Natural Resources Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll add to the remarks of MP Stubbs that we are in a world of trouble when elected representatives like Mrs. Stubbs don't understand the difference between a point of order and debate and perhaps have not brushed up on procedure in committee.

Moving on from that and getting back to what I was saying, I don't see—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

MP Schiefke, we have another point of order, so I'm going to ask you to pause once again.

Go ahead, MP Stubbs, on a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. Thanks for the hot tip.

I'm quite confident that the people of Lakeland will give a verdict on my work and probably aren't quite as concerned about navel-gazing obsessions with our rules in rooms like this. My constituents are also watching this abysmal waste of time and tax dollars in this display today.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that point of order.

I will go back to you, MP Schiefke, for about 90 seconds.

MP Schiefke, you will have the opportunity to continue on if you have further commentary at our next meeting. I'll turn it back over to you.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Mrs. Stubbs brought up an interesting point, Chair, and that is this: Why don't we just ask the witnesses to provide written testimony?

That does not allow for information to be presented and for follow-up or new questions to be developed. That just happened in the previous meeting. I had questions I referred to that were submitted to me by several of my mayors as well as ones that I drafted, but then there was a witness in the previous meeting who spoke to a lack of capacity to build transition lines across the country—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

MP Schiefke, we have a point of order, so I'll ask you to pause there.

Go ahead, MP Angus, on a point of order.

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

Thank you so much.

I didn't want to interrupt his discourse, but it is 5:30. I know that he has the floor to continue the filibuster when we come back on Thursday, but who else is on the list? At some point, I would like us to get to a vote, so I am trying to get a sense of Thursday and what we're looking at in terms of how the Liberal filibuster is going to continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have two more members after Mr. Schiefke currently on the list on the amendment. Others may put their hands up next meeting. I'm not sure, but we'll see next meeting.

MP Schiefke, you have the floor, and we will continue with you at the next meeting. We are at 5:30, so we will suspend.

Thank you.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:30 p.m., Monday, May 27]

[The meeting resumed at 3:36 p.m., Thursday, May 30]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order. Welcome.

We are resuming meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Before we begin, I would like to ask members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidance to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black,approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker on the table for this purpose.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Here are some Zoom reminders. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

We are resuming debate on the motion by Mr. Angus and on the amendment by Ms. Stubbs.

I have an established speaking order from last day.

Mr. Angus, I see that you're online and that your hand is up. I will put you on the speaking order.

We will begin today's speaking order with MP Schiefke.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to conclude what I wanted to share with the committee at the previous meeting when we ran out of time.

I had my last two points, Chair, that I wanted to add.

One of the reasons the study we were working on before this motion was presented is so important for my community is the aspect of the discussion that we were having and were going to have regarding the electricity grid across the country, but more specifically, in our case, the resiliency of that grid—what exists and what needs to be put in place to meet the energy needs of not just Canadians today but also future generations of Canadians, and to make that transition to a greener, less carbon-intensive economy.

The reason that's important for my community and the reason I truly want to conclude the study we're on first and foremost before we move on to any other business—unless it truly is about the safety and security of Canadians, at which point perhaps I would have a different approach—is that the study we're on, at least for members of my community, is about their safety and security.

Since 2017—so in the last seven years, Chair—my community has experienced two once-in-a-century floods, one in 2017 and then again in 2019, in response to which our armed forces were asked to come to the aid of my citizens, to remove them from their homes and to put in place sand walls to protect their homes and to protect critical infrastructure from the rising water.

That was in 2017 and 2019, and then, Chair, a couple of years later, just last year, we had an ice storm that caused a blackout across Quebec and southeastern Ontario and that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers' losing power.

My honourable colleague Mr. Simard remembers that, I'm sure.

In my community, tens of thousands of people had no access to power. To compound that, as elected representatives—and I referenced this in the previous meeting, Chair—because the power went out and knocked out all of the transformers and all of the distribution lines for telecommunications at the same time, we couldn't even communicate with each other. I couldn't communicate with my provincial representatives, who couldn't communicate with the 13 mayors who make up my community. We couldn't coordinate our response.

A role that I had taken very seriously was using my social media platforms to help share what the mayors were doing, which community centres were being opened, etc., and I wasn't even able to do that.

It got to the point—and my team will remember this well—where every day for four days, I drove to Ottawa, just so I could have telecommunications, so that I wouldn't be the cause of a breakdown in communications with my fellow elected representatives. I would drive into Ottawa in the morning, spend the day trying to communicate with my elected representatives and then drive back home to be with my family overnight to make sure they were protected because we didn't have power overnight either.

For me, the important aspect of this discussion is what we need to do to Canada's electrical grid right now to make it more resilient, to ensure that whatever we are investing in not only looks to the future but also addresses the challenges that communities like my community, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, are facing right now.

Continuing the study we are on is paramount to me. I've said publicly—and I stated this three or four times in the previous meeting—that I am looking forward to doing the study that was put forward by Mr. Angus. When that time comes, I look forward to embarking on that debate and to asking important questions on behalf of my community, but to me, as a representative for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, one is paramount to the safety and security of my community, and one is not.

The second point I want to address before I turn the floor over to the next speaker, is the economic benefits of that transition, of those investments that need to come and that are going to come in the next-generation electricity grid that we need to put in place and the next generation of clean energy that we need to put in place.

I feel that in that regard Quebec is a leader. Not only has Quebec been blessed with an abundance of hydroelectricity, which makes our electricity the cleanest in the world and which is why companies are coming here to establish their factories and businesses, whether it's the cleanest aluminum produced in the world, battery manufacturing plants or mining....

They're setting up here because they know that to produce whatever they're going to produce and to be able to trade with our American and European counterparts, which are all putting in place stringent measures to ensure the products they're producing are as green as they can possibly be and requiring imports in the future to be the same.... Quebec is not just resting on that but is looking for ways to build on that and maximize that access to the cleanest electricity that exists in the world.

An example of that is the analysis that was done of transitioning to green technology. The Quebec government said that we have the capacity to produce certain things and we don't have the capacity to produce other things. For the things that we can't produce, how can we build that in-house capacity to build what we need to build here to reach our carbon targets and make sure we continue to be one of the greenest places to produce electricity and to produce goods and then sell those goods in the market?

A good example of that, Mr. Simard, I'm sure, is—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Schiefke, I will ask you to pause for a moment. We have a point of order from Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I'd just like to acknowledge that Mr. Maloney has joined our committee. He was the former chair of this committee six years ago when we did a study on exactly what Mr. Schiefke is asking for. It was on electrical interchanges and interties.

I'm hoping he's on the speakers list, Mr. Chair, because I'd love to get an update from Mr. Maloney as to exactly what has been done by this Liberal government since the last study.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I can tell you on the point of order, just to clarify, that the study is on Canada's electricity grid, not on interchanges and interties. There's a bit of a difference there, but I appreciate, on your point of order, that if Mr. Maloney wants to participate, he has the opportunity to do so.

I am going to go back to Mr. Schiefke because he's been patiently waiting to continue with his debate.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm here to listen to him.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair. It's much appreciated.

Continuing with what I was saying, there are economic opportunities here that can benefit every single one of our ridings across the country in every single province and territory.

A great example of maximizing the benefits of a green economy is Quebec. Quebec looked at the entire board and said, “In addition to the fact that we have one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world, how can we also put in place the manufacturing capacity to build all of the other components that we need to build to be able to have a zero-emissions transport sector, a zero-emissions industrial sector?” A good example that I was about to share is Lion Électrique.

This is a $100-million investment we made in collaboration with the Government of Quebec. We found that there was a shortage of entirely electric school buses and that they were being produced elsewhere.

Quebec said that they could produce them. The federal government and the Province of Quebec each invested $50 million to produce clean energy school buses, which my children take every morning to go to school. That created thousands of well-paid jobs in Quebec. There's one example for us. Why can't it be followed elsewhere in the country?

In the last meeting before my NDP colleague had put forward this motion, the testimony that was given stated that Canada is at the will and the whim of the international capacity to build transmission lines, and apparently the backlog, according to the witness, was several years. In addition to our willingness to invest and make that transition, we also have to look at the challenge that exists internationally about getting the products necessary to put in place the equipment necessary to make that transition and to build projects like the one that we're looking to build and, hopefully, are going to build in Atlantic Canada to bring clean electricity to Atlantic Canadian provinces.

These are opportunities that are on the table right now where, if we have the opportunity to ask these experts, we can get that testimony and determine this is an opportunity for us. If the world can't build it for us, maybe we can invest to build in-house, creating thousands of well-paying jobs while also making the transition to a cleaner electricity grid and one—as I said, this is important to my community—that is more resilient.

I am hopeful we can continue the study that we're on, although, based on the remarks that have been shared by my Conservative, Bloc and NDP colleagues, it looks like that will not be the case, and it's unfortunate. However, I felt it necessary to at least explain why, for the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, continuing on the study we embarked on, which looks at the electricity grid of tomorrow from a sustainability standpoint, from an economic opportunity standpoint and from a resiliency standpoint, is more important to us and is one that I think we should continue on and not delay.

With that, Chair and colleagues, thank you for your patience in allowing me to share with you why this is important for me.

I turn the floor over to the next speaker.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, MP Schiefke.

If you do have more to add later on, feel free to raise your hand and I will put you on the list. That was an enlightening intervention on your communities. I'm glad I learned more about the challenges of electricity, and you brought that information to committee.

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, you are next and you have the floor.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I really appreciate everything I've heard from my colleagues. Mr. Jowhari had quite a bit to share. I know the reason he joined this committee, in fact, is that he has a deep interest in this study about electricity, so it's wonderful to have him here. I know he has hosted meetings and been particularly engaged on this file. It was interesting to hear his perspective on it, and also to hear about the deeply local impact of what we're talking about. Sometimes we spend a lot of time focusing on the national and bigger picture. To hear how this issue has such a deep impact on local communities, like Mr. Schiefke said, is a very helpful point.

I'm going to remind everyone here that I support the motion brought by Mr. Angus. I believe I can say that on behalf of all of my colleagues here. We're happy to go ahead with that motion. The question we're debating today is the amendment that was proposed by the Conservatives: that we, after having prepared for this study on electricity and having invited witnesses.... In fact, just last week, when we had witnesses here, they weren't able to complete the testimony they were here to give. We cut them short because of this motion, which is deeply unfortunate. I always feel so terrible when we have witnesses come who prepare, take time out of their day to be here and share their knowledge with us, but get side-swiped.

I really wish there had been a way for the motion and amendment to have been brought at the end of that day, so we could have heard from those witnesses. I believe everyone here has said they're good to bring that panel back. I would say that's a great idea. We should bring them back at the first moment possible. Again, we committed to the study. It's a study everyone around this table who's a member of the committee agreed to do. We prepared to do it, so why not do that? Then we can get to the study that was brought by Mr Angus.

I will add, though, that there will be some amendments. I said this in the first instance when I spoke. There are some amendments we'll be proposing, particularly around making sure communities' voices are heard on Mr Angus's study. That's jumping ahead. It's putting the cart before the horse, to some extent. Right now, we're still debating the amendment brought by the Conservatives that says, “That's it. Pens down. We can't continue the study on clean electricity that you are ready to do. We're going to jump ahead to this new study.” It's a bit like watching some video games—the fast movement of things, where suddenly you have to change over to a new station.

I feel this electricity study we embarked upon is critically important in this moment for our country. It's timely. There is no time like now to get started on it. This is an issue that is so important to communities right across the country. It goes to the energy needs of the future of our country, and I will talk to you a bit about that. It goes to employment issues in our country and job possibilities. I'll also be happy to expand a bit more on that. It goes to the need to plan. If we push it off, we're losing some precious time. We, as a committee, could have some input into that planning for clean electricity. On that, I can't see why we wouldn't want to seize the opportunity now and make sure we can help in that planning process.

That's one of the things I treasure about committees. They give parliamentarians from all parties an opportunity to hear from witnesses and test what we hear by asking questions. They give us an opportunity to hear from each other. I often say, in my own community, that there are two bubbles. Absolutely, there's an Ottawa bubble, where we hear what we hear. You have to go back to your local communities to hear what people on the ground are thinking and caring about, and their needs.

I'll add one more piece. There is also sometimes a bubble in our own communities. We come to Ottawa and we get to hear from each other about how things translate differently in different parts of the country. I think that's one thing we can forget. We have a very large country. We have a beautiful country, but our experiences are different from coast to coast to coast. I treasure, when I'm here, that I get the opportunity to hear from people and to learn more about their communities.

When we're talking about this issue—we embarked upon our study on electricity—that looks different. How are we going to manage these changes, the increased needs for electricity? How do we get to a net-zero grid? How do we support each other across different provinces and territories? This brings in that very regional experience that is very important to all of us.

If we're looking at the timeline, I believe the last time we met, Mr. Jowhari was talking about 25 years as a running timeline for what we're looking at. Mr. Angus, I think, questioned that—at least that was the way I understood it. Isn't 25 years a long time? So what's the rush?

In fact, when I talk with people in the industry about electricity, 25 years is not that long. There are many different reasons for that, but if I were going to use an example, permitting aside, just the construction time for many of these projects is really quite long. You don't build different electricity projects just like that.

One example is that of the Site C dam in B.C. Construction began in the summer of 2015. That's the construction date. I'm not talking about permitting timelines; I'm talking about when they began construction. The completion date is now 2025. That's 10 years for the construction of a project. That gives you an idea.

A twenty-five-year window, when you're talking about hearing from all of the experts about what the needs are, what it's going to look like.... Hydroelectricity, obviously, doesn't work in every part of our country. Different needs and different forms of energy are going to have to be looked at. Even once that plan is laid out, there will be the time working with local communities and stakeholders to get their input. Then there's the part about permits, and then finally construction. It's really important to take into account that none of these projects turns on a dime and happens very quickly.

I would say that when we look at what different people are saying about the need to plan ahead.... In fact, Bruce Power is a very important source of power in Ontario. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nuclear is what helped Ontario move from coal-fired electricity to a cleaner form of electricity. That made huge changes. We're talking about health implications. We're talking about emissions implications. It got rid of our smog days. It was a big change. That didn't happen overnight.

Bruce Power was saying that nuclear refurbishment projects require meticulous planning and coordination. These are multi-year projects that demand precision and thoroughness to ensure safety and efficiency. We must take the time to plan every detail to deliver clean, reliable power for decades to come.

Again, to that point, we could push this study off for years, but the time is now if we're talking about how we make sure we're planning for an electrical system that's going to be well thought out and that's going to provide us the clean electricity we need. There's no question that we're going to need a lot more clean electricity. It's, in fact, where the world is moving.

I was looking at this really interesting study by the International Energy Agency. They put out a study called “Strategies for Affordable and Fair Clean Energy Transitions”.

I find that to be an interesting perspective. I was talking about coast to coast to coast, but it's not just our country that's looking at how to get to clean electricity. In fact, the world is looking at these issues and what the energy needs will be. One great thing for our economy—I can touch on that a little more in a bit—is that Canada is already ahead of the curve. This is something we should all be proud of. Ontario, having made that switch from coal-fired electricity, is a big example of how we got there. By numbers, if I have it correctly, I believe we're already at about 84% clean electricity here in Canada. Hydro in Quebec is a big piece of that. We've already seen a massive transition across our electricity grid that puts us ahead of a lot of other countries across the world. It's the last 16% we have to plan for. That's the hardest 16% for us to get to. When we look around, the world is going in that direction.

I was looking at the letter written, as part of the special report, by Dr. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency. In that opening letter, he writes the following:

As we consider the energy technology pathways available for communities and countries worldwide, it is essential to keep in mind that many of the clean and efficient choices are also the most cost-effective ones—typically because they require much lower day-to-day spending on fuels to operate. Putting the world on track to reach net zero emissions by 2050 requires additional investment but also reduces the operating costs of the global energy system by more than half over the next decade compared with a trajectory based on today's policy settings, this special report shows.

Really, it's also a very important piece about how, if we care about affordability.... I know all the members around this table should care about affordability. Certainly, that's something that gets raised by people in my community. They care about clean environment and looking after emissions, but they also care about energy affordability. In fact, the things we're talking about are questions we could have asked those witnesses who came to us and who, unfortunately, we were unable to hear from. These are witnesses we can still call and should call. We had planned to call them. Those witnesses would be able to talk to us about the planning required and energy affordability.

In fact, I was able to ask some questions about that already. We were already starting to get some of those important insights. Those are the insights the people in our communities want to hear about—what we need to do to get to a clean electrical grid, what we need to do to have a reliable electrical grid, and what we need to do to have an affordable electrical grid. It's good to put it in context. This isn't something that's happening just in Canada. It's happening around the world, and it's something that has potential to bring cost savings to Canadians. Why we would put off those cost savings, I'm not sure. I'm not sure why we would put off saving money on electricity bills and energy bills for Canadians, but apparently that's where we're at—putting it on hold and going to another study now.

The other piece that came to my mind when I was reflecting on why it's so important we do this now is on planning for the employment needs of Canada's electricity future. We don't pause and think about it enough. When we bring in our next set of witnesses, I'm going to want to hear more from them about that very issue. At this committee, we had the sustainable jobs bill. It was a bill that I thought Mr. Angus was very much in support of.

I'm surprised that he wouldn't want to seize this opportunity here for us to talk more about the sustainable jobs that come along with a clean electrical grid and about all of the work that's being done by the people who could come here as witnesses to talk to us about it. I thought that would be something of very great interest. I know that I'm interested in it. If I could, I'll give an example again.

Just recently, to show the forward thinking that we must have and the kinds of changes that are coming, on International Women's Day, March 8, I went to a graduation. It was a very special graduation, because for the first time it was a graduating class of women millwrights—only women.

It was specifically a program that was targeted to ensuring that women have the opportunity to get these new clean jobs of the future. They traditionally have been under-represented, in this case in millwrighting, but in many different skilled trades women are under-represented still to this day. This was a program where OPG, along with the millwrights, took that moment, and in a very thoughtful approach, said, “How are we going to do better?”

These are clean sustainable jobs of the future.

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

I have a point of order.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

How do we make sure that we create those opportunities?

This graduating class was a project that was done alongside Ontario Power Generation.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, please go ahead on your point of order.

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

I'm sorry. I know everybody was so fascinated by the talk of International Women's Day that people might have dozed off for a second.

We're talking about the TMX pipeline.

I'm just asking Ms. Dabrusin, out of respect, whether she is going to talk out the clock until 5:30. I might need a sandwich or something. If she's ragging the puck, I'm fine with that. She can rag the puck until the end of June. We're not going to go away from this.

I'd just like her to maybe indicate whether or not we have to keep paying attention to her interesting commentary on International Women's Day and cellphones.... It was her previous colleague with cellphones, I think, and buses, you know...all that stuff. Are they doing this until 5:30 and then in the next meeting and the next meeting? It doesn't matter to me. I just would like to get a sense of it.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

On your point of order, procedurally Ms. Dabrusin does have the floor and can debate as she wishes, obviously relating it back to the discussion we're having on the motion that's presented, but on the rationale on the amendment and on why the study is important and in what order.

Ms. Dabrusin, I'll turn it back to you to continue.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Angus for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to clarify exactly what the point is that I've been making. He's free to grab a sandwich while I talk to him about that. It's not about his study—which, again, I support. It's about the fact that there is an amendment proposed that means we don't get to go ahead with a study we were engaged in, which our committee had agreed to do and already begun to call witnesses on. I am speaking about that amendment. I'm very open if Mr. Angus would like to tell me he will help me in convincing the members opposite to drop that amendment. We can then adopt his motion. Like I said, I have some amendments to propose. I don't think they'll be very controversial. Then we could adopt that motion. We could complete the electricity study and move on to his. In fact, that would be a faster way to go about things.

As far as I know, unless he and the members opposite are willing to give me a thumbs-up that the amendment is being dropped, I need to explain, in very clear detail, why it's so important we deal with clean electricity in an urgent way. I looked around. I appreciate, Mr. Chair, that you looked around the table to see if there was a thumbs-up. I didn't see buy-in to drop the amendment, so it looks like we'll continue to keep trying to encourage the members opposite to think about why we should be working on this electricity study, not bumping it forever into the future. We should be proceeding with the electricity study now, because these issues are important.

I believe I left off with the graduation of a class of women millwrights for Ontario Power Generation. The reason I raised it is that it goes to some of the forward thinking and planning happening now regarding sustainable jobs and employment in the electricity sector and how we're making sure we're prepared for the changes coming to that sector, so Canadians are able to seize those job opportunities—even better, how we make sure under-represented groups in many of these Canadian trades have those opportunities and seize them.

What was great about this graduating class of women millwrights—it was quite a lovely graduation at Ontario Power Generation—was that all those women got a job at the Darlington refurbishment immediately upon graduation. In fact, in order to make sure they were best supported, they put them on shifts so they would be working as a group that could be supported together. I'll have to give a big shout-out to the millwrights for providing that kind of supportive environment. I think it's a good enough way of coordinating that program so it provides a bit of a framework for the future, in terms of what that could look like.

Again, Mr. Angus has shown very strong interest in sustainable jobs and in supporting our unions to make sure they have a seat at the table in planning for those sustainable jobs. This is a very good example of that. It's a good example of the power of unions and supporting skilled trades so they can get that planning done for the sustainable jobs of the future. That's why I wanted to highlight it as one of those great examples I have seen in the community in Ontario, which is my home province.

What I found really interesting too, because we're talking about it, is that Electricity Human Resources Canada—and I hope we're able to hear from them—did an entire study specifically on the issue of the employment needs we'll be facing in the electricity industry going forward and the planning we'll have to do. Why is it important that we do this study now and start looking at the labour force and supply chain needs? What are the impacts of delay and the different decisions we could make?

I was looking through their study, and as an opening piece, I thought it would be really helpful, to put some context to this, to read a message from Electricity Human Resources Canada and Ontario Power Generation. They say:

Our sector employs more than 110,000 people across Canada who are responsible for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Vast teams of skilled workers are there for Canadians 24/7 in communities nation-wide—keeping millions of homes and businesses powered up.

I think that very much goes to the point raised by Mr. Schiefke. These are the workers who make sure we have electricity and energy in our homes and through different crises we face in different moments. They're talking about those jobs as we go forward.

They go on to say:

However, Canada's electricity sector is experiencing change on an unprecedented scale. Decarbonization and expansion of electrification initiatives are driving investments for clean, affordable and reliable energy to address climate change for a healthier planet. New technologies for smart homes and smart cities, electrical vehicle integration, small modular reactors (SMRs), and the increasing need for energy efficiency and energy storage are all factors that are reshaping how we generate, deliver, and use electricity.

By the way, all of those are things we could be asking witnesses about and studying—the impact of these new technologies, energy efficiency and how they are “reshaping how we generate, deliver, and use electricity.” That's what I'd like to know and that's what I would like to ask witnesses about. Unfortunately, right now it looks like that study will be bumped and we won't get answers to those questions.

They go on to say:

As we work to reduce climate change emissions, there will be a tremendous impact on the labour market for Canada's electricity sector. This transformation will require workers with different skill sets and new knowledge—many more than are employed currently—as new priorities on clean growth and electrification change the human resources landscape.

The two key drivers of total workforce demand are retirements, followed closely by growth in the sector, which currently outpaces the broader Canadian economy.

I'd like to pause on that for a moment, because it's quite a bit to say that the “growth in the sector...outpaces the broader Canadian economy.” That gives you a sense of the breadth of what we're talking about here. We're talking about some very big, momentous changes that are happening in electricity. I really look forward to hearing witnesses talk about that.

They go on to say, “Currently in our sector the number of veteran workers outnumbers youth by a multiple of three to one.” Let me repeat that. They say that one of the key drivers for workforce demand is retirements. Veteran workers outnumber youth “by a multiple of three to one”, and that's quite the number for us to keep an eye on.

They also say:

Further, with technology changes in the industry, layering digital on top of analog, and integrating more data for decision-making in a context of an increasingly destabilized geopolitical world—the role of information communications technology continues to grow and competition for these workers will be intense.

This is a key part, because I was talking about why now is the time to do the study and how important it is that we do the study now rather than push it off.

They say:

The lead time to create or adjust education and training courses is often significant. Indeed, it takes detailed knowledge of the current labour market context and training curricula grounded in competency requirements of industry to adequately adjust educational offerings on a regional, and national level. While historical occupations in the sector are well-established, new growth roles, particularly in renewable occupations, require better alignment with industry needs – and more capacity to turn out qualified applicants.

That goes to the point I've been saying, which is that there are big changes afoot. Frankly, they're happening regardless. We have a choice of whether we want to be part of the planning for that and whether we want to be part of making sure that we have a say on behalf of all of our communities in how that looks, how we make sure people in our communities have those opportunities and how we can make sure we have the right plans in place.

They go through this piece, and then they say:

Realizing a net zero future will require a coordinated effort. It has never been more important for industry, labour, post-secondary, and policymakers—

That would be us.

—to look at how we regulate, approve, build, operate and maintain our electricity system.

Their report focuses on one piece of that:

This report focuses on the people who will ensure the continued reliability and stability of Canada's electricity sector while supporting environmental progress and sustainability in the 21st century.

I feel that there's more we can think about and speak about when it comes to that issue, but I think it's important to put a pin in that for all of us to think about: What is the importance of taking a moment for planning and really thinking about how this goes?

We could be bringing in these experts. I'll keep saying it: We have an opportunity. We could be bringing in experts to speak with us, but if this amendment goes through, we don't get that opportunity, and that would be unfortunate.

I'm going to go into that piece a bit more, but before I do, I was taken by something that was raised. I think it was Mr. Patzer, but I could be wrong, who said that we haven't been doing anything. I think what we have been doing on electricity even came up today, and the answer to that is that so much has been done on electricity.