Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Are you saying that we need to increase the categories that are supported under this program or do we need to increase the amounts of the grants available? Do we need to do both?

[Julie McGregor]

I'd just say yes, of course, we always need to expand and replicate.

While I'm glad that this is now one solution, we look for it to be expanded, absolutely. We want all of you to help us get that expanded and replicate the indigenous loan guarantee to finance first nations-led infrastructure projects that address community infrastructure needs and support Canada's broad economic, environmental and defence priorities including the critical minerals strategy. I hope that's helpful.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

There's been a lot of discussion today around the need for consultation, and I fully agree with that.

We're also hearing from industry though that the need to get to decisions quickly is very important for the flow of applying capital to projects.

I'm wondering how we can improve the consultation process and what kinds of mechanisms are needed so that we can get to the decisions we need with appropriate consultation but in a timely manner. Do you have thoughts on that?

[Julie McGregor]

Ben will pick up where I left off, but he did mention the regional consultation framework agreements that need to be.... One of our recommendations, again, is to support those; and engaging early on with first nations communities is key to that. As I said, sometimes slow is fast in this process, and industry has to understand that as well.

We tend to look at it and say that it's a roadblock. It's not a roadblock. It's a strengthening of your project when you have that involvement early on, and you're guided by the communities on what they want to see to be involved in this. It just makes everything stronger and faster in terms of your project.

I think industry gets it. Government also has to get it.

[Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak]

I'm going to add that, when there are missions around the world, and Canada wants to put itself out there, if you're out there and there are no first nations people in your delegation, even that is just a step back.

I was quite disappointed last year at a technology conference, for instance. I think it was in Germany. Canada was selling itself there—good for Canada—but there was no first nations representation. There are first nations people in Canada. We have 634 first nations. We need to make sure that, when we go as a country around the world, you're including first nations people.

If we can improve our relationship with each other—the first nations, the provinces and the federal government—things will go better.

I just had to throw that in there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you for your important testimony today, National Chief.

Thank you, Ms. McGregor and Mr. Green-Stacey. It was very important testimony, and we welcome the brief that I'm sure will amplify some of these points.

I think you can tell that colleagues were very engaged—good questions by all, and a very fruitful hour indeed. Your recommendations and your brief will be considered carefully, I assure you.

The analysts have been scribbling, I know your arm is sore, Laura.

With that, colleagues, we're going to break for five minutes, and welcome the next set of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Colleagues, let's reconvene.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses, particularly those online.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Also, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses on the second panel.

We have Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. She is online.

From the United Steelworkers Union, we have Meg Gingrich, assistant to the national director, in the room. We also have François Soucy, legislative staff representative.

We have Paul Blom, chief operating officer from BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council. He is online, I believe.

Welcome to you all.

You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks, and we are going to start with Ms. Exner-Pirot

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Heather Exner-Pirot, Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you so much, chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Although everyone depends on mining products in their daily lives, critical minerals have become a hot topic only in the past five years or so. This is largely owing to, first, supply chain concerns raised by the COVID pandemic and later the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Second, there has been the desire to electrify transportation and therefore develop more battery minerals. Most recently, there have been concerns about our overreliance on adversaries, particularly China, even in the basic materials needed for our defence industrial supply chain.

While our attention has become focused, our policy discourses and thus responses are still not at an appropriate level of sophistication. The greatest demonstration of this is our bundling of 34 minerals and metals, half of the periodic table, into one broad category. The umbrella term “critical minerals”, sometimes even conflated with “rare earth”, is good for messaging but is bad for policy nuance.

There are at least four categories of minerals that call for different strategic and policy responses.

The first is minerals in which Canada is dominant and has global market-setting power, in which I would include potash and uranium. How can we gain leverage with our allies or disrupt authoritarian manipulation in this category?

The second is minerals that are major GDP drivers for Canada. How can we enhance competitiveness, attract investment and drive up global market share in minerals such as gold, metallurgical coal, copper and nickel?

The third is minerals for which technologies or market structures favour future growth such as lithium, graphite, cobalt, helium and silver. How can we ensure that Canadian projects and Canadian companies are best positioned to take advantage of changes to the market cycle and be first movers?

The fourth is our minerals for which market structures are weak but security of supply is essential such as gallium, germanium, tungsten, antimony and rare earth. Where are the financial tools the state can use to develop supply in these commodities by ourselves and with our allies?

In general, Canada has taken a disinterested and laissez-faire approach to our minerals sector in the past decade rather than treating it as a strategic industry to be cultivated and fortified. Despite that, Canada retains many strengths that we can and should leverage going forward.

The first is endowment. As the second-largest country in the world, we have a lot of geology and a lot of untapped reserves. We're the world's top destination for exploration dollars. We need policies that make it as easy as possible to translate that mineral potential into economically competitive and thus producing projects. We don't have that today.

The second is our strong mining business. The TSX and TSXV are home to about 40% of the world's publicly listed mining companies, more than any other exchange in the world. This is leverage that we need to maintain and support through policies that attract anchor listings, ensure access to the biggest possible pool of foreign capital investment, and promote tax and regulatory competitiveness. Canada should want to be the first choice for mining companies to list and headquarter, but we have been losing that advantage.

The third is our geopolitical reputation. The world is obviously a more complicated place these days. Global superpowers are acting in a predatory manner. We are among wolves, but Canada does not need to be the sheep. In my opinion, our highest and best purpose is to use our mineral, energy and agricultural potentials to ensure that our friends and allies have access to the materials they need to thrive, prosper and fend off authoritarian manipulation and volatility. To be that reliable supplier, Canada needs to produce more products competitively and get them to global markets more reliably.

I hope this committee can collectively work on creating a policy environment that gets that done.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

We will now go on to Meg Gingrich, assistant to the national director at United Steelworkers of Canada, with François Soucy.

You have five minutes, please.

[Meg Gingrich, Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Meg Gingrich, and I am the assistant to the national director of the United Steelworkers Union in Canada, where we represent over 225,000 workers across Canada in every part of the industrial economy, including critical minerals. I'm here with François Soucy, our legislative staff representative.

Critical minerals are not just about the future of technology; they are about the future of work. The energy transition, our manufacturing base and our national security all depend on whether Canada builds and processes these resources here with good union jobs, or keeps exporting raw materials and importing finished goods.

Canada is well positioned to lead in the global race for critical minerals. We have major reserves of nickel, copper, lithium, graphite, cobalt and rare earth elements. We already produce 60 minerals and metals at 200 mines and 6,500 quarries across the country. According to Statistics Canada, over 213,000 people worked in mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction in 2024. Our union represents tens of thousands of these workers, including roughly 28% of our Quebec membership and nearly a quarter of our Ontario membership. About one-third of our Canadian mining membership is in western and northern Canada where there were over 30 active mines and 90 advanced projects in 2024.

USW members truly form the backbone of this sector and the potential for more good-paying unionized jobs is enormous. But it does take about 15 years to bring a mine from concept to production. If we don't accelerate investment now based on a comprehensive strategy, we'll miss our opportunity. The new Major Projects Office is a welcome step, but workers and unions must have a seat at the table from the start.

This must be done in partnership with indigenous peoples. Development can only move quickly if it also moves responsibly, with full respect for indigenous rights and participation in decision-making. Meaningful consultation and benefit sharing through mechanisms like impact and benefit agreements are essential to ensuring projects earn local support and deliver shared prosperity.

At the same time, new U.S. tariffs on Canadian copper, aluminum and other products show the danger of relying on volatile foreign markets. Canada must build refining and processing capacity at home so the value created from our resources stays here. That means ensuring new federal programs and Canadian procurement rules are tied to real domestic benefits, not loopholes that allow imports to replace Canadian production.

The steelworkers support a thorough, clear regulatory process with reasonable timelines. We also need to train and attract the next generation of skilled workers. The mining sector already employs more indigenous people than any other private industry except construction, and indigenous-led partnerships are proving that reconciliation and development can go hand in hand.

A real critical minerals industrial strategy must build an integrated value chain from exploration, refining, processing and manufacturing to recycling, so the jobs and wealth remain in Canada.

It must also support circular economy initiatives like battery materials' recycling and the use of Canadian-made clean technology and new mines. New programs must include binding requirements for unionized labour, Canadian content and community benefits. Public money must deliver a public good.

Finally, Canada needs to enforce fair trade and reward low-carbon production at home, while ensuring that imported products meet the same environmental and labour standards we expect of Canadian producers. Canada has the workers, resources and expertise to lead the world in responsible critical minerals development. What's needed now is the political will and coherent industrial policy to make it happen.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Now we are going to Paul Blom. He will be wrapping up for our speakers, and then we're going to questions.

Mr. Blom, please go ahead.

[Paul Blom, Chief Operating Officer, BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to acknowledge the committee for allowing us to speak today. I am calling in from the Snuneymuxw territory on the west coast of Canada. I flew to Ottawa when we heard about this committee for a Monday presentation, but we were moved to today. I appreciate the time through video conference.

I have a four to five-minute presentation that I'll walk through about who our council is and about first nations and critical minerals in British Columbia.

The First Nations Energy and Mining Council is a first nations-mandated policy and technical organization advancing rights-based participation, governance and benefits across energy, mining and related infrastructure in British Columbia. Our mandate is from the leadership. The council was established to serve and support the First Nations Leadership Council, FNLC, the provincial political forum which comprises the BC Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. Our council provides FNLC with research, policy development, negotiation support and implementation tools across energy and mining life cycles.

We develop first nations-led strategies, including the first nations energy and mining critical minerals strategy. This was developed with first nations in British Columbia over four workshops in 2023 and released in 2024. We create these strategies with the advice from first nations in British Columbia. I listened to the national chiefs' presentation, and a lot of the answers to the questions are in the recommendations in this strategy, which I made available to you. I do have hard copies if the committee is interested in seeing hard copies.

We support first nations as decision-makers across the project life cycle, including access, exploration, assessment, permitting, construction, operations, closure and reclamation. We build capacity, including training, guardianship and technical literacy. We convene tripartite working tables and catalyze fair-share benefit agreements, which include equity, revenue sharing, procurement, jobs and training. We promote green power and transmission to allow low-carbon mining and processing.

This matters because critical minerals underpin Canada's net-zero economy and supply chain security. In British Columbia, all prospective areas are on or affect first nations lands. Project certainty and performance, therefore, depend on recognition of free, prior and informed consent, and co-governance with the rights holders who steward those lands.

Our council convenes first nations, Canada and British Columbia in consent-based processes, while engaging labour, industry and civil society to align policy, de-risk projects, and deliver community and national benefits. We seek a durable, investable, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples-aligned critical minerals regime, where first nations are joint planners, joint decision-makers and owners, ensuring world-class environmental performance and equitable prosperity.

In summary, the strategy is a living, province-wide framework developed by first nations leaders and broad stakeholders to align B.C.'s and Canada's approaches with first nations rights and practical pathways to net zero.

The core principles of the strategy are that rights and title are recognized; decisions that affect rights require free, prior and informed consent, with processes consistent with the UN declaration and Truth and Reconciliation commitments; tripartite co-decision-making for environmental assessment, permitting, compliance and adaptive management occurs through first nations–Canada–B.C. decision structures; first nations guardians are resourced across the mine life; and consent-based approvals and fair share mean that approval frameworks embed benefit agreements in equity, revenue, jobs, training and procurement and are grounded in value-chain economics.

We support pathways to clean, investable supply and green power first. Off-grid deposits require renewable generation and strategic transmission corridors to ensure truly low-carbon minerals. First nations power developers should be positioned as preferred suppliers.

Through a value-chain lens, benefits and carbon are accounted for across the value chain, from exploration to processing and recycling, not just at the mine gate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Blom, we're going to have to ask you to wrap up. The committee is anxious to ask some questions. Just take 20 seconds to finish your last thought.

[Paul Blom]

Sure. Thank you.

I do have a written submission, which I was reading.

In closing, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council critical minerals strategy provides a clear, investable path that combines the UN declaration-aligned governance with green power and value-chain economics to accelerate secure, ethical supplies of critical minerals while delivering durable prosperity for first nations and Canada alike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Blom.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

Just to re-emphasize the point that Mr. Blom made, we welcome written submissions. For your strategy and for the other witnesses, if you want to submit something electronically, we would welcome it. Please send those in to the clerk and she will ensure that they are made available to us and are incorporated into our testimony.

We're going to our rounds of questions and comments.

Starting up again, we have Mrs. Stubbs followed by Mr. McKinnon and Mr. Simard, each for six minutes.

Mrs. Stubbs, we go to you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses here.

I always regret the limited time, so I just want to reinforce the chair's comments about sending in written submissions.

Dr. Exner-Pirot, I know that you know this well because you've spoken so much about this publicly and in all kinds of formal situations. A 2024 survey of mining executives found that no Canadian jurisdiction is among the top five globally for mining investment. You have talked often about how it takes even up to 18 years, if we're lucky, to get a mine built in Canada. This is 38% longer than in the United States and 23% longer than in Australia, which are Canada's major competitors.

You've made the case about why resource development is also important for affordability and for national security.

Can you expand on the anti-development policies and laws that block building and whether or not you see Bill C-5 as a sufficient remedy?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

We all lament that it's taken so long in Canada to bring deposits to production. We've all seen now how that's impacting not only affordability but also our national security. We need to ramp it up.

There are many policies that have impacted this and created this. Part of it is just the Canadian cultural shift about 10 years ago to not appreciate the value of extractive resources and to think that they're bad, dirty or something we should be ashamed of when obviously they're a critical part of our lives and we should be looking at ways to build and attract talent to those sectors.

Some of it is policy such as the Impact Assessment Act, which often added redundancy to provincial assessments and timelines. It added some uncertainty to investors who were wondering when they'll get a return on their money and when they'll start producing. It didn't always give certainty there.

The industrial carbon price is also an issue in competitiveness, especially in the processing and smelting phases, but also in several others.

There are also the clean electricity regulations. We are starting to see some energy and electricity scarcity in this country. Mines need reliable access to electricity and we're starting to see that this is becoming a problem. We see B.C., for example, introducing legislation this week to ration electricity, so that it can maintain a carve-out for the mining sector.

There's a lot that provinces can do. Some provinces do better than others. Saskatchewan and Quebec actually do quite well on the mining policy front. Others need to do much better.

As to whether Bill C‑5 and the Major Projects Office are the solution, that's unlikely. There are literally hundreds of mining projects in the queue in Canada. Filtering private, proponent-driven projects looking to move to the next stage and looking to attract investment through the bottleneck of the MPO is unlikely to produce the outcomes that we're looking for.

A broader structural reform of how we regulate extractive resources, mining in particular, is what's needed to really unleash our potential.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Of course, you know that Conservatives supported Bill C-5. We put forward major amendments to improve the bill. Wouldn't it make sense, instead of focusing on this legislation that does a workaround of laws and policies that clearly block building by the necessity of Bill C-5 having to be implemented, to just fix those fundamentals to be able to give certainty to investors and proponents so that projects and proponents are not still stuck in red tape losing money and time?

To your whole point about basic infrastructure also being required in these areas and all the elements that make it very easy for layering on of policy as to make Canada uncompetitive globally, one thing that boggles my mind is this key infrastructure of indigenous-led roads to the Ring of Fire, for example, which is still stuck in limbo, and the government still hasn't given it the green light.

Do you have any other points to expand on in terms of ensuring that we can accelerate approvals and provide clarity for indigenous communities that want economic “reconciliaction”, proponents and all Canadians everywhere?

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes, the favour that Bill C-5 did for us was to outline specifically in legislation the main sorts of legislation that are the problem, and it allows the Major Projects Office's nationally designated projects to work around those. Obviously, it's also telling us that all those pieces of legislation need some reform so that all projects can benefit from more efficient processes. I think it's a great place to start nationally designated projects that may get through the MPO to give that benefit and that certainty to all projects.

On the indigenous side—and I'm sure we can get into this more—I have more specific thoughts on some financial tools to get indigenous partnership, but I think we should be looking at strategies that align industry and indigenous interests, especially on the economic side. We've often focused on rights and accommodation discussions, and I think that there's a lot more room and a lot more runway we could be doing on economic incentives to make sure that indigenous communities are partners and are benefiting sufficiently from these types of projects.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

If there are any other top priorities you would like to add to that ensure Canada, after the last, lost, antidevelopment decade, can meet the Prime Minister's stated ambition of Canada's becoming an energy superpower—directly opposed to the agenda they've implemented in the last 10 years—please share that in the last 30 seconds.

[Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes, one more is labour disruptions. We talk about pouring billions of dollars into ports and railroads when the top priority for shippers is usually the labour disruptions we've been having at these places. I've seen itineraries of strikes, calendars of the strikes that Canada's going to have. We have power under the labour code to be more forceful and more muscular in ensuring a common, peaceful labour situation, so give that certainty. Instead of pouring money into a broken system, use the tools we do have to ensure that labour disruptions are minimized as we export.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thanks very much.

Mr. McKinnon, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to focus on Mr. Blom because, being a B.C. guy, I want to focus on B.C.

Mr. Blom, we've had testimony before this committee regarding the complex assessment processes that are involved in critical minerals development. They involve federal, provincial or territorial and indigenous groups. How would you fit into that? Are you guys decision-makers, or would you be people who are putting forward proposals?

[Paul Blom]

Our council is advocacy and policy support for the decision-makers. The decision-makers would be the 204 communities in British Columbia. As you're aware, there are provincial environmental assessments, there are federal environmental assessments and there are first nations environmental assessments.

I think part of the reason for Bill C-69 and the amendments in the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act was to bring first nations into the fold to work together on environmental assessments.

Hopefully, that answers your question. First nations rights holders impacted by a project are the ones who would participate in the environmental assessment.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Is it different for an ordinary organization to put forward a proposal for a mine versus an indigenous group? Do you have any better access or more direct access to getting approval?