Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2026

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

I don't think that's what I said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We're going to move on to Mr. Danko for five minutes.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to stay on the nuclear theme, because this is a really important sector for Ontario in particular.

Canada is a leader in nuclear technology, which has the potential to help us meet our growing demand for clean, carbon-free electricity across the country.

My first question, Minister, is a big-picture one: How do you see nuclear fitting into Canada's energy production on a broad scale?

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

That's a great question. Thank you.

To start at the most macro level, there are four or five countries in the world that would be characterized as tier one nuclear-capable countries, meaning they can go from the start of the chain in terms of mining the uranium to using their own reactor technology to generate, and do all the stages in between.

Canada is one of the very few tier one nuclear countries. It's built on the backs of a huge number of Canadian scientists, Canadian workers, Canadian miners and some great CANDU technology. We are also the second-largest uranium producer in the world, and we hold the largest high-grade deposits globally, which is a key part of expanding our exports to countries such as India, with which we just signed a $2.6-billion supply agreement.

In just the past few months, the CNSC has approved two new uranium mining projects in the Athabasca basin, in this gentleman's home province of Saskatchewan: the Denison Mines Wheeler River project and the NextGen Energy Rook I project, both of which will support continued investment in Canada's nuclear fuel sector. The Patterson Lake south uranium mining project is also under regulatory review with the CNSC right now, and hopefully there will be good news on that coming soon.

When it comes to deploying nuclear reactors, we are making historic investments in Canada's nuclear sector, including a $2-billion investment through the Canada Growth Fund in the Darlington new nuclear project, which will be the first small modular reactor built in the G7, helping to deploy investment across Canada's nuclear supply chain, which is one of the best in the world. We've also launched government-to-government discussions with Poland, where I was in the spring, as a potential adopter of Canada's CANDU technology for its second nuclear power plant site.

At the same time, we're working on a nuclear strategy that will lay out our vision to attract billions of dollars of investment and position Canada to continue to be a leader in nuclear innovation.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

It's really great to hear about the momentum in the nuclear sector and especially that our government is taking action to benefit all areas of Canada, including Saskatchewan.

In your opening statement, you spoke about us being at a rupture on the global geopolitical stage and the need for Canada to take a leadership role. That is highlighted by the disruption of global energy markets due to the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Can you elaborate on what Canada is doing to respond to help bring down prices at the pumps and increase Canada's energy security?

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

Since coming into office a year ago, our government, as has been noted, has cut taxes by 28¢ per litre, which is helping Canadians deal with this reality. We didn't ask for this war, but we have to deal with it. That includes the 10¢ cut in fuel excise taxes, which took effect this past Monday.

Canada's role right now is to bring relief for the energy supply shocks that we're all currently experiencing as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. We're supporting the International Energy Agency's largest-ever oil stock release by producing 23.6 million additional barrels of crude oil through both incremental production and delays of turnarounds at Canadian facilities.

This demonstrates the importance of the investment in energy infrastructure that has been made. For instance, the expansion of the TMX project has meant that Canada has increased oil exports through this pipeline by 100% relative to 2024 levels. The Trans Mountain pipeline has proposed a further 10% increase in capacity through a series of three optimization projects. Construction is expected to begin this August, and that project could be operational by as early as January 2027.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Danko.

We're going to move on now.

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I did a quick search. The indigenous loan guarantee program increased from $5 billion to $10 billion in March 2025, and it's for projects that can be up to a billion dollars.

In the case of the pipeline, if there were multiple proponents, the federal support could be around $10 billion.

Is that correct?

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

I believe there is up to $1 billion per proponent. Yes, that is correct.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

So it could be as much as $10 billion.

I want to go back to the Canada-Alberta agreement. Looking at it more closely, the cap on the price on pollution is $130 a tonne.

According to what I've read about the Pathways Alliance, in order for carbon capture and storage projects to be cost-effective, the price per tonne must be at least between $150 and $160. In my opinion, carbon capture and storage would no longer be a cost-effective strategy if Alberta decided to set the price at $130.

Once again, I'm appealing to your skills as a banker. There is no longer a business case for carbon capture and storage.

What are your thoughts on that?

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

I don't think your characterization is accurate. We're in the middle of ongoing discussions. The MOU is clear that it is a package, and the proponent agrees that for the pipeline to move forward, the Pathways project would move forward. The carbon pricing formula that is being discussed between the federal government and the Alberta government would obviously be required to make the Pathways project economically viable.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I would not bet against Canadian technology. In my career, having worked with many clean and conventional energy companies, I have watched how Canadian technology has systematically reduced the carbon footprint of our production. When I was at MEG Energy, I watched how new technologies reduced the carbon footprint of each barrel produced by 30%. As years go by, we will see more and more—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I would like to add something in closing.

Pathways Alliance says it will be able to capture 95% of emissions. There is currently no project in the world that can do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

We're going to Monsieur Martel for five minutes.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to talk about natural gas. We know that Canada has to be its own best natural gas customer.

Could you tell me about the developments that are intended to meet the energy needs of eastern Canada and our allies on the other side of the Atlantic?

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

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking about the development of energy resources in eastern Canada?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I'm talking about the need for natural gas in eastern Canada and other countries.

You say that Canada would be a good customer for Europe. I wanted to know if there were any developments to meet those natural gas needs in eastern Canada. There are mining projects in the Far North, and there may be some in the east.

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

Are you asking about European buyers of Canadian natural gas? I think that's what you're asking about.

When I was in Europe, in a number of meetings I had we had strong expressions of interest from multiple EU countries, from multiple non-EU countries in—sorry, I'm trying to be discreet here—Asia Minor and multiple non-EU countries in Europe that are interested in our natural gas.

I can tell you it's commercially sensitive, but several of those countries are in the process of inking contracts with different Canadian projects today.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Is there a possibility that liquefied natural gas projects from the east coast will go to Europe?

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

Again, that would be from a proponent. We don't decide if there is an LNG project in the east. What we do, if a proponent comes forward and says they want to do it and they have the support of the local jurisdiction and indigenous people, is we say yes.

What we see today is Nova Scotia very clearly wanting to develop its natural gas resources. Premier Houston has been very clear.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Minister, let me now turn to the forestry sector.

We know that there have been decades of litigation and temporary agreements.

Can you explain to forestry workers in my region of Saguenay, among other regions, why the government has still not managed to secure lasting solutions with the Americans on softwood lumber?

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

As someone who grew up in a forestry town and knows what it's like to be in a small town where the mill closes, I understand the challenges of the constituents in your riding. The reality is that we can't control what the Americans do. We have had free trade for almost all goods in this country since the 1980s. Unfortunately, with respect to forest products, we're in our fifth trade war with the Americans.

We have gone to the World Trade Organization, and we've used the adjudication routes through the different free trade agreements we've had. We have won every time, yet the Americans continue to foist upon us unjust, unfair and illegal tariffs.

What's the old saying? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The reality of our situation, unfortunately, is the way the money politics work in the United States. The U.S. forest lobby is never going to give us free trade in forest products, so we need to retool our industry. That's why we launched the transformation task force and worked with all of industry to come up with a plan to pivot the industry. As I mentioned in my remarks, we got their report—

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Have you ever assessed the current economic losses related to this dispute and their impact on our sector's competitiveness?

I understand that we're not able to reach an agreement, but have you thought about that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer, Minister, because we're already over time.

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

Have I thought about what? I'm sorry; I didn't hear your—

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I wanted to know whether you have assessed the annual economic losses related to this dispute and their impact on our sector's competitiveness.