Natural Resources Committee on April 14th, 2026

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

The memorandum of understanding and Bill C‑5 promise to reduce approval times for natural resource projects to two years. In an article published in July 2025, the Montreal Economic Institute argues that an 18-month limit is the maximum time frame that should be proposed. How long do you think it will take to fully restore investor confidence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Could we have a quick answer, please? You have just 20 seconds.

[Gurpreet Lail]

We need shorter timelines, for sure. If we can get them down to 18 months, we can look at becoming competitive again. As I said, in the United States, they can go from start to finish in four years. It takes us 15. We need to get that down fairly significantly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Mr. Clark, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here with us this morning.

Mr. Buffalo, I want to pose my questions to you, sir.

I want to start by commending you for the approach you outlined in your opening statement, which was one of positivity, of pragmatism and of looking forward to see what we can do to work together to benefit all Canadians and, of course, the people you represent.

In your statement, you touched on the approach you're taking, one that is not based on an “us versus them” type of model. Could you elaborate on that a bit, Mr. Buffalo? How does that work in practice, and what kinds of results have you seen recently by taking that kind of approach when it comes to energy?

[Stephen Buffalo]

Of course, building trust has always been a paramount thing when we talk about the issues we're talking about today. The opportunity to have indigenous oil and gas reach world markets is an opportunity we can't overlook.

As mentioned, our people are struggling under the Indian Act and its funding, and we're seeing cutbacks in certain areas. The “us versus them” thing comes in through different ways. We used to have an issue with industry. Now you're seeing strong partnerships being formed with first nations communities and industry partners. It's come a long way.

Of course, it's about having more dialogue. When we had that last pipeline conference in November, while the MOU was being signed at the exact same time, we talked about certain things that would help put the pipeline forward and convince people that it's something that can work if people are working together. One thing we have to teach our relatives on the coast is what it takes to get a barrel of oil. The one thing they want to learn is where the money goes with a barrel of oil. What does a pipeline produce and where does the money go?

There are certain contexts we have to talk about to really amplify the conversation. I think that once we get through all those things, we'll see a positive result and can move things forward.

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

Thank you for that. I appreciate that response.

I want to get your view on something that was mentioned a few weeks ago when the national chief was here presenting at committee. You touched on loan guarantee programs and the value of those. As we know, the national indigenous loan guarantee program has a budget of $10 billion now, which is wonderful, but there is one thing I'm curious about and would like your opinion on.

You said you represent 130 first nations. Obviously, there would be a spectrum of size and sophistication—I'm not sure if that's the right word—perhaps among the different groups. How do you make sure these programs also work for smaller first nations or groups that may not have the ability to access large-scale projects, so we can see the benefits that flow from them spread more equitably across our country?

[Stephen Buffalo]

Not only is it about first nations in relation to proximity and sharing with each other, but we're all in the same boat when it comes to the sources of revenue that are coming to our nations. Ultimately, as I mentioned, the industry has been very positive in creating consortiums and getting groups together.

What I've seen through the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation is that the partnership between industry and first nations has brought together nations that would traditionally not work together for some reason. They are participating in deals that we see—23 first nations with Métis settlements. That's unheard of, but it takes that type of initiative. Then the projects move through, and you're seeing wealth generated for the communities.

In the nine investments that we approved at the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, you're going to see about $1.4 billion go back to the communities by 2050. That's a game-changer in itself.

There's still a lot of work that needs to be done. Having more opportunity to find things, to get things lifted.... For example, as you heard mentioned, Bill C-69 seems to be an issue. It's about finding that balance of economic development and protecting the environment. I think that's what we should be striving for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have 20 seconds.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one last question, Mr. Buffalo.

You touched on there being, I think you said, 5,000 kilometres of pipeline that indigenous groups may have some level of ownership in. You may not know this off the top of your head, and I apologize, but what does that look like compared to even 10 years ago? From what you indicated, it seems like that's been moving in a very positive direction.

[Stephen Buffalo]

For sure. I think everyone has accepted the Supreme Court rulings that say first nations have indigenous right and title. It's now about working with communities to ensure that they're part of projects that are affecting them, either directly in their own communities or in and around their traditional territory. That's probably the best thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lail, I'd like to continue the discussion we were having a little earlier.

In response to one of my questions, you kindly indicated that, without oil, I would have difficulty heating my home and getting around by car. That may be a misunderstanding, because the majority of homes in Quebec are heated with hydroelectricity. Quebec's major industrial projects rely on blocks of hydroelectric power. As for transportation, I use an electric vehicle about 70% of the time. I was also surprised, while going door to door in Terrebonne, by the number of electric vehicles that are now appearing in Quebec.

I'm saying this because I think it's important for you to understand that our interests diverge. Outside Alberta and the western provinces, there are people who view federal government investments in certain so-called strategic sectors very negatively—sectors that, in particular, bring nothing to Quebec.

As for me, I have no objection to Alberta wanting to develop the oil sands and liquefied natural gas sectors and pursue exports. However, when federal government funding is sought to do so, I see it as strategic investments that will not take place in our regions. In that sense, we are competing with one another. As a result, if I had some friendly advice to offer, it would be to find a way to convince people that the industry itself can make these strategic investments.

At present, my impression is that the industry is asking the federal government to assume the risks associated with these strategic investments and infrastructure projects. I've been here since 2018, and I still haven't seen a single oil or gas infrastructure project move forward with industry investment. Nor have I seen—aside from advertising—significant investments in carbon capture and storage strategies. I believe the Pathways Alliance plans to spend more on advertising than on actual carbon capture and storage projects.

If you wish to submit documents to the committee, I remain open to all your proposals. I'm simply waiting to be won over. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Unfortunately, that's our time with you, Monsieur Simard, but one of the witnesses can answer that in a response—

[An hon. member]

Or in writing....

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

—or in writing. That's a good point.

We are open to briefs from either of you and from any witness and would appreciate that very much.

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

We'll go on to Mr. Rowe for five minutes.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions for Ms. Lail.

It's rumoured that Newfoundland and Labrador has more undiscovered oil and gas than Norway. When I talk to people in the industry, there's a lot of excitement about this, but it's been years since we've seen bids from oil companies to explore our offshore oil and gas.

From talking to people in the industry, it seems that there's a lot of red tape, but there's also a massive veto that the government holds. Currently, if a company invests billions of dollars in exploration, the federal government can decide—at any time—that this is a marine protected area and shut down that exploration, leaving that company high and dry.

Have you seen this in other exploration policies, perhaps in Alberta or throughout the world? Do you think it creates too much risk for these companies to make something economically viable?

[Gurpreet Lail]

Absolutely. We don't see that here in Alberta. It's a different province.

We have had companies meet with premiers in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, because they've come to see us here in Alberta to talk about job opportunities, exploration and production and what that means for communities in all eastern provinces.

Federal government policies have hindered us and have hindered investment and companies going into those provinces, but there are resources there. They're resource-rich.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Absolutely, and I think there's a way we can reduce some of that risk to make things more economically appealing to many companies. Thankfully, the new PC government in Newfoundland and Labrador just announced the Bay du Nord project. There are four million barrels of oil in that one project alone.

One of the good things the PCs included in this deal was the ability for Newfoundland and Labrador and Canadian companies to put out tenders on many of the components of the construction of that project. Do you think that reinstalling the 10% tax credit in the Atlantic Canadian tax credit program for capital expenses would give Canadian companies a competitive edge? Also, how would that impact manufacturing in the Canadian economy?

[Gurpreet Lail]

Oh wow. Unfortunately, I'm not an economist. However, I would say that if there is an investment and there is a carrot, as I call it, for investment to come in, it would flock. Not only is it about investing in infrastructure and investing in exploration and production, but you have to look at the end result. It's about creating jobs. Adding the number of easterners we could employ who would keep jobs in eastern Canada, versus coming out here to Alberta for two weeks on or one month on, would be hugely beneficial.

We just had this whole conversation with the Premier of Nova Scotia last week. His concern was that if we explore and find something, do we have enough people to come and work? We have the expertise and we have the capital and institutional knowledge. We can make it happen, and we want to be competitive with other jurisdictions, for sure.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

You've hit the nail right on the head, because I know that in Newfoundland and Labrador we have massive unemployment among trades workers. We have many Newfoundlanders flying back and forth to western Canada, Alberta and up north.

The workers are there, and they want to stay home. Grandparents want to see their grandkids stay in Newfoundland and not go away.

You mentioned the global energy supply and our obligation to our allies. I couldn't agree with you more. Our energy is located within one of the most politically stable countries in the world. Not many energy companies are as politically stable as the ones we have.

I have two questions there. Do you think that over the past 10 years we should have built pipelines and infrastructure offshore to get our energy going east and west, rather than leaving it in the ground and, as we have often heard from these Liberals, shutting down the oil fields by 2035, which to me seems outrageous and unfair to our allies as part of international NATO defence. Also, do you think we should even build more refineries and secondary processing in Canada to process our own resources here in Canada to supply our allies? To me, it seems like a win-win-win, but I wanted to see what your perspective was on that.

[Gurpreet Lail]

Yes, for sure. I think when you look at our supply and what we can do, we should have started a decade or two decades ago. There would have been a business case. There would have been proponents for us to build and to get our product out to market. We can't have a dead industry by 2035.

You have to understand that whether you're drilling for lithium or extracting minerals, you need to keep the energy industry moving. It's not just oil and gas. It is everything in between. We need to power up geothermal. You can look at provinces that rely on wind and solar, and someone just talked about hydro. Everything has a role to play.

In Canada, we had the most successful emissions reduction when we took away the reliance on coal and moved on to natural gas. That is huge. We shouldn't forget about that. You have countries like India and China doubling down on coal. We don't live in a bubble. The atmosphere is the same.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Absolutely. It's helping the world lower emissions through our green energy. I like it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Finally we're going to Mr. Danko, who's going to wrap up this panel.

Mr. Danko, you have five minutes.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canadians elected a serious, pragmatic government, and I'm hearing lots of positive momentum this morning in the oil and gas industry, in particular focusing on Alberta production, as my colleague mentioned, being at record highs. I'll also note the record highs of foreign direct investment in the Canadian energy industry. That's lots of good news for Canadian workers and for Canadian industry. You've heard the Prime Minister say many times, “Canada has what the world wants.”

Ms. Lail, you mentioned some of the current geopolitical challenges, highlighting the need for energy security in Canada when you have an administration, the Trump administration in the United States, that starts a foreign war and drives up the cost of oil exponentially. I think it's the single highest increase in the price of oil and gas in history. There's no exit plan and no idea of how to extract themselves from that.

It just drives home the point that Canada does, indeed, have what the world needs, and we need to find ways to get that to market. I'm in total agreement there.

You made a really interesting point early on about the labour market in the Alberta oil and gas industry and the fact that, with the increase in production and the momentum we're seeing in the industry, it's difficult to fill those positions. I'd like to give you the opportunity to expand on that. What can we do as a federal government and as a country to make sure we are attracting the best and brightest to Canada and have the labour available to fill the jobs that are available in the energy industry?