Finance Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on December 16, 2021, the committee is meeting to continue our pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2022 budget.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. Today's meeting is also taking place in the webinar format. Webinars are for public committee meetings and are available only to members, their staff and witnesses. Members enter immediately as active participants. All functionalities for active participants remain the same. Staff will be non-active participants and can therefore only view the meeting in gallery view.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants at this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted. Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from the health authorities as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on October 19, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain a two-metre physical distancing; must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room, and it is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated; and must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance. As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank members in advance for their co-operation.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings. The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can be used at any time if you wish to speak or alert the chair.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as it normally is by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

The committee agreed that during these hearings, the chair would enforce the rule that the response by a witness to a question take no longer than the time taken to ask the question. That being said, I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum. If you think the witness has gone beyond the time, it is the member's prerogative to interrupt or ask the next question and to be mindful of other members' time allocations during the meeting. I also request that members not go much over their allotted question time. Though we will not interrupt during a member's allotted time, I'd like to keep you informed that our clerk has two clocks to time our members and witnesses.

Members, we all just voted on legislation that will now come before our committee. Out of respect for the witnesses today, I'll take 10 minutes at the end of our meeting to discuss it.

I would like now to welcome our witnesses.

From Canadians for Tax Fairness, we have D.T. Cochrane, policy researcher; from Electric Mobility Canada, Daniel Breton, president and chief executive officer; from the First Nations Tax Commission, Clarence T. Jules, chief commissioner; from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Robert Lambe, executive secretary, and Gregory McClinchey, legislative liaison; from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Melissa Mbarki, policy analyst and outreach coordinator, indigenous policy program; and from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, Beth Potter, president and chief executive officer, and Blake Rogers, executive director of the Tourism Industry Association of Yukon.

We will now hear opening statements from our witnesses. Each of the witnesses, one per group, will have up to five minutes to make their opening remarks before we move to members' questions.

We will start from the top, with Canadians for Tax Fairness and D.T. Cochrane, policy researcher, for up to five minutes.

[Dr. D.T. Cochrane, Policy Researcher, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to speak with you today.

As Canadians for Tax Fairness, we are concerned about two long-term trends in our tax system that stymie our ability to achieve a sustainable, equitable and prosperous future. First, four decades of changes to our tax laws have drastically reduced public revenues. Second, most of that lost revenue is due to tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthiest individuals and corporations. A recent review of out of the London School of Economics showed that such tax changes had little economic benefit while exacerbating wealth and income inequality.

During the 2021 election, every party made promises to ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share. We appreciate your commitment to addressing the issue and expect the all-party consensus on more CRA funding will result in prompt implementation. However, fairness will not be achieved with a few incremental measures. We need new tools such as a wealth tax and the digital services tax. Both tools are well studied and there is no reason not to move forward. However, we also need to substantially overhaul our tax system in three key ways: raise the corporate tax rate; eliminate loopholes; and increase transparency.

We've heard a lot about the skyrocketing wealth of billionaires, but I want to focus on the rising wealth and power of corporations, aided and abetted by Canadian governments.

Here's a key number: $1.1 trillion. This is how much tax revenue Canadian governments have lost from ill-advised corporate tax cuts and ever-worsening tax avoidance since 2000. This deprived governments of revenue that could have expanded and maintained vital public services. Did corporations invest this money in R and D or greater productive capacity, which many claimed would happen? No. Instead, inequality rose, along with higher executive salaries, as well as more corporate concentration and influence.

The current government has said it will address these problems, and taken some steps, promising more. We support limiting stock option deductions and interest deductions. However, this incremental approach is out of step with our desperate need for substantial and sustained government action on numerous issues: affordable housing, a more robust health care system, and climate-resilient infrastructure to name just three.

Further, contrast the incremental measures with the extreme rate cuts made by Liberal and Conservative governments in the 2000s and early 2010s. Those cuts saw the federal corporate tax rate almost halved to just 15%. Reversing the cuts is long overdue. We commend the Liberal government for promising to raise the tax rate on the country's largest financial institutions. However, a general increase, as proposed by the NDP, is preferable. We recommend an increase to 20%, which the PBO says would raise revenue by almost $8 billion.

In addition to raising the corporate tax rate, we need to close loopholes that overwhelmingly benefit the largest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. Let me name three.

First, move to full inclusion of capital gains. This is a $22-billion, and growing, annual handout to the rich and powerful.

Second, get rid of the dividend tax credit, which costs the government $5 billion a year. Over 90% of that goes to the richest 10%.

Third, eliminate the preferential tax treatment for REITs, real estate investment trusts. One of the main drivers of runaway house prices is assetization, treating houses as assets first and homes second. This needs to be discouraged, and eliminating the preferential tax treatment for REITs would be an important step.

Finally, the government must continue to improve corporate transparency. Last budget's funding toward a public beneficial ownership registry is an important step. The next step is to publicly disclose country-by-country financial reporting for the largest transnational corporations. There is too much we do not know about some of the most powerful companies in Canada.

The pandemic and climate change have created much suffering and uncertainty, but they've opened many people's eyes to the essential nature of properly funded public institutions.

Let's overhaul our unjust tax system and enhance our public capacity.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Cochrane.

We are now moving to Electric Mobility Canada and Daniel Breton for up to five minutes.

[Daniel Breton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Mobility Canada]

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for considering our recommendations on the electrification of the transportation sector in advance of the 2022 budget.

My name is Daniel Breton, and I am the president and CEO of Electric Mobility Canada.

Founded in 2006, Electric Mobility Canada is one of the world's first organizations dedicated to advancing transportation electrification. Our members range from light-duty, mid-size, heavy-duty and off-road vehicle manufacturers, electric utilities, charging infrastructure suppliers, mining companies and information technology firms to research centres, cities, universities, fleet managers, unions and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Electric Mobility Canada is the national voice for the electrification of the transportation sector.

There are three fundamental reasons Canada should support the development of the transportation electrification industry—air pollution and health, climate change, and the economy.

For example, according to the 2021 report on the impact of air pollution, Health Canada estimates that 15,300 deaths per year can be attributed to air pollution in Canada. That's eight times the death toll from motor vehicle accidents. The total annual economic cost of air pollution is estimated at $120 billion a year, most of it coming from transportation and oil and gas.

Investing in electric mobility can therefore help save thousands of Canadian lives and billions of dollars.

On August 6, 2021, we sent a series of 26 pre-budget recommendations for 2022, with budget proposals that can be found on the finance committee website. Some of these recommendations have been updated in our fall document, known as the “2030 EV Action Plan for Canada”. These recommendations fall under the following six pillars.

Pillar one, on light-duty EV consumer adoption, we propose policy solutions that overcome barriers to consumer EV adoption, with a focus on affordability, value, education and awareness, as well as new polluter-pay funding mechanisms to support their implementation.

Pillar two, on medium, heavy-duty, and off-road fleet electrification, we present ideas and solutions to overcome and address the barriers in the fleet and non-passenger segment, including for affordability, the transition of electric public transit and school bus fleets, and actions that government can take at federally regulated facilities. Medium, Heavy-duty and off-road companies such as Nova Bus, New Flyer, Lion Electric, Girardin, Taïga, Dana and BYD are now making electric buses, school buses, trucks or snowmobiles in Canada, and there is great potential for job creation.

Pillar three, on the national EV Infrastructure deployment plan, transitioning to electric mobility requires a new way of thinking about the fuelling infrastructure of the future. We propose solutions to overcome the challenges of charging in multi-unit buildings, remote areas, highway-side, and on public land.

Pillar four, on electric vehicle strategy and EV regulation, achieving results will require coordination and strategy, including a focus on overcoming challenges of vehicle availability and supply. We also need to ensure that no Canadians are left behind, whether they live in rural or indigenous communities.

Pillar five focuses on domestic EV jobs and manufacturing capacity. A development and investment attraction strategy, focused R and D efforts, and action to protect Canadian industry and workers from foreign buy-domestic rules will help ensure a prosperous transition to an electric mobility economy in Canada.

Finally, pillar six revolves around federal leadership. The government can and should lead by example and make use of its own facilities, financial capacity and internal process to help accelerate the transition to electric mobility.

The future of mobility is electric, whether light-duty, mid-size, heavy-duty or off-road vehicles. The Government of Canada knows it, the industry knows it and scientists know it. That is why Canada and all the members that make up its industrial cluster need to work together on a visionary plan to ensure a clean and prosperous future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Now we are moving to the First Nations Tax Commission and Chief Commissioner Clarence T. Jules for up to five minutes.

[Clarence T., Manny) Jules (Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission]

Good afternoon.

I am Manny Jules, the chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before this committee.

This is the 22nd submission I've made. I have personally made 15 pre-budget submissions to this committee.

In December 2020 I appeared before this committee to make seven recommendations for budget 2021. One of the recommendations was to expand our fiscal powers to include fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco sales tax. We call this the “FACT” tax. In February 2021 this committee included that recommendation in its report to the House of Commons, and in April 2021 the federal government included the FACT tax in budget 2021.

The support of this committee is appreciated. Because of your support, the Department of Finance has invited us to discuss how we can help them implement the FACT tax. Because of your support, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act has become the most successful indigenous-led legislative initiative in Canadian history. There are now over 320 first nations in the FMA.

Your support of the FMA has led to billions in new revenues, infrastructure and investment in our communities. This has meant thousands of new jobs. It has meant that thousands of new first nation laws have been implemented by hundreds of university-accredited and professionally certified administrators. The FMA stands as an international example of how to respect indigenous rights and achieve economic reconciliation by implementing indigenous jurisdiction.

This year the commission is seeking your support for an important improvement to the FMA. We want to add the first nations infrastructure institute so that first nations can build more sustainable infrastructure and do it sooner. The infrastructure institute will allow participating first nations to reduce their asset-related insurance premiums. It will allow us to close the $30-billion infrastructure deficit on reserves much sooner by monetizing transfers. We are also seeking to renew the mandates of our FMA institutions so that we can support more first nation fiscal powers, improve financial and statistical management frameworks, and support more first nations. We are asking this committee to support other amendments that will increase our access to capital, improve our implementation of first nation jurisdictions and expand our capacity and resources to implement innovations.

In the past 154 years, the Parliament of Canada has passed, repealed and amended many thousands of laws. This has been done to adapt to changes in economic opportunities, technologies, societal priorities, environmental challenges, pandemics, demographics and fiscal challenges. This has supported the evolution of Canada.

Now consider our plight. The Indian Act and its oversight bureaucracy have not changed much over the last 150 years. In fact, for its first 50 years, all amendments to the Indian Act increased the restrictions placed on us. This legislation was amended in 1920 to make it easier to take away our children. As you know, 215 unmarked graves were discovered in my community in May 2021. The Indian Act was amended again in 1927, so we couldn't even tax ourselves. We call this taksis. We used it to pursue our title claims, improve our community infrastructure and look after our own children. This was taken away.

My community understands the relationship between our loss of taksis and title, and what the government did to our children. In October 2021, 13 families from my community personally petitioned the Prime Minister to renew our fiscal power. I was happy to see the Prime Minister's commitment to indigenous tax jurisdiction reflected in the Minister of Finance's mandate letter. Supporting these FMA amendments will allow this committee to meet this commitment.

These amendments will also allow first nations to better adapt to change, when change happens, and right at the community level. It will give us the jurisdictional and institutional space we need to innovate and adapt to change.

We are only asking for what you take for granted: the ability for government and citizens to innovate, learn, adapt and succeed.

Reconciliation will never be brought about by rhetoric or a government program. Reconciliation can only be achieved by creating a Canada that includes us, and that means hard work and putting decision-making power into our own hands.

As my ancestors said in 1910, let us work together so that we can make each other great and good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Chief Commissioner Jules.

Now we are moving to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for up to five minutes.

[Gregory McClinchey, Legislative Liaison, Great Lakes Fishery Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're pleased to be here today on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

Part of the commission's treaty mandate is to make recommendations to government and, surely, there's no more important starting point for us than participating here today. Previous committees have supported our work in their pre-budget consultations, and we ask this committee to recognize the Great Lakes as the economic engines that they are.

My name is Greg McClinchey and before joining the commission I spent 25 years on Parliament Hill. I'm thrilled to again be on this side of the virtual table offering comments on the next budget.

With me is Robert Lambe, the commission's former chair and current executive secretary. Prior to joining the commission, Bob had a 35-year career in the public service where he held several executive positions, including six years as DFO's central and Arctic RDG. Together, we offer the commission's budget and ask for your support.

The Great Lakes hold 21% of the world's fresh water. The basin supports 3,500 species of plants and animals and more than 40 million people. The Great Lakes move $19.8 billion in goods each year and support 238,000 jobs and $45 billion in economic activity. Put another way, as we consider a post-COVID economic recovery plan, the Great Lakes seem a good place to start.

Despite this, Canada and the U.S. have a spotty history of cross-border co-operation and, unfortunately, Canada has not always been the leader we could be. Historically, several treaties collapsed as Canada and the U.S. disagreed on Great Lakes policy. Despite this, in 1954, the Great Lakes were in real crisis and desperate governments ratified the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. This created the commission and assigned us three main duties: to help governments work together as fractured regulations had caused a race to the bottom with respect to fish quotas; to formulate and drive a science program upon which to base fishery management decisions; and to formulate and deliver a control program for sea lamprey, a destructive and non-native predator.

The Great Lakes of the early 1900s were unlike what we see today. Jurisdictional conflicts, overfishing and sea lamprey incursions had rendered cottages unusable as beaches were littered with rotting fish carcasses. The freshwater fleets faced empty nets, and the local economies in places like Midland and Port Credit wobbled.

The commission built scientific understanding and new partnerships, and reduced sea lamprey populations by 90%, allowing the $8 billion fishery to rebound. However, this would have been impossible without binational co-operation; you see, fish don't carry passports and lamprey thrive in jurisdictional squabbles.

Partnership is why our treaty has succeeded and it is why there is an agreed upon funding formula whereby for sea lamprey control, the U.S. should pay 69% and Canada 31%. For sea lamprey and cross-border coordination, the split is 50/50. The U.S. has respected this, while Canada has not. Canada contributes $10.6 million annually, which falls $8.84 million short of the required $19.44 million. This means that Canada is not contributing to the commission's science and cross-border mandates, and Canada is underfunding sea lamprey control at home.

While this imperils our work, the greatest damage comes as a credibility gap that can only be fixed if Canada fulfills its promise.

In the next budget, we ask Canada to contribute $19.44 million to the commission. This would fulfill a binational promise and help improve the fishery. As indicated in our brief, an annual Canadian allocation of $19.44 million would mean $14.71 million for sea lamprey control, $3.57 million for science and research, and $1.16 million for fishery management and coordination. This would allow the commission to resolve a long-standing Canadian government interface issue and allow the U.S. to stop paying Canada's bill.

Members of Congress would welcome this as they've been lobbying successive Canadian governments to resolve the matter. The U.S. would again see Canada as a Great Lakes partner, and the commission could return its focus to its treaty mandate of keeping the Great Lakes healthy.

Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying that the Great Lakes are well worth this investment. Our two nations have a proven and long-standing mechanism in place to manage this $8 billion binational resource. We ask for the committee's support of the commission's recommendation, and we thank all members for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. McClinchey.

We will now move to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Please go ahead, Ms. Mbarki.

[Melissa Mbarki, Policy Analyst and Outreach Coordinator, Indigenous Policy Program, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you for inviting me to this committee today to speak on behalf of not only indigenous prosperity but also indigenous rights. I am here today to let this committee know that indigenous voices have been excluded in really important discussions on climate change as well as the natural resource sector.

In the west, this sector has employed a large number of indigenous people. It has also helped entrepreneurs develop businesses and become self-sufficient. The regulations, bills and acts that have been implemented to hinder or even stop resource development have negatively impacted indigenous communities.

This industry has taken me out of poverty. It has allowed me to have a career since the age of 20. This industry is also in remote communities and rural communities. It has brought jobs, skills and training to people who wouldn't have access to this otherwise. I think we need to be included in climate initiatives—not trying to hinder resource development, but actually coming up with solutions to the resource development. We've been involved in conversations around carbon capture that would benefit large-scale operations like the oil sands. It would also work in other industries like agriculture. Anything with a smokestack could implement the use of carbon capture if this technology is developed.

We're also looking at liquefied natural gas. This would reduce coal usage. If we're going to get to net zero, we have to start working with industry to get to net zero. There isn't one answer that will solve this. I think indigenous people bringing in their traditional knowledge, as well as industry knowledge, can get Canada to net zero. But voices like mine aren't heard. They're often shut out because we are pro-development. I think this idea needs to change. I think we have to bring more experts into these discussions, whether on the policy end, operations end, or even on the financial end of things, because this would benefit not only our communities; it would also benefit Canada as a whole.

Another issue in indigenous communities that I want to bring up is poverty. Poverty is the number one issue of our social issues. My community has a poverty rate of 80%. This is something that's not going to be easily solved with skills or jobs training. We have to figure out how this money is being used. We have to figure out where it's going, if it's going to indigenous people, and we have to look at the outcome. How many jobs did this bring communities? We have to look at what the result is. This is absolutely not happening in communities.

I left my community 20 years ago. When I go back home to visit, it's exactly the same. The people who had jobs at the gas station still have jobs at the gas station. We need to invest in these communities the way they see fit. Some communities are close to urban areas, so it's a lot easier for them to have economic development. But communities like mine, that are rural and that really don't have a lot, we have to come up with solutions. This is where indigenous engagement is important.

I'm here to speak on behalf of indigenous people who aren't normally part of these conversations. I think going forward, part of reconciliation is including indigenous people. If you don't have them at your committee, on your boards, you're not going to get the full picture of what's happening on the grassroots level. I hope this changes and that together we can build an even greater Canada. I believe with our participation, we can definitely achieve our goals on climate change and employment. We can change the numbers all around.

I thank you once again for inviting me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Mbarki.

We will now move to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada with either Beth Potter or Blake Rogers.

Go ahead, Ms. Potter.

[Beth Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our industry's key priorities with you once again.

You've heard me say this before: The tourism industry was the first hit, the hardest hit, and will be the last to recover from the pandemic. Just before the holidays you kindly invited me to appear before you in the context of your study of Bill C-2, so I won't reiterate the key data showing how devastated the travel economy has been by the pandemic.

The tourism industry has set a goal to rebuild back to the $105-billion economic powerhouse we were before COVID, and to do so by 2025. To do so, we have identified a number of priorities regrouped under three main themes, the first being financial supports.

We are immensely grateful for the tourism and hospitality recovery program, but there are several issues we wish to bring to your attention.

Decreasing the subsidy rates by half this March was likely based on a belief that growth in tourism would increase enough by then to compensate for the decrease. However, the emergence of omicron and attempts to curtail its spread has resulted in the recovery of tourism now being delayed by at least three months. Failing to account for this, it is very likely that the loss of employment, business closures and additional contraction of the industry will ensue. As a result, we are asking the government to maintain the program's rates at their current levels and extend the program until September 2022.

The 40% current-month revenue loss requirement to access the THRP is also an issue for many tourism operators who are still struggling to meet payroll and pay fixed operating costs. To help ensure these companies can survive to when, hopefully, tourism levels begin to increase again in the spring, we ask that the government decrease the THRP's current-month revenue loss requirement from 40% to 25%. We also highlight that, because of its design, many seasonable businesses are excluded from this program, thus the program needs to be modified to allow access for these businesses.

The tourism relief fund, the Canada emergency business account, the regional relief and recovery fund and the highly affected sectors credit availability program were all put in place as temporary programs to help support businesses that are facing critical financial challenges. There are many modifications we would propose, including debt relief, and I am happy to share those during questions.

The labour shortage has long been identified as a substantial barrier to tourism industry growth. The relationship between our recovery and the availability of workers is symbiotic. Our recovery very largely hinges on our ability to attract and maintain an adequate supply of workers across the skills spectrum. Industry leaders have begun laying the groundwork for developing a comprehensive tourism labour strategy and we have already begun exploring immigration-related issues as a starting point. Given the priority the tourism industry ascribes to this issue and its critical importance to helping rebuild the travel economy, we ask that the federal budget allocate financial resources to help the industry carry out its tourism labour strategy.

Recovery of the travel economy also rests on addressing a number of issues impacting travellers' perception. These include updating the current narrative used by government around travel, eliminating barriers to travel, and correcting the current perception consumers now have about travelling to and from Canada. We ask for a clear timeline for removing travel restrictions, including removing all testing and isolation requirements and blanket travel advisories.

Specifically in Yukon, it is critical to ensure the CBSA has enough resources to effectively accommodate the COVID requirements of travellers crossing the Alaska-Yukon border. We also need to make sure travellers have access to the Internet in remote locations so that the required ArriveCAN app can be accessed. The Skagway-Fraser border is an especially important example in this regard. A significant portion of tourism revenue for Yukon is derived from Skagway cruise ship passengers who travel to the Yukon on land tours.

To rebuild consumer confidence and brand Canada as a premiere travel destination, we are asking the government to ramp up our efforts to market and promote Canada's exceptional offerings for both business and leisure travellers to the world. In connection with this point, investment to create new initiatives that support the building of destination infrastructure and the development of new products should be planned for.

Thank you very much for your time and attention today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Potter.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your opening remarks.

We will now move to questions from members. In our first round, each party will have up to six minutes for their questions.

We'll start off with the Conservatives.

Mr. McLean, you have up to six minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to thank all of the witnesses today for the very compelling information that's been provided to us. We really appreciate your taking the time to give us your input on these budget consultations. Thanks, everybody, for appearing.

I have a lot of questions on everything I've heard here today, but I'm going to start with Mr. Breton. He and I have discussed these matters before, but I'll remind him, because last time it was at the natural resources committee that we were at together.

Mr. Breton, there are, simply put, really three uses of energy in Canada—internal combustion engines; electricity; and industrial use, which is principally natural gas. When you want to remove the internal combustion engines, you are effectively going to have to double the electricity supply available to Canadians.

Now, I've checked this since the last time we spoke, and I hope you have too. The Canadian Electricity Association has indicated that they can't get to net zero, as defined by the government, by 2035. It's going to be a great challenge. It used to be 2050. But now they say that's with their current supply of electricity, current demand and current supply. There are no new sources coming online here that are of any impact for long-term supply.

Can you tell us where you think all the new supply for electricity will come from to meet the demand required to replace Canada's motive fleet?

[Daniel Breton]

Actually, we have been working with CanREA, the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, and the answer is clear: Right now Canada has one of the cleanest grids in the world, with 82% non-emitting production of electricity and 67% renewable electricity. So it is possible to produce more clean electricity for us to have an all-electric grid that will be clean and sufficient to produce enough electricity for the whole fleet of vehicles in Canada.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Where will that come from, Mr. Breton?

[Daniel Breton]

It will come from different sources. It can come from thermal sources, wind power, solar power and hydroelectricity. That is something that CanREA has already worked on, and—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate that. Thank you. We are looking for where those sources are in order to meet the demands of Canadians who are going to be energy-starved here as we move down this path.

As we see in Europe and are seeing in California, wind power and solar will not meet the demand required to replace the motive fleet in Canada. Where are the hydroelectric dams? Where are the nuclear fission facilities that are going to be required, planned and will obviously take 10 years or more in order to get the supply to meet demand?

[Daniel Breton]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. There's some kind of bizarre feedback in the sound.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Clerk, I did hear the feedback myself.

[Daniel Breton]

What I'm saying is that we are in 2022, and the achieving carbon neutrality will take 28 years until 2050. We have 28 years to make sure that we have enough supply of clean energy. We won't be energy-starved. It has not been an issue. It won't be an issue. We talked to the Canadian Electricity Association, CanREA, and it very simply shows—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Well, Mr. Breton, we haven't seen any of that. We've asked for it several times.

Let me move on to the next question—

[Daniel Breton]

You know what? I will do something specifically for you. I will send you some data as soon as the committee meeting is over so that we can work on that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Breton. I appreciate that. We'll follow up on that.

[Daniel Breton]

It's my pleasure.