RNNR Committee Meeting

     I call this meeting to order.

    Welcome, Mr. Rowe. It looks as though he's had a good, vigorous walk. He's raring to go.

    Let me acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

    Welcome to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

    Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format.

    Let me remind the participants of the following points: Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those participating by video conference—we have two this afternoon—click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

    Let me remind you that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

    As a reminder—not that this happens all the time—all comments should be addressed through the chair.

    Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, April 23, 2026, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security.

    Let me welcome our witnesses on your behalf.

     On the screen, as an individual, we have Philippe Dunsky, former chair of the Canada electricity advisory council. From the Canadian Climate Institute, also by video conference, we have Kate Harland. From The Transition Accelerator, we have Mr. Moe Kabbara, chief executive officer, who's with us in person.

    All witnesses here virtually have conducted the mandatory witness onboarding test.

     Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we'll open the floor to questions and comments.

    Mr. Dunsky, we're going to start with you. You have the floor for five minutes.

    Thank you for having me at this meeting.

     I will speak in English, although I'm more than happy to answer any questions in the language of Molière.

    Let me start with a little introduction about myself. I've been advising on energy issues for 35 years now. The firm I run supports utilities, governments, investors and others across every province and territory in this country and in the majority of U.S. states. I have a team of about 70 experts who work on nothing but energy issues. Over the course of my career, I've had the privilege of sitting on many—maybe far too many—energy policy committees and commissions, including, most recently, the Canada electricity advisory council, which I was invited to chair.

    I have a few remarks on the transition. It's been awhile for me. It's been, as I said, 35 years. In that time, I don't think there's ever been a more exciting and, at the same time, a more daunting time to be working in electricity in this country.

     The reason is simple. I'm sure you're all very well aware that we are now squarely in the midst of a transition toward electricity. This is a transition that will not affect everything we consume, but it will affect a majority of vehicles, heating systems, much of industry and, of course, the AI revolution that we seem to be in now. It's arguably one of the most wide-ranging, complex, profound and ultimately daunting energy transitions our world has ever known.

    In my work, I try to ask myself a simple question, and I ask myself this on behalf of my clients as well. It is, what will things look like on the other side of this transition, when we're through it? There will invariably be winners and losers, as there are in any large-scale economic transition. This will be no different. Those who position themselves in advance, those who focus on their competitive advantages, those who are thoughtful without being slow-footed and those who are proactive in harnessing new technology are the ones who ultimately stand the best chance of winning. Those who drag their feet and wait to see how it all plays out are arguably the ones who will be most likely to lose at the end of the game.

    I'm a Canadian. I want Canada to win this race. I think we have everything we need to win it.

     A couple of years ago, I was asked to chair the Canada electricity advisory council. It was a one-year initiative—one and done. I like to think that I may have done a bit of the legwork for many of you on this issue. We spent 12 months with a very “Canada-sized” array of energy sector leaders with very different perspectives and very different biases, I'll say. We all have them. We still managed to achieve consensus across the board on what Canada needs to do to win this. I'm not going to have time in these five minutes to go into individual recommendations, but I will share the overarching principles and conclusions that we came to.

    Fundamentally, there are two things we need to do as a country. One is grow. The other is clean.

    We need to grow the power system. We need to grow it more rapidly than we ever have in our history. That is essential for our economy. It's essential for competitiveness. It's essential for capital attraction. As an aside, it is unbelievable that so many provinces in this country are now short on electricity and are having to turn away business and industry because they don't have the power needed.

    We need it for competitiveness. We need it for capital attraction. We need it, obviously, for reliability. We need to keep the lights on. We need to get to a point of being able to say yes, not no.

    We also need to do this cleanly. That's important for the climate, of course. That is also important for our competitiveness. It's also important for our ability to attract capital. Leaning into one of our great strengths, which is that we have the second-cleanest electricity system in the G7 and the third cleanest in the G20 at a time when more and more countries are looking to price carbon into markets, is a tremendous competitive advantage that we cannot lose.

     Lean into grow. Lean into clean. There are obvious trade-offs between these two. We cannot go too far too fast on the clean lest we slow the growth or harm affordability and reliability. We can't do that.

     The reverse is true, too—

     Thank you, Mr. Dunsky. We're at time, and we're already running a bit behind, so thanks for your understanding. I think you got most of your points in.

    We'll go on now to Ms. Harland.

     You have five minutes.

     Thank you very much for the invitation to meet with the committee.

     My name is Kate Harland, and I am the director of clean growth at the Canadian Climate Institute. I'm going to draw on some research that the institute has been working on over the past year.

    I'll make four main points.

    The first is that low-cost, abundant electricity enables both economic growth and electrification. Access to reliable, low-cost power underpins economic growth. It has been a competitive advantage for Canada in the past, but Canada has to be proactive to retain and leverage that advantage.

    I'm sorry, Ms. Harland; we've just had a point of order raised.

     Ms. Harland, the sound has been a little low, and I would urge you to perhaps speak a little more slowly for the sake of our interpreters. Thank you.

    Go ahead, Monsieur Simard.

    The sound in the room is really low. It's not the sound coming from Ms. Harland's system that is causing a problem, because the interpretation is working very well.

     We could adjust the sound in the room. It's fine through the earpieces.

    Thank you for your understanding, Ms. Harland. We stopped your time, so there's no need to rush. Thank you.

     According to work done by Mr. Dunsky's firm, the Canadian economy is at risk of missing out on $110 billion to $220 billion in potential capital investment because of an insufficient supply of clean electricity for the current pipeline of projects.

    Our interviews over the past year have similarly found tightening supply across the country and lengthening queues. As demand grows and continues to outpace supply, these opportunity costs only climb. Industrial investors will deploy capital here only if they get timely access to power at competitive rates. This applies to both new sectors, such as battery production, critical minerals and data centres, and existing industries looking to electrify and spend billions in expansion.

    For my second point, falling costs of solar and wind and batteries mean that flexible clean grids can deliver abundant power at lower cost, and that's a big change. We've seen wind, solar and battery costs fall dramatically over the past decade. Since 2009, solar costs have fallen by 84% and onshore wind by 56%, while battery costs declined 27% in the last year alone.

     It's not just these technology shifts in terms of cost. Electricity systems also have room to modernize and help keep rates competitive as they grow by operating more flexibly. Flexible systems, on both the demand and the supply side, can help build out a cost-effective system. With expanded storage, demand flexibility, interties and smarter grid operations, Canada can use its infrastructure more productively, avoiding both the cost of overbuilding for peak and the waste of low-cost renewable power.

     Reimagining electricity systems is a major economic opportunity, yet current electricity planning processes and institutions are rooted in a world that no longer exists, with obsolete assumptions about technology costs, assumptions about fixed demand and limited focus on flexibility.

     Third, Canadian electricity systems aren't keeping up with international competitors in creating the conditions to seize the economic opportunity. Our forthcoming analysis compares four Canadian provinces—Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and B.C.—against six global leaders on what it takes to attract both clean power supply and the industrial investment that demands it.

    Provinces have different advantages and challenges in this race when it comes to electricity system growth and attracting investment, and all have some actions to take to help build the systems of tomorrow. These involve building a modern grid that can meet growing demand, delivering flexibility and linking regional power markets. It involves strengthening electricity markets through predictable procurement and modernized industrial rates. It involves establishing policy certainty to support investment.

    Jurisdictions doing this, such as Texas, showcase the opportunity to get this right. Investment in Texas for solar, wind and storage reached over $27 billion U.S. in 2025 alone. That's from building, sending clear price signals, making fast connections and building transmission early to help that.

    Fourth, the federal government has a critical role to play in working with provinces to deliver national benefits. Our research points to four areas for federal action.

    The federal government should support new co-operative processes for interprovincial energy planning, focused on information sharing and goal setting in the short term and new intergovernmental institutions in the longer term.

    The federal government should selectively deploy the national balance sheet to support anticipatory grid build-out for nationwide benefit. Specific solutions include both scaling up existing successful financing solutions, such as those of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and direct federal funding. A national test could support more consistent, prioritized application of federal support, recognizing the range of national economic and security benefits.

    To build long-term policy certainty for clean electricity investors, the federal government should move forward with flexible clean electricity regulations that anchor expectations that new supply will be predominantly clean.

     Finally, the federal government should prioritize clean flexibility within existing electricity, infrastructure and innovation programs, and it should consider how tax tools such as capital cost allowances can mobilize investment in on-site solutions to enable users to shift their demand away from peak periods and offer industry greater agency over its costs.

    Thank you.

     Thank you very much, Ms. Harland.

     We will go now to Mr. Kabbara.

    You have five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for having me.

    My name is Moe Kabbara. I'm the CEO of an organization called The Transition Accelerator. We're focused on helping Canada win economically and geopolitically in a world in which the energy transition is disrupting the global economy and global power.

    Today I want to talk about energy security and how that definition is changing in real time around the world. For most of modern history, energy security really meant one thing: securing the supply of fuel. The disruption we're seeing right now in the Strait of Hormuz has put roughly one-fifth of the global oil supply at risk, and Canadians have felt it here at the pump. Despite producing over five million barrels of oil a day, that is the security problem in its purest form: Oil is essentially priced in global markets. Conflict on the other side of the world sets the price here at home no matter how much we produce.

    One thing to watch is how other countries are responding to this moment, as well as how they've been responding over the last few years. Pakistan, for example, imported 17 gigawatts' worth of solar panels in a single year last year. When the Strait of Hormuz crisis hit, solar exports from China doubled in one month. Most countries aren't thinking of Ethiopia as a country in which six out of 10 vehicles sold or new registrations last year were electric. It's not that they're trying to do this for climate policy or environmental policy. They're saving $4 billion a year in foreign currency by avoiding fuel imports.

    These, I would argue, are not environmental decisions made by countries that are growing economically. These are energy security decisions. Around the world, electricity is becoming how countries buy security, because it is produced, delivered and priced domestically.

    In Canada, the sectors that drive our energy demand—how we move, how we heat our homes and buildings, how we run our industries, manufacturing and data centres, etc.—are going to increasingly shift to electricity. As they do, security in those sectors stops being a question of fuel supply and becomes a question of whether we have electricity to provide reliably and affordably.

    I'm here to make the point that the frontier of our energy security is moving from fuels to electricity systems. I'm a pragmatist. I'm a realist. We cannot electrify everything overnight. This is a multidecade undertaking, and energy demand still has to be met every year while it happens. Oil and gas remain essential through the transition itself. Again, I'm here to make the point of watching where the puck is actually going. Electrification can only proceed if electricity stays affordable and reliable. For example, a perfectly clean grid is not necessarily the objective if we compromise on whether we can build it large enough, whether it's reliable enough and whether it's affordable enough to enable the electrification of the economy.

    The point I want to emphasize is that, to get there, we need discipline, because Canada is going to commit to new, long-lived energy infrastructure in order to secure our energy—conventional and electric. The decisive questions are concrete ones. What volumes are we talking about? What markets are we serving? What is the demand, and over what time frame? Does the asset we're building still earn its place? This discipline matters, especially when public funds are put on the table to help de-risk private investments, precisely because when the analysis is incorrect, it falls on the taxpayers—a downside.

    That brings me to the opportunity and risk of this. The supply chains that underpin electrification are going to be a central risk because we're still going to be importing switchgear, transformers and batteries from a small number of concentrated global suppliers if we don't build these things at home. For me, that is a risk. It's different from buying a fuel you have to burn every year, but it's still a risk when you're importing this equipment. That same build-out is going to create an industrial opportunity for Canada to create the supply chain here at home, in order to help us supply the growth we're talking about for our grid, supply our allies and diversify our trade.

    Essentially, in the last 30 seconds I have here, what is the federal role in enabling energy security through electrification? We know we're going to have to spend a lot to build or modernize the grid. We're currently spending about 0.7% of our GDP. We need to be spending 1.7%—an additional 1% of GDP, or about $30 billion a year. Obviously, the federal government is not going to pay for all of that. There's a lot of provincial jurisdiction.

    What can the federal government do to sustain a durable, long-term horizon signal and leverage our AAA credit rating to lower the cost of capital and increase support so these benefits show up on Canadian bills, not just on paper or in theory?

     Thank you so much for having me today.

     Thank you, Mr. Kabbara.

     Thank you to all of our witnesses.

    We'll move on to questions and comments from colleagues.

     We're going to start with you, Mrs. Stubbs, for six minutes.

    Thank you, Chair, for that introduction.

     Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

    Given that it's my first opportunity, that we are nearing the end of the parliamentary session and that all the witnesses have emphasized the necessity of certainty and clarity—as well as that of having major projects built in Canada for national security, for affordability and for geopolitical security—I would like to move the following motion that I put on notice Friday, May 29, 2026. I move that the committee make the following report to the House:

    The reason I bring this motion today—we hope this committee will support making this report to the House of Commons—is, of course, that the Prime Minister got elected on a promise to Canadians to pursue the construction of a pipeline to the Pacific for Canada's most valuable exports of oil and gas, which are also heavily invested in. Most energy companies of all kinds—companies in renewable and alternative energy and technology development long into the future and Conservatives—certainly believe that all and every kind of energy is what must be developed in Canada and exported around the world.

     It is undeniable that the entire Canadian economy is underpinned by the outsized contribution of the Canadian oil and gas sector. The reason that it's important for this committee to consider this motion today is, of course, in part related to some comments that have been made by the heads of the major pipeline companies and by producer proponents. They are also all looking for the Liberals to keep their promises on legislative and regulatory reform. This would allow private sector producing proponents and private sector pipeline proponents to invest in these projects, thereby creating jobs for Canada to pay the revenue in royalties and in taxes to all three levels of government that provide the programs and services that all Canadians care about right across the country.

    It is not news at all that the majority of Canadians support the construction of more oil and gas production and exports from Canada, as that has been the case for years. For committee members and anyone watching, perhaps it is important for us to reflect on the latest public opinion polling about how much it is that Canadians want the Liberals to keep their promise on constructing a pipeline to the Pacific.

     As recently as January, support for that pipeline's construction was up right across the country—everywhere—with 55% support in British Columbia, 66% support from Ontarians and 64% from people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Furthermore, 51% of Quebeckers, as they always also said during the debates on the west-to-east pipeline, support the construction of a Pacific pipeline. Also, 62% of Atlantic Canadians support the construction of this pipeline to the Pacific.

    It's no surprise at all that the strongest gesture from the Liberal government towards economic, fiscal and national unity would be the keeping of their promise to construct a pipeline to the Pacific, with 81% of Albertans supporting the promise the Liberals made.

    The issue I think we must be seized with, though, colleagues, is to join in the pressure to call aggressively for the full-scale legislative and regulatory reform that this country needs in order for our businesses to compete, primarily with the United States—which, as we know, has aggressively shortened its permitting timelines. We've heard just recently that they are intending to pursue even faster streamlined approvals for major projects, particularly with regard to oil and gas, nuclear and critical minerals. Their emergency permitting procedures on federal lands can happen even all the way down to a month.

     I'm not suggesting that would necessarily be possible in Canada, since the federal government must keep its section 35 duty to consult and accommodate, but to know that the United States of America has already set its approval timelines at two years—that happened under Biden—and that the current president is aggressively shortening those permitting timelines.... Our own Prime Minister said it correctly, that Canada is facing a crisis, and the Americans have brought in those very fast approval timelines for critical projects on federal lands. They too are striving to get their permitting timelines overall down to a year.

    The reason we should be very seized by this issue right now is that there are only a couple of pipeline proponents in Canada that would be capable of constructing such infrastructure. One of them, of course, is this company called Enbridge that, in the time since I have been elected, actually proposed a stand-alone export pipeline to Asian markets, to the Pacific, which would be fully operational today and with which Canada would have multiple customers beyond the United States of America.

    The court ruled, as it has with many governments, including on the Liberals' initial indigenous consultation on the Trans Mountain expansion, that this was insufficient in the case of the northern gateway pipeline. The choice put by the court to the then prime minister was that he could redo the indigenous consultation, to make it sufficient, or he could do what he did: Without consultation with any of the indigenous communities, which all supported the northern gateway pipeline and were counting on the future opportunities for their communities, he vetoed it outright. This is since I was elected. Therefore, that's gone.

     Atlantic Canadians know well that there was another company, TC Energy, which—also in the time since I was elected, the last 11 years, with this exact same Liberal government—proposed cross-country pipeline infrastructure to bring energy resources from the west to refineries in the east and to export to Europe. What happened was eerily similar to what is going on right now, which is that the Liberals froze the regulatory process for all major energy projects and announced a series of values and principles that almost no Canadian would disagree with and that were hallmarks of the Canadian regulatory system. It sounds very close to what's happening now, doesn't it?

    The Liberals then started adjudicating on major infrastructure and energy projects case by case. When it came to the west-east pipeline, they had to set up one panel, which then got disbanded, and then do another one, and they put conditions on it that no other pipeline has been asked to meet ever since. The company TransCanada, which now has dropped “Canada” from its name and primarily focuses on the United States, warned that it was going to have to abandon the project and then, indeed, it did. That was a domestic partisan political decision.

    We should listen very carefully to what the CEO of Enbridge has said. This new pipeline to the Pacific, he has said—being the head of the company that tried to build one in the last 11 years—is “not the type of risk that we're looking to take on at this time”. He also said, “I don't think investors or the infrastructure companies should be taking on the risk of development in jurisdictions that have historically created a challenge”. He then said, “What I would say is the conditions don't yet exist for that pipeline to be built.”

    Now, everybody should be aware that what was lost to Canada when the northern gateway pipeline was vetoed by this exact same Liberal government was 5,500 person-years of on-site employment, 57,200 person-years of employment through the Canadian economy, $85 million per year in tax revenue and labour income from construction of approximately $2.5 billion in B.C., $1.2 billion in Alberta and $4.3 billion, the most, for all of Canada. Overall, Canada's GDP would have increased by $300 billion over 30 years. Those are the opportunities that this same Liberal government killed when they vetoed the northern gateway pipeline.

    We must take very seriously the comments of the CEO of that same company when he says today that the conditions do not exist. This is backed up by previous and recent comments from the CEO of TC, the company that also tried to build a cross-country west-to-east pipeline. He said, “for too long, [capital] hasn't felt welcome” in Canada. He said, “the US will continue to be where we'll invest.” He also said, “Industry in the U.S. believes it takes too long to approve projects. But reforms and policy alignment south of the border have accelerated federal approvals, reduced regulatory timelines and prioritized domestic energy and infrastructure development. And they are in a mode of continuous improvement.”

    Furthermore, the TC Energy CEO said, “uncertainty is the enemy of investment, and this global competition is fierce. We allocate capital across projects in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and our investors expect it to earn the strongest risk-adjusted returns. Over the past three years, that has increasingly meant the U.S.”

     I apologize. The bells are ringing, and I have to alert the committee to that fact.

     Sorry, Shannon. You were going there.

     Colleagues, I need unanimous consent to go into the bells period. I'm in your hands.

     I think I see that the committee would like to proceed.

    Go ahead, Mr. Simard.

    Look at him; he's so relaxed.

    I'm particularly interested in what's being said right now.

     Ms. Stubbs, I don't see any opposition.

     Why don't we go until about 15 minutes before? Is that all right?

     Thank you. That should be sufficient.

     Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to continue to comment so that I can really make the case to you as to why I hope you will support our motion to report this to the House of Commons.

     I would also mention the most recent comments reportedly made by a Canadian CEO who is the head of Canada's biggest oil producer, Cenovus. He made the point recently, and it should seize all Canadians that he said, “Investment has left Canada for other jurisdictions. The jobs that come with investment, together with the taxes and royalties, were never realized. Foreign investors and producers have left and taken with them the benefits they bring. Yet through this, the world has not demanded one less barrel of oil, not one less Mcf [thousand cubic feet] of natural gas. The world just gets it from different jurisdictions like the U.S., Russia, and the Middle East”, as Conservatives have been saying for 11 years and before that.

     He also reportedly said, “What is missing and unclear in the MOU is the commitment to regulatory reform that would allow industry to grow production to offset the costs of the carbon capture project and fill the million barrel per day pipeline to the West Coast.” An additional point was, “The carbon tax escalates through time, making our industry less resilient at lower commodity prices, and will require the premature shut-in and reclamation of oil producing projects that would otherwise be economic to produce.” Finally, “Without a competitive investment regime coordinated by the federal government and the Province of Alberta, the investment required to make this a reality will be challenged.”

     I want all Canadians and committee members to recognize that none of these pipeline companies and none of these producers are asking for subsidies. What they are asking for is legislative and regulatory reform that is competitive, attractive, certain and fair. Every kind of energy developer needs this because all investors in every sector need that sort of reality.

     The government should take note when, in a very unusual move, Canadian CEOs have spoken quite aggressively about what has to be done. This is normal in the United States, but it's quite abnormal for Canadian CEOs to speak out in the way that they have.

    To make clear to Canadians why this is not pre-emptive and why every member of this committee should support this motion, it's because as far back as March 9 and March 19, 2025, CEOs of Canadian companies across Canada's resource sector, 14 of them, sent a letter. In April 2025, 38 followed up. Then, on September 15, 2025, 97 CEOs from all kinds of energy companies of all kinds of sizes across the sector sent a letter.

     What main things did they call for? They asked for exactly the legislative and regulatory reform that the Liberals say is coming. The Liberals also promised two-year timelines for approvals, and they rejected what I tried to put in the law. We're advancing into two years of the Prime Minister's being in power, and he has yet to bring forward the legislative and regulatory reform agenda that is clearly being called for by provincial leaders, territorial leaders, industrial representatives, economists and proponents of all kinds.

     They want significant simplification of regulations. This includes the repeal or the reform of Bill C-69 and of Bill C-48. They want shortened timelines for project approvals. They want a commitment to grow production, and they want a fiscal framework that attracts investment. As all of us do, they want expanded incentives for indigenous investment opportunities.

     These, colleagues, are the reasons that all of us here as members of Parliament and Canadians everywhere should be seized by this motion.

     I hope you'll consider supporting it. On behalf of all Canadians, I would say we agree that Canada is in a crisis and that this crisis was preventable. The reason that Canada is in a vulnerable and isolated position, playing catch-up now, is the antidevelopment laws and policies that have been inflated domestically. That's why I hope that every member of this committee will support this motion.

     We will all work in partnership, as we have committed to do, with the federal government to ensure construction so that the pipeline to the Pacific can get built. Conservatives support the construction of pipelines in all directions for Canada, for the benefit of all Canadians, without carbon taxes and without billions in corporate welfare that isn't needed.

     Thank you, Chair.

     Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

    That motion is in order, colleagues. It was put on notice on May 29. I have a short speakers list: Mr. Hogan, Mr. Rowe and Mr. Kibble.

    Mr. Hogan, we'll go to you first.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I appreciate the intent of my colleague's motion. I agree with the observations in both the motion and much—but not all—of the commentary she provided.

    With regard to improving regulatory speed, I point to our recent discussion paper on this topic. The pipeline project she refers to in her motion.... The northern gateway, energy east, KXL and Trans Mountain are all projects I've worked on, so I am mindful and appreciative of much of her commentary there.

    It's my firm belief that, if you're going to move oil and gas, pipelines are the cheapest, safest and most environmentally friendly way to do so. It's also my firm belief that we should do what we can to reduce reliance on the United States, the current destination for 90% of Canada's oil exports. Declaring a pipeline that is consistent with the Building Canada Act and the national interest is already the intention of the federal government, as was committed to in the implementation agreement for the Canada-Alberta MOU.

    Therefore, the opposition is pushing on a bit of an open door there, twisting a rubber arm, but we also have witnesses here. Energy security is a very important topic. We're also getting a bit ahead of ourselves, as Alberta hasn't submitted a proposal. It's going to by July 1. We are on the timeline agreed to with the Alberta government, and sticking to a timeline and sticking to a plan agreed to with Alberta is how we bring the stability that Ms. Stubbs mentioned. That's important.

    There are also ongoing negotiations involving Alberta, Canada and other parties that we do not want to unbalance. We also need to acknowledge that opinions we've heard presented publicly are presented in that context. It is the choice of those parties to do so, but the Government of Canada does not want to negotiate in public, so let's find time for this later. We would love to revisit this motion once a proposal is submitted and we can properly schedule a discussion.

    For today, I move to adjourn debate on the motion.

     Colleagues, you've heard the motion. It's non-debatable, a dilatory motion.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

    The Chair: Debate is adjourned on that item.

    Colleagues, this is probably a good time to break. I'm going to be thinking about....

    Mr. Kabbara, could you stick around?

    Ms. Harland and Mr. Dunsky, we're going to see what we can do in terms of adjusting time.

    We can offer you something.

    We'll be back in about 25 minutes. We are suspended for 25 minutes.

     Colleagues, we're back in session.

    We've spoken to vice-chairs or their representatives. It has been agreed that we are going to truncate our rounds of questions a bit. We have to drop off the fourth and fifth speakers partway through the second round.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Rowe.

     I'm sorry, Mr. Danko.

     Mrs. Stubbs, you still have five and a half minutes. You don't have to use them all.

    I'm going to share that time with my colleague, Jonathan Rowe.

    Thank you.

     Okay. That's exactly what I meant. You can share.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    My first question today is for Mr. Kabbara.

     We're looking at going to green energy. There's been a big uptake in solar panels.

     It's very intriguing to put a solar panel on your roof and offset your electricity costs. Many Canadians would like to do that, but where are all of our solar panels coming from right now? Are we doing much solar panel manufacturing in Canada? Or is it coming from other countries such as China and other places?

    Most of the solar panel supply is currently from global suppliers, which is, as I've mentioned, a long-term risk. That is why we need to build the Canadian supply chain, which is also an industrial opportunity.

    I had a little trouble hearing you, but I got the gist of it.

    What's interesting is what we've seen with the Chinese, with Huawei—I think that was the name of it—for the cellphone companies, when we had big spy issues afterward. The corporations are being instructed by the federal government to remove some technologies throughout Canada because of the interference from the Chinese government.

    I'm curious. If we rely on Chinese solar panels across Canada—maybe not for a solar panel on my roof, because that's small—and we start putting in these big solar farms across Canada with Chinese technology, is there a security risk that they can make a phone call or flick a switch and turn that off?

     I presented to a different committee on the Chinese EV question. I think cybersecurity is a concern that we need to be taking seriously in all cases. It's not really as simple as plugging an EV into the grid and then it blows up or they're going to control our grid. It's much more complicated than that.

    Yes, I appreciate that you're taking it seriously. I heard some giggles from across the way, which I thought was very funny considering how serious it would be if our solar farms did shut down, especially in the middle of winter when we have cold temperatures and a lot of frost.

     There's a lot of sun in the wintertime as well, and we would be dependent on those solar panels and then, all of a sudden, people at home would be freezing because the Chinese may have a backdoor entry into those solar farms. That's a big concern, and I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or from out in left field, because we've seen this with our cellphone industry.

    The question is, how do we build these solar panels here in Canada? How do we get that technology built in Canada?

    Yes. I think it's generally focusing on building elements of the supply chain for which it is going to be possible for Canada to compete, as well as relying on allies and partners across the world to have a more secure supply chain in the long term.

     Which ones can we partner with right now that have a good supply of solar panels that we can do that with?

    I think that, generally, some of the European countries, like Germany and others, have relatively strong solar industries. I think it is true that the Chinese dominate the solar sector. I think they do that because they realized where the puck was going. The security concerns can be addressed. They're not fatalistic.

     I think there's another opportunity here for us to compete industrially, which is why we need to build our own supply chain and collaborate with other partners across the globe from Asian and European countries that are more reliable partners for us.

    I think you're right. I think we need to give our Canadian corporations every competitive edge that we can.

    Right now, we're seeing that the Chinese put tariffs on Newfoundland and Labrador seafood, and that's very frustrating. Do you think we could do countertariffs on the Chinese? Would it be a good idea to put countertariffs on the Chinese for the solar panels and stuff to give our Canadian corporations a fighting chance in that industry?

     I don't really have any particular views on the tariff response vis-à-vis the seafood tariff, but I do feel that tariffs generally need to be used in order to help build our industry. They're not a long-term strategy in terms of insulating yourself forever. I think there is a role for tariffs in the near and the medium term to help secure and build an industry, but long-term strategies that go beyond tariffs need to be considered.

     With the automotive industry, with the “spy cars” coming in and having EVs in Canada, do you think it helped their automotive industry when we lifted those and let those cars come in?

    Our position on that has been that if you look at China's exports of general automotive, it went from one million vehicles in 2020 to seven million last year. That's a seven x increase in five years. I think the North American fortress approach is not going to work long term. If you think you're going to be able to stop the technology from coming in over the long term, I wish people and the industry the best of luck.

     The question is, do we do it on our own terms? Do we have some kind of security as we do it? I think we use the approach of what I would call “selective exposure”. We allow a small number of vehicles in, which can still insulate our vehicle market and make sure, since you mentioned the cybersecurity concerns, that we can have Canadian software deals running on the hardware, so we have more control.

     I don't think those concerns are unwarranted, but I do think there are solutions for them that go beyond trying to build a fortress and say that we're going to stay behind this fortress forever, given how the expansion has happened.

     Thank you both.

     Mr. Guay, you have six minutes or less.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Dunsky, it's good to see you. I'll ask you the first question. The Canadian Electricity Advisory Council, which you chaired, highlighted that progress can be hampered by overlapping or conflicting policies among different levels of government, utilities and regulators.

    In your opinion, would the “one project, one review” approach that the federal government is putting in place, with a number of provinces participating, help solve part of the problem?

    What more could we do?

    Thank you for the question.

    Obviously, the “one project, one review” approach is essential if we want to build much faster than we are currently able to do. On that point, I welcome initiatives like this. However, there are a lot of other things we are going to have to do about it. Right now, there is still a lot of overlap.

    In terms of the review, there are still rules that I would say are ineffective, if not unnecessary. Sometimes, but not always, there is also escalation. It then takes two or three years to review one aspect of a project, whereas it would be possible to do so in a much shorter period of time. The list goes on.

    It's a lot of work to amend the review rules and procedures. By the way, the federal government is only responsible for part of it. Each province has its own rules and procedures, which, again, involve challenges and delays that are really not necessary.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Guay. We've stopped your time.

     Colleagues, it was just brought to my attention that Mr. Kabbara has to leave at about 20 or 25 minutes after. That's to make you aware, in case you want to ask any questions of him before he has to leave and catch a train back to Montreal.

    Mr. Dunsky, I think the national electricity strategy, which has just been launched, contains a lot of recommendations from the Canadian Electricity Advisory Council that you chaired. It recognizes that Canada's electricity systems are fragmented and that better east, west and north connections are needed to reduce infrastructure duplication and electricity losses.

    How do you think the federal government should support interties?

    We know that planning often falls under provincial jurisdiction. We need to build a truly national electricity grid.

    How do you think we could address that?

    Thank you for the question.

    It's a huge challenge. If I had to choose one priority among the recommendations made by the council, it would be to facilitate more electricity trade between the provinces.

    Again, it's very difficult to do that, because there are, in fact, things that are done in silos in Canada. Each province acts in isolation. It's in the Constitution, in the end, so the debate won't be reopened.

    That said, the federal government can play a role as a kind of facilitator of interprovincial trade. Provinces are not in the habit, with a few exceptions, of planning their networks together. As a result, most of the time, we manage to do one or two projects. However, we are missing out on a lot of business opportunities because we plan our systems separately, without consultation and without systems integration.

    When we do that, we leave $20 bills on the table, as economists have often said. We're missing out on a lot of money, because we're not able to optimize our networks. The federal government certainly can't control or lead things, but it can facilitate them. This can include creating a framework for common cost-benefit analyses for interprovincial projects, as well as a framework for funding interprovincial projects.

    I would add that the federal government can certainly use its chequebook, so to speak, to contribute to interprovincial projects and ensure that a province that might benefit slightly less than another is compensated, so that everyone ultimately benefits.

    This is more or less the approach Europe has taken in its own regulatory framework for projects carried out between European countries, and it is clearly an approach that the council advocated in its recommendations to the government.

     Mr. Guay, you have 20 seconds.

     Mr. Kabbara, I know you produced a report. How should the federal government design affordability measures so that the households most at risk are not left behind?

    That's a great question.

     As I mentioned, when we're talking about electricity rates, ratepayer versus taxpayer, there are ways for the government to use its AAA credit rating to reduce the cost of capital for building this grid. The Prime Minister mentioned that this is what we need: basically, to activate the level of ambition fiscally that can meet the level of ambition in the strategy of doubling the grid.

     Okay. Thank you both.

    Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Dunsky, I enjoyed your opening remarks. It reminded me of something that we may not have addressed as a committee.

    You began by saying that there will be winners and losers in any transition to electrification and that the goal was not to be left behind if we want to be winners. When you said that, it made me think of the current political situation, which today is more like a zero-sum game.

    We saw this earlier when my Conservative colleagues discredited electrification, since the structures for it, such as storage and solar panels, come mostly from China. The electrical model would also compete with fossil fuels. However, rest assured, I don't think anyone is spying on me with solar panels. There may be some doubt as to whether Alberta is spying on us with gas pumps, but for panels, I don't think so.

    I'm not being facetious when I say that. I am telling you that because, politically speaking, we should perhaps move from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game. Both types of energy, electricity and oil, can be used together. Meanwhile, encouraging electrification doesn't mean there are more electric vehicles and that other energy sectors will be harmed.

    Before I give you the floor, I just want to add that I get the sense that this is a fairly significant political problem in Canada. We saw the same thing arise earlier this week when another witness made comments that, my goodness, were somewhat questionable on the issue of electrification. The China connection keeps coming up.

    I would like to hear your opinion on that, as well as on what you said about winners and losers.

    I would also like you to talk to us about the importance of making the shift to electrification.

    Thank you.

     I obviously won't get into a political debate, but it's crystal clear that the world is electrifying, whether Canada likes it or not. What that means, in concrete terms, is that more and more heating is becoming electric because the technology has improved. It has to do with technology. I would say that electrification is no longer driven by policy. Electrification is happening because technology has taken the lead. At the end of the day, the technology related to electricity consumption is far superior to what it replaces for many applications.

    That said, the choices we have here in Canada are relatively simple. We can try to delay the inevitable. I don't think that's a win for us or any country in history. We can also take the bull by the horns and try to develop our response as we see fit, in our own way, with our resources and our comparative advantages.

    I think Ontario is a really worthwhile example in that regard. Ontario actually decided that, if electrification was coming, it would electrify in its own way. The Ontario way is more focused on nuclear, because that's where the expertise is.

    The approach of deliberately doing things your way is preferable. The other two options are either to reject more efficient and more affordable technology for everyone, an option where there will obviously be no winners, or to wait and run out of electricity. In that case, we're going to put ourselves in the position of having to say no much more often than yes.

     Monsieur Simard, Mr. Kabbara has a comment. I think he'll be leaving soon.

     I need to leave.

    Oh, I see. I thought you wanted to make a comment.

    If ever Mr. Kabbara wants to answer the question in writing, he is welcome to. Thank you to him.

    The major challenge is a bit like what Normand Mousseau of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier told us at the beginning of the study. According to him, we need to create a value chain in Quebec in the electrification sector. Part of our report will probably focus on that. I hope so.

    What actions can the Canadian government take in the short or medium term to create this electrification value chain?

    First of all, I would say that Quebec is probably one of the most advanced provinces in terms of the value chain, because Quebec has developed its electricity grid more than other provinces, relatively speaking.

    That said, there is still a lot of work to be done. Back home, my firm works on value chain issues. We are in the process of identifying the components in which Canada could play a part. It's not the whole chain. We're not going to start building everything.

    However, we have some advantages that we can better harness. I'm thinking, for example, of transformers. This is not something that is that politically sexy. However, transformers are an excellent example, because we produce some in Canada, but relatively few compared to our needs. We import a lot. There is a bottleneck in this area, in Canada and around the world. That slows down the construction we need to do. That's just one example, but we have to be strategic about it.

    If we map the electricity industry, we see there are over a thousand parts in the chain. We have to choose very deliberately and sensibly which parts Canada has an advantage in, then press the gas pedal. For that, there is a lot of leverage at the federal level. There is some at the provincial level as well, but it's mainly at the federal level. One of the big challenges is that our neighbours to the south have introduced a tax credit for the production of renewable electricity. As I understand it, our tax system makes a similar credit quite hard to implement. Therefore, we have to find somewhat creative solutions to compete with them.

    Thank you.

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

     Mr. Chair, I will share my time with Mr. Kibble.

     I will be asking the first question of Monsieur Dunsky.

    We've talked about nuclear, about Ontario and about people who choose to approach this in their own way. You said something interesting. You said that we could try to delay the inevitable.

    Could you explain that a little more?

    The inevitable is electrification. The inevitable is an electric motor. Take the example of an electric vehicle that takes us from point A to point B. It will consume three times less energy than a gas-powered vehicle, which means that the performance has reached the next level.

    In terms of costs, I would add that, in a few years, we will reach parity in terms of the purchase costs of electric vehicles. The subsequent operating costs will be much lower. That's where we're headed, and very quickly.

    If we try to delay the advent of electric vehicles, for example, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to affordability for consumers and car owners. That's just one example.

    Heat pumps are another example. Heating with a heat pump uses three times less energy than heating with a gas furnace. That doesn't mean we have to throw out all the gas furnaces right away. I would never say that. A lot of my clients are gas companies. However, when the technology reaches a point where it performs far better than the previous technology, we have to accept that technology. We have to pave the way for it and find a way to welcome it that will be beneficial for us.

    I have 30 seconds left.

    Could you briefly tell us whether electrification can be developed at a rapid enough pace?

    I'm talking about power lines in particular.

    That's the challenge. My biggest concern is that we're not building fast enough to meet our needs, to have enough electricity to allow, for example, certain parts of the industry to expand or new businesses to start up. We're in a race. We can't really slow down demand, and we need to speed up supply.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like [Technical difficulty—Editor] questions about the risk of cyber-sabotage in industrial facilities, I think it's incredibly important, despite the snickering we heard from the members opposite. Drawing on my background, as someone who ran the joint operations centre on the Pacific coast, doing security and surveillance there, I can assure this committee that those are real risks that demand to be taken seriously.

     My first question is for Ms. Harland. In 2017, this committee recommended that the government implement interprovincial or east-west coast electrical grid connections and corridors. Has this happened? Do you think this is still a valid recommendation? Do you see it as something that contributes to the national security and self-reliance of Canada?

    To start, has this happened? I think there is more opportunity now than there was in 2017 for that east-west development of interties. What we've seen between 2017 and now is that some of the issues about incentives—

     I'm going to jump in, just to clarify. You said there's more opportunity, but regardless of the opportunity, has it actually happened, other than a few minor projects? Is this something that's going forward, and does it support national security and self-reliance, which are so important? I think all members of this committee would agree to that.

    Has it happened, and does it contribute? Thank you.

     So far, major developments haven't happened, and I think that's in part because some of the incentives that balance those winners and losers—those mixed incentives across borders—need to be fixed, and that involves coordination and co-operation.

    Quickly, in the few seconds I have, could you please address the importance of these types of connections with regard to national security and Canada's self-reliance? Thank you.

    With regard to self-reliance, they're incredibly valuable. For a long time, we have had most connections going north-south with the U.S. By increasing our connections going east-west, we give our own grids more resilience and more flexibility and operate more interconnection between them, and that strengthens our reliability and our flexibility to operate them within a Canadian context.

     Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

    Thank you both. That is your time.

    Mr. St-Pierre, you have five minutes.

     Thank you.

    I'll ask two quick questions of Mr. Dunsky, and then I'll pass my time to MP Danko.

    Mr. Dunsky, in 2024, you were chairing the Canada electricity advisory council and advising Minister Wilkinson at the time.

    First, can you submit the advisory council's final report to this committee? Second, with regard to our government's commitment to doubling the electricity grid by 2050, what would you say are our government's biggest opportunities with regard to doubling the grid, and what are the biggest challenges with regard to doubling the grid?

    Thank you.

    To your first question, I'm glad to send that report over in PDF. I have it here. If I were there, I'd be glad to give it to you in person.

    In terms of the second question, did I understand correctly that you were asking about the biggest opportunity and biggest challenge?

    That's correct.

    With regard to the biggest opportunity we have to grow the grid, I can't give you the single one. That's my challenge. I'm going to give you three really quickly.

    One is interprovincial transmission. That doesn't create more power, but it gets us access to the cheapest power in the best place. It gets it to consumer centres that need it.

    Number two is building out, especially building out renewable power, in the short time frame that we have. The fastest and cheapest power out there right now is the clean stuff, the wind, solar and batteries in particular.

    The third and final one is getting at waste, because we don't have electricity to spare. We are short of it as a nation now, and we continue to waste. Getting at that waste and saving more energy through improved energy efficiency and improved productivity is rarely understood for the kind of hard benefit that it is, but it's extremely important.

    To pick up on that, often what gets most attention is adding capacity to the grid through renewables, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc. What gets less attention is the energy that we don't use or energy efficiency as a first fuel.

    In about 30 seconds, before I pass my time to my colleague, can you talk about why our government should be prioritizing energy efficiency as part of our electricity strategy?

     It is the cheapest power available. It's reasonably easy to free up wasted power. Freeing up wasted power is the same thing as producing more power, but it can be done immediately.

    I'll give you one example. One of my clients, Hydro-Québec, has a plan to free up 3,500 megawatts of power just from energy efficiency. That's more than the biggest dam or the biggest power project that we're talking about anywhere in the country.

     Thank you, Mr. Dunsky.

    I'll pass my time to MP Danko.

     Thank you.

     I really appreciate this discussion. I think we've heard from a number of witnesses that the entire world is going to an electric future, so it's good to reinforce that here today.

    Ms. Harland, we're talking about this transition. There are opportunities with vehicles, with heating, with industry and AI. You mentioned in your opening statement the risks if we are not a leader, if we're not at the forefront, if we don't take the initiative now.

    As a question similar to my colleague's, what are the risks if we don't build out our electric system in the way that you're advocating, and what are the real, solid, tangible opportunities that you see?

    There's a risk if we don't give businesses and industry timely access to power. The queues are getting longer for connecting to the grid. That puts off investors, particularly multinationals that are trying to decide where to locate their projects. That's one risk we see.

     There are also multinationals that have global corporate targets to reduce their emissions, and they're looking to electrify and invest as well. They will also turn away if they don't see clean power available to them for use.

    These pieces were coming through. We interviewed a lot of people over the last year, trying to find out, and we saw across the country that there are growing shortages or expectations of shortages in grids throughout Canada. Those risks are definitely real.

     Yes. Thank you both. That's time.

    Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Dunsky, I'd like to go back to what you said earlier. You talked about the U.S. tax benefits, which are a little more attractive, if not more adapted to developing the electrification sector than what is offered in Canada.

    My question for the gas sector is this. The last budget mentions the accelerated capital cost allowance, which applies to infrastructure.

    In your opinion, if we extended that to the purchase of infrastructure to facilitate electrification, by optimizing storage capacity, for example, could that be a good way to stimulate investments in electrification?

    I'm going to say yes, generally speaking. Of course, the accelerated capital cost allowance is already available for a number of electricity generation technologies, including renewable energy, if memory serves.

    I may be wrong about that, because it's been a while since I've looked at it. There is certainly a range of tax benefits that can be offered. In my opinion, the accelerated capital cost allowance is good for project development, but it's another matter when it comes to a value chain, which has to do with the manufacturing sector. That's where the production tax credit differs.

    I understand.

    I'm telling you this because we heard from a witness who presented storage strategies using artificial intelligence to manage peak periods. For projects exceeding seven megawatts, we're able to bring them down below seven megawatts.

    That way, we don't need to go through Hydro-Québec to request a block. We're also able to achieve a fairly interesting form of optimization, making it a rather compelling strategy in terms of energy efficiency. I get the impression that the sticking point in Quebec is that, for many people, electricity isn't expensive enough. So there's no incentive to consider storage capacity.

    If there were a tax incentive that would allow the industrial sector to install these facilities and quickly recoup the costs, we'd start focusing on energy efficiency. We'd free up megawatts for other types of projects.

     You have time for a quick answer, Mr. Dunsky—30 seconds.

     When it comes to industrial technologies, this is indeed the case with regard to storage, including thermal storage. Mr. Wilkinson and I disagreed on this point, but personally, I believe there is a great opportunity here to facilitate the introduction of various storage measures, including thermal storage, in large-scale industry.

     If you could provide the committee with documentation on this, we would appreciate it.

     Yes. Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

    To our witnesses, we welcome additional information and briefs.

    Thank you for tabling your document, Mr. Dunsky.

    Let me thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing before us today. Thanks for your patience because of the interruptions. We really appreciate your being with us.

    Thank you, colleagues. Colleagues, we're going to suspend for five minutes while we bring the other witnesses aboard via Zoom.

     Colleagues, I'm going to call us to order again. Welcome back.

     Let me start off with an apology to our witnesses. Thank you very much for your patience. We were interrupted by votes, so we've lost a little time. We're going to be a little shorter in this round, but not much. You'll have an opportunity to respond to questions.

     Let me welcome, from the First Nations Major Project Coalition, Dr. Suzanne von der Porten, vice-president of clean energy strategy for that organization. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment.

     Both witnesses have done the mandatory witness onboarding test.

     I'll make a few comments to you both online for your benefit and for ours.

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

     All comments should be addressed through the chair.

     Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor for questions and comments.

     Dr. von der Porten, we're going to start with you, and you have five minutes. Please proceed.

     Thank you.

    The First Nations Major Projects Coalition, FNMPC, is a member-driven organization with more than 200 first nation members. These remarks draw on FNMPC's research and experience in electrification, but they do not speak on behalf of our members or other rights holders.

     FNMPC's “National Indigenous Electrification Strategy” shows that Canada can meet its electrification expansion goals only with a major build-out of clean power and transmission. That build-out must include clear opportunities for indigenous nations to lead, partner in and own that infrastructure with free, prior and informed consent and in alignment with Canada's United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

     I will address each of the committee's core study areas briefly and in order.

    First is clean energy technologies. For first nations, the full potential of new clean energy infrastructure includes leadership, partnership and ownership in electricity generation, transmission, storage and utility assets. These opportunities can create stable revenues, local employment and greater control over development on indigenous traditional territories. Canada's clean electricity build-out will require major expansion in hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, storage, transmission and others. Indigenous-led and indigenous-owned infrastructures in these areas will be critical to connecting new clean power to load centres while simultaneously advancing economic reconciliation and economic growth.

    Second is peak power demand. Peak power demand is becoming a central challenge as electrification accelerates across housing, transportation, industry and remote energy systems. For first nations, this challenge is also an opportunity to lead and participate in solutions such as battery storage, demand-side management, distributed solar and microgrids. FNMPC's paper entitled “‘It is Our Time’: Indigenous-Led Transmission Lines”, available on our website, fnmpc.ca, reinforces that new transmission lines and interties, inter-regional transmission, are part of the solution to peak demand because they improve grid capacity and connect regions. Our transmission paper also asserts that first nations should have the lead role in identifying priority corridors where transmission will be built.

    Third is diversification and industry development. Governments have an important role in market diversification in creating the policy certainty, procurement frameworks and financing tools needed to scale clean electricity. For first nations, this role should include measures that support indigenous ownership rather than limiting participation to short-term contracting or consultation. In the context of first nations electricity infrastructure ownership, industry development should be understood as including first nations-owned utilities, independent power production by first nations, first nations-led transmission projects and first nations equity positions in major electricity projects.

    Fourth is the importance of the clean electricity sector. Electrification has become a core nation-building priority for Canada. That makes first nations electricity infrastructure ownership strategically important, not only to reconciliation but to whether Canada can build the scale of clean power required in time. For first nations, the importance of the sector is twofold. One, it is essential for emissions reductions. Indigenous nations have for decades been sounding the alarm over changes to their lands and waters related to climatic changes. Two, it is also a major economic opportunity tied to the ownership of electricity infrastructure needed for the transition. Doubling Canada's electricity grid cannot be achieved at scale without new transmission corridors and interties. Indigenous transmission is essential to this.

     Fifth is public policies supporting electrification. Public policies that support electrification are effective only if implementation is timely and coordinated. For first nations, that means aligning infrastructure funding, regulatory approvals, timely procurement planning, utility planning and opportunities for indigenous leadership and ownership. Canada's policy implementation must address persistent barriers for first nations, such as access to capital, limited early-stage capacity funding, uneven utility relationships and weak support for indigenous-led utility development. Policies that ignore these realities risk repeating the exclusion of indigenous nations seen in past industrial build-outs in Canada.

     Sixth is energy self-sufficiency and energy security. For many first nations, energy security means reducing reliance on imported fuels such as diesel, improving electricity reliability and ensuring that infrastructure decisions reflect first nation community priorities. Indigenous leadership and ownership are central to this work because they allow nations to shape development according to their own priorities for their nation members and on their lands and waters.

     FNMPC's indigenous-led transmission paper demonstrates that domestic energy security is partly a transmission issue. Stronger interties and indigenous-supported transmission lines in Canada can move clean power where it is needed, reduce regional vulnerability and create a more flexible system response during shortages or rapid demand growth.

    Finally, there is respect for the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. For first nations, respect for the jurisdictions of provinces and territories must be matched by respect for indigenous lands, waters, rights, title, treaties, law and decision-making authority. Electricity infrastructure often crosses traditional territories, which means project development depends on consent-based approaches that recognize first nations as rights holders of their lands and waters, as well as leaders and owners of electricity projects.

    Thank you.

     Thank you, Dr. von der Porten.

    Now we're on to Ms. Exner-Pirot for five minutes.

     Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security.

     Before I start, can I commend the committee on an excellent report on the development of critical minerals? I thought that was very good.

     I cannot overemphasize the extent to which I think abundant and affordable electricity generation will be a strategic advantage in the coming decade and how important it is that Canada builds all types of electricity generation to meet this moment.

     Electricity was once one of Canada's greatest competitive advantages. For decades, our provinces built generation capacity ahead of demand. Reliable and affordable power, bolstered by our immense hydroelectric capacity and nuclear expertise, supported industrial development, resource extraction, manufacturing and economic growth. We enjoyed a surplus of electricity and the economic gains that came with it.

     Over time, we shifted from building for abundance to planning for scarcity. Investment slowed, regulatory timelines lengthened, major projects became harder to approve and governments increasingly focused on managing demand rather than expanding supply.

     The result is that Canada entered the 2020s with far less surplus capacity than we once had and with an electricity system that is less resilient than many Canadians assume. In fact, our electricity generation peaked in 2017, our per capita usage is in a steep decline and we have had months recently when we've been a net importer from rather than exporter to the United States.

     This would be concerning under any circumstances, but in 2026, it is close to catastrophic. AI and data centre growth, natural gas liquefaction, critical minerals processing, electrification of heating and transportation, and reshoring of defence industrial supply chains—all of this is at risk because of a lack of adequate electricity supply.

     For much of the early 21st century, electricity demand in Canada and across much of the western world was flat. Efficiency improvements reduced demand, industrial consumption stagnated as manufacturing capacity moved to China, and utilities planned for very modest growth. However, the long plateau is now over. Canada should be entering this era from a position of strength, but despite our advantages, we have spent much of the last two decades squandering them.

     Electricity policy has been viewed in Canada for the past decade mainly through a lens of decarbonization. It must now turn to growth.

     This is fundamentally a security issue as much as an environmental or economic one. Energy security means having enough reliable energy available when citizens and industries need it. Today, it also means being able to host energy-intensive industries such as aluminum smelters, mines, LNG facilities and data centres. In an increasingly uncertain world, countries that can generate abundant and affordable energy will enjoy a significant strategic advantage. Those that cannot will face higher costs, lower growth and greater vulnerability to supply chain disruptions.

     That brings me to the role of natural gas. The conversation around Canada's electricity future is often framed as a choice between natural gas and other forms of generation. That is the wrong framework. The real choice is between abundance and scarcity. Natural gas is uniquely positioned to help Canada meet rapidly growing electricity demand. It is dispatchable, scalable and affordable, and it can be deployed relatively quickly compared to many alternatives. It complements intermittent generation and provides reliability during periods of peak demand. Importantly, even the federal government's emerging electricity strategy under Prime Minister Carney recognizes an ongoing role for natural gas in maintaining reliability and supporting economic growth.

     No province is more important to this discussion than Alberta. We possess some of the least expensive natural gas in the world, well over a century of supply and a competitive or deregulated electricity market that can accommodate rapid private sector growth. If Canada is serious about rapidly expanding electricity supply, Alberta and natural gas generation will be indispensable.

     More broadly, Canada should adopt a strategy based on abundance rather then constraint, accelerating generation, transmission, interconnections and permitting. We should be encouraging investment rather than creating uncertainty around it. Canada can once again become a country known for energy abundance. We can attract investment, strengthen our energy security, support our allies and improve living standards at home, but doing so will require a change in mindset.

     The question is not whether we need more electricity but whether we are prepared to build it.

     Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.

     Thank you.

     We will move on to questions and comments by members of Parliament, starting with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

     Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you to both witnesses for attending here today.

    You both mentioned the importance of intertie construction. I must confess to you that as a member of Parliament who has been on this committee for the majority of the last 11 years, I was certainly here in 2017 when you, Dr. Exner-Pirot, mentioned a very important thing that happened. It was that very year that this committee made all-party recommendations to advance the construction of interties. What a different world we might be in today if that had actually unfolded.

    Dr. Exner-Pirot, in your report “Blackout”, you highlighted, as you mentioned, that Canada became “a net importer of electricity” for the first time in modern history in spring 2024, and you pointed out that both B.C. and Quebec imported electricity, which was characterized as “a previously unthinkable outcome”.

     You also identified Liberal policies that significantly increase “regulatory burden” and block the kind of construction that is necessary to meet all the various industrial, national security, affordability and self-reliance goals that the government professes to want to support.

    Do you want to expand on some of those policies that are blocking building and the fixes that could be made urgently?

     The one that was the most painful was the clean electricity strategy, because it blocked essentially all new natural gas generation beginning this year, at pain of criminal offence if you did so and fired it up later on. Certainly, from an Alberta-Saskatchewan perspective, that was very devastating.

    Yes, I'm happy to. The electricity strategy does address some.

    Certainly, from an Alberta perspective, you have this incredible data centre opportunity and tens of billions of dollars being spent, and it's hundreds of billions in the United States on data centres. Because we could not build new natural gas generation, much of that opportunity started to bypass us. Now, it's coming back, of course, because the CER was included in the MOU, and there is the commitment to the carve-out, and it is now in abeyance. That's positive. Until that can be settled, obviously, uncertainty still creates some risk, but things are much better than they were six months ago. That is for sure.

    Similar to the Impact Assessment Act, again, it included many types of projects that maybe could have been excluded from the Impact Assessment Act. They were of different sizes and, obviously, nuclear was wrapped up in that. With the proposed reforms, it would be fantastic if they were passed. We're all hoping that those reforms eventually do come to pass. That should take some of the burden, certainly, off the nuclear industry.

     Dr. Exner-Pirot, to your point about the clean electricity regulations, I too followed and participated in many of those discussions. It's quite an ambitious goal, of course, with a grid nationally. It's already considered 87% clean and now, to double and triple that in the timeline this government has set out.... I also recognize and value the fact that this agreement, after the efforts of the Government of Alberta, was made to suspend the clean electricity regulations in that province.

    Do you think it makes sense then, as Conservatives have called for, to ensure those clean electricity regulations don't apply to all the provinces if one agreement has been made with one province, recognizing that it is unflexible and would ultimately potentially result in a lack of electricity, power and affordable rates?

     That would absolutely be my preference, and I expect it's a preference of many utilities.

     We heard just last week that BC Hydro is going to continue with some natural gas and bring some generation back on. Also, just today, NB Power has asked again for that emergency application to have new natural gas generation online by 2028 lest it face blackouts, which was what inspired the title of my report.

    This is extremely serious. There was that big winter storm. It taxed electricity systems. Our utilities behaved very admirably, but it's a matter of time, unless we build some more firm power, that there is a crisis. Obviously, there are many provinces...Manitoba is another one that would need some natural gas generation.

     Thank you.

    Ensuring that there's abundant, available and affordable power and fuel for all Canadians is so important, especially for indigenous communities, as Dr. von der Porten has pointed out.

     My question is for you, Dr. von der Porten. Back in the debates on Bill C-69, Conservatives of course supported increased capacity funding for first nations participation in regulatory processes. Conservatives also support more equity ownership and all kinds of energy development production.

    What I found from first nations and Métis settlements that I've followed up with since those debates is that all of them say that no funding ever flowed from the capacity funding out of Bill C-69 to assist in the regulatory process for first nations and Métis people to participate. I wonder if you have any comments on that. You yourself also commented on the importance and potential of more indigenous transmission generation and ownership. Is there anything you'd like to expand on in that regard?

     No, I have nothing to expand on there, to your question.

     My question for you is this: Has the government followed up with you or any of your members about electricity interties and exactly the kinds of issues that you have said today are important to your coalition?

     Just for some clarity on our organization, we are a member-driven organization. We support our members who ask us for support on project development. We don't track whether our members have been approached by government.

     Okay. Yes, thank you.

    I recognize your important distinction between advocacy organizations and those communities that actually have rights and title. That's an important distinction. Thank you for that.

    That, unfortunately, is time. Thank you both.

    We go on to Mr. Saini for six minutes.

    Thank you to both of the witnesses.

    Madame von der Porten, one thing that I am very glad of is that you're representing 200 first nations communities, with chiefs and hereditary chiefs. It's a very great thing to see that there's collaboration and everybody's working together.

    Can you explain to the committee the importance of indigenous partnership and leadership for promoting energy security in Canada?

     Thank you for your question.

    I should clarify that we do not represent our 200-plus members. We support them on projects of their choosing.

    As for your question, the importance of indigenous leadership and indigenous ownership on these electricity projects is primarily because they are indigenous lands and waters that all or most of these projects will run on or run through. Transmission lines are an example. Nations need to be the leaders of that for siting and routing priorities, as well as for which types of projects go there.

    Part of that, as I mentioned, is economic reconciliation. Part of that is economic growth. We don't want to fall behind the rest of the world—which is moving faster than Canada—on clean energy. We also want to have that competitive advantage to make sure we don't fall behind in that regard.

    Thank you.

     My next question is for Ms. Exner-Pirot.

    Can you explain the importance of the one project, one review agreement to streamlining project permitting?

    That's a great question.

    Pretty much every private proponent wants a simplified regulatory process. For my report, I interviewed several power producers to talk about how easy it was for them to track investment. The general sense was that it is much easier in the United States.

    When we're all competing for the same components, supply chain and labour force, it's very important that we're competitive in Canada, because we know that they will snake up as much as they can in the south to take advantage of the data centre boom. Having at least a coherent and simple regulatory process helps make us less uncompetitive.

    It's ensuring that what is provincial stays provincial. General electricity tends to be under provincial jurisdiction. There are, of course, some elements like nuclear, interprovincial transmission and some things to do with fisheries that the federal government has to get involved in. Working collaboratively with the provinces to ensure that they're coordinated and that it's fairly seamless from the private proponents' perspective is important.

    There has been very good progress in that regard with the co-operation agreements. I hope that the proposed reforms that they go through will further streamline the processes you discussed.

     The next question is for Dr. von der Porten.

    Do you support the indigenous loan guarantee program? Is it a helpful tool to promote indigenous equity in major projects?

     Thank you for your question.

    Yes, the national indigenous loan guarantee program was the major effort of the FNMPC in terms of our work over the last 10 years. Originally, when we first started the organization—something like 12 years ago—indigenous first nations wanted to buy into major projects. The interest rates they were being given by lenders made it so that it wouldn't be profitable to buy in.

    The importance of the indigenous loan guarantee program at the federal level and at subnational levels is that there is now indigenous access to competitively priced capital. Nations can buy into these projects if they want to, particularly ones running on their lands that they see as a priority.

    This is the report here that I was talking about, on indigenous-led transmission lines. We also have a national indigenous electrification strategy. I'm happy to submit that to the committee. That goes to exactly the questions that you're asking.

     Thank you.

    Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

     You have one minute.

     Dr. von der Porten, how can LNG development strengthen Canada's energy security and global energy security?

    The FNMPC is an industry-agnostic organization. We don't advise our first nations on what types of energy or what types of projects to invest in. What they do is come to us and say, “There's a project we're thinking of leading” or “We've been approached by a proponent that would like to work on this project with us. Could you help us with negotiations?” or “Could you help us with access to capital? Could you help us with thinking about commercial structuring?”

    Comments on LNG one way or another aren't the purview of our organization.

    Thank you.

     Thank you to you both.

    Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Exner-Pirot, it's a pleasure to see you again. You were a great help during our study on critical minerals.

    In your opening remarks, you spoke about Quebec's net imports of hydroelectricity. There may be some nuances to consider. It is important to understand that there are two related factors that explain these net exports.

    For the past three years, Hydro-Québec's reservoir levels have been very low. This is unprecedented. This is the result of climate change, even though projections indicate that, in the coming years, we will have to manage the opposite problem. Indeed, given the expected rainfall and accumulated precipitation, reservoir levels may rise higher. That is part of the explanation.

    The other part of the explanation is that Hydro-Québec has a dynamic strategy. It purchases electricity from our American partners during off-peak periods. This electricity costs the company much less—$0.05 per kilowatt-hour—which also allows it to raise reservoir levels. During periods of slightly higher demand, this electricity is resold at $0.15 per kilowatt-hour.

    So, Hydro-Québec has a strategy that also partly explains why its reservoirs can be used as a battery—something the Americans cannot do. Hydro-Québec leverages this to balance its imports and exports. As a result, by selling electricity to the Americans, Hydro-Québec manages, roughly speaking, to bring $1.5 billion back to Quebec in tax revenue.

    I'm telling you this because it was reported earlier this week. I'm the first to love to criticize the government, but we shouldn't think this has anything to do with the federal government, since it's a decision that falls exclusively under Hydro-Québec's purview. When to buy electricity from the Americans and how to do so are matters that fall exclusively under its commercial strategy—which, incidentally, it cannot explain in detail. I think it's important to emphasize this point.

    Furthermore, at the start of this study, some people came forward to say essentially the same thing as you—namely, that we'll have to increase our production. However, regarding the increase in production, Mr. Mousseau and Mr. Pineau—if I'm not mistaken—were very skeptical of the idea of supplying more energy to data centres.

    I'd like to hear your opinion on this, because it was part of your opening remarks.

    Wouldn't it be better to prioritize industrial sectors—since they consume a great deal of energy—before considering providing energy blocks to this type of economic activity?

     That's a great question.

     I'll just point out that I said that Canada had become a net importer, not Hydro-Québec. Although Hydro-Québec had become an importer in the last year, you will also note that BC Hydro was a net importer for the last three years. It's not so much that Quebec shouldn't trade electricity and make profits—it's very good at that—it is that Canada used to export over five terawatt hours annually to the United States, and now, basically, we have a relatively equal trading relationship.

     It was a tremendous abundance of electricity that Canada used to have. We'd get more value by selling it to the United States, and that has evaporated, which goes to your next question about abundance in data centres. This is where we're at in Canada, because we have run through our electricity abundance and now we are picking and choosing winners and losers of who in this country should get electricity.

     We don't have enough for everyone who wants electricity, so we have to prioritize. That violates some principles of the right to service that had traditionally—for decades—underpinned Canadian electricity generation.

     We have all seen in the United States—we saw it here with Wab Kinew this week—this sense of making data centres into a villain that creates electricity price increases, and it's bad for the environment. It's taking away from more positive industries that would create more jobs. From a strategic perspective, not wanting to develop AI data centres in your own country to have that sovereign capability and have your data stored here will allow China and the United States to gain competitive advantage in AI.

     To me, AI is not just manufacturing or industry; it's also going to be a weapon. It will absolutely be used in a strategic way as a weapon. We have to have capacity in Canada. When I see that BC Hydro has a strategy of prioritizing sectors like LNG and mining over data centres, when Quebec has different rates for data centres and when Wab Kinew in Manitoba is saying to some data centres that they don't want them there because they're not good for humanity, that does concern me as a political scientist thinking about Canada's data sovereignty, as we've been calling it.

    I completely understand, but one can also make the opposite argument.

    As you know, the United States doesn't produce aluminum. Aluminum is in fact energy. It takes a lot of energy to produce aluminum. American aluminum smelters are very dependent on us, and they've added tariffs, which is foolish, but that's their business. There is the project by the American company Century Aluminum, if I remember correctly. American aluminum smelters that wanted to increase their output had to use power blocks that were allocated to data centres. They didn't get those power blocks. So what one sector gets, the other one misses out on. That means that, in the United States, because they allocate a lot of energy blocks to data centres, their industrial sector suffers.

    We can make more or less the same argument here. If our strategy focuses only on data centres, our industry and economy will also suffer. I understand what you're saying, and it makes a lot of sense. Strategically speaking, we need to have the tools that enable us to develop artificial intelligence technology.

     Thank you.

    I'll wrap up very quickly, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Exner-Pirot, if you have any data to share with the committee—I know you're very good at that—we would appreciate that. We could take it into account in drafting our report.

     Thank you to you both. That was a good exchange there.

    Monsieur Malette, I understand that you'll be splitting your time.

    Yes, Mr. Chair. I will start.

    The question is for Dr. von der Porten. You're vice-president of clean energy strategy, but what interests me here is First Nations Major Project Coalition, and you did talk of your document. Could you show it again, indigenous-led power line transmission?

    Are you aware of whether the Five Nations Energy Inc. from northern Ontario is part of your group? Do you know of them?

    I know of them very well. They are not one of our members. There are five nations within that and, to be honest, I would have to check, because we have 200 members, whether one of them is there, but I am very aware of that project. You'll see when you read this paper that they are highlighted in there.

    I think they're an example, and if they're in your paper, you've probably looked at them. Do you see transmission lines in northern Ontario or across Canada as potential long-term, indigenous-owned economic assets? What can the federal government do? Five Nations Energy is a great example of a great success.

     Five Nations Energy is a great example and for those unfamiliar with it, it serves three first nations in Ontario and five nations total have bought into it. That's why it's called Five Nations. It's indigenous-owned and indigenous-initiated. The nations decided where the transmission lines were going to go, and it's steady revenues over many, many decades. It also opens up opportunities, so it allowed them to bring electricity to otherwise unserved nations, to create distribution lines to their domestic lines and to start bringing other economic opportunities, as well as new power generation.

    Wataynikaneyap Power, also in Ontario, is another example of an indigenous-owned power line, and recently in British Columbia, there has been the north coast transmission line. All of these have in common indigenous leadership, ownership or partnership, and in every case, first nations have been on board at the earliest possible stage. In some cases, as you'll be seeing, there are indigenous-initiated lines. This is incredibly important to having them move and avoiding the delays problem.

    I heard a previous witness, Philippe Dunsky, saying that if he were to pick one thing, it would be interties and transmission. Given that, it's very clear that if we want to move that forward, indigenous ownership is a great start.

     Thank you, Doctor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Dr. Exner-Pirot, it's good to talk to you again, and I appreciate the work that you did on defence committee a few weeks back.

    I also appreciate your accurate analysis of AI with regard to a security nexus and your comments about putting aside decarbonization to focus on progress and production of electricity. You've spoken about energy as a pillar of national security, and I certainly agree with that. The defence industrial strategy considers critical minerals as a strategic asset.

    My question is this: Do you think that, say, an energy grid is also a strategic national defence or security asset, and is it just electricity? Would you consider, as you talked about, liquid natural gas and oil as critical to the national security and sovereignty of Canada?

    It's all wildly critical, sovereignty and national security, and I'll point out, as we've witnessed in the Strait of Hormuz and as we've witnessed in Ukraine and Russia, after military targets, the top target for these conflicts is energy infrastructure, pipelines, power generation, transmission lines. Why is that? It's because it's very painful for civilians to run out of energy and because it's very damaging to defence industrial supply chains not to have that energy, so these are important things.

    I also chair the Energy Security Summit with a group of private proponents, and they are facing cyber-attacks on our electricity, on our pipeline systems, pretty much on a daily basis. Some of it is criminal in the sense that it's for ransomware, but some of it is state-sponsored.

    I have a few seconds left, and I appreciate your perfect segue. I wanted to hear you talk a bit more about steps that we should be taking, that we haven't taken, to protect these assets from cyber-attack sabotage—prekinetic threats and then, as we've seen in other parts of the world, postkinetic threats.

    Has Canada taken any steps to protect these critical national security assets, and if not, what steps should we be taking?

    Give a quick answer, please.

    I think they are starting to, but there's much more to be done, and the private sector, government and the utilities have to work in very close coordination to achieve this.

    I'm running out of time, so perhaps you could submit both your report, “Blackout”, and anything else you'd like to add on that subject.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your patience.

     Thank you, Mr. Kibble. That was a great suggestion.

     Ms. McKelvie, you have five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My questions are for Dr. von der Porten.

     You spoke about leadership, partnership and ownership, as well as how that is the most effective model to move forward with for clean energy and electrification.

    There are programs like the indigenous loan guarantee program, but what other things do you think need to be put in place so that we can really support these endeavours and really help our first nations to be a part of this transition?

     It's an important question. The biggest thing is around the capacity supports for first nations. First nations are not on a level playing field with the utilities that are approaching them to work on projects in terms of resourcing money and people like geo-engineers and routing experts. They're also not on a level playing field with governments, provincial or otherwise, as well as industry. In all of those cases, first nations who are being approached are really out-competed in terms of resources. It's about resourcing nations in terms of experts, capacity supports, lawyers, consultants and all the things you need to really think about it, as well as resourcing first nations to do comprehensive community planning so that they know what their members want and aren't surprised by projects.

    The final thing to think about is setting nations up so that they can take advantage of procurement. For example, a transmission line going in requires very specialized electricians. If nations are to tool up their members to take part in those types of industries, they need lead time to certify, to create that kind of job opportunity and to create indigenous-owned businesses to meet the moment with the correct industry.

     Thank you.

    I come from a western science world view. That's my background, but incredible indigenous knowledge comes from millennia of living on the land. As site assessment and site identification take place, it's really important to engage in partnerships and to have those discussions on how we can best interweave indigenous knowledge into the decision-making processes. Do you have examples of best practice around this or suggestions on where this is being done really well so that we can learn together and go forward in a good way?

     Those are good questions. To the first part, best practice is always what that first nation is looking for. You will even have two neighbouring nations that have completely different priorities, protocols and approaches to applying their indigenous knowledge and their understanding of the land and waters around them, as well as how they want to site and route electricity projects.

    In the report that I spoke of, we give examples of all the known indigenous-owned transmission lines we have identified in Canada that are either in the works or are done, such as the ones we spoke about—Five Nations Energy, Wataynikaneyap Power and the north coast transmission line. Those are all excellent examples to learn from in terms of how we have done things. We outline each one of those in this report. It's public-facing, and it is digestible. It won't be one of your denser reads. It's meant for any of the lay public to understand.

     With electricity lines, we have a bit of a benefit in which we can decide on the siting and decide on the routes. With natural resource-based projects, we're more limited, because they're where the deposit is.

    In terms of capacity building, coming back to the question, and recognizing that you work with all major projects, do you have suggestions around that industry as well, around mining and more natural resource-based industries, on how we can also work better together on leadership, partnership and ownership on those projects?

     We have two reports in total, but I will point you to our recent critical minerals report. I would like to submit that as well, if that's of interest. My understanding was that this committee was focused on electricity, but there are really similar suggestions in terms of prioritizing first nations from the earliest possible stages, letting the nation outline the risk and letting the nation outline their amount of equity. As you said, those are very different industries. The risk level to owning a long-term electricity asset and potentially getting into mining can be quite different. The nation needs to be tooled up so that they can make decisions accordingly.

     Thank you both.

    Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

    Ms. Exner-Pirot, a Canadian strategy has been tabled. In your opening remarks earlier, you talked about shifting into growth mode. Yes, that has to happen, but the Canadian energy landscape is diverse. Looking at the energy supply in Quebec, it is 40% hydroelectricity. In the rest of Canada, electricity accounts for 17% of the energy supply. So a number of realities have to be taken into account.

    I find it hard to believe that there can be a nationwide strategy because these are diverse realities. Since you produce that kind of document, perhaps you could provide a quick overview of the electricity system, perhaps by region. In Quebec, it's hydroelectricity. In Ontario, there is more nuclear energy, but with other energy sources as well.

    I think this will be very important strategically. Quebec already has its strategy, which was announced by Hydro-Québec. By 2035, we're looking at $200 billion in expenditures.

    If I understand correctly, Quebec needs to focus more on energy efficiency, since there are people back home in Quebec who don't recognize the value of electricity. There are individuals and households who don't know the value of it because it is seen as an abundant resource at an acceptable price. I suppose all of that has to be part of our thinking, but we will certainly not be able to get a Canada-wide strategy.

    I'd like to hear your comments on that, in closing.

     That's a great question. We'll probably be similar in agreeing that electricity is under provincial jurisdiction and the provinces should lead.

     The obvious areas for me that this committee and the government should lead in are nuclear and financing. What are the financing tools that all utilities will be able to access? I think hydro and nuclear could benefit from the government's credit rating, and then finalizing what that clean electricity regulations parameter is going to look like in the future....

     It has absolutely detracted from investment in Saskatchewan, Alberta and elsewhere, so it's about making sure that there are no federal regulations impeding the individual provinces from doing what they think is best in their jurisdiction.

    Okay.

    Thank you, Ms. Exner-Pirot.

    Okay. That is our time.

     Colleagues, let me thank our witnesses once again on your behalf. There were great exchanges around the table today.

     A number of reports were mentioned by our witnesses. We welcome those or any other information you'd like to send along to us.

     Finally, thank you, Dr. Exner-Pirot, for that compliment on our report. There was considerable alignment between committee members, no matter their political stripe, and I would argue that there's a fair bit of alignment when it comes to this study as well. We will see in the final product. Maybe you'll have another compliment for us.

    I hope so.

     With that, colleagues, we are adjourned.