Natural Resources Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Gabriel Giguère]

I'm very sorry. Could you repeat the question, please?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

In his opening testimony, Mr. Brossard mentioned that the policies of the Liberal government during the last 10 years made it challenging for a business case, but the Liberals also made decisions that prevented getting natural gas to Canadians. What are those policies that caused some of the roadblocks to providing natural gas to Canadians?

[Gabriel Giguère]

One of the first things that stands out is that many small projects were impacted by Bill C‑69.

That said, there's also the emissions cap issue for the oil and gas sector. It is undoubtedly part of the set of measures that have hindered development in the sector, particularly in terms of energy infrastructure.

Investor surveys were conducted on environmental regulations. In Canada, nearly 68% of those surveyed said they were concerned, versus only 41% in the U.S. That's a central element.

We understand Canada is much less competitive and attractive when it comes to capital. Capital investments in the oil and gas sector has decreased since 2015, particularly when we adjust for inflation. This poses a problem, because the oil and gas sector is one of the most productive and highest value-added sectors. Regulations that block projects are detrimental to Canada and that's been going on for more than 10 years.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Clearly, the government's policies during the last 10 years caused this crisis. Do you see a shift in the government, that it's finally realizing that its own mistakes have caused these problems?

[Gabriel Giguère]

I think the tipping point is very obvious. Last year, they wanted to bypass Bill C‑69 by creating the Major Projects Office in Canada, but in reality, they're adding arbitrary criteria.

I understand the government's objective, which isn't totally bad, but there's no need to add arbitrary criteria. My colleague Mr. Brossard said it very well: When Bill C‑69 gets reformed, arbitrary criteria need to be reduced. We need a predictable and attractive regulatory framework for capital investment.

We understand very well that the act passed in 2019 has been repealed. Now, we have to hurry up and pass a new bill and adopt a new regulatory framework to be more attractive. We're behind the eight ball right now.

There is an LNG project operating in western Canada, but there are many more in the U.S. The first project was launched in February 2016. We're very late to the party.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

We haven't seen any of those changes come to the floor of Parliament. They haven't repealed their anti-energy laws at all.

This is a question for Mr. Balaski. I know you were talking about permitting. Canada has been one of the slowest countries in the OECD when it comes to permitting. You said it took almost four years. How does Canada compare to other countries? It was mentioned in previous testimony that investors weren't confident investing in Canada and that ultimately it's Canadians who pay the price for that. Can you please give us a comparison with other jurisdictions?

[Travis Balaski]

Building a project in the Arctic definitely has some special considerations that would extend any permitting process. Obviously, we had to consider Inuvialuit rights in the sensitive environment of the Arctic, but I would say that a typical project of this scale is usually done within a province or territory—even in the States it would be within a state—and it should be a six- to nine-month process, or maybe a 12-month process. Taking into consideration the Arctic, there would be a bit more time, but four years did seem like a long time.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, four years is definitely a long time compared to other jurisdictions.

Am I done? I'm sorry.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. I apologize for cutting my colleague off. You are at time.

Now, for the last round, we will move over to Ms. McKelvie.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Balaski.

You mentioned a major project that you have under way, and the emissions reductions that will happen through that. Can speak to the size and scale of that project? What does it mean for energy sovereignty in the area? Does this take you to being 100% reliant on energy from Inuvialuit? How close will you get on this single project?

[Travis Balaski]

This project is right around half a billion dollars. It teeters on...discussing with the Major Projects Office. I don't know if we would consider this a major project yet in the grand scheme of the country, but it can unlock the opportunity for other major projects. I don't know if we're quite in the “major project” designation.

In terms of emissions and the opportunity for fuel displacement, it will supply synthetic fuels and natural gas, which will mean power, heating and transportation for the majority of the region. The reason I say “majority” is that there will still be things like gasoline in vehicles. That's the only thing that will not be displaced, but any sort of major transportation, heating or power will be fuelled, really, throughout the western Arctic: the Kitikmeot in Nunavut, the northern Northwest Territories and the northern part of Yukon.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Environmentally, you have huge savings since you're not transporting fuel over large distances. I think you're in the order of 40,000 tonnes. Do you know roughly how much that is? If I look at 40,000 tonnes, that's the equivalent of about 8,700 gasoline cars off the road, or the energy of 5,000 homes. Do you have a ballpark estimate on what that savings looks like?

[Travis Balaski]

From a CO2 perspective, that's a pretty good number, Madam McKelvie. It depends on what basis you use, but we've seen numbers like tens of thousands a tonne, which is a good estimate of what we're displacing. Obviously the majority is in transportation, and some of it is in the production emissions.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Then there are other benefits. Maybe you can speak to some of the socio-economic ones. Do you know how many jobs this will bring to your area? What more can we do to help ensure that you have the skilled trades, that they're local and that locals are able to fully benefit from the economic wealth that this can generate for you?

[Travis Balaski]

Right now, for any energy that's imported into the region, I would say that 95% plus of the revenue leaves the region. They're all imported fuels that are produced and brought into the region by others. This will totally flip that equation so that the Inuvialuit own subsurface to surface. All of that revenue will be generated and will stay in the region.

It will create job opportunities. For a region that's only several thousand people, we're seeing 100 to 200 local construction jobs, over 100 million dollars' worth of construction contracts for local businesses and 50-plus direct jobs—plus the indirect jobs—which is a substantial number when you're talking about a small community.

In terms of capacity building, it's difficult. Education is limited in the north. We have to work with southern partners.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

My next question is for Mr. Elias.

Having gone through this process, what advice do you have for other communities that are looking to do something similar and generate sovereignty for themselves, especially throughout northern Canada?

[Travis Balaski]

Mr. Elias is not on today.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Can you answer the question?

[Travis Balaski]

I can do my best.

I think there are a lot of learnings. It's a fortunate region where there are well-understood oil and gas reserves. There's now access with the Inuvik Tuktoyaktuk Highway. We had an indigenous group in the Inuvialuit that has fairly deep pockets and the wherewithal to progress this. It takes a good combination to build a large project.

This part of the western Arctic is fortunate. I think other parts of Canada can learn and benefit from this, but it will probably take more support to get them there.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I'll squeeze in one last question. Hopefully I can get through it.

As we are looking to roll out the defence industrial strategy, one thing that's important is northern security and northern sovereignty. If we're ramping up satellite surveillance, is it important for us to collect data from high-resolution magnetic gravity, lidar, etc., so we have that information available for communities that might want to take advantage of their natural resources?

[Travis Balaski]

Any development in the Arctic is going to be good and will support that initiative. The more we can understand it, the more we'll encourage investment and development to support these initiatives.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

You have 30 seconds.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I will cede my last 30 seconds.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you to all the witnesses here for your informative and eloquent expertise and for sharing that with the committee's members as we work to develop a report and potentially some supplementary recommendations.

That's all the time we have today with this panel. Thank you all for being here.

We'll now suspend for a few minutes to welcome our new witnesses and get set up for the next round.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you, colleagues.

We'll now resume the meeting with our new witnesses.

I would like to welcome them on behalf of all committee members.

From Electric Mobility Canada, we have Daniel Breton, president and CEO. From Electricity Canada, we are joined by Michael Powell, vice-president of government relations. From the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator, we have Chris Milligan, vice-president of planning and procurement.

The first and third witnesses will be joining us by video conference. All virtual witnesses have conducted the mandatory witness onboarding test.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses joining today, even though many of you are returning individuals.

Committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, just take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel that you'll need in order to take full advantage of the time that's allotted for questions and answers.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair, although I'm fairly easygoing about those sorts of things.

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

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for five minutes.