Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Chad Ulansky.

You mentioned that a lot of the minerals in Canada are away from the population, but what's interesting is, when I look at our critical minerals map, a lot of the deposits have been found—and I think the key word is “found”—in areas where the population is, except for the Rockies.

I'm curious if you can dive into why that might be and what we can do to fix it.

[Chad Ulansky]

The reason is that exploration is very high risk. Because of that, we tend to look for projects close to where there's infrastructure and where it's cheaper. As a result, there aren't many companies willing to go out to those blank areas and look for resources.

I'm fortunate—or unfortunate—to have spent a lot of time looking in those blank spaces and finding things that haven't been found before, and that's where a lot of the new discoveries are going to occur. You're right: If you take a look at the map of the mineral occurrences, you can see where all the infrastructure is, because that's where people have explored.

Those blank areas on the map are where the new significant tier one discoveries are going to be made. When we make them, we're going to need to have some guarantee that we'll be able to get some infrastructure built to them so that we can bring them to market.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

You talked about investment in the infrastructure. You said that investment has been more short-term focused now, perhaps more than ever, was what you were alluding to. I worked in the mining industry, and I saw that. In the mining industry, the investors seem like they'd rather make a dollar today than two dollars tomorrow.

I'm curious if you could elaborate on that and what we should be doing as a country to motivate people to invest in the long term.

[Chad Ulansky]

That's a really good question, and I don't have a good answer for you as to how to produce that longer-term view on investment. I think society in general is shorter term. It's not just investment. Everybody has a very.... How long is a TikTok video? That's literally people's attention spans at the moment.

[John Mullally]

I'll jump in there, Mr. Rowe, to talk about this particular region in northwestern British Columbia. It was really the target of...when we acquired Newcrest in 2023, Newmont saw this region in northwestern British Columbia as a place we could do business for many generations to come. We have people in our company looking 100 years down in terms of infrastructure needs and trying to understand how things are going to evolve here. The first thing is the transmission line and the road did bring those initial discoveries and led to some of the first operations, so adding in additional transmission and additional infrastructure will do that as well.

We've talked, too, about working with indigenous people, and that will be a really important component to solidifying the resource development. Essentially, how can we do that in combination and advance reconciliation at the same time?

The other thing is the geology. These ore bodies are ones that do have the copper-gold porphyries that are large enough to sustain operations for 50 or more years. We have a view at the Red Chris operation right now, for example, that you could operate there for another 50 years, though not for every single type of deposit. Chad and people who understand the geology better than I could detail that. The short term going in and exploiting smaller deposits over short amounts of time doesn't set up well, but infrastructure and investments in workforce development and training and getting large companies in, like ourselves, with over 100 years of experience in the industry and bringing the expertise to the area, can set up certain regions for significant critical mineral production over many years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Rowe, I think Mr. Singh has a response for you, if that's all right with you.

Mr. Singh, go ahead.

[Sandeep Singh]

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if it's much of a response, but I'll say it quickly anyway.

I think at the end of the day, we have to be good businesses, which we are. There are lots of great Canadian companies doing good things in Canada. John, Chad, David and I are reasonably resourceful. We have opportunities and we have chosen to tackle the things we're tackling, because we think they're great opportunities that can provide a good for Canada and our investors.

Ultimately, we're not going to change the world. We're not going to change how people invest. I think we have to have a product that they're compelled to want to invest in. Whilst there are places in the world where you can do this easier and maybe quicker, if I'm being an optimist like Chad was earlier, I'd much rather have a balanced approach that leads to a successful outcome in Canada. Once you are permitted in Canada, once you have a mine running in Canada, it's among the best places, if not the best place in the world, to have it. We've seen how you can go faster in other places. Panama was one example, and that mine got taken away two years into production.

I think it's about finding the balance. Right now, I'll admit things are stacked against us a little bit in the mining sector. Anything that could be done that relieves that pressure and simplifies the process will go a long way. The rest of it is on us to find those investment dollars, which we're all capable of doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Rowe.

We're on to Mr. Hogan for five minutes.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for your time today. It's very valuable in helping the work of this committee as we work on our common goal of supercharging critical mineral development in Canada.

Building off Mr. Martel's and Mr. Simard's questions about capital, I want to ask about access to capital and how we draw capital to Canada. It's also been identified by earlier witnesses as the most essential component to the development of critical minerals. It's also one of the roles of the Major Projects Office, helping projects access the capital they need. As Mr. Guay was mentioning, critical minerals as a basket is one of the areas the Major Projects Office is working on.

I want to ensure that, first, Mr. Ulansky's comments about overall improved regulatory environment are well heard. It's something the Prime Minister himself has said will be a focus of this new government as we bring average timelines down. One of the other complementary things I have heard would be that to access capital would be examples of projects going well and going quickly in Canada. You could then point markets to show Canada's new government is living our time to build mantra.

My question for the witnesses is on having their thoughts on that view, that case studies of Canada's new government's new approach would be helpful in accessing capital. Also, when you look at it through that lens of speed, when you weigh projects more heavily by speed, where do you think the opportunities are for Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Cataford, go ahead.

[David Cataford]

First, I think the importance of the critical minerals list was key if you take our example in attracting capital. As soon as Canada, Newfoundland and Quebec put high-grade iron ore on the list of critical minerals, which was welcome because it is essential to decarbonizing the steel industry, we were able to secure a partner, Nippon Steel and Sojitz, to commit to invest $2 billion in Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to develop the Kami project.

Where we still have quite a potential issue is when we talk about the infrastructure side. As a mining company our cost of capital is much more expensive than on the infrastructure side. To give you an example, if I go to see a pension fund company in order to borrow money, if I borrow it as Champion Iron, it's going to cost me a whole lot more than if I borrow it as infrastructure company X. If we're able to separate the infrastructure side and have that financed in a separate way and allow us to focus just the investor dollars on the actual mining side, I think that's one of the paths that will attract more capital into the region for sure.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Do any other witnesses want to weigh in on that?

I see Mr. Singh.

[Sandeep Singh]

Yes, thank you.

If you're talking about where we can access capital efficiently as a sector, if you're drilling and finding and having success from a drill perspective, you'll find all kinds of capital. Money will come your way. If you're producing effectively as well, there's capital even if you probably don't need it at that point in time, because you're in the cash flow side of your business. It's in the middle. It's in that trough that we often refer to, that permitting timeline where you're spending huge amounts of money on a relative basis given the size of your company. There's no assurance on timelines. There's no assurance on success at the end of those timelines, which is fair enough. You have to do the work to prove that those projects should move forward. I think having some success stories, being able to point to your comment about how the commentary at the top is actually funnelling through the bureaucracy in leading to streamlining, that's where the rubber hits the road. I've had plenty of investors say, “We're talking about a multi-year permitting process; come talk to us at the end of it.” That's the challenge. That's where we need to really—again, some bias accepted—shorten that timeline if we're going to attract capital to the mining sector. That's where it's more starved.

[John Mullally]

I have one example, Mr. Hogan.

In northwestern B.C., again where Newmont has two operations, the capital decision is coming up relatively soon at the Red Chris mine. It's one that was listed to be designated amongst the first five.

Bill C-5, the Major Projects Office and the profile that's come to the Red Chris project since, along with the investment that was made on the road through the critical minerals infrastructure fund and the financing that may be part of the designation with respect to the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, all of this has had a very significant impact on our board.

Our board will be making the investment decision upwards of $4 billion Canadian in May or June next year. These steps that are being taken are being noticed by a multinational like ours, so it has had a significant impact.

Additional infrastructure and the next phase of projects in that region would require additional power. Galore Creek, for example, is not a feasible project without an increased enhancement to the transmission line. Additional power up there would serve to induce future capital decisions from Newmont.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thanks, Mr. Hogan.

If Mr. Ulansky has a comment later, Mr. Hogan has another opportunity to ask that question.

Next we have Mr. Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be brief.

Mr. Cataford, you did not answer my question earlier about funding, but you did answer my colleague Mr. Hogan’s question.

If you want to please the government, you don’t ask it for money. You can simply ask it to make regulatory changes. The government likes that.

Let’s suppose you have as much power as my friend Claude Guay and that you have the minister’s ear. What kinds of short-term regulatory changes could we make that would have an impact on you and facilitate the launch of projects?

[David Cataford]

For our part, we don’t just ask for money. We are proud to have helped the governments of Quebec and Canada to make some.

I think that when you invest fairly in a project, it certainly provides the initial momentum to attract other capital.

If governments are willing to support projects fairly, it can be very profitable for taxpayers when done right. This can be a very positive factor.

When it comes to regulatory changes or ways of changing how we work, taking more risks to support projects can lead to a good return on investment, if done right.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Would you like to add any comments, Mr. Singh?

[Sandeep Singh]

Thank you.

Fixed timelines are needed that we can point to as an industry and say that we know the process we're going down. I think that would be something. It's what we're talking about when we're talking about streamlining permitting on the federal level.

We have a different process in the Yukon that we're about to begin. However, having some certainty that these timelines which will stay long will actually have some endpoints to them will allow you to run your businesses accordingly, because the worst thing that can happen is that you start a process and you don't know where it ends.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to clarify one point. If I don’t have enough time, I may come back to it in the next round of questions.

Many of you mentioned the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit. As I understand it, this does not currently apply to critical minerals.

You also mentioned the reduction in GHG emissions that high-purity iron and copper allow. I understand that at Glencore, if we didn’t burn what is commonly referred to as scrap, i.e., recycled materials, but rather copper, there would be fewer emissions.

Is this something that would be eligible for the clean technology tax credit?

As I understand it, you are not currently eligible for this credit.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

It's probably a good time to note that any further detail you want to relay to the committee can be done by brief. If you didn't have an opportunity to answer a question of one of the members, that's a good way to get information to the committee, to the analysts, and hopefully influence the final report.

Do we have one quick response?

Mr. Mullally.

[John Mullally]

I can take that.

Thank you for your question, Mr. Simard.

In terms of the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, the threshold for copper is currently 90%. In that case, most major copper deposits would not be eligible. Essentially, you'd make most of the copper in Canada not eligible for this particular tax credit, one that, as I mentioned, would be very instrumental and critical in terms of inducing major investments.

We spoke about the copper and gold porphyries in British Columbia, in northwestern B.C. That example I know very well. The copper content is closer to 50%. One of the ideas is to lower that threshold from 90% to 50%, making many significant projects eligible and, in turn, inducing major investments in the sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

We're going to Mr. Tochor and then Mr. McKinnon for five minutes each. That will complete the third round. We'll go on to a reduced fourth round after that.

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Ulansky, I'm not sure how closely you follow other natural resources, but CBC reported on September 29 that Calgary's Imperial Oil announced that it will eliminate 20% of its workforce, approximately 900 jobs, most of which are in Calgary. Are you aware of that report?

[Chad Ulansky]

Yes, I did hear that it was trying to minimize its costs.