Thank you, Chair.
It's wonderful to see you all. I always say it's good to have Calgarians on every panel. I'm glad to see that this study has been good for continuing a really strong streak of that, Mr. Christie.
I'm grateful to our professional public service. You are non-partisan professionals implementing the agendas of elected officials. I was a senior official in the governments of former premiers Notley and Kenney, and I know first-hand that it is not always fun to be treated like a tennis ball being smashed between nets. I will endeavour not to do that, but I am going to ask you a question that many witnesses have been asked.
We as a country have an interest in east-west connections. We have an interest in energy sovereignty. We have an interest in optionality. The market, being rational, will not always default to long routes because there are shorter routes to tidewater.
Energy east was withdrawn by TransCanada because of economics—not because of government regulations—and because this is a north-south continent and supply chains have developed to reflect that reality. If you're in Ontario, it's cheaper to get energy from Pennsylvania than Alberta; that's the simple reality. That's just geography.
When we think of exports, that's also true. It is cheaper to export over short distances to neighbours than long distances across the globe.
Profit is always going to be the driver in the free market, but we're not finding that entirely in our interest as a nation. How can the government incentivize these public priorities—energy sovereignty and optionality of markets—without significantly distorting the free market upon which we rely and under which we operate?