Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

What's your point of order, Mr. Guay?

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

My point of order is that the Department of Finance has not sent us that provision. The committee has not been asked to look at the provision Mr. Simard is speaking to.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Simply for the purposes of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Hang on, Mario. I have to rule on the point of order.

I would ask all committee members to stick to the agenda. We have clauses 593 and 594 of Bill C-15. That is the topic at hand, and the questions should be addressed to the minister in those areas, or at least draw some relevance—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't want this to take my time, Mr. Chair, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Your time has stopped.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

—there was some latitude for my colleague earlier when the minister mostly spoke about international markets, and this was not directly related to what we received from the department of finance.

I would therefore ask you to allow similar latitude. Furthermore, there is a direct link with Bill C‑15, and we are discussing natural gas.

My question for the minister is as follows: If the government wishes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Okay. We stopped your time, Mr. Simard. You can resume, but please try to draw a link to relevance.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, but my time is my time. I can use all my time to speak if I so wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Monsieur Simard, there's another point of order.

Ms. Stubbs, go ahead on your point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Just for efficiency, out of respect for the minister's schedule and for all of us, and also to support our colleague Monsieur Simard, I think we have to wrap this up right now so we don't continue to have these interruptions.

The minister is perfectly capable of answering these questions. He's extremely experienced. He's going to have no problem. He doesn't need anybody running interference.

When ministers are at committee, the convention is to allow latitude for the MPs to ask questions. I will quote PROC from Thursday, February 5, 2026, where the minister's predecessor, of whom I used to be the shadow minister, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, questioned the relevance of what one of the opposition members said. The chair of the committee, on February 5, 2026, said, “I appreciate the interventions. Generally, when a minister is here, there is latitude.... There is generally more latitude given.”

You are a kind and generous chair, as you always are, which is also your personality. I think the minister is more than capable of answering questions. As he has said, Canada is in a crisis. We all agree. We're agreeing on fast-tracking projects, which Conservatives have always pushed for. Why don't we just stop this back-and-forth, get on with the meeting and be efficient for Canadians and for our schedules?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you for that point of order, Ms. Stubbs.

Colleagues, you're very skilful politicians. You can make a link to relevance on the issue we are talking about.

I will allow latitude, but please proceed, Mr. Simard. Your time is starting again.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I think we are squarely within the subject at hand.

What I was asking the minister is whether, if a gas project is not in the interests of a province, the federal government would be willing to press forward even if a province refuses to have a gas project go through its territory.

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

As I've said, we've been clear. We work with provinces. If there is an LNG project in a province, we will certainly take in the input of provinces and first nations. I don't think it's productive to have hypothetical conversations. I talk about actual projects from actual proponents.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I would just like to point out that we have hypothetical debates in Parliament throughout the day. In this regard, we would be unproductive on a regular basis.

I am telling you that because your government announced that it wanted to launch the construction of gas and oil infrastructure. I've not seen a proponent so far, but I know many provinces and many people in indigenous communities have expressed some reservations on that front.

I also know that industry people who have appeared before us have told us that what bothers them the most in infrastructure projects are the standards and the policy framework, which prevent them from moving forward with construction. I therefore have the impression that if you want to accelerate the construction of gas infrastructure, you will inevitably have to address the standards.

In short, my question for you is this: Is the government ready to set aside standards, as we have seen in Bill C‑15, to ensure gas and oil pipelines are built?

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

What the act says is there are five criteria we will use when a proponent brings a project forward:

(a) strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security;

(b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;

(c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;

(d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and

(e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

When a proponent brings a project forward, we will evaluate it against those criteria. To the extent that it meets those criteria in the way of a net benefit to Canada, we consider referring it to the Major Projects Office. If required, we consider designating it, but that is a case-by-case situation.

Every single project will have a unique combination of those five criteria, and it will be the job of the build Canada committee and ultimately the Privy Council to decide whether those five criteria are met and whether it warrants a referral and potentially a designation under the act.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You're alluding to the law resulting from Bill C‑5, Minister. I'm talking about Bill C‑15.

Page 300 of Bill C‑15 states that the government will empower the minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law for a period of three years.

That means that if you wish, you have the power under Bill C‑15, which we will be voting on, to exempt the construction of pipeline infrastructure from the application of any law. I would like to know whether you plan to use that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer, please. There are just 20 seconds left.

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

I think you're referring to the so-called sandbox provisions. Is that correct?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

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

I was the chair of the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization. The use of sandbox provisions is a very common and normal practice of any regulatory body. It is a way to experiment in a time-limited manner to try new things and get things done. One uses the sandbox when one thinks they—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

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

It's quite a normal process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Colleagues, we are going to our second round. Thank you for at least sticking to the topic of LNG and energy, which we're here to discuss today.

Mr. Martel and Mr. Malette, you have the floor for five minutes.

You're going to be splitting your time.