Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Okay.

The other thing would be dealing with legislation and regulations. It's been talked about non-stop. It would benefit the whole mining industry and we wouldn't need a major projects office. We could just fix the regulations, fix the investment and fix the certainty, which would make a huge difference not only for critical minerals, but for all mining in Canada.

[Chad Ulansky]

I think everybody is on the same page in wanting to have responsible mining occur as quickly as possible, and I'd like to believe that we are all working toward that end as efficiently as we possibly can.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Great.

I have one minute left.

Do you agree with the system we have? It's been talked about, so I want you to recap it again.

If we look at some of the incentives and streamlined processes in places like Australia and the U.S., it's clear how important it is to do a better job and why we need to do a better job. It's because we're competing in a global economy with resources that can flow and capital that can flow, etc.

You have 30 seconds.

[Chad Ulansky]

Basically, as we've all discussed, we're in a global environment. Capital flows to where it feels it has the best chance of return, and Canada needs to compete. There are a lot of strengths in Canada. We have great mineral endowment. We have amazing people. We have a stable government. There are still some shortcomings that we need to work on, like times for permits, but you can't replace having the minerals in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Guay for four minutes, followed by Mr. Simard for two minutes and then we'll wrap up.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This question is for Mr. Cataford.

Mr. Cataford, you mentioned a project to connect two railway lines to create a loop. You said that this would be a turning point for your company and for the Labrador Trough region.

What can the federal government do in terms of regulation or capital investment to support this particular project?

[David Cataford]

I think the days when mining companies owned infrastructure are over.

Access should be provided to the territory and as many projects as possible should get off the ground. Reducing the risk associated with our projects is also an objective.

In the Labrador Trough, there is a unique project to connect two railway lines approximately 400 kilometres apart. These lines run down to two ports, which are 50 kilometres apart. The distance of the connection needed to link these two lines is approximately 25 kilometres. It would therefore be a small investment, and I use that word advisedly.

If we were to consider building a new railroad, the investment would be $7 billion to $8 billion, whereas connecting the two existing railroads would require an investment of approximately $800 million. For a fraction of the price of a new railroad line, we could potentially double the rail transport capacity in the region.

The government’s role is to seize this opportunity to find a solution to unblock the Labrador Trough. This involves working with the four groups that currently own parts of the railway to connect them and create a loop. It also involves working with partners, such as pension funds, to obtain the necessary capital.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cataford.

Mr. Mullally, I'm going to direct the next question to you because your company has a lot of experience working with indigenous people over many years and on many different projects.

I'm interested in the lessons. We talked about about Bill C-5 and consultation, but I also heard Mr. Singh talk about resourcing for first nations.

Can you talk to me about some of the things that we should focus on, include and encourage, with possible templates that we should prepare in advance, on how to work with first nations based on your lessons learned?

[John Mullally]

I think the strength of first nations typically starts with a good, strong governance structure and finding ways to incorporate the nations in early stage studies. This includes production from an employment perspective, business opportunities and working especially with development corporations. I think the indigenous development corporations have come a long way in many parts of the country and have significant benefits. In particular, these development corporations often pay dividends to the communities and are therefore a credible source of revenue.

We've also seen that governance and British Columbia's consent-based decision-making can work, but it is a significant lift for the nations to essentially run parallel processes where there are statutory decision-makers. I think that can work, but where the federal government needs to step in is to resource nations to ensure that natural resource development is proceeding at the same rate as community development is proceeding. It's hard for nations that are in regions where they see mining and companies prospering and where their own services are substandard. It's very difficult for them to support the projects.

Our philosophy at Newmont is that we will only continue to build and prosper at the same rates as we've made significant investments in community development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Mr. Simard, wrap up the morning and the afternoon, please.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Mullally, I would have liked to address the issue of raw material processing and the value chain, but unfortunately we will not have time. However, I would be very interested in any information you could provide on this topic.

Mr. Cataford, you mentioned—along with my colleague Claude Guay—a project for a rail link. The aim is to connect a railway line from Rio Tinto to ArcelorMittal.

Am I mistaken?

[David Cataford]

The project aims to connect the Rio Tinto and ArcelorMittal railway lines. We already have 36 kilometres of railway line, and the Quebec government also owns 36 kilometres.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I see.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, there is a problem with the Roberval-Saguenay railway, which belongs to Rio Tinto. Without wishing to offend the people at Rio Tinto, I have to say that it is sometimes a little difficult to communicate with the employees of this company. I wondered whether a mechanism could be put in place to solve this problem.

However, this might require negotiations. This approach is used in the telecommunications sector. For example, there was a mechanism in place for infrastructure owned by Bell that allowed other telecommunications giants to use it.

Is it difficult to reach an agreement when the infrastructure is owned by a competitor or someone who has different financial interests than you?

[David Cataford]

There are two different situations. If a railway line crosses two provinces, transport falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, the Canadian Transport Act applies. For example, freight cannot be refused on this railway line.

Let’s take the example of the Rio Tinto railway line on the Côte Nord. As it runs through Labrador and Quebec, no one can prevent us from travelling on the company’s land. On the other hand, the ArcelorMittal railway, located in Quebec, is entirely privately owned. In this case, the company is not obliged to accept freight.

In your situation in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where the railway runs through a single area, there is no obligation to transport freight.

If railways fall under the Canadian Transport Act, this is of course positive, as it enables projects to be developed.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You must certainly understand that you are speaking to a sovereignist who may not see things the same way. Mitigation measures will definitely have to be taken.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

On behalf of the committee, thank you to our witnesses. You've had a lot of time with us. It's been very valuable with robust questions and answers with much conviction. We've learned a lot and appreciate your coming out to see us.

Again, anything you would like to provide to us in writing is welcome. I know our analysts have been writing feverishly and have captured some of the powerful thoughts you shared with us today.

Colleagues, I'm entertaining a motion to adjourn.

Hearing no objections, we are adjourned.