Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 75 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

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

I'll be using these two lovely cards. This one is a 30-second warning for speakers, and the red card indicates that time is up.

Now, prior to proceeding with opening remarks, I'll go to Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to get some clarification. It's been four months since our committee passed a motion asking Mr. Jackson Wijaya to appear. There was discussion on whether we needed to issue a summons for him to appear. My understanding is that there were negotiations, but four months is a very long time.

We have been approached by Paper Excellence to go have drinks with them at the Métropolitain. We've been told that we can look at some of their documents. They've asked us to keep them all in confidence, and we've agreed to all of that. However, we have not had Mr. Wijaya.

We don't know how this company is structured. We don't know the relationship with Asia Pulp & Paper. We don't know the Sinar Mas group and whether it's a family business, but it holds massive holdings of Canadian equity right now.

I want to know whether or not a summons will need to be issued, whether Mr. Wijaya is willing to come or whether they've just decided that our committee is something that they're not paying attention to. I think it would send a very wrong message to the people of Canada if our committee is unable to finish this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'll ask that the clerk provide us with an update.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I followed up with Paper Excellence last week and was informed, in writing, on September 27 that it had declined the invitation for Mr. Wijaya to appear.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

To that end, Mr. Wijaya is in control of major Canadian resources, and he is declining to appear before our committee to explain how his company is structured. Is that what I just heard?

[The Clerk]

I received only a written confirmation that he has declined the invitation to appear.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I won't take any more time, but we will be issuing a summons, or asking the committee to consider a summons, because I think that is an absolute disrespect to Parliament and a slap in the face, particularly to people who are dependent on natural resource communities. We want to make sure that we have a good corporate partner and not one that thinks that it can just buy up assets and ignore us.

I will be putting forward a motion, and we can discuss it later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We'll now welcome the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.

From ARC Financial Corp., we have Peter Tertzakian, managing director. From Canadians for Nuclear Energy, we have Christopher Keefer, president. From the Canadian Nuclear Association, George Christidis, vice-president, government relations and international affairs, is with us. From the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, we have Fernando Melo, federal policy director. From Electricity Canada, we have Michael Powell, vice-president, government relations; and Terry Toner, senior fellow.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today.

Each witness has up to five minutes for an opening statement. We will begin with Mr. Tertzakian.

Welcome to the committee. You have the floor, sir.

[Peter Tertzakian, Managing Director, ARC Financial Corp.]

Thank you for the opportunity to present. I've been in the investment business, focused exclusively on energy, for almost 30 years. The lens I will present through is from the perspective of decision-makers who allocate investment capital, whether it's here or in the United States, Europe or abroad.

To set the stage, the job of a decision-maker in investing capital is to quantify the expected return of an investment—in other words, the amount of money to be made on that investment—and then to quantify the associated risk, or the probability that the return will be achieved. Assessing risk and return is the job of an investor.

I will go straight to my conclusions and recommendations. Canada is weakly competitive in attracting capital for clean energy and broad decarbonization. In fact, it is potentially more serious than that: Canadian investors of private capital lean toward financing American clean energy projects instead of domestic ones. In other words, Canadian capital is leaking to go finance American net-zero aspirations.

The root problem is not that our policies are necessarily financially inferior—in other words, the return side of the equation. It's that they are complex and dense and make it difficult for financial analysts, like me and others, to properly assess the risk. The solution lies in consolidating and simplifying our energy policies, not adding complex new ones to try to facilitate the goal of financing net zero by 2050.

I have spent the past five years working on how to quantify the risk of energy policies, from an investor's perspective, to finance any kind of energy project. My work has led me to the conclusions above, though the question of why sophisticated investors favour the United States over Canada is actually quite simple. Two quotes from famous investors come to mind, from Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch, respectively: “Never invest in a business you cannot understand” and, as Mr. Lynch said when talking about making an investment, “you ought to be able to explain why in simple language that a fifth grader could understand, and...won't get bored.”

Generally speaking, incentives for investing in decarbonization projects and clean energy under the U.S. IRA are simpler and straightforward, and there's greater clarity. For example, a solar panel manufacturer in the United States will be paid a simple payment for every kilowatt of capacity produced. A developer of carbon capture and sequestration projects receives a payment for every ton of carbon dioxide removed.

In Canada, incentives are generally tax-based, which makes them more complicated to model in a spreadsheet. Policies that have complicated, output-based performance systems and then surrogates and affiliated provincial-level policies just tend to make them very complicated to analyze. That's not to say that Canadian offerings are necessarily less lucrative, depending on the investment. They are just more difficult to understand, especially from a policy risk perspective.

However, the complexity of Canadian energy policies is amplified by what I call the layering, chaining and clashing of policies across energy systems. For example, carbon taxes for heavy emitters are layered with many layers of policy, often federal stacked on top of provincial. Then policies are chained. For example, a carbon tax on a producer of natural gas is chained with the spectre of emissions caps and looming clean electricity regulations on natural gas power plant operators that then go buy that natural gas. Again, there are many layers on top of the chained policies at federal and provincial levels.

That may provide satisfaction to those who want to heavily burden fossil fuel energy systems. However, the consequences spill over into confusion in the financing of clean energy projects that we want. Canadian policy architecture is such that it is based on heavy emitters financing clean energy projects through carbon markets, yet private investors are less likely to invest in clean energy projects here because of the uncertainty of carbon markets. Our carbon markets are fragmented in this country. They are opaque and difficult to understand. Volatility of carbon pricing can't be assessed by an investor because of the lack of trading data that is public. In Europe I can access carbon prices on my mobile phone. Canadian carbon prices are inside a series of black boxes. Investors don't invest in black boxes or anything that's dependent upon a black box.

Further, if an investor doesn't have confidence that there will be buyers of carbon credits for clean energy projects, then their default will be to not invest in that clean energy project, or their default will be to pass on a Canadian project and find an investment in another jurisdiction, like the United States, that's easier to understand and where there is perceptually less risk in that project.

I have been to many boardrooms in some of the biggest financial institutions and corporations in the country. The common refrain is “policy is the number one risk”, followed by “if I don't understand it, my default is not to invest”—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Tertzakian, if you could, please wrap up.

[Peter Tertzakian]

Density, complexity and opacity drive risk aversion and drive investment capital to jurisdictions where there's—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Tertzakian, I'm sorry to cut you off. We're just over the time. We can have our colleagues ask you some questions when the rounds start. Thank you for your introduction.

We will now move to Canadians for Nuclear Energy and Mr. Christopher Keefer, president, for five minutes.

[Dr. Christopher Keefer, President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy]

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Canada's response to the Inflation Reduction Act and why nuclear is essential to achieving a just transition for fossil fuel workers.

My name is Chris Keefer. I'm an ER doctor and president of the grassroots advocacy group Canadians for Nuclear Energy. Our organization led the campaign to refurbish the Pickering nuclear station, which will save over 3,000 unionized jobs in the green energy sector.

We find ourselves at an important historical moment. Canada is working out its response to the Inflation Reduction Act, which is mobilizing over $600 billion of climate action investments. Tied to these investments are provisions that attempt to ensure that the clean energy transition creates high-quality employment for displaced fossil fuel workers. These measures include prevailing wage legislation and incentives to use registered apprentices and a union workforce.

Why are these provisions necessary, and will they work? In the words of New York Times labour reporter Noam Scheiber, “the green economy is shaping up to look less like the industrial workplace that lifted workers into the middle class in the 20th century [and more like] an Amazon warehouse...grueling work schedules, few unions, middling wages and limited benefits”.

A University of Massachusetts study estimates that average salaries and benefits within the renewable energy sector are 36% lower than those within the fossil fuel industry. What explains these differences? Jim Harrison, the director of renewable energy for the Utility Workers Union of America, says, “It's a lot of transient work, work that is marginal, precarious and very difficult to...organize.” Two-thirds of jobs are low-skilled and most are non-union. This statement is backed by data. According to Statistics Canada, unionization rates in wind and solar are only 13%, compared with 54% in the fossil fuel industry and 84% in the nuclear industry.

Another challenge is the lack of domestic jobs in the wind and solar supply chain. According to data from the International Energy Agency, China controls every major stage of the wind and solar supply chain. For example, 97% of solar wafers and 79% of the world's polysilicon are produced in China, much of it using forced Uyghur labour in Xinjiang province, where the Canadian Parliament voted 266 to zero that a genocide of the Uyghur people was taking place.

The Inflation Reduction Act is attempting to reshore some of these industries and the resulting jobs, but can we subsidize these supply chains back to North America at scale? You can print money and offer tax credits, but you can't print the cheap coal-fired energy, forced Uyghur labour and lax environmental standards that give China a near-unassailable competitive advantage in the wind and solar supply chain.

The challenges are real, but there is a bright path forward for a made-in-Canada just transition, and it is nuclear. Ontario provides a fascinating case study of a clean energy transition without any sacrifice in income or benefits for energy workers. Our nuclear-powered coal phase-out began in 1973, when instead of continuing to build more massive coal stations, we turned to CANDU nuclear reactor technology and commissioned 20 large reactors in just 22 years, which today provide nearly 60% of Ontario's electricity carbon free. This resulted in a just transition for Ontario's coal workers, many of whom moved into higher-quality jobs in the nuclear industry, which has the highest unionization rate in the energy sector of 84%.

Beyond the power plants, Canadian nuclear boasts a hyperlocalized 96% made-in-Canada supply chain employing 76,000 people. This generates an unprecedented economic multiplier effect. There's a return of $1.40 in local economic activity for every dollar invested in CANDU nuclear.

If we are going to imitate the Inflation Reduction Act and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a clean energy transition, we have a choice to make. Do we spend that money right here at home in Canada on nuclear, the ultimate economic multiplier, or do we generate an epic trade deficit by sending money to a foreign supply chain and emerging geopolitical adversary?

The Inflation Reduction Act recognizes the vital role for nuclear energy. It provides a 30% investment tax credit for new nuclear projects and up to 50% if a nuclear plant is built on an existing industrial site and uses union labour and a domestic supply chain. Canada is following suit, albeit with a much more modest investment tax credit of 15%.

Beyond finance, what is the greatest barrier to Canada unleashing its nuclear potential? Ironically, Canada's burdensome environmental impact assessment process poses one of the greatest threats to our environment by delaying the construction of green energy infrastructure, such as new nuclear plants, which are vital to our climate response. This government has committed to net-zero electricity by 2035, yet the environmental impact assessment process is expected to take around seven years, or until 2030, to complete. This is clearly not in line with the urgency of the task at hand.

To be very brief, our recommendations are therefore to streamline the environmental impact assessment process for nuclear on brownfield and existing nuclear sites, and to match the American investment tax credit for nuclear, recognizing its unique economic multiplier effect.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. You're right on time.

We'll now go to Mr. George Christidis from the Canadian Nuclear Association.

You have five minutes.

[George Christidis, Vice-President, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you very much for this opportunity on this important conversation we're having today.

My name is George Christidis, and I am vice-president of government relations and international affairs at the Canadian Nuclear Association.

I would like to start off by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

To begin with, the CNA is a non-profit organization representing over 100 members across the nuclear industry, everything from nuclear utilities, uranium mining, suppliers and the supply chain. The Canadian nuclear industry employs over 76,000 Canadians in highly skilled jobs across the country.

Nuclear technologies are essential in Canada's economic and social economic development. It is clear from an international and domestic perspective that the transition to a clean energy system requires more nuclear. This increasingly includes the discussion of large nuclear technology, CANDU, as well as small modular reactors.

Canada’s nuclear industry is a strategic asset to attain clean energy transformation. There can be no transition to net zero without a role for nuclear industry or nuclear technologies. In Canada it's based on a proven track record with its CANDU technologies and supply chain that is second to none in terms of capability, safety and reliability. Canada’s nuclear industry is also a leader in nuclear waste management, and its efforts towards a long-term solution for nuclear waste of by-products are seen as a model in international forums.

Nuclear technologies provide a pathway for indigenous reconciliation, offering technological solutions and options for willing communities to consider as they look at their own plans for economic and social development.

Canada, the United States and other key countries have included nuclear in their clean climate policies as well as energy security goals. We applaud the efforts and encourage continued support for the nuclear industry that has been shown by the Canadian government. We specifically applaud the Canadian government's efforts of including the investment tax credit's nuclear definitions, as well as increasingly including nuclear in clean energy definitions.

Moving forward in terms of Canada, it's really about building out on this CANDU technology and the supply chain that is second to none and looking at building on the refurbishment in Ontario—$26 billion of CANDU refurbishment on major projects undertaken by Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power, which are on time and on budget.

The recently announced Canada-Romania $3-billion loan guarantee to support Romania’s climate and energy security needs is an example of the benefits that this technology can provide both domestically and internationally.

On SMRs, Canada has a very good story to tell. Ontario Power Generation is working with U.S. partners such as Tennessee Valley Authority and utilities overseas such as Synthos in Poland to look at SMRs as a viable option to reduce emissions and, again, enhance energy security.

There is an important relationship that builds on other parts of our nuclear supply chain, which includes uranium supply to the U.S.A. and other markets that are looking at delinking from Russian sources.

The recognition of the fact that Canada and the U.S. are both competitors but also complementary in terms of some of the policy areas has to be considered. Canada and the U.S. need to work more closely together. The Trudeau-Biden statement and the agreements made between the Department of Energy and NRCan are good foundational points that reflect this relationship.

Moving forward, we echo the statements made that we need to look at the regulatory regime as a means of accelerating the deployment of all clean energy technologies in order to meet climate goals as well as energy security goals, which include nuclear, both large and small.

We also recognize and encourage the further refinement of investment tax credits to reflect the principles of the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and, specifically, taking a look at the ITC as being broadly applied to Canadian supply chains so that it does not preclude access to other clean financing programs such as loan guarantees from the CIB and so that the ITC recognizes the complexity of the nuclear refurbishment programs and the way that they're essential as part of the clean energy transition and does not arbitrarily exclude projects set on set dates.

With that, I thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Christidis, for your opening.

We will now go to the Canadian Renewable Energy Association with Mr. Fernando Melo.

[Fernando Melo, Federal Policy Director, Canadian Renewable Energy Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, and thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Energy Association as part of this committee's study.

I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

CanREA is the voice for the wind energy, solar energy and energy storage solutions that will power Canada's energy future. Our 350-plus members are uniquely positioned to deliver clean, low-cost, reliable, flexible and scalable solutions for Canada's energy needs.

This committee's study is timely, as Finance Canada is wrapping up consultations on one of its key policy responses to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act: the clean technology investment tax credit. CanREA and its members are very optimistic about the opportunities this investment tax credit will create. This measure will allow companies, investing in a variety of low-carbon technologies, to recoup between 20% to 30% of their project capital costs as a refundable tax credit.

When the enabling legislation for this ITC is passed, it will rapidly accelerate the deployment of technologies like battery energy storage systems, wind and solar across Canada by strengthening the economics of these renewable energy projects.

These ITCs will not only accelerate the deployment of new renewable energy projects but they will provide real benefits for Canadian communities. This refundable tax credit will reduce deployment costs, allowing developers to pass along their savings, which should lower the price of electricity. The prevailing wage provision will also support the creation of good, well-paying jobs as turbines and panels are deployed in each and every province.

Perhaps the only thing these investment tax credits do not do well is support indigenous communities' efforts to develop renewable energy projects. We would encourage the Canadian government to remedy this. CanREA and its members have made reconciliation with indigenous peoples a priority, developing clean energy projects in partnership with first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities across Canada.

Utilities and system operators are also on board, requiring indigenous partnership and project ownership to participate in upcoming tenders. This is why Canada must include indigenous entities in the clean technology investment tax credit at the same rate as taxable entities. This is a simple legislative change that needs to be made.

We recognize that the federal government has stated it will include indigenous entities in the forthcoming clean electricity investment tax credit, which is valued at 10% to 15% of capital costs, but simply put, this is not equal treatment for our indigenous partners. It means indigenous communities cannot claim an ITC of equal value to that claimed by their taxable partners. This inability has created a serious concern that the ITCs will reduce indigenous opportunities to finance project participation with favourable terms. Unequal access to the ITCs for indigenous partners must be remedied if economic reconciliation and projects are to move forward.

Secondly, CanREA wants to stress the importance of investing in electricity transmission. The building of new projects, funded partially by this proposed ITC, will help to supply the increased demand for electricity associated with the electrification of more and more aspects of Canadian lives. Some studies suggest that electrification will result in electricity demand growing anywhere from two to three times by 2050. This new generation will need to be connected to the grid with new transmission lines, a potentially massive undertaking that could prove costly to the ratepayer.

While renewable generation is a low-cost option that may in many cases reduce the cost of electricity, long-term capital-intensive investments in transmission infrastructure may not have a similar downward pressure on electricity rates.

Given that the need for new transmission is likely to be accelerated by the demands of reaching net zero, we believe there is a role for the federal government to play in supporting these investments. We note that, in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act provides close to $4 billion U.S. in programs that support electricity transmission. Here in Canada, it is important that incentives, supporting the deployment of both interprovincial and intraprovincial transmission lines, are put in place so that more clean power can be connected to the grid.

It is for these reasons that CanREA recommends two modifications to the planned ITCs. First is to allow indigenous communities to access the clean technology investment tax credits, and the second is to provide incentives supporting the development of transmission lines across Canada.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We will now go to Electricity Canada with Michael Powell and Terry Toner.

[Michael Powell, Vice-President, Government Relations, Electricity Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to acknowledge that we're gathered on the territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Joining me, as the chair said, is my colleague Terry Toner, who is a senior fellow with Electricity Canada and joins us after 42 years at Nova Scotia Power.

We're an association whose members generate, transmit and distribute electricity in every province and territory. We do it with all kinds of power, and we have that relationship with the customer right up to the meter on the side of their house.

The next 20 years are going to be about how electricity drives emissions reductions across the economy. All told, as Fernando said, we're looking at needing two to three times as much power as we produce now by 2050. What will it take to do that? It's going to take all of the above. We're going to need more power of all kinds, more hydro, more renewables, more nuclear and more transmission and upgrades to the distribution system with innovative solutions.

How are we going to do it? To be successful, we have to get moving quickly, and we need the right mix of policy and regulatory tools to get building. The measures that were introduced in budget 2023 and in the fall economic statement in 2022 are a big step in the right direction and are part of the response. They are a recognition that there's a federal role to play in this. However, there's more work to be done to be sure these measures are as clear and predictable as promised, so that our members can get moving.

Let's talk a little bit about the investment tax credits. I will echo some of the things my colleagues have spoken about. We want to flag a couple of issues. We've made these comments to finance.

The first is that we think Canada should remove the jurisdictional net-zero requirement for the clean electricity investment tax credit. It risks slowing the access to supports for projects that are able to get ready today for reasons that are outside of proponents' control. If a project is clean and meets the work terms, it should be getting going.

Second, the government should ensure that there is equal treatment for equal technologies between the clean electricity and clean technology ITCs, with an aim to harmonize the level of support between the two.

Third, the clean electricity ITC supports transmission between provinces—interprovincial—but we think there's a need, as we build out, for additional transmission within provinces and there's a role for the ITC to include focused transmission within the provinces—intraprovincial—as well for key distribution improvements that allow for the modernization of the grid.

Finally, we want to make sure that worthwhile projects and projects that meet the definitions don't lose out on the value of the ITC for reasons beyond their control. The apprenticeship requirements under the labour provisions are an example of that. Canada's tough labour market means that there just might not be enough apprentices available—period. We recommend, as in the U.S. under the IRA, that there be a good-faith effort exemption to allow for this.

In terms of certainty, the budget talked about the role of carbon contracts for difference, which are a tool that offers policy certainty for investments over the long term, minimizing the “stroke of the pen” risk of changes in the future. It's important that those get moving very quickly to get things going.

Finally, after the financing, how do you actually get building on things? A few years ago, the World Bank ranked Canada 64th in terms of ease of spending and obtaining construction permits. This past year, we had Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors interview stakeholders from across the country to identify barriers to getting things built. They found five.

The first is that the planning process isn't aligned with the challenges at hand. The second is that there are overlapping regulatory and approval processes. There's also limited capacity with approval bodies and an ongoing shortage of skilled labour and access to capital.

To address these, we suggest that the government move forward with the “one project, one approval” framework as described in the budget, coordinate federal project permitting within a central government agency and not across however many budgets there are, and build regulatory capacity to deliver on net-zero goals.

Penultimately, I'd be remiss if I didn't quickly discuss the draft clean electricity regulations, which sit in the background as we think about building. As you know, we're still in the midst of the public comment period, and Electricity Canada will be submitting detailed comments. However, just at a high level, it's worth underlining that our members have not found that the regulations as drafted will be workable. There will need to be much more flexibility in the final regulations to allow for the affordable and reliable operation of the grid. Obviously, the draft isn't final, so there's work for us to do.

I'll conclude just by emphasizing that, in August, Minister Wilkinson announced the need for a Canadian electricity strategy. When our members are deciding to build a project, they look at everything, what's involved in the whole picture, as Peter talked about at the beginning. It's important, as we think about the government tools, that we take a similar approach and really focus on making sure we build a strategy that mixes all of these things so that when billions of dollars are invested in projects that could last half a century, we are a good fit there.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you to everybody for providing testimony to us today.

Before we begin the rounds of questions, I want to acknowledge Mr. Sheehan online, and the Honourable Marco Mendicino for joining us at committee today. Thank you.

For the first round, we'll go to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs, the floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me just say at the outset that I really wish each and every single one of you could have an entire day to talk about these things, although I suppose it should surprise no one that representatives of organizations for whom this is literally their expertise are actually concerned about the links between policies and real outcomes.

Also, all Canadians in every province and in every region care deeply about the environment, want to reduce emissions and also want to ensure they have reliable, stable, affordable, accessible energy for their daily needs while this country also accelerates and leads on clean tech and innovation. Given that fact, I just want to put a fine point on how important this discussion is and thank each and every one of you for being here.

Peter Tertzakian, I wonder if I could give you the opportunity to finish your concluding remarks. I would appreciate, for the benefit of all Canadians, everybody here on this committee and policy-makers, your expanding on the issues you were talking about, with layering, chaining and pancaking policy frameworks.

[Peter Tertzakian]

Thank you very much.

I come back to the notion that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication here, and that has to apply to our energy policy landscape if we're to have any hope of attracting enough investment to achieve our net zero by 2050 ambitions. We need to be able to attract investment, not actually have money leave this country to finance other countries' net-zero ambitions, which is what we are at risk of doing, and I would argue that is already happening.

Instead of layering more potential policies at both provincial and federal levels, we should be considering consolidating and simplifying the policies we have.

The proposed clean electricity regulations are an example of layering a carbon policy on top of an already complicated and opaque carbon policy, which is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I would ask you to ask yourselves why it is necessary to have two carbon policies stacked on top of each other, when we haven't given the base carbon pricing policy a chance to work. Why don't we just simplify the GGPPA, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, harmonize it with the provinces, and make the markets transparent and allow them to work?

I would conclude by saying that it's really imperative we get greater transparency in our carbon markets. The federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is governed by the CATS system. Recently I asked someone in my group to get a price history of carbon pricing. The answer we got back was, “Sorry, we can't give that to you.” What investor is going to be able to determine the volatility of carbon prices if the carbon trading prices are not available to analyze for volatility?

I'll be brief and end it there.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you. One does wonder.

One does also wonder how goals are going to be achieved in 11 years when it has taken more than 100 to get where we actually are. If we're honest about it, looking at requirements for the doubling or tripling of a grid with no answers about how it's going to be paid for and how that's actually all going to happen.... To that end, I do invite representatives of Electricity Canada, or anyone else who wants to, to expand on these issues relating to policy contradictions, layers, pancaking and any other barriers we ought to be alive to and remove for private sector performance to be able to achieve these stated policy aims.

We'll start with Electricity Canada and then anybody else who would like to add to that, please do.

[Michael Powell]

I'll just kick off by saying that there's.... I talked at the end about the need for a Canadian electricity strategy, a clean electricity strategy. If we look at the goals that we've set for ourselves in terms of electrifying other parts of the economy—buildings, cars, industrial processes—and how we build out the grid to support that, there are a lot of moving pieces all at once and we need to make sure we have the whole picture.

When we look at the supports that the government has provided, we have to make sure that they are there and that they are clear and predictable. We've made some suggestions about how they can move forward.

We have to look at how we can get building. We released a report earlier this year called “Build Things Faster”, which identifies some of those challenges, where the barriers are and how we make sure we have a clear set of rules.

Finally, our sector is 84% non-emitting right now. That hides differences between regions. We've reduced emissions by more than half since 2005, more than any other sector in Canada in all of Canada's emissions reductions to date.

I think we just need to make sure that we're focused on building out and building on that success to drive reductions elsewhere in the economy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

In 20 seconds, can I just urge each and every one of you to also continue to contribute to this conversation but to make sure that you submit substantive written submissions for all of these points, because it's so critical for public policy-makers and the politicians who make these promises and targets to actually be able to show you how it will be delivered to all Canadians. Please do submit written material after.

I'm sorry, Chair. Thanks for your indulgence.