Evidence of meeting #22 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mine.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
Like our natural gas distributors?
9:55 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
Yes, we'll be paying in Quebec as of 2017. We've been budgeting for...We've had a carbon price for some time now. If there was certainty over that price of carbon, that would be helpful. Even in Ontario, the framework goes out to 2020 and then, after that, it's a question mark. Regarding the price of carbon, I've seen numbers anywhere from $20, all the way up to $150, and that's with the market. The Western Climate Initiative includes California and Quebec, as well. So, you have a big market, and you still have those kinds of discrepancies on price. That's a problem, for sure.
Then you have this significant amount of revenue that's going to be raised. Our question is, well, is it okay? As I had mentioned, we don't have transmission lines in northern Ontario. We have a relatively clean grid, and the province forecasts $8 billion in revenue over the next four years. How is that going to be deployed? That's a bigger question for industry, for me.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
To John, I was really impressed with the work that you've done at the mine, investing another $100 million into that, and things that you've done on your own to reduce your carbon emissions. You're talking about the first mine in Canada that you're going to be doing that's going to be electric.
We've heard from my colleagues on the other side that the infrastructure issues to get to some of these more remote facilities is tough, and I can certainly understand that.
Is this the type of technology that you can use as a template to move to James Bay, and to some of these more remote mines, or are we a long way from that? What do you see as the connector to get us from where this is to, maybe, some of those more remote facilities?
9:55 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
Right now, this is a transmission or distribution-connected solution. At a remote mine that would be a fly-in and fly-out camp, like the Éléonore mine, without a transmission line, with this current configuration, I don't think so. Essentially, you need backup generation with diesel motors.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
Yes, at this point. A lot of the opportunities that go across northwestern Ontario are untapped, not just because of electricity and transmission but also roads, and to be able to access those areas. Infrastructure is a big thing just to access the economic opportunity, and also do it in a way now with this battery technology that's possible and clean.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm going to have to move on to the next person, I apologize.
Mr. Lemieux.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you as well to our two witnesses.
My first question is for Ms. Schwann.
Last week, the president of the Mining Association of Canada explained to the committee that the 39 members of the association adhere to four principles. The first principle is sustainable mining. The second principle is a commitment to maintaining a good relationship with the first nations. The third principle is biodiversity protection and conservation. The fourth principle is the implementation of an exemplary energy and greenhouse gas reduction management system.
I see that your association is guided by those four principles.
Can you tell us how the Government of Canada can help you improve those four principles in Saskatchewan?
10 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Mining Association
I'm sorry, my French is not very good. Can I have a translation, please?
10 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
I can translate. Pierre had mentioned four areas: sustainability, first nations engagement, biodiversity, and energy. He wants comments on how the government can support those areas with respect to mining in Saskatchewan.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Why don't we get the earpiece operating, and we can get the question asked again. We'll start the time over.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Last week, the president of the Mining Association of Canada explained that the 39 members of the association adhere to four principles. The first principle is sustainable mining. The second principle is a commitment to maintaining a good relationship with the first nations. The third principle is biodiversity protection and conservation. The fourth principle is the implementation of an exemplary energy and greenhouse gas reduction management system.
I see that your association is guided by those principles.
Can you tell us how the Canadian government can help you improve those four principles in Saskatchewan?
10 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Mining Association
Thank you.
I think the way the federal government can help us, first on the sustainability question, is making sure there are clear policies and regulations in place, and also that there's a clear path towards implementation.
What we did see in the last regulatory review was a lot of regulatory changes, but the implementation of those changes was not very good. Whether it was because there was not enough capacity within the departments, or whether they weren't sufficiently involved in the regulatory change, I'm not sure. But the implementation, particularly on the fisheries, navigable waters, was not very successful.
In terms of first nations, I think you can help us by not helping us. We have a good process in place. It works for us. Don't complicate things. That's short and simple. We have a great relationship. There are a lot of expectations being raised out there right now, and a concern about whether they're going to be able to be met with the language around FPIC, and people not being sure what that means.
In terms of biodiversity, we're helping to support right now a $5-million study through our membership, actually through our own association, looking at the woodland caribou populations in Saskatchewan in a direct response to its listing as an endangered species under the Species at Risk Act.
We support science-based decisions. We wish Environment Canada would actually also work in a science-based environment. We have concerns about the way that the COSEWIC process works.
A lot of the recommendations coming out of COSEWIC are not science-based. There's a lack of data that supports a lot of the recommendations coming out. It's like a waterfall from that group. We wish they would actually work in a more science-based environment.
In terms of energy efficiency, a lot of times energy efficiency, and I think John has mentioned this, relates to cost savings as well. So it's a win-win on that, if we cannot just reduce GHG and reduce energy consumption, but also reduce water consumption. They are big factors moving forward.
I hope I've addressed your questions. Thank you.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I have a question. On this discussion about regulatory uncertainty and predictability, you're not the first two people to have this discussion.
My question is, in the case of Saskatchewan—but John, you can speak to it across the country—is the regulatory uncertainty a federal issue or is it a problem because there's a conflict between federal regulations and provincial regulations?
10:05 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Mining Association
Where we see most of the regulatory uncertainty right now is on the federal side, whether it's because we have duplication with CEAA, or more particularly on a number of files with Environment Canada, at the moment. Our provincial process is fairly well understood. We think that our regulators work with us and with communities to come to a resolution. We don't see that same effort particularly with Environment Canada.
10:05 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
I don't think it's a simple answer here because, even if you look at the regulatory process itself, as I was mentioning earlier, it's not only about the impacts of a proponent's project on communities, it mixes in all sorts of issues. There is historical legacy, community concerns with other communities. Unfortunately, I don't have a simple answer here.
Ultimately, since first nations fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, I would think a principle design that's geared to greater clarity and understanding of process, both for the communities and for companies, is going to support resource development, and create a considerable increase in understanding and levelling expectations.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I have another question, but I'll save it for later.
Arnold, it's over to you.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you to our guests for being here today.
My question is mostly for John, specifically on the Musselwhite project. That really intrigues me. One of the things that I know from my own riding in northern Alberta is that power reliability, variability, and the price of it, come into play on these large projects. I have some paper manufacturing pulp mills that use copious amounts of electricity. They have their own diesel generators that kick on when the price goes over a certain amount.
How does that affect your project, specifically on the Musselwhite project? Is it reliable and does the price factor in? Does it make sense to go electric versus diesel, just on the cost analysis?
10:05 a.m.
Director of Government Relations and Energy, Goldcorp Inc.
On this one, it's an expansion project that's going to push the life of the mine out another three or four years. You're looking at 811 jobs for an extra three or four years, and another million ounces in gold production, so it's significant.
Due to the limitations on that line, to answer your question, we'd actually have to go to backup generation based on the provincial response that I got yesterday. That's a disappointment because we've gone and eliminated all of our diesel backup generation, so they have no solution for us currently. I should say, we have two options: diesel backup generation, or just even increased conservation and finding even more efficiencies. There are probably some there, I suspect.
What was the second part of your question?