Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

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

I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation.

Welcome to meeting number eight of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

There are a couple of things before we start. Yesterday, the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee adopted the travel budget that we submitted. The next step is approval of the House.

There's a bit of change in plans. J.P. Danko has a two-way trip to the Saguenay and Sudbury because of some scheduling conflicts. Safe travels, J.P. I know you'll enjoy Mario's company very much; he'll treat you well.

On Thursday, October 30, we will start the forestry study. If everybody agrees, I propose to invite the Department of Natural Resources for an hour and do drafting instructions on this, our critical minerals study, in the second hour.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of the development of critical minerals in Canada.

I would like to give a warm welcome to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who is from Manitoba, my home province. I get to see the national chief pretty regularly, often on a plane from our home province.

We also have Julie McGregor, acting chief of staff to the national chief, Assembly of First Nations, and Benjamin Green-Stacey, adviser to the chief.

Thank you for being with us today, National Chief. Normally a witness would have five minutes for an opening statement, but there's latitude as you are the only witness. We really want to hear from you. We know that you have important things to share, and I know colleagues will have some questions for you shortly.

Please proceed.

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Chi-meegwetch for welcoming me here today.

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following text:]

Apiichii-gii-chii-nay-dum Akiinaah o-gii-bii-izah-iing omahh noo-gom.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

A huge thank you for welcoming me here today. I’m very honoured to be with you all and glad you are all able to attend this event today.

[English]

I also thank Creator for bringing us together this morning and for giving us all another day of life.

I want to say, for the tech people in the room, that sometimes these committees happen really quickly. I'll remind Parliament and of course the Senate itself to make sure that you're reaching out to, (a), first nations, or (b), to the Assembly of First Nations, and we can certainly help you make sure that when parliamentary committees come up, the voices in this country are all heard. It's not like we're all going to get along every single time, but at the same time, I think it's so important to hear the voices of Canadians, including first nations.

Thank you for welcoming me here today.

To all the members who are gathered here, I would like to acknowledge again that we are gathering here on the territory of the Algonquin nation. I want to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today.

First and foremost, first nations maintain sovereignty over their lands and over their waters and territories. The development of critical minerals must include the free, prior and informed consent of first nations. Now is the time to recognize the strength of first nations as partners in facing geopolitical uncertainty and the threat of increasing U.S. colonialism. First nations lands hold vast deposits of critical minerals and freshwater supplies that sustain communities on both side of the border.

Speaking as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, we are pleased to submit the Assembly of First Nations' technical brief on critical minerals development. Our written submission provides detailed recommendations in five key areas. For the sake of time, though, we will be focusing our remarks today on the first three areas—the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, economic reconciliation and water rights—while noting that the environment and gender-based violence issues are fully developed within the content of our technical brief.

Canada must ensure that all mining projects and activities that take place on or that will affect first nations lands and waters, which is all of this beautiful country, adhere to the minimum standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly article 32. Past legislative development processes where this did not happen, such as the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements, need to be corrected in collaboration with first nations. For example, this committee should support the first nations call for a constitutional review of the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements. All of Canada's laws and policies, including both their final content and the process for the development, must be compliant with section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Economic reconciliation must guide critical minerals policies and activities. Economic reconciliation must not be an afterthought but a guiding principle of Canada's critical minerals strategy. Economic reconciliation means that policies and programs must enable first nations to fully participate not just as stakeholders but also as rights holders, equity partners and co-developers. As one example, despite its recent enhancements, the indigenous loan guarantee program is fundamentally not designed to address community infrastructure needs, the fundamental barrier to economic inclusion and self-determination. Not only that; it appears that the loan guarantee program has effectively replaced Canada's 2022 commitment to developing an actual benefits-sharing framework.

With the increasing attention to critical minerals and fast-track projects, recommitting to a comprehensive benefits-sharing framework with a distinctions-based approach will be critical to ensuring that first nations benefit from any resource development, including mining on their territories. More generally, Canada's approach to critical minerals development must include collaboration with first nations to identify strategic infrastructure and development projects that can serve community needs, support participation in the critical minerals supply chain and strengthen Canada's broader economic and defence priorities.

This is what we mean when we say that collaboration with first nations on strategic dual-use infrastructure projects will serve both community and industrial purposes, and will ensure prosperity for all.

On recognizing and implementing first nations' rights to water, water is life, and the protection of first nations' water rights must guide all critical minerals policy.

In addition to surface disturbances from extractive activities and associated infrastructure, mining activities produce polluting waste, including tailings and waste water. Disasters such as the Mount Polley, B.C. tailings breach show that spills and contamination persist. Too often, first nations are the last to be informed.

We are looking to this committee to recommend to the Government of Canada to introduce first nations water legislation that ensures safe drinking water and waste-water standards; that respects the interests, rights and unique needs of first nations; that reinforces the human right to water and to sanitation; and that includes robust provisions for a statutory funding framework.

The recommendations we have summarized today are elaborated in the AFN's technical submission to this committee.

Chi-meegwetch. We'd be happy to take questions now on this important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, National Chief, for that presentation.

Indeed, we welcome technical briefs. I know the members will look at them very carefully.

We'll start our round of questions with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Grand Chief and your delegation, for being here.

I come from Treaty No. 6, and I was very honoured and privileged to be able to meet you at transport committee in June, and we discussed Bill C-5.

To that end, critical mineral development is part and parcel, at least according to the government's claims about Bill C-5, of the development they want to advance. They've been in government for 10 years. You've made comments today and previously about the significant investment that mining projects can bring to remote regions, where often there are indigenous communities with all kinds of lack of infrastructure and essential needs.

In your view, has the federal government done enough to align with the Assembly of First Nations and other rights and title holders' vision of economic reconciliation so communities can be ensured long-term, sustainable opportunities for self-reliance and economic opportunities?

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

First of all, when it comes to the Assembly of First Nations, we're the collective organizer; we're not a rights holder. I just wanted to say that for the record. There are 634 rights holders from coast to coast, and we're so grateful to be the political organizer. We organize and bring them together twice per year. We're thankful for the participation of first nations from coast to coast at the AFN.

From the creation of this entire country, every single government has failed first nations people. I do want to lift up the little things that matter to our relationship like Stephen Harper's apology, for instance, on residential schools, and there was Paul Martin's commitment, first and foremost, when he was there, to try to push the Kelowna accord. Justin Trudeau did well in trying to bring up the living standards for first nations. You look back at all of that. Yes, I'm glad when prime ministers and their governments try, but at the same time, they have to....

Here we are. I'm glad we're around this table today, but we did have to push a little bit to make sure that we had a space around this House and around the Senate. I think we can do things a lot better. We do have a $350-billion infrastructure gap in communities.

The government came in, just in the spring, for over 20 days and rammed through Bill C-5. That was very fast and very tough for first nations. We were shut out of Parliament. I'm glad we had a few moments to discuss our stance on it but, at the same time, there was lots of leadership here who wanted to speak in this House.

It's so important as Canadians that we make sure that we don't govern like that together. We need to protect the fact that there are environmentalists, Canadians and first nations people and groups who want to talk about some of these issues. Those voices should never be shut down.

Have things improved? They have in some part. At the same time, there's a long way to go. We have to work on procurement problems.

There are too many pretendians out there, and there are too many companies not engaging with first nations but saying they are indigenous. There's that issue alone.

When it comes to critical minerals development, we have to make sure that first nations on the ground have free, prior and informed consent. We need to work, of course, on the recommendations that we're giving here today.

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

National Chief, what concerns me is that neither your organization nor rights and title holders were adequately consulted in the development of Bill C-5, which we discussed during that time.

Now I have concerns, although I have great respect for the individuals on the indigenous advisory council for the major projects office. Given your comments about the requirement and the court precedents that sufficient duty to consult requires a two-way dynamic with decision-makers at the table, Bill C-5 sets out politicians and cabinet members as decision-makers.

Do you think the inclusion of an indigenous advisory board is going to be enough to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult? That is what is important, also given the fact that Conservatives supported the Liberals' claim, through Bill C-69, that they were going to provide capacity funding for sufficient engagement of indigenous communities, because we all know that getting to “yes” in a good way is the only way these projects can be built.

Do you have concerns that decisions coming out of that will face challenges or litigation, or do you want to expand on how that can properly be done with that two-way dynamic and decision-makers at the table?

[Julie McGregor, Acting Chief of Staff, Assembly of First Nations]

To go back to your earlier question about Bill C-5 and whether that consultation and all of those promises occurred to have that engagement, the answer is not to our knowledge.

There is a long way to go in terms of going directly to rights holders. As the national chief said, the engagement was very brief before the bill, and now following it, we think there is a long road to go to ensure that first nations are properly involved in the process.

In terms of the advisory council, we hold up the people who are involved in that. However, that's not a replacement for rights holders and direct engagement with those individuals.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I share that concern. I hope you are listened to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

We're now over to Mr. Hogan for six minutes.

Mr. Hogan, go ahead.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, National Chief. It's great to see you again. You were one of the first individuals I met as a newly sworn-in MP in the new government, and you made me feel very welcome, and I appreciate that greatly.

The new government is one that stands on the progress of other governments, like the work you mentioned of prime ministers Martin, Harper and Trudeau. As has been discussed, reconciliation is a long road that requires us to move backwards and address past wrongs, but we also know we don't have a time machine and we need to move forward and walk paths together in a better way.

Of course, one of the ways that needs to be done is through free, prior and informed consent. One of the things we've heard from other witnesses is that capacity building is very important.

I'm wondering if you could take the opportunity to expand on capacity building. What is your view of the level of resourcing—obviously we have heard that needs to be increased—but also the approach to capacity building that's been taken? Are there things the government should consider as it looks at critical minerals?

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

I think we can list several that are complex, long-standing, systemic and, frankly, unacceptable, but perhaps the most poignant one is that I am the only one here. That's the problem. You can't just have the national chief representing all first nations who are stewards of the land, water and resources that this country is eager to export.

Canada needs to be more proactive in engaging rights holders from coast to coast, and we'll be there to help you as the AFN. That includes, at the absolute minimum, inviting more first nations as witnesses in this study. I am hoping we can do that for next week.

These are the basics when we insist on “nothing about us without us,” of course.

Beyond that, key barriers include limited access to capital, which constrains opportunities for equity participation and project investment; capacity challenges across the project life cycle, including proposals; during flexibility studies, due diligence and technical assessment; navigating complex permitting processes that are often difficult to navigate without specialized technical experts in the field; a general distrust of industry stemming from negative experience, including limited transparency and insufficient early engagement; and a lack of infrastructure, which I know we talked about earlier, such as roads, energy and broadband, particularly in remote northern regions. Some of our kids don't even have access to high-speed Internet or wired Internet. We have a long way to go on that, and that's just one piece.

As well, there are socio-economic factors stemming from colonial policies and programs and a lack of consideration or meaningful engagement in the development of federal strategies or regulatory processes. There is a lot to discuss. Those are just some barriers.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

You mentioned becoming equity partners. I think, broadly, the structuring of deals is something that we have also heard from witnesses about. There have been many comments about the difficulty of accessing equity, becoming meaningful partners. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that you want to share with the committee.

[Benjamin Green-Stacey, Assembly of First Nations]

Accessing equity is only one part of meaningful participation in Canada's economy by first nations. When you think about these major projects, they're opportunities to generate a lot of revenue for a lot of governments, for a lot of private interests, for a lot of corporate and shareholder interests, but for first nations communities, the reality day to day is that there might not be access to high-speed Internet, there might not be access to clean drinking water.

When you see programs like CILGP, which provide access to capital for investment in for-profit major projects, they don't do anything to address on-reserve challenges, which is why the national benefits-sharing framework needs to have a dedicated first nations chapter. That's why it's a priority. We need to address real day-to-day problems that affect people's lives and ability to function before we start talking about major projects that can line pocketbooks.

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

If I could just add to that, as I said in my speech there, I look to this committee and your political will to call for a constitutional review on the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements. I don't know if you all know what those are, but they were agreements between the federal government and three provincial governments that purported to transfer control over Crown lands and natural resources to three prairie provinces. This occurred without the free, prior and informed consent of the first nations whose land and resources were affected.

This shift in jurisdiction has complicated first nations' participation in resource development, including critical mineral development. Decisions about our traditional lands and territories have continued to be made without our input. This committee must acknowledge the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements as a fundamental impediment to first nations' economic development and self-determination, and support the Assembly of First Nations' call for a constitutional review of the NRTA and their compatibility with section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

We look to you all to stand with us and call for that. You see one province trying to threaten to leave to the U.S. It's so unacceptable. She doesn't even have land to take. That land is Treaty No. 6, 7 and 8. Those are their lands.

I know there are tough discussions to be had, but pieces of legislation like this from the 1920s impact us and continue to pull us down today. I think we can do better as a country. Let's get to the table. Let's have these big discussions. Even though they're uncomfortable, we can make a better country by working together in a better way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

We're going to move to our final speaker in the first round.

Mr. Simard, you may go ahead for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

National Chief Woodhouse‑Nepinak, at the end of your last answer, you talked about tough discussions that needed to be had on a nation-to-nation basis. As a Bloc Québécois member, I completely understand what you're saying.

You said that a legislative review was needed in relation to the transfer of control over land. Would you say you are in a dialogue with the federal government as equal partners? If not, what could be done in the short term to establish such a dialogue, especially in the context of fast-tracking the development of critical minerals? What could be done to foster a dialogue with first nations as equal partners?

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

That's a good question.

I know there are so many other ways, but one way.... We always jump forward to participate in federal-provincial-territorial meetings. We're invited for a couple of hours the day before. Then the next day, when the federal government comes in, with the premiers for instance, they'll talk to us for maybe an hour or two. I always tell them it's “the little kiddie table”. I got into an argument with the premiers this summer about that, but thankfully we went out of there and we were united.

It's tough. For instance, with health care—or this issue or that issue—you come together to speak about these things and there's always, like, an hour set aside to talk about indigenous issues. Then the provinces and the feds say, “Okay, thank you. Go out now”, and we're excluded from those talks. I think that has to change in this country. It's always so disrespectful to have to leave the next day, when the real business gets talked about.

This past summer I met with all the premiers and I told them to make a seat for us at the table. They said that they always need their own group to talk as premiers. I get that, but when they're speaking with the feds and first nations people are left to the side, who's speaking for us? Nobody. Everyone wants to say that they have jurisdiction over us, yet nobody is speaking for us. We often get left out of big conversations. It always seems to be the elephant in the room.

Here's another example. I was saying to Indian affairs.... I always call it Indian affairs. I know you all switch that name every few years to Indigenous Services and everything else, but it's Indian affairs. There's not even an FPT table for them. There's no talking space for the provinces and the feds to speak with first nations directly on many issues—on health care, on education or on big projects. There's no set space for these conversations.

I think if we had that, we'd be further ahead as a country, instead of piecemealing and always trying to get our voices heard, so I think one thing is including us as true partners in this country.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I take it that the government's approach to consultation is just a facade, so it can say that it consulted you. However, a lot needs to be clarified before the process can be called a real consultation.

I've always wondered about the concept of free, prior and informed consent. It's something that is hard to define, especially with the passage of Bill C‑5, which allows the government to take liberties in relation to standards and regulations.

I'd like to know whether there are any mechanisms that provide support, given the highly complex technical and technological aspects of mining projects in some cases. I'm not sure whether you receive any sort of guidance to help you with all that. It seems to me that, before you can give free, prior and informed consent, you need to have not just all the information, but also the ability to make sense of it all.

Is there some mechanism for natural resource projects to ensure that that information is provided?

[Julie McGregor]

That's a really good question.

It's actually a very big challenge, in terms of major natural resources projects going forward, that there's inconsistency in terms of support that first nations have.

You're right. The regulatory processes are very complex and very long. The lifespan of a project can have several regulatory processes that first nations just don't have the capacity to meaningfully participate in, even though that's the law. Even in duty to consult, first nations have to be meaningfully engaged in the process. Often, it's left to industry to provide that support.

The Crown often delegates its authority to that and that makes for inconsistent application of....There's really no mechanism beyond the fact that it's a legal standard. There is no uniform mechanism for first nations and rights holders to be meaningfully part of the engagement, the consultation and, as you say, free, prior and informed consent.

That standard requires exactly that: Free means first nations are willing to do this; prior means beforehand; and informed means that they have all the information in front of them in order to engage in the process. That's the standard and there should be adequate resourcing for them to do that for a multitude of reasons, but mainly the ones our national chief mentioned. There's an infrastructure gap. There's chronic underfunding. First nations are always in a situation where they're trying to manage a multitude of social and economic factors along with being part of a complex regulatory process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Colleagues, we're going to go to our second round.

Monsieur Malette, please go ahead for five minutes.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

National Chief Woodhouse-Nepinak, wachay.

Since the introduction of Bill C-69 and its framework for impact assessment, has the government fulfilled its commitment to meaningfully consult and consider indigenous communities in project reviews?

[Julie McGregor]

It depends on the project, obviously. If you were to canvass rights holders as to whether they feel they've been adequately consulted on these things, I think the answer would be no.

As the national chief mentioned, Bill C-5 was the example of how things go in terms of major projects and consultation and FPIC. You're given a very quick turnaround time in which to provide your consultation, and there aren't adequate resources to do it, so I'd say no.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

You said, “It depends on the project”. Would you have a project that would be a model—maybe not a model, but one that could guide us?

[Benjamin Green-Stacey]

The best examples of Impact Assessment Act implementation would be the regional impact assessments that are happening right now for the St. Lawrence and for the Ring of Fire.

However, with the implementation of the Building Canada Act and with the progress of these major projects, there's no guarantee, no certainty, that the findings of these assessments will be in any way considered before these projects are authorized and implemented. That's unacceptable.

One of the recommendations that we're making in the report is that regional development plans be developed and supported with first nations. What that could look like is a comprehensive regional impact assessment.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Along that same line, should we prioritize deeper consultation with indigenous communities and empower them to lead negotiations directly with resource companies? What are your thoughts on that?