Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 24th, 2025

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Okay. We'll agree to disagree on that one.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

The Competition Bureau is currently investigating the awarding of the management of CNL to American companies. What recourse is there if the Competition Bureau rules against them?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

As someone who spent his life doing M and A, I believe what happens is that, when the Competition Bureau rules, they have what are called remedies.

They offer remedies. It's up to the parties to figure out whether they accept those remedies or not. This may involve the divestment of portions of the business. It may involve other remedies.

The parties to that transaction will have to decide whether they accept those remedies. If they don't accept those remedies.... I am not the agency. The agency runs that. I expect—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I have one quick follow-up question.

When the Competition Bureau began its investigation, this resulted in a delay in the handover of the management of our nuclear labs and forced the government to pay to keep temporary management indefinitely. How much has this miscalculation—leading to a Competition Bureau investigation—already cost taxpayers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

There's just one minute.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

There is a provision to delay the takeover until, I believe—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Just the cost, though—

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

There's none so far.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

There's no cost to the taxpayer.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

No, until March...is my understanding. I feel that what I should do is turn it over to my deputy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That will have to—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Or just a written response....

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

—take place a little later. We have the officials for an hour.

Mr. McKinnon, we have just two minutes for you.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have so many questions and so little time. Let's talk about economic reconciliation. As you know, and as we all know, it's a priority for our government, and it's extremely important for Canada. Can you explain in these two minutes how your work advances economic reconciliation with indigenous people?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for the question.

It's something that's really near and dear to me. In my capacity as the former chair of Hydro One, I saw what well-orchestrated economic reconciliation can do. I stand by the view that when we do economic reconciliation—actually, engagement and reconciliation in general—it accelerates projects. It doesn't slow them down. I saw that first-hand in my role at Hydro One. We were building more transmission lines in Ontario than in any other jurisdiction in North America because we were doing it in partnership with first nations.

Specifically, to answer your question, this government is creating an unprecedented opportunity for indigenous peoples to participate in the economic growth of this country by building in—as one of the five objectives to advance reconciliation—the indigenous advisory group. This will focus on how we encourage all forms of reconciliation, especially economic reconciliation. Adding the $10-billion indigenous loan guarantee program, which we doubled the size of in this last budget, will create untold opportunities for first nations.

I sat with Chief Campbell at Woodfibre and heard about what that project will do for his community. I sat with Chief Nyce of the Haisla and heard what that project will do for her community. I sat with Chief Eva Clayton from the Nisg̱a'a and heard what the projects will do for her community. Up in Timmins, at Crawford, I sat with the chiefs, and when we announced the project was being referred, we got a standing ovation from the four different first nations involved because they know what it means for their communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Minister.

We will wrap up with Mr. Simard, for one minute or so. There's just time for a brief question and a brief answer.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Minister, in my opinion, decarbonizing the economy is like going on a diet. There is a fairly simple principle behind it: When a person is on a diet, they do not eat poutine. There is no such thing as a diet poutine.

I think it is equally impossible to have low-carbon oil and that low-carbon oil is a bit of a pipe dream. Even oil companies have told us that they do not really think it is possible. However, the budget allocates funds for the Pathways Plus project.

I am therefore wondering whether the government is basing its decision-making process on clear information because this seems to be unclear even for the oil industry. It does not seem as though any cost-benefit analyses have been conducted for low-carbon oil. Is this a government fiasco in the making?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a brief response, Minister.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I'll start by saying I really like poutine. I'll go for poutine whenever you suggest it.

I'll use the example of when I was in Germany, a pretty environmentally responsible country. The Germans were very clear to me that they view LNG as a transition fuel. At the same time, they said very clearly that given national security, AI and the dramatic increase in electricity required because of the AI revolution, they will need a lot more LNG, and they will need it for longer. If they need more and they need it for longer, they would like to buy it from Canada because we produce the lowest-carbon-intensity LNG in the world. My view is that, if our allies are going to use it, they want it and we can provide the best in the world, Canadians expect us to take advantage of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to colleagues for a very stimulating first hour.

Minister, we'll let you go, and we'll have your officials for the second hour.

Colleagues, we are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

For the second panel, please allow me to welcome additional officials from the department. We have Isabella Chan, senior assistant deputy minister, lands and minerals sector. Welcome, it's good to see you back.

We also have Glenn Hargrove, assistant deputy minister. Glenn, it's nice to see you again.

Thank you all for joining us.

We will now start the rounds of questions. We don't have a statement.

We will start with you, Mr. Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing at committee. It's always nice to have officials.

I wanted to follow up on the few questions I had for the minister, but with respect to the Major Projects Office process. To your knowledge, have any of the projects announced so far been subject to a conflict of interest screen?

[Jeff Labonté, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

Under the act, if the project were to be considered for designation, a conflict of interest screen would be established, as well as a security review and an assessment.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm sorry. I'll clarify. Have any of the decisions that have been made been subject to a screen that is in place to shield someone from learning about the project or its decision? Usually, if there's a conflict screen in place and someone is not supposed to hear about any information, the document says the decision is subject to a screen and cannot be shared with either the individual or the individual's office.