Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Patrick Williams]

Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.

I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions and cannot entertain points of order or participate in debate.

We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.

I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I nominate my colleague George Chahal as chair.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Mr. Simard that Mr. Chahal be elected as chair of the committee.

Are there any further motions?

Are there further motions?

It has been moved by Mr. Simard that Mr. Chahal be elected as chair of the committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Chahal duly elected chair of the committee. I invite Mr. Chahal to take the chair.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, colleagues.

It's an honour to be the chair of the natural resources committee. I look forward to working with all of you over the months ahead on these important studies we've undertaken.

I want to take a moment to thank our former chair, John Aldag, for the tremendous job he's done this session. Thank you so much.

Clerk Patrick , I look forward to working with you.

Dana and Laura, both of you have done tremendous jobs as well. Thank you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Today we meet to resume our study of Canada’s clean energy plans in the context of North American energy transformation. We will then proceed to sit in camera to discuss committee business.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

I will now welcome the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.

First, from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we're joined by Mr. Greg Moffatt, vice-president of policy and corporate secretary; and David Cherniak, policy manager, business and transportation.

From Clean Energy Canada, we have Rachel Doran, vice-president for policy and strategy.

We had, from Hoverlink Ontario, Christopher Morgan, who is unable to join us today. We will reschedule Mr. Morgan to another date.

We have, from Resource Works Society, Margareta Dovgal, managing director.

From the The Transition Accelerator, we have James Meadowcroft, transition pathway principal.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us.

I have some lovely cards. Yellow means that you have 30 seconds left in your five-minute introduction. Red means that you're out of time, so please complete your thought and we'll proceed to the next witness.

We'll start today with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada and Mr. Greg Moffatt.

[Greg Moffatt, Vice-President, Policy and Corporate Secretary, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Chair, and congratulations.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am privileged to be in the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. This region is still the home of many indigenous people, and we are grateful to have the opportunity to be here today.

Chemistry and plastics are Canada’s third-largest manufacturing sector, generating over $90 billion in annual shipments. Eighty percent of the sector’s annual production is export-oriented, with most exports destined to the United States. More importantly, the sector is poised for significant growth. Today, over 24 chemistry projects have been proposed; taken together, they represent at least $30 billion in investments, and each of them is envisioned as low-emission or net-zero emission. This includes Dow’s proposal to build the world's first fully net carbon-zero petrochemical facility in Fort Saskatchewan.

There is a five-part pathway to transition the global chemistry industry to low carbon. This includes carbon capture storage and utilization; hydrogen; electrification; feedstock switching to lower carbon resources, including biomass; and building circularity for our downstream products, essentially avoiding production through post-consumer product recovery and reformulation.

The wonderful news is that Canada is only one of two regions worldwide capable of providing all five of these pathways to support the sector's transformation. Importantly, these pathways will also help downstream manufacturing sectors reduce their own emissions as chemistry products work their way through supply chains.

However, I must make clear two very real challenges.

First, these new projects are proposed. There are no shovels in the ground, no modules on order, and we have not seen any final investment decisions. There is significant work to turn these proposals into built infrastructure. Second, we need to attract every dollar of investment we can to lower emissions in the existing chemistry industry. A rough estimate suggests that we have $200 billion to $300 billion of existing chemistry infrastructure in Canada. To transform fully to low or net-zero production by 2050, we will need to recapitalize all of that infrastructure. The global chemistry industry will make the transition to a lower emissions economy. The only question is where these investments will take place.

I believe this committee shares an interest with us in seeing that Canada not only participates in the next wave of chemistry investments but also fully participates in the first wave of net-zero chemistry investments.

The Government of Canada must undertake two important actions to help realize the projects mentioned earlier and attract new investments.

The first is to place attention on the broader investment climate. Study after study shows that Canada is slipping in attracting foreign investment, and our future prosperity is potentially at stake. While attracting $200 billion to $300 billion in new investments over the next two decades sounds doable, the reality is that over the past two decades, the sector has only attracted about $10 billion in new investments. In short, the status quo approach will not suffice. The true value of incentives, like the Alberta petrochemicals incentive program and those in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, is the transparency and certainty provided to investors: If you meet a predetermined set of criteria, you receive the credits. There is no adjudication behind closed doors and there is no picking favourites. The intent of these credits is winning investment, plain and simple. In Canada, we continue to insert barriers into our investment policy, and we must be mindful of the risks associated with them.

Second, we need to ensure that the tax credits we have been discussing for three years become law as soon as possible. The Government of Canada has proposed and is consulting on the carbon capture utilization and storage tax credit, a clean hydrogen tax credit and a clean electricity tax credit, among others. We have been talking for years about investment supports and ITCs—input tax credits—and not one shovel is yet in the ground. We need to see these credits passed into law so that we can put private capital and Canadians to work.

In closing, as an example of what is at stake if we get this wrong, we are at the risk of falling behind the United States in assisting our Asian colleagues in meeting their climate change commitments. As of today, over a dozen clean ammonia energy export projects are under way in the United States. While Canada has several such projects proposed, not one is yet under construction.

My colleague David Cherniak and I look forward to discussing some of the specifics of these ITCs with you.

Thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Moffatt, for your introduction.

We'll now move to Clean Energy Canada and Rachel Doran.

[Rachel Doran, Vice-President, Policy and Strategy, Clean Energy Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members.

Clean Energy Canada is a think tank based out of Simon Fraser University's Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue that has been focused on the clean energy transition for the past 10 years.

I would thank my colleague for the land acknowledgement and would echo it, but I'd like to start my remarks by really positioning us in how fast this transition is moving.

In the year since this committee moved to make this a study, the Inflation Reduction Act south of the border has led to 272 new projects, 170,000 new jobs and $213 billion in new investments. That's in its first year. This week, the International Energy Agency revised their forecast and now sees fossil fuel demand peaking before 2030. A recent study now projects that two-thirds of global car sales could be electric by the same date.

The energy transition is not coming; it is here. With 90% of global GDP now covered by net-zero commitments, we are in the middle of the biggest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution.

Here is Canada's opportunity, because according to modelling that we completed last spring, Canada, with the right policies, has the ability to create five times more jobs in clean energy by 2050 than there are today, outpacing any decline in fossil fuels. There are huge opportunities for Canada's natural resource economy, such as using our clean water supply and renewable energy potential to produce clean hydrogen or using Quebec's iron ore, which is among the highest-grade ores in the world, to make the next generation of clean steel.

These changes don't have to come at the expense of Canadian households. Our reports and those of colleagues show that Canadians can actually save money on their energy bills in the energy transition.

What does Canada need to do to seize this opportunity?

This spring, TD Economics estimated that Canada had actually spent more as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. Canada has been doing some leaning in, but there's definitely more to do.

First, I would say that what Canada needs to do is focus on the opportunities of tomorrow, not yesterday. Green hydrogen—i.e., hydrogen made with renewable energy—may be more expensive to produce today, but it's forecasted to be less expensive by the early 2030s. I would echo the comments of my colleagues at the chemistry association. We've written reports highlighting the real opportunity for Canada to become an exporter of the clean chemicals that will go into the battery supply chain and other products that will be needed in a net-zero future.

Second, we need to double down on our competitive advantages. Today, Canada's grid is 84% clean, and the U.S. is at 40%. As manufacturers clean their supply chains, this is going to be a huge advantage, but other countries won't let us keep that edge forever. The U.S. has its eye on a clean grid by 2035.

At the federal level, fiscal incentives such as the clean electricity tax credit and regulatory reforms like the clean electricity regulations will help support provinces to address the costs of build-out and ensure investor stability.

My third point is this: Move quickly. I think that point has already been covered. Time is of the essence.

Fourth, be smart and strategic. Canada cannot match the U.S.'s market size and fiscal firepower dollar for dollar, so what we need to do is think strategically and smartly about this. I anticipate that my colleague will speak more to this, but my first suggestion would be to use good industrial policy—namely, being strategic, nimble and iterative with industry, labour, indigenous partners and others by setting clear objectives that can help orient private investment, and by choosing lanes, giving clarity on what Canada will and will not compete for. Canada, by doing these things, can help to be prepared for emerging opportunities.

Also, by strategically choosing investments, Canada can provide the best return on taxpayer dollars. In our work to help Canada meet the $50-billion opportunity of the EV battery supply chain, we estimated the jobs multiplier associated with battery gigafactories that we've seen announced in St. Thomas and Windsor, and reportedly coming to Quebec, to be between six and eight by 2030. That's a high-value investment in terms of jobs and GDP, which is why jurisdictions are competing to secure them.

Going forward, Canada can get even more advantage by focusing on the upstream side. How do you get Canadian minerals into Canadian batteries to leverage our competitive advantage and ensure opportunities will be available in even more parts of the country?

Finally, the American approach of using government buying power to create a market for low-carbon goods has been proven to support U.S. businesses and workers. Because Canadian products are already cleaner than the global average, “buying clean” can mean using the dollars the government was already planning to spend to support Canadian industry to meet those growing markets for clean materials. Canada needs to finalize its own “buy clean” strategy.

In conclusion, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a resilient, growing and inclusive economy.

I look forward to any questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Rachel.

We will now move to Margareta Dovgal from the Resource Works Society.

[Margareta Dovgal, Managing Director, Resource Works Society]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here. I would also like to echo the earlier land acknowledgement.

As mentioned, I'm Margareta Dovgal, the managing director of Resource Works Society. We are a B.C.-based non-profit and we advocate the continued recognition of Canada's economically productive, responsible natural resource industries, including mining, forestry, and oil and gas. We also organize the annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase, an event that brings together industry leaders and indigenous partners to discuss pathways to economic reconciliation. We'll be returning in June to Vancouver for our fifth year, so hopefully we'll see people there.

To delve into some of the pressing issues before us today that hinder Canada's ability to meaningfully respond to opportunities arising from the North American energy transformation, I wanted to touch on a couple of things.

Before I do that, I just want to say that the choices that we make here on energy and industrial policy, including right here in Ottawa, have enduring effects impacting not only workers in natural resource and clean technology industries but also the quality of life for all Canadians. Our overall standard of living does continue to rely on the production and export of in-demand commodities to global markets.

What the world seeks to buy is definitely shifting gradually, but we're actually well positioned for that shift. We have the right mix of raw materials, a skilled and trained workforce, a mature regulatory environment, and a wealth of innovation expertise and excellence within industries like natural resources. We can't lose sight of the value of what Canada can do for the world and our allies through our natural resources.

One major challenge that we observe at Resource Works is the growing perception that federal recognition and support for natural resource development as a key driver of this economic well-being has declined in recent years. Continued investment in natural resource development has been, and continues to be, a cornerstone of our economy, but we're having issues, as Greg mentioned, with retaining and attracting investment to enable that job creation to take place. Right now, we're in a world that's filled with economic and geopolitical uncertainties and we urgently need investor certainty, which can only be achieved through strong, positive signals from all levels of government.

Another matter is the creation of productive jobs in Canada. Resource-based manufacturing is something we think and talk about quite a bit at Resource Works. It's our strength here in Canada and has immense promise for the future, but without a secure and reliable supply of raw materials grounded in timely mining approvals and permitting, our manufacturing capacity will continue to suffer and potentially decline.

Consider, for example, lithium iron phosphate batteries. Recent decisions by auto manufacturers to direct investment to Canada relied on a combination of factors, including proximity to U.S. markets and our ability to source these critical minerals, like phosphate. Without a secure and reliable supply, that anticipated growth of EV manufacturing cannot be realized.

Permitting issues represent a significant bottleneck here, with timelines for many types of new mine development estimated at 10 to 15 years, far longer than the global standard and what we should be striving for. Urgent action is needed to streamline and simplify these processes to provide clarity for investors, both from Canada and abroad.

Another issue is the polarized and politicized decision-making process. Co-operation between federal and provincial governments is not just a good idea; it's also essential if we want to move forward. A lack of alignment not only hampers progress but also results in policy measures that actually work at cross-purposes with each other. Valuable time and political capital are being spent negotiating these conflicts rather than responding in a unified, coordinated manner to the changes afoot globally and with our greatest trading partner, the United States.

If projects make business sense and they advance objectives shared with our allies, such as the U.S., the government's role should be to ensure that regulations are conducive to attracting that investment and that the joint responsibilities and accountabilities between federal and provincial governments are clearly defined and can be actioned.

In order to align all of these potential benefits of a coordinated North American energy transformation, it's imperative that we strengthen our ties with the United States, but Canada also needs to be proactive in diversifying its trade and export products to seize global opportunities in the clean energy market. We see examples like liquefied natural gas, LNG, off the coast of British Columbia and in other jurisdictions in the country. We have taken many years to get close to completion on our first major export project, LNG Canada, and that represents the largest private sector investment in Canadian history.

In the same period of time, other competitor jurisdictions, like Australia and Qatar, have made sizable leaps forward, so that's a sobering reminder that we need to improve the speed at which we bring these projects online.

By providing clarity certainty to attract capital through competitive regulations and by providing support for technology development, Canada can successfully transition to a clean energy economy and capitalize on the opportunities presented by the North American energy transformation.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions and further discussion on these topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dovgal, for your introduction.

We will now move to Mr. James Meadowcroft from the Transition Accelerator.

[Professor James Meadowcroft, Transition Pathway Principal, The Transition Accelerator]

Hi.

First of all, thank you for allowing me to talk to you today.

As my colleagues have said, I welcome the land acknowledgement made by the first speaker.

I'm here speaking for The Transition Accelerator, which is a national not-for-profit. I describe it not as a “think” tank but as a “do” tank. We work practically with stakeholders in government and industry across the country to accelerate transition pathways towards net zero, particularly in the electricity system, the decarbonization of buildings, the decarbonization of the transport system, the development of the hydrogen economy and related areas. I'm also a professor in the school for public policy at Carleton University, specializing in long-term energy transitions and decarbonization.

Coming towards the end, I echo many of the comments made by the previous speakers. It's clear that we are in the midst of a global energy transition that has been gathering pace over the past couple of decades and will extend two, three, four and more decades into the future. It's a transition away from end-use fossil fuels, particularly in transport and buildings and in providing heat in industry.

Twenty years ago, you could be forgiven for thinking about the climate change issue as essentially an environmental issue—about preserving the climate and an environment that is conducive to human society, other species and so on. It's still an environmental issue, but today, from the point of view of a country like Canada, it's also an issue of industrial competitiveness and prosperity for the future generations of Canada.

All of our major competitors are heavily investing in the transformation of their energy systems, transport systems, electricity systems and industrial structure in order to move towards net-zero emissions around the turn of the century. Think about Germany, the U.K., France and of course the United States. Reference has already been made to the enormous investment that the U.S. is now undertaking under the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act. We're building a new energy economy. Prosperity and jobs over the next 20 to 30 years and beyond depend on whether Canada keeps pace and develops the new resources and economic investments that will allow us to prosper in a net-zero world.

One caution I would make is that we think about transitions as taking place very slowly. Actually, if you look at all of the big changes in technologies—the adoption of mobile telephones or moving from horse-drawn transport to the automobile—not much seems to change for multiple decades. Then you hit the upwards deep slope on the S-curve, and things change far more rapidly than people thought would happen.

Right now, decarbonization of electricity systems and uptake of electric vehicles are hitting that accelerated step, both in advanced countries and globally. For instance, IRENA, which is the International Renewable Energy Agency, had a report out yesterday that said the deployment of renewable energies over the past three years and the uptake of electric vehicles and batteries are now occurring so fast that it's meeting their projected model of achieving a 1.5-degree limit on global warming—that is to say, decarbonization—by mid-century. They are actually surprised this is happening.

Things look slow for a time, then speed up. Some of you may have seen this: On Sparks Street today, there is a show organized by Accelerate that has everything to do with electrification and hydrogen vehicles in Canada. Many promising models of where we're going to be moving, over the next few years, are there.

I would say that some companies and investments will survive and adapt in a net-zero world. Others that look very powerful and important today will be gone in 15 or 20 years. We need to ensure that the investments of the future are growing and that we don't cling to the economy of the past.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Meadowcroft.

We'll start our rounds of questioning with six minutes each. We'll start with Mr. Jeremy Patzer from the Conservative Party.

The floor is yours, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I offer congratulations on your appointment to the chair. I look forward to seeing how your time as the chair goes from here. Thank you once again for taking the position.

I'm going to start with Clean Energy Canada. We hear a lot about getting the last 14% of our grid clean, per se. You say we're at 84% and the Americans are only at 40%, which means we're already doing extremely well on this front. However, it's going to take a doubling of grid capacity at the very least—we've heard this from a few witnesses—to be able to do this last 15% to 16%.

We keep hearing everybody say this is what we have to do to get off fossil fuels or oil and gas or however you want to say it, but no one has ever actually said how we're going to accomplish it.

Maybe you can enlighten the committee on how we're actually going to provide that doubling of grid capacity in the next 12 years to meet that deadline of 2035.

[Rachel Doran]

Sure. Thank you so much for the question.

You've hit on two important things the grid needs to do in the near future, which are decarbonize and grow. There is a challenge there, which is why I think it's so essential that this committee and the government are thinking about all the tools in the tool box to try to make sure that's happening.

In my remarks, I referenced just what a competitive advantage this is. Certainly in modelling around trying to achieve a plausible pathway to net zero, we focus on a 2035 electricity grid because of the vehicles that are going to be plugging into the grid and because of the homes that are going to be fuelled by heat pumps. In looking at what Canada's path is, we are lucky in many provinces to benefit from a history of investment in hydroelectricity and other pieces that have provided a leg-up for certain jurisdictions.

Certainly the resource profile is not going to be the same in every jurisdiction in the country—

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

I'm sorry to cut you off. We have limited time here.

I'm trying to be a bit more specific. Historically, yes, we have benefited from things like hydro power. We're seeing investments in wind and solar. In Saskatchewan, solar doesn't even register 1%. It's actually 0.002% of grid capacity. Wind consistently runs at about 7%, and we had 191 megawatts of output on Monday, September 25.

Just today in Alberta, there are about 3.8 gigawatts of wind capacity, yet only 512 megawatts were produced. Alberta is actually the leader in wind power in this country and has the most capacity. It's been investing in it and building it for years, to the point where it's decommissioning farms that have been built. It's the same in Saskatchewan. Suncor actually built the first wind farm in my riding in Saskatchewan.

We still haven't heard which technology's going to be used to replace the coal that's being shuttered and the natural gas the government wants to eliminate. No one's bothered to say how we're going to replace that and what technology we're going to use.

I'm curious. If you could break it down quickly, what technology is going to have to be used and how many of each unit are we going to need to be able to meet the demand, which is going to be a doubling of the grid capacity?

[Rachel Doran]

My very brief answer is to start by maximizing renewables. Jurisdictions that have done that have seen a cost benefit. We can currently produce wind in Alberta, for example, at a lower cost than natural gas power.

Stability on the grid can be provided through a number of options, including increased investment in storage and interjurisdictional interties, so the batteries.... With jurisdictional profiles being different, your hydro in B.C. can be a battery for your wind in Alberta. Be creative about the distributed energy resources. All those electric vehicles that are going on the grid can be a battery in the future as we work through the details about relying on those at peak periods.

What we have to do is build out for the moment we need the most electricity on the grid, and through using some of these creative flexibilities, like household solar and interties, we're going to be able to build a lot less to still have the same power available for Canadians.

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

We're still going to need to double capacity. That doesn't tell us how we're going to double our capacity.

For example, again, hydro has been a fantastic thing for this country, but how many more hydro dams is it going to take to double our grid, and can we do that in 12 years? How many wind turbines is it going to take to double our grid?

I drive past all the new wind farms on my way to the airport every single week, and more times than not, there's not a single one of them producing power. It's going to be -30°C to -35°C in a couple of months, when people want to heat their homes, and during the summer it's +30°C or +35°C, and people want to cool their homes.

How are we going to be able to make sure that we have the actual base level of power we need? People don't want to rely on plugging their car into their house to heat their home when it's -35°C. We know of the issues EVs have when it's extremely cold out, and we happen to live in a country where that is a regular occurrence.

How are we realistically going to do this?

[Prof. James Meadowcroft]

You posed the question in terms of how we will double the grid in 12 years. There's no need to double the grid in 12 years. It's going to take 30 years or more to transfer all those end uses that are presently met by fossil fuels, or to transfer many of them—not all of them, because some will be met by hydrogen and other clean fuels—to the electricity grid, so you don't need to double the grid in 12 years. What you need is to decarbonize the grid over the next 12 to 15 years, or whatever it is, and incrementally add to it clean technologies.

Twenty years ago, the question you are posing would have been completely right on. Today we know the technologies that can do it, and there are other countries that have proven some of the ones that are not yet deployed in Canada. Storage, all the panoply of renewables.... We know how to make electricity without fossil fuels, and it's firm electricity.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Meadowcroft, thank you for providing that in-depth answer.

We'll now move to the next round of questioning, which is from Ms. Lapointe from the Liberal Party.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Doran.

It will come as no surprise that I, as the MP for Sudbury, will be asking questions about the role of critical minerals and their mining in a clean energy future. We know that energy technologies, such as renewable energy generation, require significant quantities of critical minerals.

The Inflation Reduction Act contains several clean energy tax incentives and funding. There are many, and it would seem that critical minerals are key to at least two incentives in that act. One is the advanced manufacturing production credit for equipment, including solar modules, wind energy components and battery cells. The other one is the clean electricity production credit, which pays producers for non-emitting electricity for each kilowatt hour they generate.

The U.S. will need Canada's critical minerals—we know that—for programs like the two I just mentioned. However, if we send all our mined minerals to the U.S. for processing, we're going to miss out on a massive economic opportunity for Canada, and I believe you mentioned that in your opening statement when you talked about focusing on the upstream side.

How can we leverage our natural resources in supporting the IRA while creating refining and supply chain systems for the EV batteries right here at home?

[Rachel Doran]

One of the key findings that we've heard from experts on the supply chain is the critical importance of industrial policy or strategy. Again, it's having Canada really lean in and figure out how to take best advantage in terms of the situation of its workforce and specific advantages and benefits to businesses seeking to work upstream.

That's not just the minerals themselves; it's the chemical processing of minerals and the many other steps before you get to the actual building of a battery cell, so it's making sure that Canada is strategically focused on keeping some of that activity in Canada so that we will no longer be the “hewers of wood and drawers of water”; it's the security of making sure that Canada is getting the best possible return on its investments.

We can certainly look at not only the tax credits that you've described but also at other strategic supports. I think Quebec has done a great job of providing some work at a provincial level to add a layer of strategy to how it will secure investments, how it will position workers and how it will make sure that industrial lands are ready for this kind of investment.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Earlier this month Joanna Kyriazis, your director of public affairs at Clean Energy Canada, made a statement in response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on production subsidies for Stellantis and Volkswagen. She said:

As the U.S. moves quickly to invest in, and capture benefits from, a booming North American battery industry, Canadian government support has been essential to keep pace with our most important trade partner. The clean energy transition is the economic opportunity of a generation and, as such, is a deeply competitive one. Canada has many natural advantages, from abundant mineral resources to a highly skilled labour force, and yet success will only be rewarded to those countries that work for it.

My question to you is this: How will the IRA affect the competitiveness of Canada's mining industry, especially with the IRA's focus on “buy American” policies?