Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 6th, 2025

[Eric Desaulniers]

Yes, it's my job on a daily basis to raise money.

The challenge, really, is geology. We always have somebody interested in geology if they are properly funded. The challenge is to make sure that the capital markets stay interested in critical minerals all of the time, not in a very cyclical way. I remember Quest Rare developing Strange Lake many years ago, and then rare earth wasn't interesting for capital markets for a long time.

With graphite, we had the chance to be part of a lithium ion battery. I would prefer them to be called “graphite batteries”. It would be clearer that graphite is the biggest component of the battery, but at least we had this push.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you. That's great.

We'll go to Monsieur Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Williams‑Jones, what you said about metallurgy is important. I would like the analysts to take into consideration, for the report, the fact that last week the committee heard from witnesses who talked about their proposed consortium on rare earth minerals. They try to mutualize risk and see how they can develop technologies together to benefit the entire industry. I am just saying that for information purposes.

Mr. Laberge, let me turn back to you. Mr. Hogan's comments earlier were very relevant. He talked about the challenge of finding a proponent for the corridor project. Geographically, you are at the end of this infrastructure, and you are a federal creature. You are a federal public enterprise and some of your land is owned by the federal government.

Could you tell the committee how the Port of Saguenay could be improved to become a hub for critical and strategic minerals?

What investments could be made in the port's existing infrastructure to make it a hub for exporting critical minerals to Europe?

[Carl Laberge]

Thank you very much for the question.

Here are the details of what needs to be done at the Port of Saguenay right now. We have been working for several years on two main elements.

First, we need to upgrade our infrastructure to increase our marine shipping capacity by adding berths. The project to add storage areas is valued at $150 million. In that regard, we already have support from the Government of Quebec, which announced a $20-million grant about two years ago.

We are also in talks regarding a loan with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We also applied for a grant under the former Transport Canada government program called the national trade corridors fund. The goal was for that fund to contribute 50% of the project cost. That is the first part of our plan. We will be ready to start that work next year, in 2026. We have made a lot of progress, particularly in terms of environmental assessments and the engineering plan.

Second, the port's industrial lands must be developed. We need to give businesses access to the basic services they need: electricity, process water, drinking water, waste-water treatment and fire protection. Those are the basic services needed for us to be ready to build. As for investments, the Government of Quebec already agreed to support us about three years ago with a loan from Investissement Québec.

We are also in talks with the Canada Infrastructure Bank to see whether it can contribute to the project under the critical and strategic minerals infrastructure support initiative.

We would like the federal government to contribute to our project as well. In addition to funding for basic infrastructure, the project includes connections to high-voltage power lines, in partnership with Hydro-Québec, as well as a natural gas line that is to be extended directly to the project site, in collaboration with Énergir.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.

Mr. Desaulniers, I am going to ask you the same question I asked witnesses last week.

The government is a big fan of things that do not cost it a single penny. What regulatory measure could be reviewed to accelerate the development of the critical minerals sector?

I will not hide the fact that we cannot ignore environmental issues. I know there are sometimes regulatory measures that are questionable. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

If you could table documents that could make the committee's life easier when drafting the report, we would appreciate it.

[Eric Desaulniers]

Thank you very much for the question.

In the critical minerals sector, funding for projects is crucial. There is a whole ecosystem in the gold, base metal or copper sectors, for example. Large companies acquire the most interesting projects, which makes start-ups attractive to investors. There is a whole ecosystem, because the products are easily traded.

The crux of the issue in the critical minerals sector is having an understanding—a precise understanding—of the selling price of these minerals and how they are procured. We are fortunate, thanks to Panasonic and General Motors, to have entered into long-term supply agreements that allow our investors to measure the company's profitability. It took many years to get those agreements in place. The market is quite opaque.

Investment tax credits in clean tech are really important for our cost structure because we are competing with the Chinese market.

In an ideal world, the way in which we could develop the critical minerals sector without spending a single penny, as you put it, would be to become the best at understanding what these minerals are used for. In practical terms, in the defence sector, we would need to know where graphite, niobium and lithium go outside of lithium-ion batteries. We need to make sure that we understand that market. It should also be transparent for investors.

How can we convince capital markets to invest in these projects rather than just in the gold sector, for example?

Measures can be put in place, including procurement agreements or contracts for difference. There would have to be a variety of mechanisms in place to make sure that companies with projects in the critical minerals sector can secure their supply in the long term. This would allow them to finance projects through the capital market and not rely solely on government subsidies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Colleagues, the third round, which will be approximately 23 minutes long, will take us to the bottom of the hour. We can have that as our final round of questions—everyone gets a chance—or we could add an additional three speakers at the end, one from each party.

What is your wish? Is it to finish at the bottom of the hour or to extend the time?

The witnesses have had a pretty good working over today, but it's up to you. We had a few stops and starts.

Shall we stop at 5:30 or continue?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I suggest that we continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We can continue.

Mr. Martel and Mr. Tochor are going to split their time in this round.

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

How long is this round?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

There are five speakers in this third round and three speakers in the last round.

It's five minutes for Mr. Tochor and Mr. Martel and five minutes for Mr. Danko. It's 2.5 minutes for Mr. Simard. Then it's Mr. Martel for five minutes and Mr. McKinnon for five minutes.

Then we have an additional round, if the committee so wishes. Is that all right? That's five minutes, five minutes and 2.5 minutes again.

Mr. Tochor, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today. It's a wonderful opportunity for Canadians to learn a little about our different facilities throughout Canada.

I was very interested in reading the Port of Saguenay's annual report of 2024.

I understand that there was a plan back in 2014 for an LNG plant at the port. Is that correct?

[Carl Laberge]

Yes, that is correct.

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

That was to move roughly 11 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas. It was being proposed a decade ago. The fear was that it was going to kneecap our economy if we didn't have the ability to export to places other than the United States.

If we fast-forward to today and to what's unfortunately going on in Ukraine, we see allies that can't wean themselves off dictator Putin's natural gas. That has not helped the conflict in Ukraine.

On this project, though—why was it killed?

[Carl Laberge]

What happened is that at the end of the environmental process, they didn't get the permits they needed, first from the provincial government and after that from the federal government.

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

So it was political intervention that hurt this. It was ideological reasons that ultimately killed this LNG plant that would have been very beneficial for the world and for western countries, which is a shame.

Also in the report, there's a line here that.... You guys are in the coal business as well. Am I correct?

[Carl Laberge]

Yes, we are, a little bit, for some customers.

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

There were 43,552 tonnes that went through. Is that import? I'm assuming it is.

[Carl Laberge]

It is import. It's metallurgical coal. It's for a customer for metallurgical use in the region.

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

Where is that coal coming from?

[Carl Laberge]

It's coming from Toledo, through the port of Toledo.

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

What country is that?

[Carl Laberge]

It's in the U.S.

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

It's the U.S. We're importing coal from the U.S.—a whole bunch of it, 43,000 tonnes—while this port, not through your fault but because of political reasons, couldn't export liquefied natural gas to our allies in Europe.

Those are all the questions I have. I'm going to pass my time over to Mr. Martel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Go ahead, Mr. Martel.