Natural Resources Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Kate Harland]

There's a risk if we don't give businesses and industry timely access to power. The queues are getting longer for connecting to the grid. That puts off investors, particularly multinationals that are trying to decide where to locate their projects. That's one risk we see.

There are also multinationals that have global corporate targets to reduce their emissions, and they're looking to electrify and invest as well. They will also turn away if they don't see clean power available to them for use.

These pieces were coming through. We interviewed a lot of people over the last year, trying to find out, and we saw across the country that there are growing shortages or expectations of shortages in grids throughout Canada. Those risks are definitely real.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Yes. Thank you both. That's time.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dunsky, I'd like to go back to what you said earlier. You talked about the U.S. tax benefits, which are a little more attractive, if not more adapted to developing the electrification sector than what is offered in Canada.

My question for the gas sector is this. The last budget mentions the accelerated capital cost allowance, which applies to infrastructure.

In your opinion, if we extended that to the purchase of infrastructure to facilitate electrification, by optimizing storage capacity, for example, could that be a good way to stimulate investments in electrification?

[Philippe Dunsky]

I'm going to say yes, generally speaking. Of course, the accelerated capital cost allowance is already available for a number of electricity generation technologies, including renewable energy, if memory serves.

I may be wrong about that, because it's been a while since I've looked at it. There is certainly a range of tax benefits that can be offered. In my opinion, the accelerated capital cost allowance is good for project development, but it's another matter when it comes to a value chain, which has to do with the manufacturing sector. That's where the production tax credit differs.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand.

I'm telling you this because we heard from a witness who presented storage strategies using artificial intelligence to manage peak periods. For projects exceeding seven megawatts, we're able to bring them down below seven megawatts.

That way, we don't need to go through Hydro-Québec to request a block. We're also able to achieve a fairly interesting form of optimization, making it a rather compelling strategy in terms of energy efficiency. I get the impression that the sticking point in Quebec is that, for many people, electricity isn't expensive enough. So there's no incentive to consider storage capacity.

If there were a tax incentive that would allow the industrial sector to install these facilities and quickly recoup the costs, we'd start focusing on energy efficiency. We'd free up megawatts for other types of projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have time for a quick answer, Mr. Dunsky—30 seconds.

[Philippe Dunsky]

When it comes to industrial technologies, this is indeed the case with regard to storage, including thermal storage. Mr. Wilkinson and I disagreed on this point, but personally, I believe there is a great opportunity here to facilitate the introduction of various storage measures, including thermal storage, in large-scale industry.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If you could provide the committee with documentation on this, we would appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Yes. Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

To our witnesses, we welcome additional information and briefs.

Thank you for tabling your document, Mr. Dunsky.

Let me thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing before us today. Thanks for your patience because of the interruptions. We really appreciate your being with us.

Thank you, colleagues. Colleagues, we're going to suspend for five minutes while we bring the other witnesses aboard via Zoom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Colleagues, I'm going to call us to order again. Welcome back.

Let me start off with an apology to our witnesses. Thank you very much for your patience. We were interrupted by votes, so we've lost a little time. We're going to be a little shorter in this round, but not much. You'll have an opportunity to respond to questions.

Let me welcome, from the First Nations Major Project Coalition, Dr. Suzanne von der Porten, vice-president of clean energy strategy for that organization. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment.

Both witnesses have done the mandatory witness onboarding test.

I'll make a few comments to you both online for your benefit and for ours.

Committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor for questions and comments.

Dr. von der Porten, we're going to start with you, and you have five minutes. Please proceed.

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten, Vice-President of Clean Energy Strategy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition]

Thank you.

The First Nations Major Projects Coalition, FNMPC, is a member-driven organization with more than 200 first nation members. These remarks draw on FNMPC's research and experience in electrification, but they do not speak on behalf of our members or other rights holders.

FNMPC's “National Indigenous Electrification Strategy” shows that Canada can meet its electrification expansion goals only with a major build-out of clean power and transmission. That build-out must include clear opportunities for indigenous nations to lead, partner in and own that infrastructure with free, prior and informed consent and in alignment with Canada's United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I will address each of the committee's core study areas briefly and in order.

First is clean energy technologies. For first nations, the full potential of new clean energy infrastructure includes leadership, partnership and ownership in electricity generation, transmission, storage and utility assets. These opportunities can create stable revenues, local employment and greater control over development on indigenous traditional territories. Canada's clean electricity build-out will require major expansion in hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, storage, transmission and others. Indigenous-led and indigenous-owned infrastructures in these areas will be critical to connecting new clean power to load centres while simultaneously advancing economic reconciliation and economic growth.

Second is peak power demand. Peak power demand is becoming a central challenge as electrification accelerates across housing, transportation, industry and remote energy systems. For first nations, this challenge is also an opportunity to lead and participate in solutions such as battery storage, demand-side management, distributed solar and microgrids. FNMPC's paper entitled “‘It is Our Time’: Indigenous-Led Transmission Lines”, available on our website, fnmpc.ca, reinforces that new transmission lines and interties, inter-regional transmission, are part of the solution to peak demand because they improve grid capacity and connect regions. Our transmission paper also asserts that first nations should have the lead role in identifying priority corridors where transmission will be built.

Third is diversification and industry development. Governments have an important role in market diversification in creating the policy certainty, procurement frameworks and financing tools needed to scale clean electricity. For first nations, this role should include measures that support indigenous ownership rather than limiting participation to short-term contracting or consultation. In the context of first nations electricity infrastructure ownership, industry development should be understood as including first nations-owned utilities, independent power production by first nations, first nations-led transmission projects and first nations equity positions in major electricity projects.

Fourth is the importance of the clean electricity sector. Electrification has become a core nation-building priority for Canada. That makes first nations electricity infrastructure ownership strategically important, not only to reconciliation but to whether Canada can build the scale of clean power required in time. For first nations, the importance of the sector is twofold. One, it is essential for emissions reductions. Indigenous nations have for decades been sounding the alarm over changes to their lands and waters related to climatic changes. Two, it is also a major economic opportunity tied to the ownership of electricity infrastructure needed for the transition. Doubling Canada's electricity grid cannot be achieved at scale without new transmission corridors and interties. Indigenous transmission is essential to this.

Fifth is public policies supporting electrification. Public policies that support electrification are effective only if implementation is timely and coordinated. For first nations, that means aligning infrastructure funding, regulatory approvals, timely procurement planning, utility planning and opportunities for indigenous leadership and ownership. Canada's policy implementation must address persistent barriers for first nations, such as access to capital, limited early-stage capacity funding, uneven utility relationships and weak support for indigenous-led utility development. Policies that ignore these realities risk repeating the exclusion of indigenous nations seen in past industrial build-outs in Canada.

Sixth is energy self-sufficiency and energy security. For many first nations, energy security means reducing reliance on imported fuels such as diesel, improving electricity reliability and ensuring that infrastructure decisions reflect first nation community priorities. Indigenous leadership and ownership are central to this work because they allow nations to shape development according to their own priorities for their nation members and on their lands and waters.

FNMPC's indigenous-led transmission paper demonstrates that domestic energy security is partly a transmission issue. Stronger interties and indigenous-supported transmission lines in Canada can move clean power where it is needed, reduce regional vulnerability and create a more flexible system response during shortages or rapid demand growth.

Finally, there is respect for the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. For first nations, respect for the jurisdictions of provinces and territories must be matched by respect for indigenous lands, waters, rights, title, treaties, law and decision-making authority. Electricity infrastructure often crosses traditional territories, which means project development depends on consent-based approaches that recognize first nations as rights holders of their lands and waters, as well as leaders and owners of electricity projects.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Dr. von der Porten.

Now we're on to Ms. Exner-Pirot for five minutes.

[Heather Exner-Pirot, Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security.

Before I start, can I commend the committee on an excellent report on the development of critical minerals? I thought that was very good.

I cannot overemphasize the extent to which I think abundant and affordable electricity generation will be a strategic advantage in the coming decade and how important it is that Canada builds all types of electricity generation to meet this moment.

Electricity was once one of Canada's greatest competitive advantages. For decades, our provinces built generation capacity ahead of demand. Reliable and affordable power, bolstered by our immense hydroelectric capacity and nuclear expertise, supported industrial development, resource extraction, manufacturing and economic growth. We enjoyed a surplus of electricity and the economic gains that came with it.

Over time, we shifted from building for abundance to planning for scarcity. Investment slowed, regulatory timelines lengthened, major projects became harder to approve and governments increasingly focused on managing demand rather than expanding supply.

The result is that Canada entered the 2020s with far less surplus capacity than we once had and with an electricity system that is less resilient than many Canadians assume. In fact, our electricity generation peaked in 2017, our per capita usage is in a steep decline and we have had months recently when we've been a net importer from rather than exporter to the United States.

This would be concerning under any circumstances, but in 2026, it is close to catastrophic. AI and data centre growth, natural gas liquefaction, critical minerals processing, electrification of heating and transportation, and reshoring of defence industrial supply chains—all of this is at risk because of a lack of adequate electricity supply.

For much of the early 21st century, electricity demand in Canada and across much of the western world was flat. Efficiency improvements reduced demand, industrial consumption stagnated as manufacturing capacity moved to China, and utilities planned for very modest growth. However, the long plateau is now over. Canada should be entering this era from a position of strength, but despite our advantages, we have spent much of the last two decades squandering them.

Electricity policy has been viewed in Canada for the past decade mainly through a lens of decarbonization. It must now turn to growth.

This is fundamentally a security issue as much as an environmental or economic one. Energy security means having enough reliable energy available when citizens and industries need it. Today, it also means being able to host energy-intensive industries such as aluminum smelters, mines, LNG facilities and data centres. In an increasingly uncertain world, countries that can generate abundant and affordable energy will enjoy a significant strategic advantage. Those that cannot will face higher costs, lower growth and greater vulnerability to supply chain disruptions.

That brings me to the role of natural gas. The conversation around Canada's electricity future is often framed as a choice between natural gas and other forms of generation. That is the wrong framework. The real choice is between abundance and scarcity. Natural gas is uniquely positioned to help Canada meet rapidly growing electricity demand. It is dispatchable, scalable and affordable, and it can be deployed relatively quickly compared to many alternatives. It complements intermittent generation and provides reliability during periods of peak demand. Importantly, even the federal government's emerging electricity strategy under Prime Minister Carney recognizes an ongoing role for natural gas in maintaining reliability and supporting economic growth.

No province is more important to this discussion than Alberta. We possess some of the least expensive natural gas in the world, well over a century of supply and a competitive or deregulated electricity market that can accommodate rapid private sector growth. If Canada is serious about rapidly expanding electricity supply, Alberta and natural gas generation will be indispensable.

More broadly, Canada should adopt a strategy based on abundance rather then constraint, accelerating generation, transmission, interconnections and permitting. We should be encouraging investment rather than creating uncertainty around it. Canada can once again become a country known for energy abundance. We can attract investment, strengthen our energy security, support our allies and improve living standards at home, but doing so will require a change in mindset.

The question is not whether we need more electricity but whether we are prepared to build it.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

We will move on to questions and comments by members of Parliament, starting with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for attending here today.

You both mentioned the importance of intertie construction. I must confess to you that as a member of Parliament who has been on this committee for the majority of the last 11 years, I was certainly here in 2017 when you, Dr. Exner-Pirot, mentioned a very important thing that happened. It was that very year that this committee made all-party recommendations to advance the construction of interties. What a different world we might be in today if that had actually unfolded.

Dr. Exner-Pirot, in your report “Blackout”, you highlighted, as you mentioned, that Canada became “a net importer of electricity” for the first time in modern history in spring 2024, and you pointed out that both B.C. and Quebec imported electricity, which was characterized as “a previously unthinkable outcome”.

You also identified Liberal policies that significantly increase “regulatory burden” and block the kind of construction that is necessary to meet all the various industrial, national security, affordability and self-reliance goals that the government professes to want to support.

Do you want to expand on some of those policies that are blocking building and the fixes that could be made urgently?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

The one that was the most painful was the clean electricity strategy, because it blocked essentially all new natural gas generation beginning this year, at pain of criminal offence if you did so and fired it up later on. Certainly, from an Alberta-Saskatchewan perspective, that was very devastating.

Yes, I'm happy to. The electricity strategy does address some.

Certainly, from an Alberta perspective, you have this incredible data centre opportunity and tens of billions of dollars being spent, and it's hundreds of billions in the United States on data centres. Because we could not build new natural gas generation, much of that opportunity started to bypass us. Now, it's coming back, of course, because the CER was included in the MOU, and there is the commitment to the carve-out, and it is now in abeyance. That's positive. Until that can be settled, obviously, uncertainty still creates some risk, but things are much better than they were six months ago. That is for sure.

Similar to the Impact Assessment Act, again, it included many types of projects that maybe could have been excluded from the Impact Assessment Act. They were of different sizes and, obviously, nuclear was wrapped up in that. With the proposed reforms, it would be fantastic if they were passed. We're all hoping that those reforms eventually do come to pass. That should take some of the burden, certainly, off the nuclear industry.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Dr. Exner-Pirot, to your point about the clean electricity regulations, I too followed and participated in many of those discussions. It's quite an ambitious goal, of course, with a grid nationally. It's already considered 87% clean and now, to double and triple that in the timeline this government has set out.... I also recognize and value the fact that this agreement, after the efforts of the Government of Alberta, was made to suspend the clean electricity regulations in that province.

Do you think it makes sense then, as Conservatives have called for, to ensure those clean electricity regulations don't apply to all the provinces if one agreement has been made with one province, recognizing that it is unflexible and would ultimately potentially result in a lack of electricity, power and affordable rates?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

That would absolutely be my preference, and I expect it's a preference of many utilities.

We heard just last week that BC Hydro is going to continue with some natural gas and bring some generation back on. Also, just today, NB Power has asked again for that emergency application to have new natural gas generation online by 2028 lest it face blackouts, which was what inspired the title of my report.

This is extremely serious. There was that big winter storm. It taxed electricity systems. Our utilities behaved very admirably, but it's a matter of time, unless we build some more firm power, that there is a crisis. Obviously, there are many provinces...Manitoba is another one that would need some natural gas generation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Ensuring that there's abundant, available and affordable power and fuel for all Canadians is so important, especially for indigenous communities, as Dr. von der Porten has pointed out.

My question is for you, Dr. von der Porten. Back in the debates on Bill C-69, Conservatives of course supported increased capacity funding for first nations participation in regulatory processes. Conservatives also support more equity ownership and all kinds of energy development production.

What I found from first nations and Métis settlements that I've followed up with since those debates is that all of them say that no funding ever flowed from the capacity funding out of Bill C-69 to assist in the regulatory process for first nations and Métis people to participate. I wonder if you have any comments on that. You yourself also commented on the importance and potential of more indigenous transmission generation and ownership. Is there anything you'd like to expand on in that regard?

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

No, I have nothing to expand on there, to your question.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

My question for you is this: Has the government followed up with you or any of your members about electricity interties and exactly the kinds of issues that you have said today are important to your coalition?

[Dr. Suzanne von der Porten]

Just for some clarity on our organization, we are a member-driven organization. We support our members who ask us for support on project development. We don't track whether our members have been approached by government.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay. Yes, thank you.

I recognize your important distinction between advocacy organizations and those communities that actually have rights and title. That's an important distinction. Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That, unfortunately, is time. Thank you both.

We go on to Mr. Saini for six minutes.

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

Thank you to both of the witnesses.

Madame von der Porten, one thing that I am very glad of is that you're representing 200 first nations communities, with chiefs and hereditary chiefs. It's a very great thing to see that there's collaboration and everybody's working together.

Can you explain to the committee the importance of indigenous partnership and leadership for promoting energy security in Canada?