Evidence of meeting #17 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was brunswick.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
No, not processed. The amount of mineral that is processed once and then exported and the amount of mineral that is imported into Quebec to be processed are more or less the same. It balances out.
All aluminum production in Canada is done with imported bauxite and alumina. It comes from outside Canada. If we had to process all ours here and if everyone else did the same elsewhere, there would be no aluminum produced here.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Among Quebec's good practices, are there any that could serve as models for the other provinces in Canada?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
Good practices are exchanged constantly. For training, technological development or work practices, for example, we have a Canada-wide training organization that is trying to standardize training all across Canada.
So the good practices we use or develop in Quebec go out to the other provinces and vice versa. When we see something good and useful being done elsewhere, we use it at home.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mrs. Day.
Sorry, your time is up.
Mr. McGuinty, perhaps you could go ahead, as the last questioner of the day.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, sir.
Bonjour, monsieur.
Thank you for joining us by video, sir, in New Brunswick.
I'd like to go to a theme we're hearing a lot about in the mining sector. It really does touch on the important issue of first nations participation in mining operations.
It's hard to reconcile the different testimony we've been receiving. Some folks come in and tell us, as you have, sir, from the Québec Mining Association, that there are three new impact benefit agreements. The Northwest Territories require socio-economic agreements. Some folks say the capacity problem is so large that it is very difficult to engage and hire and ensure the participation of employees who have first nations backgrounds. Others come in and tell us that hundreds have done post-secondary training as a result of federal and territorial and provincial investments, and occasionally investments by private sector companies like BHP.
I want to go back and put two comments to you for your consideration, particularly with regard to the Quebec mining situation. One was a comment made by a company called Fortune Minerals. In their testimony they said that we should be now reviewing completely our approach to the engagement and the participation of first nations peoples way beyond impact benefit agreements and socio-economic agreements.
With regard to the second comment, I want to read into the record testimony from John Cheechoo, who is the ITK director and who appeared here on November 23. It's very compelling testimony I want to put to you for your consideration, and then I'll stop and ask you to respond.
He said:
That message is that proponents of major development projects in the Inuit homeland should actively seek Inuit partners, and in all cases they must turn their minds to how their proposals can deliver maximum benefits to Inuit communities and households as well as to their shareholders.
The old days of Inuit being passive observers to such fundamental decisions are gone. No approach to resource exploration development in the Arctic will be successful unless Inuit are full partners and draw direct and substantial benefits. This last message was forcefully made and upheld by the Nunavut Court of Justice....
He went on to say the Inuit people forced this Conservative government to halt seismic mapping in Lancaster Sound.
Why aren't we talking, why isn't the Québec Mining Association talking, why isn't the deputy minister from New Brunswick talking about full equity participation by our first nations in these projects? Why aren't our first nations peoples owners of these projects? Why are we only circumventing their participation, hiving it off as capacity to simply be employed? What is it going to take for us—based on your experience with northern Quebec, for example—to simply move to the next step, which is to make first nations peoples full partners with equity participation in these projects?
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
Yes. When you're talking about first nations equity participation, there are steps, because equity participation means, first of all, financing. But we are developing their partnerships now. When I look at mines like the Troilus Mine or the Raglan Mine—and this is also the case with Goldcorp—they have contractors that are native companies, or I would say there are partnerships between large transportation companies and native transportation companies. They are bidding for contracts. They have catering.... So it is progress.
You cannot say that because I decide today I will go to the north and I will tell the natives, “Now, you should fully participate, but first you need equity, and you should finance 50% of expenses.” You remember that when we were showing the projects, there were some for $1 billion and over.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Sir, you are saying the problem is capital. It's not resistance on the part of the project proponents to reach out and offer a hand and say, “A place to begin our negotiations is equity participation.”
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
Yes, to some extent.
When you sit down with the natives to negotiate...we have agreements where natives participate in activities as contractors, as I said. It's progressive learning. We should develop more entrepreneurship with the native communities because they are not used to this concept.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
In fairness, I've been hearing this for 30 or 40 years. In previous lives and doing different work, I've been hearing the same position put forward by industrial associations like yours, or individual mining companies or oil and gas or diamond companies, who keep saying it's a question of time, that it will take several decades. Folks can be subcontractors, they can run kitchens, and they can run trucking operations, but equity participation is much too big a leap, a quantum leap. People often point to the lack of capital as the reason why first nations aren't able to be active equity owners. If that's the problem, then this committee perhaps should turn its mind to how we can make sure that first nations do have access to the equity capital.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
There's about half a minute left.
I want to explain to all the witnesses that we are going to end the meeting after this half minute is up because we have to get to a vote and we'd be back toward the end of the time scheduled for the meeting.
Who would like to wrap this up in half a minute?
Go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
If you are saying that you will come back at 10 or 15 after five, we are ready to stay, if you wish. If you're not, it's going to be over.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Québec Mining Association
I want to say to Mr. McGuinty that there has been huge progress. I remember when I was operating in the mines in the early 1980s. We may have had natives as crusher operators or helpers. Now you have technicians, human resource coordinators, or managers. So there is progress, but it takes some time. You cannot say that—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm sorry, but I have to end it there. We really do have to get going.
Thank you all very much for your participation today.
The meeting is adjourned.