Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau]

Let's keep things in perspective. Over the past 50 years, electricity has been growing worldwide. The electrification of our societies is unprecedented. Electricity is the fastest‑growing form of energy when we look at all the forms of energy used by consumers. A modern society needs electricity.

You spoke about artificial intelligence. Electricity will power artificial intelligence, which will increasingly fuel the services that we need. It won't just be electricity. We need heat. In many cases, heat will be better supplied by other sources or by electrotechnology.

Electrification is happening, whether we like it or not. Electrification is a basic trend in every society. We can speed it up for the energy transition, but it will happen anyway. Electrotechnology is generally superior to combustion technology.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. That's time.

Also, the member asked if there is enough energy to support electrification goals with regard to AI. If you do have that answer, I'd encourage you to share it later in the meeting or by following up in writing.

Now, we'll move on to the next questioner.

Mr. Danko, you have five minutes.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really appreciate this discussion this morning.

Mr. Pineau, I think it was you who just said that societies are electrifying to an unprecedented degree. When I look at modern homes being built in Canada, that includes charging infrastructure for an EV, a heat pump for heating and cooling, a stove and oven that are electric or induction, a heat pump dryer and a heat pump water heater. Then, tack onto that the electrification of industrial processes, such as electric arc furnaces, steel production and, as was mentioned, data centres and AI.

I think you've already said that this is a global trend, but I just wanted to be clear on the record that this is not an ideological choice. Societies around the world are moving this way because these technologies are better, cheaper and more efficient.

Could you offer some comment on that?

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau]

Yes. Absolutely.

A modern society relies on electricity for an increasing number of activities. Again, that's not an ideology. That's a fact. When you look at the share of electricity consumption around the world, electricity has been growing for the last 50 years. This was even before anyone was starting to talk about climate change and the need to decarbonize. Electricity is extremely efficient. That's why societies have increasingly been adopting electricity. That's why we should continue to move toward further electrification.

To gain productivity and to basically grow the economy, we will need more electricity and more generation. It will be hard to build, because there is a lot of public resistance to new facilities. The costs are also important. We need to realize that the costs of increasing the infrastructure will be significant. There will also be some public resistance over transmission lines or nuclear power plants or wind farms or solar farms.

That's why, again, we should look at every electron we're consuming: Is it the most efficient way to use our electricity? In Canada, we're very fortunate to be so inefficient, because we can grow our supply within our current consumption. Because we benefit from such a high level of inefficiency, we can reduce our consumption in many sectors in a way that is productive and that will avoid constructing more infrastructure, although we will still need more infrastructure in the future.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Mousseau, you spoke about the counterelectrification movement. We've certainly seen that in the United States, where the Trump administration has been anti-EV and has been all in on fossil fuels. We're seeing echoes of that here in Canada as well. I'm wondering if you can comment on where that leads in global competitiveness, if western democracies are resisting electrification. Where does that leave us from a competitive standpoint globally?

[Normand Mousseau]

In fact, contrary to what my colleague said, in Canada the share of electricity in total energy demand has not increased over the last 20 or 30 years. We are at 20%. If you go to China, it has moved from 15% to 32% in the last 20 years. That means China is using more electricity technology than Canada and in a more diverse way. We're still using largely the same technology we were using 30 years ago in Canada. In industry, of course there's a bit more use of heat pumps, but natural gas is still dominating in heating in a lot of places in Canada. Industry has not electrified as massively as in other countries.

Electrification is also a way of automatizing, of making better products and of making better use of energy. Electricity is much more efficient than gas or petrol, just by its thermodynamic nature. That's where we are lacking in Canada. We have not taken over the technologies at the right scale. Canada is not moving forward. In that sense, we're very close to the U.S. If you look at EVs, there's been a large pullback in Canada, very similar to what we see in the U.S.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

My last question—and maybe you can send that in a brief—is whether we should be burning fossil fuels to generate electricity or whether it's more productive, as the rest of the world is going, to use nuclear, wind, solar, battery storage, etc.

Thank you.

[Normand Mousseau]

I would say that the technology is going down in price with regard to wind, solar and storage, so we should certainly move there. If we need electricity in the short term, we might burn some gas to be able to move forward in the technology, but we have to understand that this is the end of the line.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. The time is over.

Hopefully, you'll have a chance to expand further.

Our next questioner will have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have much time. However, I would like to ask the witnesses for their thoughts on the recommendations that will appear in the report.

Again, I don't want to put words in your mouths. I gather from your comments that the government shouldn't be investing in oil and gas infrastructure. If the private sector wants to do so, that's fine. The government should instead focus its efforts on modern technology that may align better with current developments in Europe and China.

If you had to make a recommendation, what would it look like? Would it revolve around this?

[Normand Mousseau]

It's not so much a matter of building or importing more technology, but of building Canadian capacity and competitiveness. These investments, this support or these strategies should be seen as a way to improve Canada's productivity and competitiveness by modernizing our use of energy.

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau]

I put a lot of emphasis on productivity. Canada has to become more productive, which will enable it to position itself well, to position its economy well. Any pressure we can put on improving productivity will spur innovation. We must therefore continue to support research, development, experimentation and innovation.

However, we have to look at the big picture. We have to make sure that all entrepreneurs take interest in innovation, whether through price-related measures or incentives.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I want to end with this.

We've already talked about this, Mr. Mousseau. I'd like you to provide the committee with a clear answer.

Eventually, within a reasonable time frame, do you think we'd be able to develop more efficient and effective strategies for batteries to maintain electricity in the coming years?

[Normand Mousseau]

Yes, and where Canada could position itself is in the long-duration battery sector, not in lithium batteries. For lithium, it's already over, and we're not competitive.

When it comes to iron-air batteries, or other types, there are still few players in the world, and Canada would need them.

There are certain markets in which Canada could make progress with certain products or play an important role. To do that, you have to develop them, you have to take risks, and we've been pretty bad at developing efficient industrial strategies in Canada. We have to look at how it's done elsewhere.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If I understand you correctly, that storage will exist in the near future.

[Normand Mousseau]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

That's time. Thank you to both of you.

I'm going to make a decision here based on the chair's prerogative. We will go to Monsieur Malette for five minutes, and then our colleague Mr. Clark has agreed that he would ask one or two questions.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

I have a question for Monsieur Pineau, and then I'd also like to hear from Monsieur Mousseau.

We talk of hydro energy, crude oil and natural gas. We have a vast resource of biomass in this country, which is renewable energy. What could be an opportunity for Canada in this?

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau]

We definitely have a lot of biomass. We are not making the best use of it.

The first thing—Normand has alluded to it—is that we don't have a deep knowledge of our consumption of biomass and the different markets or different uses. We should better know ourselves in terms of the different types of biomass. We need to structure the market in such a way that investors in the biomass market have more confidence that their product will find a niche or a real market, so that they can invest.

We've been very bad at producing biofuels. The government has put some biofuel requirements, but we haven't seen investment in biofuel refineries for ethanol or biodiesel proportionate to the increase in the blending of biofuels in different fuels. That's because it's hard to get the certainty for producers—certainty on the supply, output and sales. We need to structure the market in such a way that there's more confidence for producers that their product will be able to find a market.

[Normand Mousseau]

As we move to net zero, all of the ideas about the role of biomass for carbon sequestration could be very interesting for Canada as we're creating international markets for these kinds of negative emission rights. This is also something where Canada could lead, because this is an underdeveloped market on the world scene.

We need to test the technologies, evaluate the geology, evaluate the role of land and agriculture, and see whether Canada could really use biomass efficiently in that respect.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Thank you.

That leads me to a question for both of you. What would be the first steps for growing this industry effectively in a way that creates energy and also creates jobs?

[Normand Mousseau]

We need a real strategy to structure this capacity. We need visibility for the regulation. Also, we need to support innovation in a very structured way, especially on the negative emissions side.

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau]

We also need a market environment where producers see the value of their products. That's why a carbon tax is extremely important, because you wouldn't pay the carbon tax on biofuels, as they're considered carbon-neutral, for very good reasons. Without the presence of a carbon tax, we basically give a subsidy to hydrocarbon, and this is unfair to the biomass market.

We need to structure the market in such a way that the right economic incentives are provided on a long-term basis to have certainty.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Where would this be competitively if we classify it with oil, crude oil, electricity, natural gas, refined petroleum products, uranium and nuclear? Where would it put us competitively?

[Normand Mousseau]

Biomass is already competitive for heat, for example. In regions, we are underusing biomass for heat production, for example. In big centres, it's harder, but in regions close to where the biomass is produced, this is already competitive.

Then, if we're talking about biofuels and biogas, the competitiveness comes in, essentially, through regulation, so you have to impose it, because the costs are too high. The reasons for this are environmental, and that's how we justify it.

Even without the price on carbon, regulation on fuels—for example, clean fuels—plays this role to increase the value of these products.