Natural Resources Committee on June 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Good morning, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

I'll start by acknowledging that we're meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Welcome to meeting 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to remind everyone in the room and online of the following points. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. 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 advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

For members participating in person or via Zoom, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. The committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated speaking order. This is a reminder that all comments should be made through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, April 23, 2026, the committee shall resume its study of Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security.

Colleagues, let me, on your behalf, welcome our witnesses. We have with us, from the Canadian Fuels Association, Bob Larocque, president and chief executive officer, and Lisa Stilborn, vice-president, public affairs; from Electro-Federation Canada, Cherith Sinasac, director, government affairs; and from Resource Works Society, Margareta Dovgal.

All of our witnesses have conducted a mandatory witness onboarding test, particularly those on screen.

Welcome, all. You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor to questions.

Mr. Larocque, I'm going to turn to you first. You have five minutes.

[Bob Larocque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Fuels Association]

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair Duguid, honourable members and fellow panellists. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today.

The Canadian Fuels Association has been the voice of Canada's transportation fuel sector for over 30 years. Our members account for virtually all petroleum products refined in Canada. We also make nearly 80% of all the biofuels produced in Canada, including ethanol and bio-based diesel, and we're just starting to make sustainable aviation fuel. Our fuels are essential to every sector of our economy and support Canadians' way of life.

I would like to thank the committee for undertaking this important study.

Let me start by saying that a year ago, energy security was a background issue. Now, it is the issue. The situation in the Middle East has reinforced the hard reality that energy security can no longer be treated as a secondary consideration.

First, I would like to focus on the good news for Canada: As a net exporter of conventional refined petroleum fuel products, this country is in a relatively strong position from a supply perspective compared to many other countries. In a fragmented and volatile world, secure and reliable supply is a definite strategic advantage.

In recent weeks, multiple countries have approached our sector to discuss potential new secure and reliable supply agreements. This speaks volumes about how Canada is seen as a trusted energy producer and partner.

However, the latest events have also demonstrated potential vulnerabilities. Just to name a few, a recent infrastructure decision has made us reliant on imports for jet fuel in British Columbia, and of course, we always have the potential closure of Enbridge's Line 5 looming in the background, which is a key pipeline for Ontario and Quebec's refined products.

This also reinforces the importance of maintaining a strong, resilient and national refining sector as Canada's energy systems evolve. Canada's experience illustrates an important lesson: Where we have domestic production capacity, we have reliance; where we rely on imports, we are exposed to decisions made elsewhere.

Here's the other side of the coin. As domestic demand for low-carbon fuels rapidly grows to meet compliance with low-carbon fuel standards provincially and also the clean fuel regulations, so is our reliance on imports growing to meet that demand. At this juncture, we need to decide whether we will produce these fuels ourselves or increasingly rely on others to do it for us.

Today, about 60% of Canada's renewable diesel and ethanol supply comes from imports, mostly from the United States, and the United States recently boosted its renewable fuel mandates, which is already increasing competition for available product. These decisions are completely outside of our control, and they can directly impact our ability to access the biofuels we need.

In a more protectionist global economy, importing compliance is not the same as building energy security. Canada's conventional fuel sector demonstrates what energy security looks like: We produce the fuels we need, we maintain the infrastructure to deliver them, and we have the resilience to respond during periods of disruption. We should strive to do the same for low-carbon fuels.

The challenge is in creating a policy environment that stimulates growth in domestic production alongside the growing demand. Energy security is not just about having access to energy; it's about having access to energy produced by a system that we control.

We have recommended practical, targeted and achievable measures to that end: Maintain strong demand signals for low-carbon fuels; ensure regulations encourage domestic production as well as demand; and simplify compliance and remove barriers that discourage investment. If we align our policies with these objectives, Canada can build a more resilient low-carbon fuel sector, reduce reliance on imports and strengthen Canada's energy security.

Canada has already demonstrated what energy security looks like when it comes to conventional fuels. We should aim for the same outcome with low‑carbon fuels.

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

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

Now it's over to Ms. Sinasac. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Cherith Sinasac, Director, Government Affairs, Electro-Federation Canada]

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today.

My name is Cherith Sinasac, and I'm the director of government affairs at Electro-Federation Canada. We're commonly known as EFC.

EFC represents over 230 member companies across Canada's electrical and automation industry. Our members design, manufacture and deploy technologies that power Canada's industries, buildings and transportation systems. Our sector plays a critical role in advancing electrification and energy security. We are delighted to be here today to discuss Canada's electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security.

Canada's electricity system is entering a period of significant structural transformation. Electricity demand is increasing rapidly due to electrification across sectors, economic growth and new large energy loads such as AI data centres. At the same time, the system is becoming more complex with increased integration of distributed energy resources and variable generation such as wind and solar. This means that Canada must simultaneously expand, upgrade and modernize our electricity system.

Electrification is central to achieving Canada's climate and economic objectives. To support this transition, EFC has worked with Dunsky Energy and commissioned a national assessment of key grid technologies expected to shape Canada's electricity transition. A central finding is that the technologies required to support electrification already exist and are commercially available. The primary challenge is not innovation, but rather the deployment barriers such as supply chain and cost pressures, utility regulatory rate-setting frameworks, codes and standards and interoperability challenges.

Supply chain and cost pressures are the dominant system-wide challenge and the top barrier to grid expansion and modernization, particularly for grid hardware. Cost inflation since 2020 has been driven by material shortages, lack of capacity and high demand. Canada's electricity infrastructure depends on increasingly complex global supply chains, with significant reliance on imported critical grid equipment and component parts. This exposes Canada to potential geopolitical risks, supply chain shocks and cost volatility. These deployment barriers also have the potential to impact Canada's energy security and domestic self-sufficiency. To address these challenges, the report identified several near-term priorities.

First, we need to strengthen domestic supply chains for critical grid technologies by expanding existing investment tax credits to include key grid equipment and to target investment where Canada can build capacity. This measure aligns with pillar four of the national electricity strategy.

Second, the report has found that there is a need to modernize utility regulatory frameworks. Current frameworks often favour traditional capital-intensive infrastructure and do not fully enable digital solutions or demand-side measures, or what we call non-wire alternatives. These are solutions that enable utilities to extract more value from the existing grid assets.

In addition to supply-side investments, demand-side measures are also critical.

Energy efficiency, load shifting and customer-side flexibility are among the most cost-effective ways to manage peak demand, improve system reliability and defer costs of costly infrastructure investment. These measures complement grid expansion.

In closing, Canada has a clear opportunity. The technologies needed to support electrification and strengthen energy security are available today. The priority now is to remove the barriers to deployment. By bolstering supply chains, modernizing regulations and standards and providing policy certainty, Canada can accelerate grid development, improve system reliance and support long-term economic growth and energy security. EFC and our members are standing ready to support the government in this work.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Ms. Sinasac.

Now we will move on to Ms. Dovgal.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Margareta Dovgal, Managing Director, Resource Works Society]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here with you today.

My name is Margareta Dovgal. I'm the managing director of Resource Works Society, based in Vancouver. We're focused on responsible natural resource development as a foundation for economic prosperity, indigenous partnerships and practical pathways needed to meet Canada's climate and energy goals in tandem.

I also work closely with the Energy Futures Institute, where former B.C. environment minister and attorney general Barry Penner leads our work on pragmatic, evidence-based energy policy, particularly around electrification. Our consistent message is that Canada and British Columbia succeed when policy is grounded in reliability, affordability and the full range of our energy strengths, including our deep hydroelectric base and our abundant natural gas.

The motion before you rightly calls for an in-depth look at electrification, energy self-sufficiency and domestic energy security while respecting provincial jurisdiction. We welcome the study and the May 2026 national electricity strategy, powering Canada strong, with its ambition to double Canada's electricity supply by 2050 by providing greater flexibility in the clean electricity regulations.

British Columbia offers a clear illustration of why that flexibility matters in practice. Under the province's look west: jobs and prosperity strategy, and federal signals around ambitious LNG expansion, natural gas production in British Columbia is forecast to grow significantly. The province is on track to export 19.4 million tonnes of LNG per year by the end of this decade, with proposed projects bringing that number to a further 28.5 million tonnes. This growth supports LNG exports and condensate demand tied to Alberta's oil sands.

Producing and processing gas takes power. Electricity demand from the upstream natural gas sector, which relates to the power needed to run the gas fields themselves, is set to rise faster than BC Hydro's 2025 integrated resource plan anticipates. Industry analysis, including work shared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, shows that trajectory pretty clearly.

British Columbia is building the north coast transmission line to bring more than 2,200 megawatts to the northwest, but transmission at that scale takes years to get to that point. In the meantime, these facilities need power that is abundant, reliable and affordable. In many cases, the most practical answer is greater industry self-generation paired with natural gas as firm dispatchable power.

Natural gas is already playing this role at scale. In 2025, gas and other combustible generation reached its highest level and its highest share of the Canadian grid in the current data series, rising for years as gas displaces coal and backstops a system stretched by drought-reduced hydro. Gas provides the reliability and peaking capability that intermittent sources and long transmission lines alone cannot guarantee, especially as we electrify buildings, transport and industry while adding data centres and resource projects.

The national electricity strategy correctly recognizes that natural gas can play a strategic role in a diverse portfolio. The proposed adjustments to the clean electricity regulations—chiefly, greater use of credible offsets, flexibility to avoid stranded assets and support for near-term reliability—are positive steps. For them to deliver, they must be durable and certain enough that developers and operators will actually invest behind them.

Provincial jurisdiction is central here. B.C. has its own integrated resource plan, the CleanBC framework and the building electrification road map. A national strategy should coordinate on interprovincial transmission and regulatory efficiency while respecting the ability of provinces to plan their own mixes. Top-down prescription risks higher costs and slower progress. Enabling provincial leadership, including the practical use of natural gas where it strengthens reliability, produces better outcomes.

Resource development is itself part of the solution. LNG and upstream natural gas drive jobs, growth and government revenues, which in turn help fund the very infrastructure this study contemplates. In British Columbia, they increasingly do so with first nations as owners, not just hosts. Cedar LNG, which is a Haisla Nation majority-owned project, and the Nisga'a-partnered Ksi Lisims development, which signed a European supply agreement last month, show what indigenous-led energy looks like in practice.

Where we can add value at home, we should. Generating power here keeps the jobs, the reliability and the emissions advantage in Canada. Canadian LNG, with one of the lowest emissions intensities in the world, gives our allies a lower-carbon option than the fuels it competes against abroad.

If I can leave the committee with one thing, it is this. Plan realistically for resource-driven electricity demand in British Columbia. Let industry self-generate and use gas as firm power alongside hydro. Make the clean electricity regulation flexible, real and durable. Respect provincial jurisdiction while coordinating on transmission and approvals, and recognize that responsible development of our natural resources pays for a cleaner grid.

Canada has the resources, the technology and the people to meet rising demand while holding the line on reliability and affordability. British Columbia's combination of deep hydro and abundant natural gas, increasingly developed with first nations, is exactly the pairing a national strategy should enable rather than constrain.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Ms. Dovgal.

Thank you, witnesses, for your presentations. They were all on point and on time.

We're going to move to our MP colleagues around the table, and we're going to start with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'll start with you, Ms. Dovgal and Mr. Larocque, in turn.

Ms. Dovgal, you highlighted that the Liberal fuel standard forces Canada to import biofuels from the U.S., as did Mr. Larocque of the Canadian Fuels Association.

Ms. Dovgal, is it fair to say that the Liberal fuel standard is a hidden tax that currently adds seven cents per litre and will add 13¢ per litre for gas and 16¢ per litre for diesel by 2030?

[Margareta Dovgal]

It's adequate and fair to say that a variety of policies, including the clean fuel standard, are hidden costs on not just the production of resources but also Canadian consumers and affordability. We see it in a variety of ways, but we have to look at it as a package.

This government has said they want Canada to be an energy superpower, but we're still falling quite short of that. We've seen some improvements, notably out of the Alberta MOU, but that relates to Alberta producers. Those were changes on competitiveness, including things like the output-based pricing system, that we need to see elsewhere across the country for us to be able to get to that threshold of being an energy superpower and attracting the capital required to get there.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm going to go to the Fuels Association in a second, but since you mentioned the carve-out in the Alberta MOU, it seems to me—and I wonder what you think about this—this government has been told for years by proponents and utility companies concerned about providing affordable, reliable power to their ratepayers that the clean electricity regulations are divisive, punitive and unrealistic and would drive up costs for consumers, and it has been told that its target is unrealistic on the timeline that they've set.

Given that it has placed that workaround in the negotiations between the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada, it recognizes the anti-competitive impact of that policy. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to scrap it for all the provinces?

[Margareta Dovgal]

I think you're exactly correct about that. We see it across the board. Many policies that we've seen in the last year and a half are essentially a recognition that the way things are set up right now is broken. They're not actually designed to export energy and produce it competitively. They're designed to keep the product in the ground.

The Alberta MOU provisions on electricity are a great example. We also see that in major projects approvals. While the fast-tracking legislation is highly optimistic and promising for many proponents and is certainly a good opportunity to create jobs and opportunities for tax revenues, it is also a recognition that the approvals process is broken. It is not achieving the results that it needs to, whether related to that or other areas of energy and climate policy. We need to be thinking about an overhaul that is actually intended to deliver the types of results that this government says it cares about.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes. That is especially true in regard to being able to compete and beat the United States and OPEC competitors right around the world.

This question is for the Canadian Fuels Association.

In an article in The Hill Times on June 3, you highlighted that Canada “remains heavily reliant on imports—primarily from the United States—to meet a significant portion of its biofuels needs.”

After years of uncertainty and revisions, and proponents telling the Liberals what they need to do to make this policy flexible, workable, feasible and practical if they want to keep these regs in, which Conservatives have committed to scrapping, do you have comments on why Canada has to rely on the United States—which is insane given that they're also our number one customer and competitor—to meet those requirements? What kinds of adjustments could be made, particularly in terms of reducing legislative, regulatory and policy barriers, to incent that production and development and those exports at home?

[Bob Larocque]

I'd like to clarify that a lot of provinces have their own demands. The clean fuel regulations are very important, but we also have to meet demands from all the provinces. That's going to stay.

What happened is the United States changed their policies about two and a half years ago under President Biden, and then President Trump doubled down on it. It's section 45Z in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That incentivized U.S. production of biofuels. They get that incentive in the United States, and then they can sell to Canada and they get the same credits that our Canadian producers do.

That's the bigger difference right now. The biggest change that the current government can make is to amend the clean fuel regulations and allow Canadian production to receive the same support as U.S. biofuels.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks for raising what Biden did in terms of that policy in the United States. I would note that President Biden also brought in concrete two-year timelines for regulatory approvals. That was years ago.

This same Liberal government, which has been here for 11 years, of course, still hasn't fixed the permitting timelines to make them competitive in Canada. It still hasn't fixed the certainty and clarity in conditions or the legislative or regulatory frameworks it knows block building because it has listed all of these laws and regulations in the back of Bill C-5, which it promised would make things happen faster.

I know that you, Ms. Dovgal, and members of the Canadian Fuels Association have commented on, for example, the necessity of increasing project approvals and improving investor confidence through more predictable and timely regulatory systems.

Of course, industry has told the federal Liberals two things over and over again. One is that the federal industrial carbon tax that this government imposes federally on its businesses adds costs to Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs that businesses in the United States or OPEC competitors do not have to face. On top of that, both of you have highlighted various legislative or regulatory changes, including tax costs and environmental compliance costs, which have been noted especially by members of the Fuels Association.

I wonder if each of you could give at least three top changes required to ensure expanded Canadian energy of all kinds—production, development and exports. Maybe you could follow up with written submissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

You'll have to answer that question in a future round, likely from Mrs. Stubbs' party.

We'll now go to Mr. St-Pierre for six minutes.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Sinasac, there's been a lot of technical modelling to show that as our economy electrifies, we need to, at a minimum, double the electricity on our grids by 2050. Some other modelling has shown that we need to potentially triple that capacity or at least increase it by two and a half times.

Can you inform this committee what types of energy sources you think should be included in the grid? I think you mentioned during your testimony that those technologies already exist. I'm curious if you can give us a few examples of those existing technologies.

[Cherith Sinasac]

We are fuel agnostic here at EFC. We will connect any kind of generation source.

As the grid starts to expand their generation sources to wind, solar, rooftop and distributed energy resources, we're seeing that there's a real need to modernize the grid. The more we utilize smart grid technologies, the less grid we will actually need to build. That number, whether we have to double the electricity grid, will be dependent on how we're utilizing existing technologies and innovation.

I hope that answers your question.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

It does. Thanks.

You also mentioned during your testimony, and again just now, the need to modernize utility regulatory frameworks. Given that this often falls within provincial jurisdiction, what's the role of the federal government vis-à-vis modernizing utility regulatory frameworks?

[Cherith Sinasac]

We have a policy road map with this study, so I encourage the committee to look at it. The second of the main pillars is modernizing regulatory frameworks that will enable smart grid and distributed energy resources. The federal government plays a key role in establishing national-scale utility regulatory reform initiatives, and the provinces also play a role in that industry and the utilities regulators.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

You mentioned a road map. Would you be able to provide a copy of that to this committee so that we can take notice of it?

[Cherith Sinasac]

Yes, we'd be happy to supply the road map.

We assessed nine key grid technologies that are available, and we found that the main deployment barrier is the supply chain, along with the utility regulatory rate-setting frameworks.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thanks.

It's often been said that energy efficiency is a—quote, unquote—“first fuel”, and the best energy source is the one that we don't use. I'm curious if you can comment on the role of energy efficiency as we double our electricity grids by 2050.

[Cherith Sinasac]

As you said, demand-side measures are obviously the most cost-effective tool. The kilowatt that we do not need to produce is the cheapest kilowatt. Effective demand-side reduction is complementary to grid modernization and is equally critical. We see these as two sides. We need to build out and modernize the grid, but we also need to reduce demand through energy-efficient products as well as energy efficiency technology such as demand-side flexibility technologies.

That's where modernizing the grid to utilize those technologies will mean that we don't need to build as much grid, but right now it's all about trying to access those technologies and deploy them at scale.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Still on the theme of energy efficiency, can you or some of your members comment or give some opinions on how our government could further advance energy efficiency? Maybe you can comment on any programs that might be interesting to some of your members.

[Cherith Sinasac]

I'm not going to pinpoint a few today. I'll follow up with a written submission on that.

Obviously, in Ontario and throughout the provinces, there are a number of energy efficiency programs. NRCan continues to regulate energy-efficient products, and we're always very supportive of increasing energy efficiency.