Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[Jeff Stibbard]

I think it's obvious what I think about it. It just needs to be stopped.

Again, we need to be attractive. That's the bottom line. Attractive means policies, procedures, the will to make these things happen and our young people who are signing up to meet the challenge of technology. It's an exciting business, but it's not known enough. We're not doing enough to encourage people to join the party and advance technology.

Like I said, with regard to copper smelting, we only have one left in the country. We need to build another one.

We need to embrace that into the most modern technology taken from afar, whether it's Sweden, Estonia or Slovakia. Wherever it comes from, we can bring it here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thanks, Mr. Stibbard.

We're going to go on to Mr. Guay for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This question is for Mr. Tory and Mr. Goad.

We've all talked and heard about the Chinese manipulating the market for both rare earth and other critical minerals. I've heard mention of MP Materials also, the U.S. company that's being supported by the U.S. government, the U.S. government also being on a race to secure rare earth and critical minerals.

As part of the G7, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources here in Canada announced a potential offtake agreement for stockpiling and ideas like that.

I'm interested in both your ideas. Talk to me about the dynamics between China and U.S., the role that Canada can play and how the government can help you play that role.

We'll start with Mr. Tory.

[Mark Tory]

China's been doing this for a long time. I tip my hat to China. It hasn't been silent about it. If you go through its five-year plans, it talks about the fact that it wants to dominate the rare earth industry and the downstream processing related to the rare earth industry, and it's been manipulating prices over that period of time.

I've been saying for over 10 years now that the western world needs to come up with a different pricing mechanism for rare earth minerals outside of China. The unfortunate fact is that China has dominated the whole downstream industry to have over 90% of magnet manufacturing.

The way I see it, in Canada we need to build the whole downstream processing ability, which goes right through to magnet manufacturing, to be able to supply the western world. That's not an easy thing, because you have to grow industries such as the magnet-makers. You talk about Estonia. Get those built here. Get the metal-makers that supply the magnet industry to be built in Canada, and then you have resources like ours that will then have the ability to supply those manufacturers and there will be no need for China. That's where we need to head.

As far as the government is concerned, the issue we have as junior companies—that's what we're called, but I don't see us as junior; we have a really strong management team and board—is money. We need help to get through to do the feasibility study. We'll be able to fund it with the help of the government. We already have a letter of interest from EDC for $250 million U.S. in relation to funding our capital costs, but we need to get through the feasibility study. The feasibility study will cost us between $30 million and $50 million to do because it's a $1.4-billion capital project. We want to do it properly. We're looking for help with the feasibility study costings.

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

Mr. Goad, what are your thoughts?

[Robin Goad]

Yes. It's a very complex and interesting question.

About 75% of the global cobalt mine supply comes from the not-so-Democratic Republic of the Congo and about 60% of that mining production is controlled by Chinese state-owned enterprises. China controls, I think, over 83% of all cobalt refining and 90% of the cobalt chemical supply. This is a result of a proactive active investment strategy. You're dealing with the Chinese government, and it just doesn't operate with the same economic models that we do. With respect to bismuth, of which we have 12% of the global reserves, China controls 80% of the mine supply and 90% of the refining supply.

The challenge has been overproduction, particularly of cobalt by China, driving the price down to a point where it's not economical to be extracting cobalt in many parts of the world. The Democratic Republic of the Congo got wise to that and started putting in export quotas, because China is overproducing and driving the price down to below the cost of production. That enables its industry, which captures all of that metal, to produce electric cars at a discount to the global market. Where it loses on the mineral production, it's gaining on selling back manufactured goods to us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I apologize, but we are out of time. Thank you.

You have two and a half minutes, Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Goad, I'll give you a chance to come back to that.

Several witnesses have talked about the difficulty of conducting the feasibility study, including you and Mr. Tory.

Mr. Goad and Mr. Tory, I would like you to tell the committee what specifically could help you conduct this much-discussed feasibility study. I'd also like to hear your comments surrounding infrastructure. Many mining projects struggle to get off the ground due to a lack of infrastructure for extracting minerals. What would help you in terms of infrastructure?

I know those are two substantial questions and my time is limited, but I'd like to hear your comments.

[Robin Goad]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I will try to answer these very quickly.

One comment I would have made is that we've given tremendous subsidies to the battery industry, and there was no requirement for domestically sourced raw materials to be used with those subsidies. I would argue that could have been easily done.

For feasibility studies, I have an actionable item. We have a big gap between what's called Canadian exploration expense and Canadian development expense, if you're familiar with flow-through financing. I would add that we should enable the expenditures associated with feasibility studies, environmental baseline studies, indigenous engagement, detailed engineering and piloting. Those should all be allowable Canadian exploration expenses to help companies navigate the feasibility process.

We receive funding primarily from the U.S. Department of Defense to fund our feasibility study, but we were in a period when the markets were effectively closed for five years, and we didn't advance our project because we just couldn't raise money to do those studies. That has been resolved from the government support, which we appreciate both from Canada as well as from the U.S.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Goad.

We have to move on to our two next questioners. Remember, witnesses, to please submit a brief with any additional information you want to provide. It will be considered by the committee and the analysts, and we would appreciate that. This is just to keep us on time. We have another set of witnesses coming in about 10 minutes.

Now, we will go on to Mr. Malette for five minutes.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Tory. You were asked a question on infrastructure, and you got me thinking about when you mentioned that some of your infrastructure included logging roads.

Sometimes, something that is often forgotten is that forestry has opened up the country with logging roads. They opened it for exploration and for building mines. I know of at least a dozen mines within the region I live in. I would like to remind the committee that it's something we shouldn't forget.

Mr. Tory, how important is it to have these two industries work together?

[Mark Tory]

I've asked the same question. I've only been here nine months in Canada. I'm trying to understand how everything works. I'm obviously still getting the hang of everything. To me—

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

How did it benefit you in your region on your project?

[Mark Tory]

As I said, where we are right now, forestry has forestry roads going all through the area and right past our project. They enabled our geologists and everyone else to access the site easily, and it saved costs. If there were no roads going in there, we would have to do a helicopter exploration, which obviously is a very expensive type of exploration work. Having the roads going directly to the projects is fantastic. I would love to be able to work with forestry to help clear some of our lands. That would work really well.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Thank you.

The next question is to Mr. Stibbard. I will give you the opportunity to continue your answers.

You previously managed BHP and Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories. That was a different time. How would you explain the changes, with Bill C-69, and how complex and...? I'll just give you an opportunity to continue on with what you hadn't finished.

What could we do to improve?

[Jeff Stibbard]

From my perspective, immediately repeal Bill C-69's specifically provincially contentious components where there is overlap, including review criteria. Review participants who are included and why. Review the definition of those. Review the timelines. The mandatory obligations for climate, gender and identity issues have to be curtailed, removed or adjusted.

The federal minister's discretion of final say and replacement of the existing boards and regulators by the Impact Assessment Agency is usurping some of the roles there. Initiate a federal descope, replace with extreme rigour accountability to timelines, and consider outsourcing to private project management consultants for execution under Canadian government oversight. Reduce the potential for the Canadian government to pick favourites. Inspire and lead the call for business and the regions to move forward based on guaranteed federal accountability to timelines and existing regulations.

Again, I give Ekati as an example of a five-year timeline versus a 10-year timeline going to a 15-year timeline. It's not like we did anything wrong 30 years ago as far as development is concerned. Obviously, a lot of things have improved in energy efficiency, relations with people and first nations. All of those are included.

I'll add that in those first nations communities affected by the mine in the Northwest Territories when the diamond mining business came about, there was only one post-secondary graduate when we started. Now there are 28 annual post-secondary graduates in the affected communities. You have to have that anchor and that attraction. I keep using that word. You have to attract people, like a moth to a flame, to move people and the economy forward, and the process is not top-down. The initiative, the idea and the leadership inspiration have to come from the top if they don't come within naturally from a lot of our people in leadership in the regions. After that, the industry is very well versed in working through these issues in a positive way.

We talked about the processing. Again, Canada used to have an abundance of smelters in places like Flin Flon and Thompson in Manitoba. British Columbia had 12. Today we have two: an aluminum smelter and a lead and zinc smelter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thanks, Mr. Stibbard.

We're going to our final speaker in this round, Mr. Hogan

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

There seem to be common themes of infrastructure, capital and regulatory easing. I really hope we keep Mr. Malette's comments about logging roads in mind as we go through this study and the next one. I think they're excellent. Forestry is an integral part of this.

I'm sure all witnesses will be heartened to know there is broad agreement on the need to move more quickly. The Prime Minister has set targets to that effect that would still meet Canada's expectations and the court's expectations on the environmental, social and indigenous components.

Mr. Tory, I want to take advantage of your long résumé and ask if you could compare and contrast the Canadian approach with Australia's. In particular, could you identify what Canada can learn from Australia?

I'm not trying to get you in trouble with your countrymen, so feel free to frame it in the positive. I'm wondering if you'd be comfortable sharing what you believe is working well in Australia and what we should be careful about.

[Mark Tory]

I'll be honest. I don't think there's too much of a difference. We struggle with the same things in Australia around permitting, environmental issues and indigenous communities. It all means that mining projects are taking longer and longer to get permitted and up and running.

When you ask who does it better, I don't think anyone is doing it better at this stage. Both countries need to improve, and we need to improve to get those permitting timelines as short as we possibly can, as I said. My morals are very much around our having to do it in a very environmentally friendly manner and making sure we bring the community along with us. If you can demonstrate you're doing that, you should get to the top of the pile and make sure that these things happen quickly.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

I totally agree.

One thing we've heard about is Australia's well-funded mapping of critical minerals and the deposits that exist. Often, we peer over the fence and view things through rose-tinted glasses. If there are lessons to be learned on that, I'd love to learn them. If there are cautions, I'd love to hear those as well.

[Mark Tory]

Yes, I have to be careful. The Australian government has done a good job in trying to pick winners in relation to the way that it's funding people. I'm not necessarily sure that it has done it the right way, but it's putting a lot of money into limited companies. I'm not sure that's the right approach. I'm not sure it's the right approach to give money to existing companies that have their own cash flows, can actually fund themselves and do things.

What it has to do is look more at funding some of the up-and-comers and the more junior companies. To me, if it went through a wider range of companies, sure, it's not going to pick winners every time, but at least it would potentially get someone up and running who is not actually going and get a brand new deposit happening.

I don't know. I look at it, and I just say, “You know, I think funding big companies is not the way to go.”

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Fair ball, and that does lead into my last question. I'll try to be really quick.

You and Mr. Goad both noted the high risk nature of exploration, being a “junior”—I'm putting it in quotes, because you put it in quotes—and other witnesses have said similar things. I was intrigued by Mr. Goad's comments around filling the gap through different allowable expenses.

I'm wondering if either of you could give your thoughts, very briefly, on how we can increase access to capital uniquely to juniors in exploration companies.

[Mark Tory]

Are you talking about you as a government itself?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Yes, I'm sorry, a government.

[Mark Tory]

Whenever I talk to potential investors, they always ask, “What support are you getting from your government, what support are you getting from the provincial government, and what support are you getting from the federal government?” If you can say, “Yes, they're looking at it, and they're looking to support us in X, Y, and Z”, you will get far more positive answers than you would if you said, “They don't have any money to give us, or they don't want to support the industry.”