Natural Resources Committee on March 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I call our meeting to order.

We'll start, as we always do, by acknowledging that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, although we don't have anyone attending virtually, so I am going to dispense with that.

As a reminder to our participants, please wait until I recognize you. No one is participating by video conference, so I'll skip that. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee shall resume its study of the management of Canadian energy exports.

Colleagues, I'd like to welcome, once again, National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak. It was an exciting day for you yesterday, National Chief. Congratulations on having a good day yesterday.

With you today are Benjamin Green-Stacey, director of economic development, and Dr. Graeme Reed, strategic adviser. Welcome.

Is there anyone else in your delegation, National Chief? You have some support folks there, who are welcome at the table if they want to come.

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak, Assembly of First Nations]

As they should.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

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

Colleagues, the national chief can stay for only about half an hour to 35 minutes or so. We're going to try to get through two rounds. I may have to shorten the second round. I know you will be accommodating.

With that, National Chief, it's great to see you and your team. Welcome.

[National Chief Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

Thank you, Chair, so very much.

Thank you to each and every one of you for being here today. I do want to thank all the members. I know that it's always tough to work on residential school issues.

I want to thank, of course, the Prime Minister, the previous prime minister and many members of Parliament from all parties who have helped me in the past couple of years during my leadership, and even prior to that when I was regional chief, to make sure that we do the work of calling residential schools what they are.

I know we have a long way to go, but that was a historic day the other day. It was the beginning of, I hope, many where we're able to repatriate some of our artifacts back here to this country, and to remember, of course, the dark history that had happened in our country, but certainly to try to find our way forward together. It was a really emotional day, and I'm really thankful to everybody who attended. Members from every single party attended, and I'm so thankful for that. I give respect where respect is due.

I want to thank the late pope and the current Pope, whom I will be seeing on April 9. I get to spend the day with him, and I'm really looking forward to that, because God is so good, and God gave us today. Again, I acknowledge the Creator for bringing us all here together today to have this important discussion.

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following text:]

Apiichi-gii-chii-nay-dum Akiinaah o-gii-bii-izah-iing omahh noo-gom.

[English]

I'm welcoming you in a little bit of my language.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak. I'm the national chief. We bring greetings on behalf of the 633 strong, independent first nations from coast to coast to coast. We are one of the indigenous groups. We are the largest at 1.4 million strong across the country, and we make up over 90% of indigenous people in this country.

First nations are a very large and very diverse group, so I want to always do my best to try to be balanced in our diversity across this country. Canada's economy is deeply connected to our lands and to our waters, stewarded by, of course, first nations. Territories are rich in minerals, forests and fresh water that sustain communities from coast to coast.

Today, we are here to affirm that first nations are ready to work in partnership to unlock sustainable economic growth that will contribute to Canada's shared prosperity for generations to come, advancing modern water legislation that recognizes water as a fundamental human right—an inherent right—and where source water protections are a required consideration in the assessment of major projects.

Over $600 billion of projects are forecasted to be launched on our traditional lands over the next decade. The potential benefit of these projects is in the trillions of dollars. They represent a cornerstone of Canada's future economic growth, but they won't advance without the support of first nations.

Already, first nations are directly involved in oil and gas production, electric power generation, hydro transmission lines, energy corridors and many emerging clean energy projects. Energy exports support thousands of first nations workers across Canada. First nations-owned service companies and joint ventures provide own-source revenue, long-term employment and training and skills transfer for youth and workers.

To become a global energy superpower, as is Canada's ambition, first nations ownership and partnership must be prioritized. First nations must lead the conversation on energy development in their territories, ensuring that inherent treaty rights are upheld and that their voices guide policies, partnerships and sustainable practices in alignment with Canada's obligation under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It's also important to recognize that first nations never surrendered title to natural resources. On the contrary, these agreements recognize the inherent right of first nations to manage and benefit from lands and waters within their territories. That is why the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, which was negotiated between Canada and the three prairie provinces in 1930, violates first nations rights under these treaties. They gave provinces control over Crown lands and resources without the free, prior and informed consent of first nations.

The unilateral imposition of these provincial agreements undermines the solemn promise of treaties and stands in direct conflict with the honour of the Crown. Today, we restate our call for Canada to complete a constitutional review of these natural resource transfer agreements.

Critical minerals are another example. Canada has identified the export of critical minerals as a national priority to meet the global demand for clean energy transition, defence and new technology applications, but first nations have been disproportionately impacted by these extractive activities for generations. Rights holders have been excluded from decision-making that impacts their lands and communities, excluded from decisions that impact inherent first nations and treaty rights and excluded from revenue sharing and benefit agreements—but not anymore.

First nations spoke out in opposition to the Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding when they unanimously passed emergency resolution 33/2025. Thanks to the sacrifices of our ancestors and the perseverance of people in this room, first nations, including coastal first nations, are changing the course. We are developing strategies and recommendations that reflect our priorities, leadership and approach to critical minerals development. At our December assembly, chiefs led the way, approving a first nations-led critical minerals strategy focused on ownership, revenue sharing, procurement, training and environmental protection. Through this national policy, and, hopefully, the conversations taking place here today, we can enhance first nations' economic participation in the critical minerals value chain forever.

Accordingly, we have included a significant emphasis on infrastructure. First nations infrastructure priorities are matters of national interest and priority. To fully realize Canada's economic potential and reach the critical minerals this country wishes to export from first nations territories, critical infrastructure is required. It's essential that Canada provide predictable funding and financing certainty, so projects addressing this gap can move through a single envelope.

I look forward to your questions today.

Meegwetch, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, National Chief.

We are going to questions and comments now.

We're going to start with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

National Chief, I am proud to work with and represent five first nations and four Métis settlements in Lakeland, in Treaty No. 6.

As you outlined, given the different views, values, aspirations and ambitions among the hundreds of first nations across Canada, can you speak to the rights holders', title holders' and federal Crown's duty to consult in a meaningful, two-way dynamic?

[Graeme Reed, Strategic Advisor, Assembly of First Nations]

Meegwetch for the question.

Meegwetch to the national chief for inviting me to join.

As you know, consultation and accommodation are constitutional obligations that have been affirmed in section 35 and through multiple Supreme Court jurisprudence. Over the last decade or so, we've been pushing the conversation on what free, prior and informed consent looks like, how we uphold the minimum standards outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and how those standards are mainstreamed in federal decision-making.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that. It links to the topics we're discussing today.

I was honoured, National Chief, to meet you at the transport committee in June regarding Bill C-5. Like Bill C-69, Bill C-5 sets up cabinet as the ultimate decision-maker. Of course, first nations view the federal Crown.... As law and judicial precedent uphold, it is distinctly the federal Crown's duty to consult.

I admire people on the indigenous advisory board attached to the MPO very much, but will this be enough to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and ensure that decisions can stand up to challenges afterwards, which indigenous people have a right to make?

I ask this question because Conservatives know the only way to get to yes in a good way on major projects that benefit indigenous people and all Canadians is for the feds to fully uphold their duty to consult.

[Graeme Reed]

Absolutely. We would tend to agree with you in terms of the priority of upholding the duty to consult and accommodate, as well as moving toward the full recognition of free, prior and informed consent.

In the preparation for the Building Canada Act in Bill C-5, we were concerned not only with the mechanisms of decision-making but also about the process through which that piece of legislation was quickly passed through Parliament without full conversations with first nations from coast to coast to coast. Both in substance and process we need to consider the specific role of first nations participation. Advisory committees like the IAC are insufficient for doing that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I, too, shared exactly the same concern and worked hard during those debates to make sure the federal government understood that.

Regarding the MOU that you've raised, in December the Liberals announced the work toward the Pacific pipeline. Last month, I asked the natural resources minister for an update on the federal Crown's indigenous consultation to date on that project. He could not, but of course such a pipeline is federal jurisdiction, as is the duty to consult.

With such a pipeline, first nations in each province will have different views. Have first nations been consulted on that project to date, or on any of the 11 projects that the federal Liberals have so far referred to the Major Projects Office, as far as anyone can understand?

[Graeme Reed]

I'll start briefly with the memorandum of understanding.

No, the first nations in assembly were clear in December that there was a concern in moving forward with that MOU without the full free, prior and informed consent of first nations. In the resolution that the national chief referenced, there are specific calls to the Government of Canada to reflect those concerns of first nations.

In terms of the 11 projects referred to the Major Projects Office, there is a varying amount of first nations participation. Many of those projects are already quite far advanced. Our position is to consider the diversity of first nations and also support the ongoing consideration of how the Major Projects Office and the Building Canada Act operate, once there is a project that is formally designated to the MPO and through the BCA.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

In debates on Bill C-69, Conservatives supported the promise of capacity funding for indigenous people to participate in the regulatory process. This is why we also supported loan guarantees and other fiscal measures that you have all called for. Sometimes first nations need to litigate on many of the issues that the national chief has raised through regulatory processes because they're ignored on other issues by other governments.

I wonder if you could explain whether or not, between Bill C-69 and Bill C-5, any of that capacity funding for regulatory participation has actually gotten to local first nations to ensure that projects can be approved in a good way.

[Graeme Reed]

Starting with Bill C-69, obviously the major approach to funding was still maintained through specific project development. The capacity support program is an important program to support first nations involvement. I don't think any first nation—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I hear from the first nations in my community that nothing ever flowed.

[Graeme Reed]

I was about to say that it was insufficient, even for those who accessed it.

In the Bill C-5 context, we know there was the $40 billion, but that's only specific to the projects that are formally designated through the Building Canada Act. First nations have also been concerned by an absence of resources to support participating through that regulatory process to begin with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, both.

Mr. Clark, you have six minutes.

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

Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

National Chief, thank you very much for being here.

To all of our guests and witnesses today, it's very much appreciated.

In your opening statement, National Chief, you gave an excellent summary of the historical context, obligations and potential of the projects that are currently before the government and those that could come forward in the next decade or so. I believe you mentioned $600 billion in project value that could translate into trillions of dollars over decades to come. Of course, that's a tremendous opportunity, but like any opportunity, it poses real challenges that we need to work through together.

In your opening statement, you touched on two principles that are fundamental to the discussion today. One is partnership and the other is ownership. In your view, how can the federal government, working in partnership with first nations across the country, promote ownership so there is an equity stake and a generational value to these projects in the long term?

[Benjamin Green-Stacey, Director of Economic Development, Assembly of First Nations]

Back in 2021, the minister responsible for NRCan was directed to develop a national benefit-sharing framework. This was in direct response to action plan measure 33 in Canada's UNDA action plan.

One of the things that we've seen is that the work has stalled. In fact, it's probably safe to say that it's crashed out and needs to be rejuvenated, revitalized and put back on the list of priorities for this government.

What we see now in play is the indigenous loan guarantee program. There's an opportunity to promote equity and an ownership stake in major projects. However, that doesn't address the fundamental problems that first nations are facing in communities on a day-to-day basis. The indigenous loan guarantee program is focused on providing opportunities for nations that are already ready to receive that funding and to take ownership in a major project that's going to benefit the broader Canadian economy.

The reality is that many first nations are not there. They're not ready for that opportunity. There are more immediate and pressing challenges around infrastructure that need to be addressed first. The Assembly of First Nations has costed this at close to $400 billion to close the infrastructure gap, and that's just to bring first nations to parity with the rest of Canada.

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

Right. I think those are certainly fair points; there's no question about that. The indigenous loan guarantee program, as you know, went from $5 billion to $10 billion. Correct me if I'm not interpreting what you said correctly, but I think that's a very useful tool for communities that may have the capacity or the ability to take on a complex undertaking. However, there's another level that is not being met through that program itself. Is that correct to say?

[Benjamin Green-Stacey]

That's absolutely correct to say.

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

Okay.

I'm also curious about certain projects. Are there any specific projects that may or may not be on the MPO list where first nations are seeing some barriers to access? Also, what can we do as a government to make sure that those barriers are lowered and that groups can participate?

[Graeme Reed]

The existing projects that have been referred to the MPO do have a varying level of first nations participation. Some are championed through equity partnerships, and some are not quite there. Many of those have not yet benefited from some of the programs that were identified through the Building Canada Act generally, largely because they had already started prior to the creation of that act.

I'll conclude by saying that there are a variety of first nations, as Ben shared, that are expecting additional resources to support the preconditions needed, even to participate within major project development.

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

Yes.

We talked about Bill C-5, and as the national chief mentioned, obviously, there were issues in terms of how that was moved through. That was in June. I know that since that time, the Prime Minister and others have met with the national chief and other leaders on a couple of occasions.

Could you summarize the evolution of that process over the last nine or 10 months, and where we can keep moving forward on that to ensure that the objectives are met for all interested parties?

[Graeme Reed]

I think first nations across the country appreciate the willingness of the Prime Minister and many others to have conversations with them about the implications and opportunities. That doesn't necessarily address some of the fundamental concerns that were raised within the legislation and the powers afforded through the legislation.

What is interesting is both how we accelerate and support first nations participation and also—and I think the national chief spoke about this—how we consider the central question of respecting the inherent rights and title of first nations in all decisions, all energy projects and all major development projects more broadly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Reed and Mr. Clark.

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