Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Tracy Sletto]

On any project that would be designated under the Major Projects Office, we would be working very collaboratively with the Major Projects Office in terms of the processes that are set out in the Building Canada Act. We would ensure that we're doing our part as the lead regulator for that energy infrastructure, making sure that the legislation we need to implement is carried out.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's wild that the government seems to think there needs to be a $275-million office to tell you, the regulator, what to do and proponents where they have to go.

In September, NRCan said at this committee, “The goal is to get those assessments down to under two years for all projects.” That's the goal that both the Prime Minister and the minister have cited, although the government rejected my amendment to insert the two-year timeline into Bill C-5.

Could the officials from NRCan tell Canadians what concrete steps you're taking to reduce assessments, in a recommendation one way or the other, down to two years?

[Greg Orencsak, Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

I'll start.

The government is committed to a “one project, one review” process to ensure that major projects such as pipelines and nuclear facilities have a coordinated assessment that receives federal decisions within two years—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I know the government said that, except, as you know, they've created the MPO, a new organization with the Canada Energy Regulator, the Impact Assessment Act and the nuclear regulator. There are four regulators, all kinds of projects and all kinds of windows, it seems, so far.

[Greg Orencsak]

To give you a concrete example, the co-operation agreements that are being entered into with the provinces help streamline regulatory approvals, help accelerate project reviews and help reduce duplication.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Of course, that doesn't require the creation of a whole new office for $275 million. It shouldn't even take that much time for the federal government to just respect jurisdiction and make those agreements with provinces. It could have been done immediately after the last election, actually.

It seems to me that at a year into this government's mandate, it is fair for Canadians to have expected them to take the default approach to respecting provincial jurisdiction and the Constitution. If they had, there wouldn't be these issues.

My colleagues will continue with questions further on during their opportunities.

At this time, Chair, I will move a motion that I put on notice for all committee members. I move:

That the committee require the Department of Natural Resources, the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Northern Pipeline Agency to each provide four updates on the to-date implementation of their respective departmental plans for 2026-27 to the committee; the first set of updates shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 5, 2026; the second set of updates shall be provided to the committee by no later than September 18, 2026; the third set of updates shall be provided to the committee by no later than December 4, 2026; and the fourth set of updates shall be provided to the committee by no later than March 5, 2027; immediately following the reports being provided to the committee, the clerk be automatically instructed to invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources to appear before the committee, for one hour, on the implementation of the departmental plans and on his mandate, and to invite officials from each department and agency to appear before the committee on the implementation of their respective departmental plans and on the mandates of their departments or agencies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs. That motion was on notice and is in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Hogan.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

We can't support this fire-and-forget approach to calendar and committee management. It's unnecessary. The minister has made himself regularly available. It's burdensome. We've received departmental status results reports. We have an established mechanism through which departments provide updates.

This asks for a lot of reports. We can always ask for more information. We don't need to slow down departments with broad status report obligations. We can always ask for more information.

This motion fetters this committee. It makes us less able to respond to events as they are and to issues as they come forward. We of course understand why the opposition is bringing it up at this time, but it's just bad practice.

I recommend that we just call the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We'll call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Thank you, colleagues.

Ms. Stubbs, you still have.... Oh, it's over time. I'm sorry.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, I was trying to be on time to not interfere with any other member's ability to ask questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Yes, thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We're going to Mr. Hogan.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

It's motion hour, apparently, here at the natural resources committee.

I'm also going to move a motion. It was put on notice on March 26. I'm going to read it into the record.

I believe Mr. Simard would like to put forward an amendment to my motion.

My motion is as follows:

Whereas, Canada has an interest in energy self-sufficiency and energy security, Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources holds no less than 4 meetings to conduct a study on domestic Canadian energy security; That the committee present a report to the House on its findings and recommendations; and That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Okay.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I just want to point out that Mr. Hogan's French is starting to be outstanding. On the next trip, I won't be the only francophone with Mr. Malette.

I think we sent you the text of the proposed amendment because it's quite long. I'll read it quickly.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the preamble and replacing the words “holds no fewer than 4 meetings to conduct a study on domestic Canadian energy security. That the committee present a report to the House on its findings and recommendations;” with the words “the Standing Committee on Natural Resources undertake an in-depth study on Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security, with a particular focus on:

(a) Assessing the full potential of clean electricity technologies; b) Examining the challenges and solutions related to peak-power demand; (c) Examining the government's role in market diversification and industry development; (d) Determining the importance of the clean electricity sector in achieving net-zero emissions targets; e) Analyzing the implementation of public policies aimed at supporting electrification; f) Examining issues related to Canada's energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security; and g) Respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories.

That the committee invite any witness that it deems relevant to testify; That the committee hold at least six meetings as part of this study; That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

We have discussed this, Mr. Chair, and I think everyone agrees with this proposal. It is done by consensus, in love and friendship.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Colleagues, the amendment is in order. I think everyone has it.

Go ahead, Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Monsieur Simard, is it your intent to have individual studies, with one related to electricity transmission and power demand and then a separate study related to Canada's energy autonomy and Canada's internal energy security, or do you see this all as one? Are you pitching that all of this would be as one?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry, the interpretation was not working so I didn't understand all of your question.

The interpreter doesn't need to apologize every time she has difficulty because of witnesses who speak too quickly.

Ms. Stubbs, can you repeat your question?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm also the worst offender for speaking too quickly.

I'm wondering if your aim here is to have two separate studies. Would the one on the electrification, transmission and power demand issues that you're trying to get into be separate from a study on internal energy security and energy autonomy writ large? Do you want to decouple those, or do you want one study that does all of it? Is there really enough time?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Basically, it's more of a study. It's easy to explain. The committee did a study on electric energy. Unfortunately, Parliament was prorogued, and there was no report on that study.

In the context of the study on energy exports, we talked a lot about oil and gas. We did address the issue of energy security, perhaps in a roundabout way. The department responsible for electrification may be presenting policy directions soon.

I think it would be in our interest to look at this in six meetings, which would leave a bit of time to discuss other matters. I wanted to have specific aspects so that we could keep them in mind when we invite witnesses. That's how I see it. That would allow us to complete our study.

We've already discussed this. I even talked a bit about it with MP Claude Guay. I remember that, in the past, no one agreed to go back to testimony given during a previous study and use it to prepare a report for a future session. That is because some of the members who were on the committee during those studies are no longer members. In addition, members who were not on the committee during those studies would not want to study that. We talked initially about doing a six‑meeting study on this. We thought that was the direction we wanted to go in. I think that makes sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We have the amendment on the floor.

Do we need a vote? Is there consensus?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

I'll ask Ms. Stubbs to take the chair.

Colleagues, I want you on your best behaviour. I'm going to ask Ms. Stubbs for a report.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

I'll be on my best behaviour because I'll be well taken care of. The clerk will make me look like I know what I'm doing.

We will resume our questioning. We will go to Mr. Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you. So—

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Chair....