Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cra.
A video is available from Parliament.
October 8th, 2026 / 12:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
There are all types of movements you need to take into account. The agency is actually increasingly screening projects out, meaning leaving them entirely to the provinces. There are fewer projects on the way—
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you, but I'm really short on time. I have more questions. I'm sorry.
How many mines were already under construction or producing minerals, of the ones you mentioned?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I didn't mention any, so I don't quite know what you're—
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Earlier, you mentioned 10 mines that were going forward. You were very impressed with the government's progress. I'm wondering how many of those that are progressing were under construction or producing minerals prior to the election. I think there are quite a few, like Red Chris and so forth. These are amazing projects that are moving forward.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I didn't mention 10 projects, but the McIlvenna Bay project is now in production.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
How many received their final investment decisions specifically because of a new federal approval or policy change?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
McIlvenna is an example. We're anticipating a positive decision on Red Chris pretty soon, which will be really important for British Columbia and for the copper sector.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
How much of Red Chris might also have something to do with the $500 million that the government has taken of taxpayer money to put towards that? Do you think some of that might be making a difference?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I'm sure the support of the federal government is very welcome.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Can you identify a mining project that was stalled before March 2025—the election—and has since moved into construction because the federal government removed a regulatory obstacle?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I'm sorry, but this is not how the system works. For any project that's having an impact assessment, it's an iterative process, and there are steps along the way. We are seeing, as I said, improvements being made in real time in terms of how the agency is managing projects.
What you need to measure are new projects coming in against the projects that were there before. That is going to take experience, and it's going to take—
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
A lot of the projects that we are seeing move forward have already been there for quite some time. I think that was my main question.
I understand that there was one—and I forget which one it was, but I think it was Sisson's tungsten and molybdenum project—that got $8.2 million in federal funding for feasibility studies and basic engineering. That's exactly what you're talking about. Why would they have given them federal funding for that and yet kept it out of Bill C-31? What are your thoughts on that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I've made the point that the government should not be making this particular amendment to the CEEs. It would be nice if they didn't.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Clearly, they think so too, because they put money towards Sisson.
A larger mining company can afford teams of accountants and tax lawyers. What about a small Canadian exploration company? Will the changes we see make any difference for them, or will they need a really big team to be able to access all of that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
Which change in particular are you referring to?
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
It's in Bill C-31. You tell me. I don't know what it takes to get a mining company off the ground, especially a small one.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
The matter we're referring to here in the bill that's relevant to us is a tax issue.
Conservative
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
What the bill is proposing would take away from the ability of a junior exploration company to raise money, and that's our concern, which is why we're asking that it not be done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Gratton.
Thank you, Ms. Jansen.
We'll continue now with Mr. Turnbull for five minutes.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Gratton, I'm going to ask you some questions too, and hopefully help clarify.
I understand the points you made at the outset. I understand the B.C. Supreme Court decision and how it seems inconsistent with the change we're making.
I empathize, and I've heard the feedback that, first of all, flow-through shares work really well in Canada and that exploration costs are able to be financed with that risk capital effectively in Canada—quite effectively, I think. The desire is to somehow scope in the scoping studies on prefeasibility and feasibility. Those expenses are barriers to getting viable projects through the life cycle to the point of development. I also understand that there's that valley of death, and we want to help solve that.
What I want to ask you is whether you are agnostic on which tool we use to help with those costs. If, for example, the federal government were considering some desire to do that through the critical mineral exploration tax credit, would that be another option for doing this that is different from using CEEs? I don't know whether PDAC would disagree with this, but do you really believe it has to be through CEEs and the flow-through shares?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
The change would enable junior mining companies to raise more funds through flow-through by being able to include technical studies and feasibility studies, so yes, it would help them get out of the valley of death.
This goes back to the other member's question about the government giving money to Sisson. You can give money to junior exploration companies, but then the government is in the business of picking winners and losers, as opposed to letting the market decide through CEEs and flow-through shares which companies should advance.
Our preference would be to use the tax system itself rather than government handouts. That's not to say that we don't appreciate them, but using the market is a better mechanism.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I completely agree with that, and I realize that wherever possible, government should not be picking winners and losers. I think that's a good principle.
I see your point about using the tax system, but what I was suggesting is that there are other exploration tax credits that could.... If the costs or expenses you're referring to for scoping studies—prefeasibility and feasibility—were scoped into the expenses for those, would that not be an alternative path to helping with costs to get mines to the development stage?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
Yes. If I'm understanding you correctly, I think we're saying the same thing. Without this amendment, if we were respecting the B.C. Supreme Court's decision, junior mining companies would be able to include these expenses as part of their raise when they go to market. They would be eligible as flow-through share expenses. Instead of being able to raise $3 million for an exploration project, they might be able to raise $25 million to do their economic and feasibility studies.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think we're coming to an agreement here, but I'm saying that this amendment is going to stay. What if the government were to look at the mineral exploration tax credit and critical mineral exploration tax credit? This is not that. This is the Canadian exploration expense. It's a different tax-related policy or tool.
If we were to use the tax credit system to address the gap or concern that you're pointing to, would that not be an alternative path to getting to the same place?