Natural Resources Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

Thank you for your question.

I should clarify that we do not represent our 200-plus members. We support them on projects of their choosing.

As for your question, the importance of indigenous leadership and indigenous ownership on these electricity projects is primarily because they are indigenous lands and waters that all or most of these projects will run on or run through. Transmission lines are an example. Nations need to be the leaders of that for siting and routing priorities, as well as for which types of projects go there.

Part of that, as I mentioned, is economic reconciliation. Part of that is economic growth. We don't want to fall behind the rest of the world—which is moving faster than Canada—on clean energy. We also want to have that competitive advantage to make sure we don't fall behind in that regard.

Thank you.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

My next question is for Ms. Exner-Pirot.

Can you explain the importance of the one project, one review agreement to streamlining project permitting?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

That's a great question.

Pretty much every private proponent wants a simplified regulatory process. For my report, I interviewed several power producers to talk about how easy it was for them to track investment. The general sense was that it is much easier in the United States.

When we're all competing for the same components, supply chain and labour force, it's very important that we're competitive in Canada, because we know that they will snake up as much as they can in the south to take advantage of the data centre boom. Having at least a coherent and simple regulatory process helps make us less uncompetitive.

It's ensuring that what is provincial stays provincial. General electricity tends to be under provincial jurisdiction. There are, of course, some elements like nuclear, interprovincial transmission and some things to do with fisheries that the federal government has to get involved in. Working collaboratively with the provinces to ensure that they're coordinated and that it's fairly seamless from the private proponents' perspective is important.

There has been very good progress in that regard with the co-operation agreements. I hope that the proposed reforms that they go through will further streamline the processes you discussed.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The next question is for Dr. von der Porten.

Do you support the indigenous loan guarantee program? Is it a helpful tool to promote indigenous equity in major projects?

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, the national indigenous loan guarantee program was the major effort of the FNMPC in terms of our work over the last 10 years. Originally, when we first started the organization—something like 12 years ago—indigenous first nations wanted to buy into major projects. The interest rates they were being given by lenders made it so that it wouldn't be profitable to buy in.

The importance of the indigenous loan guarantee program at the federal level and at subnational levels is that there is now indigenous access to competitively priced capital. Nations can buy into these projects if they want to, particularly ones running on their lands that they see as a priority.

This is the report here that I was talking about, on indigenous-led transmission lines. We also have a national indigenous electrification strategy. I'm happy to submit that to the committee. That goes to exactly the questions that you're asking.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have one minute.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Dr. von der Porten, how can LNG development strengthen Canada's energy security and global energy security?

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

The FNMPC is an industry-agnostic organization. We don't advise our first nations on what types of energy or what types of projects to invest in. What they do is come to us and say, “There's a project we're thinking of leading” or “We've been approached by a proponent that would like to work on this project with us. Could you help us with negotiations?” or “Could you help us with access to capital? Could you help us with thinking about commercial structuring?”

Comments on LNG one way or another aren't the purview of our organization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you to you both.

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Exner-Pirot, it's a pleasure to see you again. You were a great help during our study on critical minerals.

In your opening remarks, you spoke about Quebec's net imports of hydroelectricity. There may be some nuances to consider. It is important to understand that there are two related factors that explain these net exports.

For the past three years, Hydro-Québec's reservoir levels have been very low. This is unprecedented. This is the result of climate change, even though projections indicate that, in the coming years, we will have to manage the opposite problem. Indeed, given the expected rainfall and accumulated precipitation, reservoir levels may rise higher. That is part of the explanation.

The other part of the explanation is that Hydro-Québec has a dynamic strategy. It purchases electricity from our American partners during off-peak periods. This electricity costs the company much less—$0.05 per kilowatt-hour—which also allows it to raise reservoir levels. During periods of slightly higher demand, this electricity is resold at $0.15 per kilowatt-hour.

So, Hydro-Québec has a strategy that also partly explains why its reservoirs can be used as a battery—something the Americans cannot do. Hydro-Québec leverages this to balance its imports and exports. As a result, by selling electricity to the Americans, Hydro-Québec manages, roughly speaking, to bring $1.5 billion back to Quebec in tax revenue.

I'm telling you this because it was reported earlier this week. I'm the first to love to criticize the government, but we shouldn't think this has anything to do with the federal government, since it's a decision that falls exclusively under Hydro-Québec's purview. When to buy electricity from the Americans and how to do so are matters that fall exclusively under its commercial strategy—which, incidentally, it cannot explain in detail. I think it's important to emphasize this point.

Furthermore, at the start of this study, some people came forward to say essentially the same thing as you—namely, that we'll have to increase our production. However, regarding the increase in production, Mr. Mousseau and Mr. Pineau—if I'm not mistaken—were very skeptical of the idea of supplying more energy to data centres.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this, because it was part of your opening remarks.

Wouldn't it be better to prioritize industrial sectors—since they consume a great deal of energy—before considering providing energy blocks to this type of economic activity?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

That's a great question.

I'll just point out that I said that Canada had become a net importer, not Hydro-Québec. Although Hydro-Québec had become an importer in the last year, you will also note that BC Hydro was a net importer for the last three years. It's not so much that Quebec shouldn't trade electricity and make profits—it's very good at that—it is that Canada used to export over five terawatt hours annually to the United States, and now, basically, we have a relatively equal trading relationship.

It was a tremendous abundance of electricity that Canada used to have. We'd get more value by selling it to the United States, and that has evaporated, which goes to your next question about abundance in data centres. This is where we're at in Canada, because we have run through our electricity abundance and now we are picking and choosing winners and losers of who in this country should get electricity.

We don't have enough for everyone who wants electricity, so we have to prioritize. That violates some principles of the right to service that had traditionally—for decades—underpinned Canadian electricity generation.

We have all seen in the United States—we saw it here with Wab Kinew this week—this sense of making data centres into a villain that creates electricity price increases, and it's bad for the environment. It's taking away from more positive industries that would create more jobs. From a strategic perspective, not wanting to develop AI data centres in your own country to have that sovereign capability and have your data stored here will allow China and the United States to gain competitive advantage in AI.

To me, AI is not just manufacturing or industry; it's also going to be a weapon. It will absolutely be used in a strategic way as a weapon. We have to have capacity in Canada. When I see that BC Hydro has a strategy of prioritizing sectors like LNG and mining over data centres, when Quebec has different rates for data centres and when Wab Kinew in Manitoba is saying to some data centres that they don't want them there because they're not good for humanity, that does concern me as a political scientist thinking about Canada's data sovereignty, as we've been calling it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I completely understand, but one can also make the opposite argument.

As you know, the United States doesn't produce aluminum. Aluminum is in fact energy. It takes a lot of energy to produce aluminum. American aluminum smelters are very dependent on us, and they've added tariffs, which is foolish, but that's their business. There is the project by the American company Century Aluminum, if I remember correctly. American aluminum smelters that wanted to increase their output had to use power blocks that were allocated to data centres. They didn't get those power blocks. So what one sector gets, the other one misses out on. That means that, in the United States, because they allocate a lot of energy blocks to data centres, their industrial sector suffers.

We can make more or less the same argument here. If our strategy focuses only on data centres, our industry and economy will also suffer. I understand what you're saying, and it makes a lot of sense. Strategically speaking, we need to have the tools that enable us to develop artificial intelligence technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll wrap up very quickly, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Exner-Pirot, if you have any data to share with the committee—I know you're very good at that—we would appreciate that. We could take it into account in drafting our report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you to you both. That was a good exchange there.

Monsieur Malette, I understand that you'll be splitting your time.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I will start.

The question is for Dr. von der Porten. You're vice-president of clean energy strategy, but what interests me here is First Nations Major Project Coalition, and you did talk of your document. Could you show it again, indigenous-led power line transmission?

Are you aware of whether the Five Nations Energy Inc. from northern Ontario is part of your group? Do you know of them?

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

I know of them very well. They are not one of our members. There are five nations within that and, to be honest, I would have to check, because we have 200 members, whether one of them is there, but I am very aware of that project. You'll see when you read this paper that they are highlighted in there.

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

I think they're an example, and if they're in your paper, you've probably looked at them. Do you see transmission lines in northern Ontario or across Canada as potential long-term, indigenous-owned economic assets? What can the federal government do? Five Nations Energy is a great example of a great success.

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

Five Nations Energy is a great example and for those unfamiliar with it, it serves three first nations in Ontario and five nations total have bought into it. That's why it's called Five Nations. It's indigenous-owned and indigenous-initiated. The nations decided where the transmission lines were going to go, and it's steady revenues over many, many decades. It also opens up opportunities, so it allowed them to bring electricity to otherwise unserved nations, to create distribution lines to their domestic lines and to start bringing other economic opportunities, as well as new power generation.

Wataynikaneyap Power, also in Ontario, is another example of an indigenous-owned power line, and recently in British Columbia, there has been the north coast transmission line. All of these have in common indigenous leadership, ownership or partnership, and in every case, first nations have been on board at the earliest possible stage. In some cases, as you'll be seeing, there are indigenous-initiated lines. This is incredibly important to having them move and avoiding the delays problem.

I heard a previous witness, Philippe Dunsky, saying that if he were to pick one thing, it would be interties and transmission. Given that, it's very clear that if we want to move that forward, indigenous ownership is a great start.

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

Thank you, Doctor.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Exner-Pirot, it's good to talk to you again, and I appreciate the work that you did on defence committee a few weeks back.

I also appreciate your accurate analysis of AI with regard to a security nexus and your comments about putting aside decarbonization to focus on progress and production of electricity. You've spoken about energy as a pillar of national security, and I certainly agree with that. The defence industrial strategy considers critical minerals as a strategic asset.

My question is this: Do you think that, say, an energy grid is also a strategic national defence or security asset, and is it just electricity? Would you consider, as you talked about, liquid natural gas and oil as critical to the national security and sovereignty of Canada?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

It's all wildly critical, sovereignty and national security, and I'll point out, as we've witnessed in the Strait of Hormuz and as we've witnessed in Ukraine and Russia, after military targets, the top target for these conflicts is energy infrastructure, pipelines, power generation, transmission lines. Why is that? It's because it's very painful for civilians to run out of energy and because it's very damaging to defence industrial supply chains not to have that energy, so these are important things.

I also chair the Energy Security Summit with a group of private proponents, and they are facing cyber-attacks on our electricity, on our pipeline systems, pretty much on a daily basis. Some of it is criminal in the sense that it's for ransomware, but some of it is state-sponsored.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I have a few seconds left, and I appreciate your perfect segue. I wanted to hear you talk a bit more about steps that we should be taking, that we haven't taken, to protect these assets from cyber-attack sabotage—prekinetic threats and then, as we've seen in other parts of the world, postkinetic threats.

Has Canada taken any steps to protect these critical national security assets, and if not, what steps should we be taking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer, please.