutes.

We're going now to Mr. Malette for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Woodhouse-Nepinak, thank you very much for coming here.

We talked earlier about all of these great projects that may be happening. Out of that, there are great opportunities.

At this time, approximately 6% of indigenous people are working in the energy sector. In the future, how can we increase our indigenous workforce? What should we be doing? To me, this is probably very critical. How can we help?

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

Thank you for the question, and I'm sorry. I'm a little bit off. I'm just dealing with something with my cousin. Anyway, I have to get home soon.

There are so many ways—and I have my experts here—to help first nations people. There are the investments, of course, and I know we're going to have a first ministers meeting later this year. I look to everybody around this room to make sure that we try to make some changes in this country when it comes to the way first nations are treated in our own homelands.

Even when we talk about these other issues with banking.... I met with a minister earlier today to talk about making sure that we're included in a program. One of the responses was, “Well, we'll be working with the provinces and the territories.” I said, “But that's not....” Because we're under the Indian Act and because we're on first nations communities, that often excludes us from those provincial transfers.

I know that those are really difficult discussions to be had, but it's so important that we are at the table together. I'm glad the Prime Minister and the premiers around this entire country finally called. After 20-plus years, we're finally going to be at the table together to talk about some outcomes, but it shouldn't be just every 20 years.

I ask this House and the provinces as well that we continue to dialogue together and come up with solutions so that we can change the trajectory of our country into the best country that it can be. If we closed that infrastructure gap for first nations, we'd be at the top of the G7 countries around the entire world. It would kick aside Trump's illegal tariffs and we could have a really good country, but we would have to work together and we would have to make sure that we're opening investments with each other and sharing in the prosperity of this country.

When it comes to the banking systems, I talked to a few other people this morning on that. We had a big discussion about it, in that first nations have to almost come to Ottawa to ask the minister for a ministerial loan guarantee. What other municipality, town or city would have to do that? I know that we have a long way to go in our relationship with each other, but let's get on a better footing. There's just so much....

Let's be making sure as well that we invest in children's education and training. We've heard that before, but let's actually do it. Let's target those young people and give them a chance to work. I think we're depending too much on bringing in other people from other countries around the world when there's this big untapped market of young first nations people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, National Chief and Mr. Malette.

We'll go to Mr. Hogan for three minutes or less.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very nice to see you again, National Chief.

At the heart of this, we're talking about expanding energy export ambitions at a time when you've highlighted growing concerns about previous commitments in this space not being met. Our opportunities can be developed only in partnership. As the global environment changes and as the global environment demands it, we want to take advantage of opportunities so that we all, first nations and otherwise, can benefit, prosper and be more secure.

You've identified many challenges in many different states, some historical, some long-standing and some present today, most present today, frankly. There is capacity funding that exists, but it might not be enough. There is opportunity for nations, but it's uneven.

How do we scale something that is imperfect and untailored? Can we scale something imperfect and untailored? What programs are ready to scale and what programs need to be fundamentally rethought?

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

We can write you a whole brief on that.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

That's perfect; we love briefs.

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

We can give you all the solutions.

I'll let Graeme speak to this.

[Graeme Reed]

I will start, and then Ben can add on.

I want to come back to the point that Ben raised with respect to closing the infrastructure gap, which is really the foundation to ensuring that first nations have parity across the country.

There are specific numbers attributed to net zero and adaptation in that $30 billion for adaptation, $29.6 million for net zero. Those are both investments in first nations' ability to participate meaningfully.

We talk about exporting energy. We also know that first nations across the country continue to navigate diesel generators and continue to navigate the need to have investments to support clean energy development in their communities. There are specific programs that have started that process but, like many others, they are insufficiently funded.

It's not only about scaling programs; it's also about envisioning first nations as direct partners and moving towards treating first nations as governments, not recipients of non-first nation programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have time for a really quick one, Mr. Hogan.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

No, Chair. I'm happy with that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That is great.

Wrapping up, we have Mr. Simard.

You have the floor for two minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be very brief.

Mr. Reed, I just want to conclude with something very ironic that you just said. We're talking about infrastructure and exporting energy when some of your own communities are having trouble getting onto the power grid.

Sometimes a problem can become an opportunity. If ever you can let the committee know, is there any energy infrastructure that could serve your needs and also be used to develop mining or other types of projects? I think that could be very useful for us. It would also be very helpful to hear what you think about this specifically. We could kill two birds with one stone and perhaps meet your infrastructure needs while developing this.

You won't be able to answer this in two minutes, but if you have any information to pass on to the committee, we would appreciate it.

[Graeme Reed]

First nations have the highest number of clean energy projects across the country. There are 2,700-plus projects that first nations have been advancing that emphasize clean energy development. A lot of that is to support specific community needs and then also support how that energy is the foundation to the points that national chief raised, whether that's education, training or infrastructure.

Many of these tools have been used by first nations to create own-source revenue to then invest in the infrastructure that's required to close the infrastructure gap.

There are many examples that we can highlight for you of that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Thank you, National Chief, for your presentation this afternoon. Thank you for your commentary and a good exchange with MPs. It's very essential for our study that we are conducting on energy exports.

I wish you safe travels. I'll probably see you on a plane very soon, because we go back and forth to and from Manitoba.

We'll go on to the next part of our meeting.

We'll take a short break. We'll be suspending for 10 minutes, because we are going in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We're back in session, colleagues.

I believe the mover of the motion will speak to the motion. I'm taking a speakers list.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for your indulgence on this important topic.

I would like to move the following motion, which I put on notice on February 20:

That, further to its study on Canadian Energy Exports, the committee hold one additional meeting, and, for the purpose of this meeting, invite Gregory Ebel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Enbridge, for one hour, by himself, and that this meeting be held at the earliest opportunity.

The reason I bring this motion forward is that the Liberals are claiming they want to see Canada become an energy superpower and that they want to see major projects built. Conservatives, consistently over the last decade, have advocated for the Liberals to make the regulatory framework, laws, policies and taxes competitive, primarily with the United States, and to advance energy export infrastructure beyond the United States. It is currently Canada's biggest customer and competitor, because it has pursued its own energy independence.

We had a decade of antidevelopment policies. There were two pipelines for export, with one for the Asian market approved by the former federal Conservative government. The former Liberal prime minister vetoed it instead of taking the option to redo indigenous consultation, which the Liberals also had to redo on their own indigenous consultation during the assessment of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The west-to-east pipeline proposal would have provided energy security for all Canadians. As well, it would have created the potential to export to Europe. Despite wide-ranging support across the country, from Alberta to Atlantic Canada and everywhere in between, the proponent had to abandon that proposal due to regulatory uncertainty and the goalposts being changed by the federal Liberals.

It is catastrophic for those of us who believe that Canada should and can be the global supplier of choice for energy to our allies and to people in regions around the world who require greater energy sources for their own industrialization to counterbalance hostile regimes in an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation.

Canada is home to the fourth-largest oil reserve in the world. The majority of that is in the oil sands. It used to be the third-largest, but Iran made other discoveries, so Canada is now fourth. There is 40% of Canadian crude oil and natural gas that comes from conventional sources. It should alarm everybody that the president and CEO of Enbridge, the proponent of the northern gateway pipeline, had the support of every first nation along that route, both in Alberta and in British Columbia. They worked long and hard to secure mutual benefit agreements and other arrangements with the proponent.

The former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, vetoed that pipeline instead of taking that option. He certainly didn't do that in consultation with all of those indigenous communities counting on that infrastructure to provide for themselves and their futures. It was a great loss to all Canadians everywhere. What a different world it would be. Canada would be in a different situation with respect to our self-reliance, security, sovereignty, unity and economic opportunities if both of those things had happened.

Given that an MOU was announced between the federal government and the Government of Alberta, that the Premier of Alberta had to bring three proponents together to make this bid to the federal government, and that an interprovincial pipeline designed for export—the pipeline to the Pacific that the Prime Minister promised—is exclusively and irrefutably in federal jurisdiction, it is deeply alarming that the president and chief executive officer of Enbridge, in part because of the experience they went through on the northern gateway pipeline, said, “I don't think investors or the infrastructure companies should be taking on all that risk of the development in jurisdictions that have historically created a challenge.” Of course, he means Canada and the federal framework have created this challenge.

Conservatives have consistently called on the Liberals to fix the fundamentals, all the antidevelopment laws and regulations that they themselves list in Bill C-5 and, in doing so, admit this blocks building. Therefore, I believe this is an extremely important subject for us committee members to discuss, and that it behooves us to hear from the president and CEO of Enbridge. All pipeline companies in Canada are important operators in and of themselves, but, obviously, Enbridge is a proponent that could establish a Pacific pipeline if the federal government is serious about delivering on that promise in their jurisdiction, which an interprovincial pipeline for export is, irrefutably.

This isn't an issue where two premiers need to work things out. It is absolutely an issue the federal government must be a leader on. They must fulfill their own jurisdictional duty and show Canadians that they will match their actions to their words, which is the promise of this Pacific pipeline.

I am confident that every member of this committee sees the significance of and risk to the Liberals' ability to deliver on the promise they made to Albertans and the majority of Canadians who have always supported, but do so now more than ever, the construction of export pipelines beyond those to the United States. All members of Parliament know, as all Canadians do, that this is more important than ever.

Colleagues, those are the reasons I have moved this motion. I hope you will support an additional meeting on the study of energy exports, since it is so clearly germane to hear from the private sector proponent cautioning us about the ability of private sector proponents to construct pipelines across provincial borders for export. Regardless of your view on whether more pipelines should be constructed in Canada, or whether oil and gas should continue to be developed in Canada, it seems to me, in the case of fairness, honesty and actions matching words, that it is a no-brainer for members of the committee to support this motion and have this additional meeting, given that this is, ostensibly, precisely the reason we are all engaging in a study on the importance of energy exports for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

We have three members on our list who have raised their hands: Mr. Guay, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Danko.

We're starting with you, Mr. Guay.