Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, before I begin speaking, I want to make sure that the witnesses can hear the interpretation properly.

Is the interpretation working for the witnesses?

I'm told yes, so great. The interpreter has a lovely voice, not like mine.

The question is for you, Ms. Baiton. Politics has taught me something quite simple. We must differentiate between our wishes and reality. It's unfortunate, but that's how politics works.

During our first meeting for this study, Professor Mousseau and Professor Pineau told us that Canada wasn't an energy power, that it never will be and that it has little influence over energy prices. I'll let you respond to this statement a bit later. In your remarks, you portrayed Canada as an energy power.

I'll tell you what bothers me. I'm trying to get a sense of this topic. In your remarks, you also talked about a particular geopolitical reality where, given the current situation with the Americans, we should be developing new markets. I find this troublesome. When we take a closer look at the oil sector, we realize that 60% of the big oil companies are owned by American shareholders. While these big companies made record profits from 2021 to 2024, to the tune of $131 billion, six out of every ten dollars were paid in dividends to American companies. I find it hard to understand how we can see the energy sector as the industry that will help Canada break away from American shareholders. If we build oil and gas infrastructure, we may be doing them a favour. We'll be making it easier for them to develop new markets and guaranteeing them additional profits.

I would like you to educate me on this topic. How do you see the situation regarding the ownership structure of the big oil companies?

[Lisa Baiton]

There's a lot in there, so let me try to parse it out.

First of all, to clarify, I did not ever say that Canada was an energy superpower. I was just echoing what our Prime Minister has said—that we should aspire to be an energy superpower. To use the recent words of Prime Minister Carney, we should talk about the world “as it is”, and what Canada should do to make the world into what “we wish it to be”. The world, as it is today, is in a period of profound geopolitical and economic change.

The current U.S. administration has an unapologetic America first policy, and it's rewriting long-standing norms in global trade. For Canada, that new normal is not a debate; it's an urgent question: How should a resource-rich and trade-dependent nation position itself in a world where economic force, and not market fairness, is setting the rules? On the other hand, just as you have federal and provincial governments really working hard to preserve the veracity of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, that's a critical recognition of the world as it is and Canada as it is.

As I said in my previous remarks on the USMCA, over the last lost decade, there were decisions not to build an east-west egress or a tidewater egress, and we are now in a situation where 20% of our entire balance of trade goes north-south. You can't just lickety-split build a pipeline.

We also have to recognize the critical nature of preserving—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry, but I don't have much time left.

I understand your answer. However, we must look at today's world in a realistic way, as it stands. The world as it stands shows that the federal government paid for the most recent pipeline infrastructure built. It cost $34 billion, and not a single company wanted to purchase or even develop the project. That's not all. We're currently still paying seven dollars for every barrel that uses the Trans Mountain infrastructure.

I wonder how a private company, without public support, can agree these days to develop a pipeline infrastructure that will take years to build. Over the next 20 or 30 years, will a market for Alberta oil justify the investments made by private companies? Shouldn't we expect these people to rely on public investment to build new pipelines? That's my impression, based on the world as it stands.

I would like your opinion on this topic. I don't see any developers willing to invest in pipeline infrastructure.

[Lisa Baiton]

Let me take that in two parts.

In terms of global demand, all credible energy forecasts going forward indicate that energy demand is going to be going up, up and up, and we are going to need all forms of energy—renewables and conventional—to meet the ferocious appetite for global energy.

Last year, Larry Fink from BlackRock said that we need to move away from an energy transition to an energy-efficient mindset, because the immensity of growing demand, particularly coming from AI, is really driving that.

To the second part of your question on why—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

If you could, finish up quickly, Ms. Baiton, with a quick answer, please.

[Lisa Baiton]

As to why TMX was publicly funded or paid for by the Canadian government, regulatory certainty is required in order to have investor certainty. Canada does not have that at the moment, and that's why investors did not come to Canada. That is the thesis I have presented to the committee today.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Colleagues, we're now moving on to the second round, and we're going to start with Mr. Malette.

Mr. Malette, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Bradley, you are the CEO of Electricity Canada. Thank you for your presentation.

I have a more specific question. In your opinion, what will happen in 2035 when Canada's clean electricity regulations take effect? Also, what will that mean for the average consumer's electricity bill and the overall cost of living?

[Francis Bradley]

The member asks a very pertinent question. It has been a concern for our association.

The discussion and dialogue around the clean electricity regulations are a bit in flux right now. We see that it is part and parcel of a conversation between, for example, the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta.

Ever since the beginning of this process and once we saw the final regulations that came forward, we were very clear that we felt decisions around these matters should have been based upon the best estimates of the people who are actually running the electricity grids at the provincial level. What they were telling us was that the clean electricity regulations as written would have a significant impact on the reliability and cost of electricity for customers in a number of jurisdictions in this country.

That is certainly still the case, because the CERs are still on the books.

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

What impact will they have on different provinces? Can you note the key ones?

[Francis Bradley]

I don't have all of the details, but quite simply, the more carbon intensive the electricity system is in a province, the greater the potential impact will be with these clean electricity regulations.

I'm from Quebec, where this is not an issue because we are lucky enough to have massive hydroelectric resources. The same is the case, for example, in British Columbia. If you happen to be in a jurisdiction that doesn't have a resource endowment, for example, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.... Even here in Ontario, the system operator has expressed concerns about the clean electricity regulations and the impact they might have here. That is with the not insignificant hydro resources in Ontario and a very robust non-emitting nuclear sector as well.

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

That takes me to my next question.

You mentioned that energy demand will double by 2050. For the provinces where hydroelectricity has been maximized, who will become the leader in different types of electricity?

[Francis Bradley]

The view of our members has always been and continues to be that the future is going to be one where an all-of-the-above approach will be required.

Because there are different resource opportunities in different regions, each region is going to have to look at what its opportunities are for non-emitting or lower-emitting energy resources. A doubling of demand is going to mean that we'll have to essentially double down on nuclear. We'll have to double down on hydro, wind, solar, storage, energy efficiency and interconnections.

The other thing we need to recognize is that we have 31 transmission interconnections between Canada and the United States. Historically, the bulk of the trade in electricity has been north-south. Much less of it is east-west. We're not advocating for a line that goes from one coast to the other, but greater regional co-operation and collaboration is going to be part of this mix as well, to meet the challenges of the future. We think the federal government has a role to play in acting as a convenor and, in some instances, in helping to facilitate some of the build-out that's going to be required on a regional basis for more transmission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We're just about at the end of your time, Mr. Malette. You have 20 seconds.

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

We are a net exporter. Will we keep that?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes, we likely will, but it's the nature of the kind of mix we have. We will be more of a net exporter in the years when we have a lot of water. In the years when there's drought, it will be challenging.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

We'll go to Mr. Guay for five minutes.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Bradley, it's good to see you.

In your recently published report “Forging Canada's Electricity Future”, you mentioned that the Major Projects Office is “a significant step toward addressing” the challenges of uncertain approval processes. You've also mentioned that this must be taken even further, down to small-scale projects, through the elimination of provincial process duplication.

How do you feel we've done so far? What do we need to do to build even faster, better and easier?

[Francis Bradley]

I thank the member for a very interesting question.

I appeared before the committee that was studying Bill C-5 as it was going through the process. What I said then, and will essentially repeat now, is that I think Bill C-5 is a very strong signal that there is an interest to build things. Our concern continues to be that there are other challenges, which the bill certainly facilitates if you happen to be one of the projects of national interest, or as some people call them, the PONIs. If you're a PONI, there is a concierge approach to moving projects forward. We see it, though, as hopefully setting the stage for how we will more broadly address projects.

We recognize that while we have concerns with a number of regulatory and legislative challenges, they can't all be fixed at once. We do recognize that's the case.

We're hoping that the experience with the Major Projects Office and how it rolls out its programming can then apply to, for example, the medium and smaller projects. Our future isn't going to be just a handful of major projects; it's going to be hundreds or thousands of projects.

Hopefully, the work of the Major Projects Office is going to show us the way to get projects built more efficiently, but we still have to address some of the core fundamental issues with impact assessments, the Fisheries Act and so on.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I want to pick up on the question that Mr. Malette asked you earlier to give you more time to talk about it.

Talk to me about the importance of the interties, because this study is about exporting and unleashing Canada's export of energy. There's deregulation from clean energy in the U.S., but some governors.... Today I saw Premier Houston with the Governor of Massachusetts. There's a big demand in some U.S. states for clean Canadian electricity, but there are also intertie requirements for us and helping the demand within Canada.

How do you see this playing out?

[Francis Bradley]

It is a very complex situation. Some people have suggested that what's referred to as the eastern electricity interconnection—basically all of eastern North America is interconnected and operates as a single machine—is the largest machine in the world. It is incredibly complex. Because of that, we will always be interconnected with the United States. The question, though, is whether we can improve, to begin with, some of our interconnections in Canada to the benefit of Canadians.

I also recognize, as I said in my comments, that when we think about electricity and electricity trade, it isn't just about kilowatt hours; it's products, aluminum, a wide variety of these things. We would like to see, certainly, the expansion of those.

When you look at the overall North American grid, yes, Americans, certainly over the longer term, will potentially be interested in clean kilowatt hours coming from Canada. In the case of, for example, the northeast and their desire to one day develop offshore wind, what they're going to want from Canada is not necessarily our kilowatt hours. They're going to want our capacity. They're going to want to be able to interconnect into our system so that, essentially, the hydro systems in Canada, the major hydro system in Quebec, can act as a buffer and battery for their system, because they will not be able to operate, for example, a stand-alone offshore wind system if it isn't interconnected with a more reliable system.

I think there will be North American benefits overall to this, but there will also be regional benefits that—

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

There's the nuclear from Ontario.

[Francis Bradley]

The nuclear from Ontario—absolutely.

Another thing I would mention about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you. That's your time, unfortunately. You can address that at another time.