Natural Resources Committee on April 14th, 2026

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

That's right.

[Gurpreet Lail]

We don't have an employment boom-bust right now. The service sector is looking for people to come into our industry. We have jobs that are readily available. We just can't find the people to come and fill them.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

That's great.

Maybe we can move, then, to the tanker moratorium. Of course, this moratorium has existed since the 1980s in a voluntary sense, through the Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper years. It was made legislative by the previous government. This current government has said that an exemption will be granted if a west coast bitumen pipeline goes to the coast.

I'm curious. During the 1980s, the 1990s, the aughts and the early 2010s, what was the effect of that tanker ban, voluntary as it was, on exports? Was that a significant consideration for your group?

[Gurpreet Lail]

I'm sorry; I honestly can't answer that. I wasn't here in 2010.

I can tell you where my members are today and what we need today. We need the moratorium to be lifted, because even with doubled production, we haven't even reached our potential. What we can do by lifting the tanker ban to get our product to market would be significant for every Canadian household, not just Albertans.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I completely agree. That's why the government has said that if there is a project that goes to the northwest coast, that would be something we'd consider.

Mr. Buffalo, I'm going to turn to you.

You mentioned that energy east, Keystone XL and northern gateway were cancelled. I worked on all of those projects, actually. Energy east wasn't cancelled, but it is a difficult problem to work out on pure economics. It is a long way to go if it's going to a place that requires more infrastructure. It is much faster to go west or to Churchill, but that might not be in our national interest. Infrastructure that goes west-east across the entire country is probably what's in our national interest.

Without distorting the market, how do we incentivize the development of such projects, when, frankly, when you're on tidewater it's cheaper to move oil? The basic economics are to get to tidewater as fast as possible.

[Stephen Buffalo]

That's a great question. Of course, the incentive is that first nations are now more actively involved with these infrastructure opportunities. We've seen, through the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, that the relationships can be built.

What still plagues our people is the Indian Act. We have to start generating our own wealth, and utilizing infrastructure that can help with national interests will, I think, bring more benefit than anything. We see what the federal government is doing around the world in helping humanity, but in the same sense, we still see the struggles with support here in Canada for clean water and better housing and education systems. That's the incentive right there, in itself.

The discussion of pipelines and where they should go is still another matter that I think we have to look at to see if it makes fiscal sense. Of course, it has the support of the nations moving forward.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

The Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation was an incredible idea by Premier Jason Kenney. I was a public servant in the government when that was introduced in Alberta. Do you think it provides opportunities to address what I mentioned about some of those projects, which aren't necessarily or inherently going to win on economics but could win on national interest? Could indigenous loan guarantees be one of the levers we pull?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer, Mr. Buffalo.

[Stephen Buffalo]

It has to be. A lot of first nations do not have investment capital, so this is a unique way.... Now that there's a national federal program, I think it's a very positive step going forward in helping Canada be a superpower.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both so much.

Mr. Simard, you have six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin, I want to make sure the interpretation is working.

[Gurpreet Lail]

It's working, yes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lail.

I listened carefully to your opening remarks. You spoke about the shortcomings of the policy framework and federal obstacles. I've been hearing this here for a long time from representatives of the oil and gas sectors.

As the Quebec saying goes, “When you want to put your dog down, you say it has rabies”. I get the impression that people in the oil and gas sectors are currently highlighting these bureaucratic hurdles when it comes to infrastructures in an effort to find a way to get the government fund these infrastructures.

Let me explain why I feel this way. The only gas or oil infrastructure built in recent years is the $34 billion expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, funded by all taxpayers. We are still subsidizing every barrel of oil that passes through Trans Mountain today, since exporting companies don't pay the fair price for using the infrastructure.

I wonder whether industry players are willing to invest in this type of infrastructure. Do they feel that, in the long run, it isn’t profitable? That’s the message I'm getting when I read the media and reactions within the oil sector. In short, let me put it plainly: What I see right now is that people in the gas and oil sectors want the public to bear the risk of their infrastructure, while still wanting to reap the profits. That's the message they're sending at the moment, in my view.

The government has reached an agreement with Alberta, but no one has come forward to say they want to build a pipeline. I really can't make sense of this situation. Perhaps you can shed some light on it for me. I'd appreciate any information you can provide.

[Gurpreet Lail]

I don't know about dogs and rabies, but from our point of view, I think where you're mistaken is that the energy industry is not willing to pay. If you look at Keystone, we had paid. We were ready to launch, and that was not government coming in alone.

Right now no one wants to invest. Why would we invest if there are no policies that are actually going to help us get to tidewater? Why are we going to invest if we're not creating new jobs for us? There has to be a reason we're investing. That's why we're saying we need to rectify some of the policies and the regulations right now that are handcuffing our industry from getting to market.

It's not just our industry. Look at Nutrien. Nutrien just announced that it's building a major export facility in the United States but not in Canada. If that's not a cautionary tale of how poorer and less competitive Canadian policies are making us in every industry we have, then it is your first signal that there's an issue with policy right now and that there is no investment coming into this country, especially when Canadian companies are going to the States because it's more economical and the policies work well in every industry.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I find that very interesting because you and I have quite opposing views.

There are some government measures that I don't agree with, for example Bill C‑5, which aimed to accelerate the start of construction on certain projects. I'm also thinking of measures in the budget, including the accelerated capital cost allowance, which applies mainly to the oil and gas sectors.

I've been here since 2018. I've seen a lot over that time. Even during the pandemic, with the emissions reduction fund, which benefited only the oil and gas sectors, there was no reduction in emissions. It was a direct subsidy.

So when I look at the government's measures as a whole, from my perspective, I see a government that acts as a facilitator for the oil and gas sectors. On the other hand, I hear people from those sectors saying that it's still not enough for them, that more should be done, that the government should be even more of a facilitator. As elected officials from Quebec, that's the disconnect we have difficulty understanding.

The federal government is making significant investments to support the oil and gas sectors. In response, people in these sectors say it's not enough, that they don't want to invest their own money in it, and that the legislative framework isn't acceptable enough for them.

I don't know whether you see that disconnect as well. I understand just how important the oil and gas sectors are to Alberta, but from outside Alberta, it often seems like you're spoiled children. Let me put it that way.

[Gurpreet Lail]

I would disagree. Obviously I'm going to disagree. We are not spoiled children. At the end of the day, without reliable energy sources for all Canadians, you wouldn't have heat in your homes. You wouldn't have lights on right now. I'm not sure how you travelled into the office today, but you wouldn't be able to do a lot of things that you do in everyday life. Without energy security, you also don't have food security, so it's not a “nice to have”. It is a must have for all Canadians.

If you look at the Impact Assessment Act and other regulations that were put on the industry, there was no handout to industry. That was not a carrot by any means. It was put in place to match what was happening in the United States from what Biden had put in place. What Biden did increased investment in the United States at that time, and more Canadians flocked to the United States because it was viable for them to do business there. It was not the other way around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Colleagues, we're going on to our second round, and we are going to start with Mr. Martel.

Mr. Martel, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lail, my riding is in Saguenay, Quebec. We had the GNL Québec project, which aimed to export natural gas to Europe. I still wonder—and I'm going to have to come to terms with this—about the fact that the project was rejected because of our lack of social acceptance. I have a little trouble with that.

I'd like you to tell me about social acceptance. What is your definition of social acceptability? It seems that for certain projects people don't want to move forward with, it's always said that there is no social acceptance. I'd really like to understand the criteria. Is it because someone complains? Is the decision based on a poll? I'd appreciate hearing your views on this.

[Gurpreet Lail]

Unfortunately, I can't speak to why the community in Quebec went against the LNG, but that would have been a prime opportunity for Quebec. That would have created many jobs.

It puts money back into your province and into communities, so I'm not sure why that resulted—

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

Excuse me, Ms. Lail. I just wanted to know your own definition of social acceptance, for example when something is rejected. What is your definition?

[Gurpreet Lail]

For me personally, in terms of social acceptance in the energy industry, what I've seen around the world is that we have top-of-the-line human rights practices and have great environmental practices. We are working on reducing our emissions exponentially year over year. That was started before ESG even became a thing. As an industry, we are working with indigenous partners across Canada to ensure there's economic reconciliation across the board.

I would say that is social acceptance. Also, those same companies that are providing energy resources are giving back to communities. When you're in rural and remote areas across Canada and you look at ice rinks, a majority of those ice rinks are sponsored by energy companies and the industry as a whole. That is social acceptance.

We not only provide energy; we give back to our communities as well.

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

When the project was on the table, a lot of people said it wasn't worth pursuing because we didn't have a natural gas export contract with Europe. They said it wouldn't be profitable because we didn't have a contract. The project wasn't in place yet, but people were saying that since we didn't have a contract with Europe to export natural gas, there was no point in getting it off the ground. What would you say to them?

[Gurpreet Lail]

I would ask where they are getting it from. Did we even go to Europe and say, “We can help you get off your reliance on Russia”?

We are here today, in 2026, and that's the problem taking place. If we had built that LNG in 2010 and let it go forward, we would not be having this discussion today. I think Quebec would be in a better spot and Canadians would be in a better spot, and we would be helping our allies across the globe right now get out of energy poverty.

There's always a case. Someone just has to be willing and brave enough to make it.

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

Given the recent announcement of the memorandum of understanding for the new pipeline, how long do you think it will be before the first backhoe breaks ground?

[Gurpreet Lail]

That's all going to depend on where we are with our deadlines on some of the points that were outlined in the MOU. This also includes conversations that are taking place with the indigenous corporations, which my colleague Stephen Buffalo can answer better than I can.

It's all going to be dependent on where we're at with investment, where we're at with regulatory reform and whether we've gotten rid of any of the nine “bad laws” that Premier Smith mentioned.