Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here.

You're a numbers guy, a banker. So I'd like to talk to you again about the construction of the pipeline that will be supported by the Government of Alberta as a proponent.

We had a very interesting witness earlier this week, Mr. Rory Johnston. According to him, since the cost of building a pipeline to the west of the country is very high, it is unlikely that the industry would support that solution. In short, he said that public funds should probably be invested in the construction of the pipeline. The Government of Alberta is already clearly indicating that it will do so by being the proponent. For my part, the question that concerns me is whether the federal government is going to invest money in this infrastructure.

I saw Trans Mountain go through, which cost people in the oil and gas sector $34 billion dollars. That infrastructure is not cost-effective. Even Mr. Johnston told us that.

My question is quite simple. As a banker, as a numbers man, do you think a pipeline to the west of the country would be cost-effective?

In addition, does the federal government plan to invest public funds in that infrastructure?

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

I don't know Mr. Johnston.

The characterization that the cost will be very high is an incredible amount of detail to absorb. We can look at the actual reality that the TMX pipeline is full. It is already ready to be expanded. There is demand for it to be expanded using the tolls that are in place and designed to pay for that pipeline. Clearly, there is a commercial demand for pipelines to the west coast.

As I went around the world, many countries and also companies were very keen to buy more Canadian oil off the west coast. They would be thrilled if there was an opportunity to do that.

With respect to public money, I want to be clear. What we have said is that we would support indigenous equity ownership with the indigenous loan guarantee program, so there could be scenarios where public money could be used in a pipeline such that it was supporting indigenous ownership of that pipeline.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That is still quite vague. We don't know how much public money would be invested in the infrastructure.

Mr. Johnston is an expert in market research for the oil sector. I think he's well informed about those aspects.

I would like to get a clear commitment from the government to ensure that something like TMX doesn't happen again. In that case, the government covered the infrastructure costs that the private sector did not want to take on.

That said, I understand that the Alberta government is prepared to stick its neck out, but there would be a gross injustice. You know, all the infrastructure used in Quebec to export energy was paid for by Hydro‑Québec. We never received federal support for that. When funding for power lines in Newfoundland and Labrador came up for discussion, there was quite a hue and cry in Quebec. If oil infrastructure were once again federally funded, that would be very unpopular in Quebec.

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

I'm not going to speak hypothetically about pipelines. When the proponent brings one forward.... In the MOU that was negotiated with Alberta, it was a clear priority that any pipeline brought forward would have indigenous ownership. If those indigenous owners wanted support from the federal government to finance their equity, that would be available under the Canadian indigenous loan guarantee program.

With all due respect, I believe Hydro-Québec does benefit from investment tax credits, so saying that Quebec does not benefit—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Absolutely. I'm talking about infrastructure. I understand the 30% tax credit, but I'm talking about the infrastructure investments that have been made in the past.

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

I believe Quebec benefits from investment tax credits, and I would say as a banker that a dollar is fungible whether it's an ITC or it's an indigenous loan guarantee. A dollar is a fungible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Colleagues, we're going to our second round, and we are going to start that round with Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Tochor, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Minister, you've been ducking out of this committee for months now, and you're here, and I'm grateful that you are, but during this hour, we're supposed to go through the supplementary estimates and the main estimates for 2026-27, and then there's another hour to look at the management of the Canadian nuclear laboratories by U.S. companies.

I have five minutes to ask you questions about this important Canadian jewel in our nuclear industry, the management of which is being sold out to an all-American-owned group of companies.

How big a role did the Prime Minister have in putting together the government's policy on nuclear?

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

It was zero.

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

The Liberals have proclaimed a buy Canada policy. How does that line up with selling out the controls of our nuclear labs to the Americans, with the Prime Minister having had zero input in this policy?

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

The premise of your question is flawed. The management of nuclear assets is done by contract. There's a structure where it's done by contract—

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

I'm sorry, sir. That's not the question. The first question was about nuclear labs, and you said the Prime Minister had zero impact on the policy. On the buy Canada—

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

No, let's not misquote me. I didn't say zero impact; I said zero involvement. Let's be clear. He had zero involvement.

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

He didn't have involvement, but he had an impact.

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

No, he had zero involvement.

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

Which companies would you have met with on developing the nuclear policy?

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

Are we talking about the nuclear strategy or are we talking about...?

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

All things are nuclear here, sir. We were supposed to have you for an hour, and I now have four minutes.

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

I'm happy to answer your question. You just have to be clear what the question is.

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

The first question was on the buy Canadian policy of the government, and obviously you're ignoring that by going with a buy all-American-owned group of companies.

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

No, that's not—

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

You talked about how the Prime Minister has had zero impact, as you said, or influence, and I wanted to know, as my third question, which companies have. Who have you been meeting with?

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

Okay. I'm confused about your question. Are we talking about the nuclear strategy?

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

Which companies in the nuclear industry have you been meeting with in the last 10 months? You can get back to me with a written submission, if that's what you agree to.

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

I've met with many companies. I'm happy to get it to you in writing, if that's helpful, but I'm happy to talk about it now too, if you'd like.