Natural Resources Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Moe Kabbara]

Most of the solar panel supply is currently from global suppliers, which is, as I've mentioned, a long-term risk. That is why we need to build the Canadian supply chain, which is also an industrial opportunity.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

I had a little trouble hearing you, but I got the gist of it.

What's interesting is what we've seen with the Chinese, with Huawei—I think that was the name of it—for the cellphone companies, when we had big spy issues afterward. The corporations are being instructed by the federal government to remove some technologies throughout Canada because of the interference from the Chinese government.

I'm curious. If we rely on Chinese solar panels across Canada—maybe not for a solar panel on my roof, because that's small—and we start putting in these big solar farms across Canada with Chinese technology, is there a security risk that they can make a phone call or flick a switch and turn that off?

[Moe Kabbara]

I presented to a different committee on the Chinese EV question. I think cybersecurity is a concern that we need to be taking seriously in all cases. It's not really as simple as plugging an EV into the grid and then it blows up or they're going to control our grid. It's much more complicated than that.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Yes, I appreciate that you're taking it seriously. I heard some giggles from across the way, which I thought was very funny considering how serious it would be if our solar farms did shut down, especially in the middle of winter when we have cold temperatures and a lot of frost.

There's a lot of sun in the wintertime as well, and we would be dependent on those solar panels and then, all of a sudden, people at home would be freezing because the Chinese may have a backdoor entry into those solar farms. That's a big concern, and I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or from out in left field, because we've seen this with our cellphone industry.

The question is, how do we build these solar panels here in Canada? How do we get that technology built in Canada?

[Moe Kabbara]

Yes. I think it's generally focusing on building elements of the supply chain for which it is going to be possible for Canada to compete, as well as relying on allies and partners across the world to have a more secure supply chain in the long term.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Which ones can we partner with right now that have a good supply of solar panels that we can do that with?

[Moe Kabbara]

I think that, generally, some of the European countries, like Germany and others, have relatively strong solar industries. I think it is true that the Chinese dominate the solar sector. I think they do that because they realized where the puck was going. The security concerns can be addressed. They're not fatalistic.

I think there's another opportunity here for us to compete industrially, which is why we need to build our own supply chain and collaborate with other partners across the globe from Asian and European countries that are more reliable partners for us.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

I think you're right. I think we need to give our Canadian corporations every competitive edge that we can.

Right now, we're seeing that the Chinese put tariffs on Newfoundland and Labrador seafood, and that's very frustrating. Do you think we could do countertariffs on the Chinese? Would it be a good idea to put countertariffs on the Chinese for the solar panels and stuff to give our Canadian corporations a fighting chance in that industry?

[Moe Kabbara]

I don't really have any particular views on the tariff response vis-à-vis the seafood tariff, but I do feel that tariffs generally need to be used in order to help build our industry. They're not a long-term strategy in terms of insulating yourself forever. I think there is a role for tariffs in the near and the medium term to help secure and build an industry, but long-term strategies that go beyond tariffs need to be considered.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

With the automotive industry, with the “spy cars” coming in and having EVs in Canada, do you think it helped their automotive industry when we lifted those and let those cars come in?

[Moe Kabbara]

Our position on that has been that if you look at China's exports of general automotive, it went from one million vehicles in 2020 to seven million last year. That's a seven x increase in five years. I think the North American fortress approach is not going to work long term. If you think you're going to be able to stop the technology from coming in over the long term, I wish people and the industry the best of luck.

The question is, do we do it on our own terms? Do we have some kind of security as we do it? I think we use the approach of what I would call “selective exposure”. We allow a small number of vehicles in, which can still insulate our vehicle market and make sure, since you mentioned the cybersecurity concerns, that we can have Canadian software deals running on the hardware, so we have more control.

I don't think those concerns are unwarranted, but I do think there are solutions for them that go beyond trying to build a fortress and say that we're going to stay behind this fortress forever, given how the expansion has happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Mr. Guay, you have six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dunsky, it's good to see you. I'll ask you the first question. The Canadian Electricity Advisory Council, which you chaired, highlighted that progress can be hampered by overlapping or conflicting policies among different levels of government, utilities and regulators.

In your opinion, would the “one project, one review” approach that the federal government is putting in place, with a number of provinces participating, help solve part of the problem?

What more could we do?

[Philippe Dunsky]

Thank you for the question.

Obviously, the “one project, one review” approach is essential if we want to build much faster than we are currently able to do. On that point, I welcome initiatives like this. However, there are a lot of other things we are going to have to do about it. Right now, there is still a lot of overlap.

In terms of the review, there are still rules that I would say are ineffective, if not unnecessary. Sometimes, but not always, there is also escalation. It then takes two or three years to review one aspect of a project, whereas it would be possible to do so in a much shorter period of time. The list goes on.

It's a lot of work to amend the review rules and procedures. By the way, the federal government is only responsible for part of it. Each province has its own rules and procedures, which, again, involve challenges and delays that are really not necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I'm sorry, Mr. Guay. We've stopped your time.

Colleagues, it was just brought to my attention that Mr. Kabbara has to leave at about 20 or 25 minutes after. That's to make you aware, in case you want to ask any questions of him before he has to leave and catch a train back to Montreal.

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

Mr. Dunsky, I think the national electricity strategy, which has just been launched, contains a lot of recommendations from the Canadian Electricity Advisory Council that you chaired. It recognizes that Canada's electricity systems are fragmented and that better east, west and north connections are needed to reduce infrastructure duplication and electricity losses.

How do you think the federal government should support interties?

We know that planning often falls under provincial jurisdiction. We need to build a truly national electricity grid.

How do you think we could address that?

[Philippe Dunsky]

Thank you for the question.

It's a huge challenge. If I had to choose one priority among the recommendations made by the council, it would be to facilitate more electricity trade between the provinces.

Again, it's very difficult to do that, because there are, in fact, things that are done in silos in Canada. Each province acts in isolation. It's in the Constitution, in the end, so the debate won't be reopened.

That said, the federal government can play a role as a kind of facilitator of interprovincial trade. Provinces are not in the habit, with a few exceptions, of planning their networks together. As a result, most of the time, we manage to do one or two projects. However, we are missing out on a lot of business opportunities because we plan our systems separately, without consultation and without systems integration.

When we do that, we leave $20 bills on the table, as economists have often said. We're missing out on a lot of money, because we're not able to optimize our networks. The federal government certainly can't control or lead things, but it can facilitate them. This can include creating a framework for common cost-benefit analyses for interprovincial projects, as well as a framework for funding interprovincial projects.

I would add that the federal government can certainly use its chequebook, so to speak, to contribute to interprovincial projects and ensure that a province that might benefit slightly less than another is compensated, so that everyone ultimately benefits.

This is more or less the approach Europe has taken in its own regulatory framework for projects carried out between European countries, and it is clearly an approach that the council advocated in its recommendations to the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Guay, you have 20 seconds.

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

Mr. Kabbara, I know you produced a report. How should the federal government design affordability measures so that the households most at risk are not left behind?

[Moe Kabbara]

That's a great question.

As I mentioned, when we're talking about electricity rates, ratepayer versus taxpayer, there are ways for the government to use its AAA credit rating to reduce the cost of capital for building this grid. The Prime Minister mentioned that this is what we need: basically, to activate the level of ambition fiscally that can meet the level of ambition in the strategy of doubling the grid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Okay. Thank you both.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dunsky, I enjoyed your opening remarks. It reminded me of something that we may not have addressed as a committee.

You began by saying that there will be winners and losers in any transition to electrification and that the goal was not to be left behind if we want to be winners. When you said that, it made me think of the current political situation, which today is more like a zero-sum game.

We saw this earlier when my Conservative colleagues discredited electrification, since the structures for it, such as storage and solar panels, come mostly from China. The electrical model would also compete with fossil fuels. However, rest assured, I don't think anyone is spying on me with solar panels. There may be some doubt as to whether Alberta is spying on us with gas pumps, but for panels, I don't think so.

I'm not being facetious when I say that. I am telling you that because, politically speaking, we should perhaps move from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game. Both types of energy, electricity and oil, can be used together. Meanwhile, encouraging electrification doesn't mean there are more electric vehicles and that other energy sectors will be harmed.

Before I give you the floor, I just want to add that I get the sense that this is a fairly significant political problem in Canada. We saw the same thing arise earlier this week when another witness made comments that, my goodness, were somewhat questionable on the issue of electrification. The China connection keeps coming up.

I would like to hear your opinion on that, as well as on what you said about winners and losers.

I would also like you to talk to us about the importance of making the shift to electrification.

[Philippe Dunsky]

Thank you.

I obviously won't get into a political debate, but it's crystal clear that the world is electrifying, whether Canada likes it or not. What that means, in concrete terms, is that more and more heating is becoming electric because the technology has improved. It has to do with technology. I would say that electrification is no longer driven by policy. Electrification is happening because technology has taken the lead. At the end of the day, the technology related to electricity consumption is far superior to what it replaces for many applications.

That said, the choices we have here in Canada are relatively simple. We can try to delay the inevitable. I don't think that's a win for us or any country in history. We can also take the bull by the horns and try to develop our response as we see fit, in our own way, with our resources and our comparative advantages.

I think Ontario is a really worthwhile example in that regard. Ontario actually decided that, if electrification was coming, it would electrify in its own way. The Ontario way is more focused on nuclear, because that's where the expertise is.

The approach of deliberately doing things your way is preferable. The other two options are either to reject more efficient and more affordable technology for everyone, an option where there will obviously be no winners, or to wait and run out of electricity. In that case, we're going to put ourselves in the position of having to say no much more often than yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Monsieur Simard, Mr. Kabbara has a comment. I think he'll be leaving soon.

[Moe Kabbara]

I need to leave.