Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 108 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, November 29, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of Canada's electricity grid and network.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

We have a new clerk of the committee. Please welcome Thomas Bigelow.

I would like to thank our former clerk, Alexandre Vassiliev, for his dedication and hard work with our committee over the last year or so that he was with us. Thank you, Alexandre.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today

As an individual, by video conference, we have Dr. Christina Hoicka, associate professor, Canada research chair in urban planning for climate change, University of Victoria. From the Canadian Climate Institute, we have Jason Dion, senior research director. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, by video conference, we have Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, director, natural resources, energy and environment. From The Pembina Institute, we have Scott MacDougall, program director, electricity; and from the Transition Accelerator, we have Moe Kabbara, vice-president.

We will have up to five minutes for opening remarks.

I will start with Dr. Christina Hoicka, who's on video conference.

[Dr. Christina Hoicka, Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair in Urban Planning for Climate Change, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm sorry I cannot be there in person.

I want to focus my comments on the societal impacts and opportunities of an electricity transition. An energy transition to mitigate and adapt to climate change is a societal transition. Most scenarios show that decarbonizing the energy sector in Canada means doubling to quadrupling the size of the 152-gigawatt electricity system to replace fossil fuels. This transition can be accelerated and supported if policies and institutions are designed based on principles of equity, justice and resilience across society and generations.

Canada has strengths to support a transition that is framed this way. These include a history of municipal and co-operative ownership of renewable electricity sources and infrastructures; indigenous leadership and advocacy to own and operate renewable electricity resources and infrastructures; the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in law; and past experience in implementing policies to support partnerships between communities and industry.

There are also important barriers that need to be removed. These barriers that need to be removed include supports to fossil fuel use; the lack of supportive procurement policies that provide market access for renewable electricity and related infrastructure; the lack of ability for indigenous nations to own and operate their own electricity utilities; the lack of sufficient access to financial support, particularly for indigenous nations; the lack of representation of diversity in electricity and regional resource planning; and the lack of tracking of renewable electricity projects and infrastructures, particularly those that are owned and operated by communities, co-operatives and indigenous nations, and of who is impacted, which impedes analysis relevant to the creation of just policy. That is to say, currently we do not know very much about community-owned and community impacts of renewable electricity and infrastructure across Canada.

The European Union has developed policy frameworks for things called “citizen energy communities” and “renewable energy communities”. These frameworks bring together citizens, energy utilities and companies, and local governments to invest in renewable energy technologies and related infrastructure such that socio-economic benefits that flow to communities are prioritized. Canada should be investigating the value of adapting some of these policies here.

The implementation of these principles, enablers and this removal of barriers can accelerate a low-carbon energy transition to mitigate climate change by improving support and partnerships. Research shows that when fairness and transparency are present in decision-making for energy projects and electricity projects, and the impacts and benefits are distributed fairly to affected communities, social acceptance increases.

Intergenerational justice is critically required as a pillar in this transition. My research team at the University of Victoria prepared this statement: “We are a group of 10 youths, comprised of undergraduate, master's, Ph.D. students and post-doctoral researchers, who are concerned with the social and ecological impacts of Canada's current energy systems. We study intergenerational justice, energy democracy, the well-being of ecosystems and the impact that a low-carbon transition has on communities. We urge policy-makers to ensure that all communities impacted by changes to our energy system are empowered to participate in the entirety of the low-carbon energy transition. The energy transition must be more than renewable. It must be democratic, transparent and just.”

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I failed to mention at the start of the meeting that I use these two cards: Yellow is the 30-second warning, and red means that time's up. I'll try not to interrupt you mid-sentence. You were right on time, with a few minutes to spare. Thank you for your opening remarks.

We now go to Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify.

We often hear about the energy trilemma of the need to balance reliability, affordability and sustainability in our electricity systems. It's obvious to me that these characteristics are not three legs of an energy stool but components of a hierarchy, with affordability and reliability on top and sustainability at the bottom. This is not cynicism. This is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Canada is uniquely blessed to have an electricity grid that enjoys all three characteristics: 84% of our electricity grid is powered by non-emitting sources, thanks to Ontario's nuclear capacity and the country's ample hydroelectric resources. These are also cheap electricity and provide competitive industrial rates. In fact, Canada is the best performer in the G7 on both measures. On top of this, Canada's electricity industry boasts a 99.93% reliability of service rate. Our clean, affordable and reliable electricity grid provides a competitive advantage to Canadian industry and a high quality of life for Canadian citizens.

However, I fear that we have taken this for granted and are now putting it at risk. In the quest for the perfect—a net-zero grid by 2035—we will be sacrificing the good.

Due to policy choices including, but not limited to, the proposed clean electricity regulations, Canada is almost certain to have more expensive and less reliable electricity in the coming years. Perhaps the reward will be a slightly cleaner grid, but it will come at the expense of heavy industry relocating to cheaper jurisdictions with dirtier grids—a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.

Here is what is at stake. As we have seen from our allies in Europe, high energy costs are very bad for the economy, and that makes them bad for society as well. Although that continent is adding solar and wind power at an impressive pace, it is not translating into cheaper electricity by any means. Rather, we are seeing deindustrialization in Europe. Their energy policies are a cautionary tale, not a model.

The task we set for ourselves—an emissions-free grid by 2035—is made all the more difficult by the fact that electricity demand is rising for the first time in decades. This is due to a combination of a growing population, electrification of energy use and new areas of demand such as data centres. Despite this rising demand, investment in the electricity sector in Canada is anemic. Based on Natural Resources Canada's most recent major projects inventory, the number of projects planned or under construction in the electricity sector declined, from 223 projects worth $156 billion in 2014 to 182 projects worth $98.9 billion in 2023, or equivalent to $78.9 billion in 2014 dollars. It's a 49% drop in value.

Adding even more barriers and costs through the clean electricity regulations and other policies will absolutely hamper Canada's ability to expand its generation capacity and compete for data centres and energy-intensive manufacturing. This is bad economically as well as strategically.

I will also address the risks to the way that we are planning to add clean electricity to the Canadian grid. Many environmental advocates, as well as some Crown corporations, are pushing for the majority of new electricity generation in Canada to come from solar and, especially, wind power. There are several risks to this. The first and most obvious is that they are intermittent sources, and across most of Canada the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow during winter load peaks.

To highlight the energy security costs and benefits of different electricity sources, Canada has abundant natural gas, uranium and water. Our supply chains are almost wholly domestic for nuclear, hydro and natural gas power generation. By contrast, the global supply chains for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles depend, to a large extent, on China, a potential adversary on which we applied tariffs due to unfair trade practices.

Inasmuch as the federal government has jurisdiction to improve affordability, reliability and sustainability, it should be incentivizing those sources of generation that enhance rather than detract from energy security. An emissions-free grid is a commendable goal. With advanced nuclear, CCUS, hydrogen and pumped storage, we have several good options for clean electricity in the medium term.

I finish by suggesting that decisions on Canada's electricity grid should respect and defer to those charged with managing Canada's electricity grid, rather than environmental organizations. When the electricity industry says 2035 is too soon to achieve our emissions goals, I believe them. I also believe that they are acting in good faith to decarbonize as fast as is economically and logistically feasible. We'd all be better off if federal policies were directed at supporting their efforts rather than complicating them.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We'll now go to Canadian Climate Institute and Jason Dion.

You have five minutes.

[Jason Dion, Senior Research Director, Canadian Climate Institute]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to be here today to talk about Canada's electricity grid and network.

My name is Jason Dion. I'm the senior research director for the Canadian Climate Institute.

Our research indicates that, while there is a range of pathways Canada can take to achieve our climate target of net-zero emissions by 2050, one thing is certain: All roads to meeting Canada's climate goals will be accompanied by significant changes in the electricity sector. Canadian electricity systems must become bigger, cleaner and smarter, and these transformations must all happen simultaneously.

Let's start with bigger.

We are already seeing early signs of growing demand for electricity coming from industry, electric vehicles and the installation of heat pumps. We anticipate that even more demand will come as Canada continues to electrify. To meet this growing demand, we find that electricity generation will need to grow 1.6 to 2.1 times by 2050.

At the same time as electricity systems will be getting bigger, they must also be getting cleaner. This means reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation and building up sources of clean power. Nuclear and hydro will need to maintain their important roles in providing non-emitting baseload power, but wind and solar will need to grow significantly. Our estimates show they should form 60% to 95% of new capacity added by 2030.

When it comes to clean generation, the phase-out of coal power in Canada is already doing a lot of heavy lifting. Electricity sector emissions have fallen by almost two-thirds since 2005. The forthcoming federal clean electricity regulations alongside the clean electricity investment tax credits and industrial carbon pricing will play a pivotal role in continuing this progress. Our research indicates that aligning electricity systems with the clean electricity regulations is achievable, and, in some cases, will only represent an acceleration of provincial utilities' existing development plans.

Of course, electricity needs to remain affordable and reliable. We have been pleased to see flexibilities included in the clean electricity regulations that will allow for continued use of gas-fired power when it is most needed, especially as its alternatives are in their early stages of development.

This brings us to the third part of bigger, cleaner, smarter. Investing in emerging solutions that make grids smarter or more flexible will help us reduce our reliance on gas as well as the size of the necessary build-out. These solutions include things like geothermal power, battery storage, demand-side flexibility and greater interconnection; however, as it stands, short-sighted planning risks delaying build-out of some of the bigger, cleaner, smarter electricity systems Canada needs. While some jurisdictions have long-term climate goals, none have policy architecture that sufficiently maps out its goals' implications for the electricity system. This puts utilities and regulators in a difficult position since they can lack a defensible basis for proceeding with a system build-out at the pace and scale that will ultimately be needed.

An important emerging tool called net-zero energy road maps can help address this risk. These road maps articulate a provincial or territorial government's independent vision for the evolution of its energy systems to meet climate goals by 2050. In this way, energy road maps provide signposts for the provincial utilities and regulators that will lead and oversee the build-out and a clear and defensible basis for their decision-making. Numerous provinces now have road maps developed or in the works.

For its part, the federal government can support provinces' efforts by offering sustained, predictable support for clean electricity projects. A notable example is the forthcoming investment tax credits that will allow for the capital cost of clean electricity projects to be refunded 15% to 30%. The federal government can also repurpose existing programs to enhance the build-out of smarter electricity systems by, for example, restructuring its smart renewables and electrification pathways program to focus exclusively on the deployment of demand-side flexibility, as recommended by the Canada electricity advisory council.

To be clear, provinces and territories will be in the driver's seat in this effort. Along with producing energy road maps, they are responsible for implementing electricity sector policies, establishing mandates for utility regulators, Crown utilities and system operators, and overseeing decision-making processes.

For Canada to truly act effectively on each of the moving parts of the electricity system, we need federal, provincial and territorial governments to use their policy tools in an integrated, coordinated and rapid way.

Transforming Canada's electricity systems is necessary if we are to reach our climate goals. While it is possible, it is a very large task. Acting early and wisely through smart policy that can work in the Canadian federation not only reduces the risk of falling short of our climate targets but will also reduce the cost of the needed system transformation.

Thank you again for your invitation. I'll welcome any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We'll now go to Scott MacDougall from the Pembina Institute.

You have five minutes.

[Scott MacDougall, Program Director, Electricity, The Pembina Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak here today.

My name is Scott MacDougall. I am the director of the Pembina Institute's electricity program.

Before joining Pembina, I worked in climate policy with the Government of Alberta. I've also worked in the oil sands industry, including as the lead for a large, 800-megawatt cogeneration project near Fort McMurray, Alberta.

Pembina Institute is a national charity and a clean energy think tank advocating for strong, effective policies to support Canada's clean energy transition. Pembina was formed 40 years ago in Drayton Valley, Alberta, as a response to a sour gas blowout. It now has offices in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

I'd like to talk about a few things that I think are very exciting about the clean electricity investments and prospects for Canada cementing its clean electricity advantage among investors and businesses.

According to the International Energy Agency, global clean energy investments this year are nearly double the investments in fossil fuels. Annual investments in solar photovoltaics now surpass all other power generation technologies combined.

As a result, some jurisdictions around the world are now producing upwards of 60% of their annual electricity needs from wind and solar alone. Since the costs of wind, solar and batteries are already competitive with gas-fired power and other alternatives—and their costs are continuing to drop—this is a good sign for prevailing strong investment in renewables.

Canada has a distinctive electricity system, offering many decarbonization opportunities. Currently, it's a collection of 13 unique and complex grids. While some hydro-rich regions in Canada are already benefiting from emissions-free power or have legacy nuclear, many are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Canada gets just under 9% of its electricity from wind and solar today, compared with the United States at 15% and the United Kingdom at 34%.

Alberta, which has led the country in wind and solar development over the past few years, gets 18% of its power from those sources. However, modelling we completed with the University of Alberta found that, by 2035, Alberta could get up to about 58% of its electricity from wind and solar. This is a fair jump from where it is today.

Based on a jurisdictional scan that we'll be publishing soon, numerous grids have already achieved that, enabled by a combination of factors, such as grids that are well connected internally and with neighbouring grids, a diverse generation mix, distributed battery and solar resources on smarter grids, and in many cases, demand-side management approaches, such as energy efficiency and demand response.

Here in Canada, the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator's conservation and demand management programs offer some very good examples of those demand-side programs and successes.

I think it's fair to say that clean electricity is the cornerstone of a clean economy and a key driver for reducing economy-wide emissions. We are seeing many businesses looking to electrify their processes and wanting to set up shop in places that can offer clean electricity. In particular, there have been announcements recently from automakers, critical mineral producers, battery companies and data centres expressing that they want to operate on clean grids.

This indicates that investments in clean energy and the demand for it are likely to continue to rise. If we can't meet that demand, then industry will take its investments elsewhere.

Canada and the provinces have a lot to gain from clean electricity and have a lot to lose from sending mixed or negative signals and from a lack of progress in modernizing the grids to support these investments. The federal clean electricity regulations will be critical for supporting grid decarbonization across the provinces. They offer policy certainty and a strong signal to industry, and encourage increased uptake of renewables for the economic and health benefits of all Canadians.

I'd also like to note the value of modernizing our grids to ensure continued reliability and affordability. Ontario has again shown great leadership in this area, being the first province to phase out coal in 2015. Now, through its conservation and demand management programs, it has decreased demand by 15% versus what it would otherwise be today. The province is now 89% emissions-free. However, decisions made today will determine whether Ontario can maintain and grow its clean energy advantage.

We are fortunate here in Canada. Our abundance of renewable resources, including wind, hydro and solar, put us in a good position to operate a clean electricity grid. Canada is already 84% emissions-free. We need to scale up efforts to keep pace with global investments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We'll now go to Moe Kabbara from the Transition Accelerator.

You have five minutes.

[Moe Kabbara, Vice President, The Transition Accelerator]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak today.

My name is Moe Kabbara. I'm the vice-president of the Transition Accelerator. We're a pan-Canadian organization that's focused on helping Canada build a prosperous and competitive future by identifying pathways to net zero by 2050.

Today, I'm going to focus on three key points. Number one is that electricity will be the largest contributor to Canada's net-zero goals. Number two is that electrification is not just feasible but can also be financially beneficial for most Canadians. Number three is about an inconvenient truth: The reality is that, across the country, some regions and households will need more support in this transition, which necessitates proactive actions.

On the first point, while Canada's electricity system only accounts for 6% of our emissions, the real opportunity lies with the electrification of the remaining 94%, even if we don't get all the way to 94%. There's going to be a significant amount of electrification for transportation, heating and industry. Though there's uncertainty about how we're going to fully decarbonize all of the above options, including the ways we can generate clean electricity—and I think we need to explore all of that—it's clear that electrification will play the largest role. Study after study confirms that we're going to need more electricity, and electricity is the most cost-effective way to reach net zero.

Growth is also possible. We've been using electricity for more than a century, and that means we must also grow the grid in order to continue electrifying different end uses of energy. The same studies that we've talked about identify electrification as a key pathway, and as mentioned earlier today, we've heard numbers around doubling or tripling the size of the grid by 2050. This is definitely not going to be an easy task, but it's certainly possible.

If we look at the past, between 1920 and 1980, Canada's electricity generation grew by 7% per year, essentially doubling the system every decade for 60 years. Today, we need about 3% annual growth to achieve the doubling by 2050 to get to net zero. We've done it before at an even faster pace, and we can do it again.

The second point is around economic competitiveness and affordability. Growing the grid isn't just a climate solution. As mentioned earlier, it's also a way to ensure Canada's competitiveness. If we look at some of the investments we've attracted in the auto and battery sectors—Volkswagen, Umicore, Northvolt, Stellantis, GM and Ford—what all of these companies have in common is that they've committed to decarbonizing their operations in 2030, 2035 or 2040, but it's clear that they're looking for affordable, reliable and clean electricity for their businesses.

At the household level, our research shows that households could spend less money heating and powering their homes and fuelling transportation needs in 2050 than they do today through electrification. This is important because we're looking at some of the biggest winners in the country in Atlantic Canada, where energy cost burdens are among the highest in the country. They really stand to benefit a lot in terms of the significant savings that they could have by switching to electrification.

Other big winners are people who drive cars. If we look at gasoline vehicle efficiency, it's quite low relative to electric vehicles. Lower operating costs for EVs can make a huge difference.

The third point I want to make is that support is going to be needed to unlock these benefits for all Canadians. The transition to electrification is not all roses for everybody. While many will benefit, it's important to recognize that our analysis reveals the inconvenient truth that some regions and households will struggle to find those savings. Low-income households and those in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where there is reliance on natural gas and winters are quite harsh, face greater challenges.

However, those challenges are not fatalistic, and they're not necessarily reasons to delay. Rather, they really highlight the importance of placing policy emphasis where we can address affordability concerns and also maintain public support for the transition.

Today I have two calls for action that are specifically related to the federal government focusing on two areas.

Number one is enabling the rapid growth of the electricity system everywhere. This includes streamlining project approval, incentivizing infrastructure and investments, and ensuring provinces have the flexibility to manage their increased electrification.

Number two is recognizing that not all provinces are starting from the same point. They're going to face different challenges, so it's important to ensure we have a tailored approach that supports and targets where the need is greatest and recognizes the different starting points and hurdles that each province faces.

By focusing on those two areas, the government can help ensure that electrification provides benefits for all Canadians, while advancing our climate goals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

Now we will proceed to our first round of questioning, and we'll start with Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, you have six minutes.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everybody for taking time to be here today.

Just really quickly, Mr. Dion, do you guys factor in how much carbon Canada sequesters when you do your net-zero calculations?

[Jason Dion]

Yes. In our net-zero analysis, we took a look at the national inventory report and the emissions it reports, as well as all the sources of emissions that get reported in that inventory now and going forward. The amount of flux that is going on in natural systems is excluded from those inventories typically if it's not happening on managed lands. The amount of net sequestration we can claim as a result of, for example, wildfires is not included. The amount of net sequestration we can claim that's been historically locked in our soils is not included in those emissions inventories.

It does focus on the amount of flux that we can control and measure.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. Yes, I find that interesting. I did actually ask the government for information on what farmland does, and they don't track it. They have no idea. I wanted to see who's tracking what and see who has an idea of what sequestration actually does for net zero, so thank you for that.

To the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, what problems are we going to have with grid capacity if we double or triple the demand for electricity? What kinds of issues do you think we're going to encounter if we try to do that?

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

I'm not an economist, but it's basic supply and demand that costs will go up and people will have to use less energy. In Canada, we're probably the most energy-secure country in the world. We've had, again, this fantastic energy system that was cheap, affordable and pretty sustainable, and that's at risk.

Number one, if you want to look at Europe as a model for what happens in these situations, heavy industry decreases its energy use first. I think grid operators—and someone can correct me if I'm wrong—will usually prioritize residential users over industrial users. Compromising our ability to build—and we all know it's difficult to build in this country—is reducing the amount of capacity we can add. We all know we want to increase the capacity for our electrification goals. That's not happening, so I can see prices going up and heavy industry moving somewhere else.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

System operators in Ontario, as well as Alberta, have publicly raised concerns that they could not follow these electricity regulations without impacting the grid's reliability. Do you have more to add on the risks to grid reliability?

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think rotating brownouts is what grid operators would do. Again, from an industry perspective, if you can't rely on the electricity, then that's a cost and that's a concern. We are seeing, for example, in Quebec, which has had very low industrial prices and a high capacity, that they're now reaching the maximum of the capacity they have. That is discouraging investment, discouraging heavy industry from moving there.

Then there's the Canadian aspect. Some of us from Alberta had the problem when in January it was -46°C in Edmonton. The grid was at capacity. We had the emergency alert. Thankfully, everything worked out and people turned off their Christmas lights and stopped doing laundry and that kind of thing. However, you can imagine the situation when people, for a few hours, would be without electricity in a -46°C situation. This is a life or death situation for many parts of Canada.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, Boundary Dam, in Saskatchewan, had to fire up one of its coal systems in order to help out with what was happening in Alberta on that particularly cold day.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

We appreciate that.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On the 2035 emissions-free grid target, you mentioned how, for example, Quebec is approaching capacity. We know they rely heavily on hydro power, which is great. However, if we were to build a bunch of hydro dams to try to meet that target, do you think that's even possible to do?

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think the consensus is our greatest hydroelectricity capacity has been tapped. The last few mega-hydroelectricity projects in Canada have been very expensive. We've seen that in B.C., in Manitoba, in Labrador and elsewhere, so that's not going to be the source of the next doubling or tripling of our grid.

From my perspective, renewables are pretty expensive. They're intermittent. You need to pair them with batteries. Batteries usually only last for a couple of hours. They don't work great at -40°C either. I think in Canada nuclear is the most obvious situation to proceed with the clean electricity grid.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You mentioned the need to balance reliability, affordability and sustainability. Do we have a sense of how Canadians prioritize those things? Have you done any research on that, or do you know of any that's been done?

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

Lots of pollsters do this. I can highlight two. One is from Abacus Data. It came out last week, if anyone saw it. It said that Canadians' concern with climate change dropped 14 points in the last year. We've seen decline in support for the carbon tax, again related to affordability issues. My institute and C.D. Howe did our own polling with Nanos. We commissioned Nanos to do some polling. They found that the top energy concern for Canadians was affordability, followed by reliability, followed by safety, actually, with sustainability ranked fourth. It was the lowest energy concern of those four.

It's not that Canadians don't care about climate change. I certainly care about climate change. It's that if it's not affordable first, the attention and the resources we want to put into sustainability will certainly fall down the totem pole.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Schiefke for six minutes.

You have the floor, sir.