Natural Resources Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Travis Balaski]

I'm not super in the know on the program, but I understand the huge use of energy that all these homes have. This is a huge deal. They're all elevated because of the permafrost environment, which doesn't help with keeping heat in a home because you have free airflow underneath most houses.

There are a couple of very specialized energy-efficient homes that have been introduced in the region to reduce energy use in homes, which is important because the communities right now rely on very short windows to get energy into the region. This past winter, Inuvik was on a very short supply of energy—within days of having to curtail and evacuate people.

It is a sensitive topic. Any way you can extend the availability of energy that's stored in the region is going to be a huge help to households from a cost perspective. Also, it's an avoidance of what could be a bit of a disaster.

They are great programs. Energy efficiency is always top of mind for all the communities in the north.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Balaski.

I have a question for Mr. Cheliak about the methane regulations.

Could the new methane regulations create jobs in Canada and help companies, including many in your association?

[Paul Cheliak]

Any time you introduce a new regulation, you are imposing an additional cost on a private entity. That additional cost will be spent into the Canadian economy.

One answer to the question is, yes, you will create jobs due to the regulatory compliance obligations. The challenge that members have with what has been proposed—the continuous monitoring technology solution—is they don't feel it is the most accurate way to track and monitor methane emissions on a 24-7 basis. We are currently working through a guidance document with the government to add more specificity to it.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I have one last question on that.

Could the methane regs help Canada's competitiveness and make us a bit more competitive globally? Could you speak very quickly, for 15 seconds, on what that could mean for your members?

[Paul Cheliak]

We already produce the world's cleanest natural gas. We're in a very good position without additional regulation.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

I think you have 20 more seconds. Do you want to add anything?

[Paul Cheliak]

The members have had methane mitigation programs for decades. This is not a new space for any of the gas distribution or transmission companies in Canada.

It's their product. It's about consumer safety. They take it seriously every single day of the week in the field and in our communities. We take the issue to the core every single day.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

Now we will move to the Bloc Québécois, with Monsieur Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brossard and Mr. Giguère, perhaps I misunderstood, but I noticed a slight inconsistency in your opening remarks.

You talked about global oil prices and the fact that they are of course tied to the stock exchange.

You seemed to suggest, though, that if we had more infrastructure and produced more energy in Canada, we'd be able to bring down prices. If that's your argument, I think it's a bit far-fetched.

Even the Canada Energy Regulator officials told us that if Canada's production were higher and we had more significant infrastructure, it wouldn't bring down global prices. Normand Mousseau, from the Trottier Energy Institute, shared that view. I think we can trust him when it comes to energy matters.

You can try to convince me that Canada could magically change world oil prices by producing more oil and gas, but I would be shocked if that were the case.

I want to come back to the GNL Québec project.

I don't want to get into all the history, but the project involved my region. The Government of Quebec initially supported the project but changed its mind when the proponents asked for public funding. That's the problem with getting infrastructure built. No one in the private sector wants to pay for it.

When it comes to oil infrastructure, nothing has changed. The head of Enbridge told us that it was too risky, so he wasn't willing to invest in oil and gas infrastructure. By the way, the company made $131 billion in profit between 2021 and 2024. It's going to make even more money with the high price of oil, but it won't put money into infrastructure. Worse still is that production has clearly gone up in recent years, but the number of jobs has gone down. The company is willing to invest in automation to lower production costs but employs fewer people. The economic benefits for us have decreased, but the company isn't willing to invest in infrastructure.

That's why I think your argument is a bit misbegotten. I'll give you the floor now, so you can try to change my mind.

[Renaud Brossard]

I don't know whether I'll be able to change your mind, but I will say that my colleague Gabriel Giguère is pretty well versed in all things energy.

As for oil supply, it's about basic economics, supply and demand. Canada is a major oil producer. We are experiencing a supply shock, and obviously Canada can't replace 20% of oil or natural gas production overnight. However, the lack of transportation infrastructure has undermined our ability to respond by releasing barrels of oil to help stabilize the oil market. Canada is a significant producer. It's a fact and—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand very well. If you have numbers—

[Renaud Brossard]

If you'll let me finish—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I can use my time as I see fit. That's a selfish element of committee meetings.

If you have any figures to send to the committee, we could use them to educate people at the Canadian Energy Regulator on the law of supply and demand. I'd be very interested. In fact, we could do the same thing with Mr. Mousseau.

There are basic laws when it comes to capitalism. One of them is to take the money and gamble it, which companies unfortunately don't want to do when it comes to infrastructure. They don't want to risk it. That's why we're in this situation when it comes to infrastructure. The only infrastructure that's been built in the last few years is the TMX expansion. It cost $34 billion and Canadians paid for it.

Is it because the government has put too many regulations in place? That's easy to say, but companies also have a responsibility. Unfortunately, for some time now, companies haven't assumed their responsibilities. They don't want to invest in infrastructure.

If you have figures to show us anything to the contrary, I'll take them, and I'll be happy to change my mind.

[Renaud Brossard]

As we were saying about infrastructure, it's really a matter of regulation and legislation. Each regulation leads to an increase in project costs and uncertainty. In fact, one act basically says the approval of a project is at the whim of ministers, which increases the risk. We're seeing a decline in—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Which act are you referring to?

[Renaud Brossard]

I'm talking about Bill C‑69, which enacted the Impact Assessment Act. Basically, we have an act that—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You're playing into the Conservatives' hands, and you've learned it well. That's fine.

[Renaud Brossard]

I have no party affiliation.

It's just the facts. Oil investment in Canada is declining, while it's on the rise in the rest of the world. At a certain point, we have to make the connection between the cause, Bill C‑69, the effect, which is a decline in oil sector investment and the fact that investors are going elsewhere.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you. That's interesting.

I will graciously give the rest of my time to the Montreal Economic Institute.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

You have 33 seconds.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That's fine, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

This seems like a good time, with the remaining seconds, to advise all witnesses that you have the ability to provide written submissions to the committee, which we welcome, to follow up on any information, facts, statistics or points you've made in your presentations or exchanges with members to better inform this committee. That way we can make a committee report with realistic recommendations based on evidence, statistics and facts.

That said, we will move to our second round. We will begin with Jonathan Rowe, one of our Conservative members of Parliament.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Good day and welcome. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Cheliak, I'd like to give you two scenarios. I'm wondering if you could weigh in on which one is better for global carbon emissions. In scenario one, we send natural gas in a pipeline to the United States of America and they turn it into electricity. In scenario two, we use that natural gas to create electricity here in Canada and then send the electricity to the United States of America.

[Paul Cheliak]

There's an optimal solution here. I think you understand well what it is, but I'll answer the question: Generate the power at home.

If I may add just a moment of colour, this is a very real situation in the province of British Columbia. Canadian natural gas is exported to the United States to generate power, which is then reimported back into British Columbia for use by homes and businesses in that province.