Natural Resources Committee on May 28th, 2026

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

To me, that blows my mind. The emissions are the same, yet the revenue, profits and jobs created will be much higher for Canada. As you mentioned in your statement, as electricity prices are rising, natural gas prices are falling, creating higher profit margins for Canada. It's amazing that there are actually rules in place in Canada that prevent us from doing that. I mean, it's just unbelievable.

Now that there's a massive demand for AI and it's essential for national defence and security, do you think we should continue selling natural gas to the U.S. so they can use electricity to power their data centres, or do you think we should make electricity in Canada and use it for data centres in Canada?

[Paul Cheliak]

That's not as simple as it may seem. The gas that flows to the United States, which is a great partner of Canada on energy and will remain a great partner on energy, is under contract. People have paid for access on those pipelines, and they will use it. That's a binding contract. There are some business and contractual realities that exist.

Should Canada pursue data sovereignty with all energy sources on the table? Absolutely. We met with government yesterday. It seemed that there was an aspiration, anyway, to ensure that all energy sources are on the table as Canada aims to increase its data sovereignty through data centres.

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

If I understand correctly, we have rules in place right now in the name of saving the environment that prevent us from building liquefied natural gas facilities, or we at least make the permitting very long to not allow that to happen. Right now, from what I heard when I was in Alberta, we are selling our natural gas into the pipeline for less than a nickel per unit. The Americans are taking that, turning it into LNG product and selling it for over $12 per unit.

Are we actually helping the environment by doing this, or are we just helping Trump's economy by sacrificing our own?

[Paul Cheliak]

Again, the natural gas that's flowing to the United States is under contract. As you know, there's significant LNG development in Canada. There's a fairly frantic pace of development on the west coast, which will alleviate some of the challenge, but most certainly there is an analogy where there's a tap and there's a drain. The money is made at the drain.

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

Yes, absolutely.

I have a question for my friend Mr. Brossard.

I had this question written up before I came here, and you almost nailed it on the head in your speech. The German government came to Newfoundland and Labrador looking for natural gas. The Liberal government—being advised by Mark Carney, might I add—said there was no business case for this, but now there's a business case over in B.C. to ship it right around the world to Germany.

Was it major incompetence a few years past when Germany came over, or was it just intentional deception?

[Renaud Brossard]

In essence, the issue is that the government killed the business case by over-regulating it. It wasn't theoretically wrong when it said there was no business case, but it should have added that it was based on the laws that were added on the books to make it so that there were no business cases.

Germany, Japan, India, Poland and a lot of countries in Asia and Europe—our allies—have been asking for access to Canadian resources. They have been asking for the reliability and stability in supply that Canada can offer. Unfortunately, for the last decade, the government has been saying no. We feel that there's finally a bit of a shift. It's good to see that shift happen, but it is 10 years too late.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

That round concluded perfectly on time.

Now we'll move over to the Liberals for five minutes, with Mr. Saini.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

My question is for Mr. Brossard.

Can you share your views on the one project, one review agreement that the federal government has signed with the provinces? How can such an agreement benefit energy and electricity projects?

[Renaud Brossard]

We see it very favourably. Last year, some of my colleagues wrote a very long research paper on how we could fix the issues with Bill C-69. One of the ways was to respect the provincial assessment processes and see them as sufficient. As a Quebecker, I'd say that comes as strong respect for the importance of provincial autonomy in those decisions.

The fact that the provincial assessments are good enough removes obligations and significantly reduces the cost of going through these processes. If the cost is reduced but the benefit is the same, it helps steer investment our way. It makes the business case that much more appealing and reduces uncertainty as well, as you don't have to file two different reports with a couple of different commas here and there in both and wait for the approval of two different entities.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Cheliak, how can developing natural gas infrastructure support the growth of LNG export projects?

[Paul Cheliak]

It's essential to look at a project based on three components. You have the supply, the demand and the infrastructure to move it between the two points. If you look at it in the context of a Canadian LNG project, you obviously need a pipeline to move the gas from where it's produced to where it's going to be liquefied to be exported. Those are the three parts of the project. Without the infrastructure to move it to a liquefaction terminal, you would obviously not have the ability to create the LNG and export it.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

My next question is for Travis.

How can the Government of Canada support indigenous equity and leadership in energy projects? How can such efforts benefit northern indigenous communities?

[Travis Balaski]

I'll note a couple of things on this. There was a lot of talk earlier about permitting. The Inuvialuit energy security project went through a lot of the permitting debate, which was talked about a few minutes ago. We were through the CER process. There was definitely a lot of overlap between regional consultation and environmental review and with what the federal department was doing. Even for a relatively small project like ours—it had only a half-billion-dollar number—we were four years in the permitting process, which is far too long. I don't think external investors would have had the patience to do this. Kudos to the Inuvialuit for sticking with it.

The second thing is that we're actively working. We have funding with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We're looking to expand our funding with the federal government. A whole bunch of programs have been announced, but it's very unclear how they all work together, whether it be something backed by DND, the indigenous loan guarantee program or the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It's not easy, even for us as an indigenous proponent, to come to the government and to get clarity as to who's going to help and what that's going to look like. We get passed around between the various departments. The Inuvialuit are fortunate that we have good access to government, but that's still not clear to us.

Clarity of permitting and financial support are top of mind.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Cheliak, I lived in the small community of Williams Lake for a lot of years. If you go 10 or 15 miles outside the community, there are a lot of indigenous communities. I can think of at least 15. There's no natural gas in their homes. Why is that such a complicated issue?

[Paul Cheliak]

The fundamental challenge is that any utility in Canada is permitted to connect a community only where the users of the product—whether it's electricity or gas—can pay back the cost of the infrastructure over a 40-year period. The regulator looks at how many people are in a community. If the equation doesn't work out, the utility is not permitted to build the infrastructure. Sometimes they can get halfway there with the formula. Sometimes it's three-quarters the way there. Sometimes it's not very far at all. That's the limitation facing any regulated monopoly, which all utilities are in Canada.

We are in the process now of proposing to government that it unlock a program to have the public sector match funds from utilities in order to provide access to communities looking for natural gas, including dozens of indigenous communities across Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you, gentlemen.

For the next round, we'll go to Monsieur Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Cheliak, in your opening remarks, you talked about the price difference between gas and electricity, as well as the evolution of those prices. It might've happened more slowly for gas. It's possible, but I'd like to understand the situation. If you have any figures, it would be interesting to have them.

Canada's energy profile is not linear. There are distinctions to be made between the provinces. To make sure everyone understands, in the energy basket, 40% of the energy in Quebec comes from hydroelectricity, compared to 17% for Canada as a whole. These differences need to be taken into consideration. Also, I don't think Quebeckers pay a realistic price for energy. Let's say our hydro is a little less expensive.

At the peak consumption period, we're talking just under 300 hours a year. It's a challenge, but there's no glaring shortage of hydroelectricity in Quebec. Only when it's just under 300 hours a year can it become problematic.

Gas, another energy source, can also be used to drive down prices.

Have you done some kind of breakdown by province to see what that represents in the energy basket? It might be interesting for the committee to have that.

[Paul Cheliak]

Yes, we do. There's an excellent one published by the Canada Energy Regulator called “Canada's Energy Future 2026”. It looks out to 2050 and models supply, prices and demand for all regions of the country. I would definitely refer you to that.

On prices in Quebec specifically, it's important to recognize that industrial electricity customers subsidize residential customers. The bill that a Quebec residential electricity customer pays is about seven cents a kilowatt hour. Commercial pays almost double that, so there is an artificial skewing of the residential price of electricity in Quebec. There are many different reasons for that, which I won't comment on today, but it's important to look at market distortions alongside the actual price that people pay.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That's exactly right.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you, gentlemen.

If you want to provide a written submission afterwards with respect to Mr. Simard's question, you could add a few more of those factors.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Now, for five minutes, we'll move to our Conservative member of Parliament Mr. Khanna.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and for sharing their insights on such an important issue, especially during a time when we need affordable, reliable energy right across our country.

I represent a rural community, Oxford County, where there are a lot of farm operations. A lot of folks rely on natural gas to heat their homes and run their operations.

My first question is for Mr. Brossard.

You spoke about the roadblocks this government has been setting up over the last 10 years and about some of the challenges you've seen. Do you mind listing those challenges? What policies are problematic when it comes to supporting affordable natural gas and providing it to Canadians?

[Renaud Brossard]

If you don't mind, I'll leave it to my colleague Gabriel Giguère, who would be very qualified to talk about this.