Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Pierre Gratton]

My intention is not to dispute what you've said, but just to put some of it in context. There are some parts of the United States where no one would bother trying to build a mine, because you would never get it approved. There are some states in the United States where, yes, it's probably more efficient than here. Within Canada, there are some provinces that are more efficient than others. Therefore, trying to say that it takes x amount of time to build a project in Canada.... Well, it depends where. Saskatchewan can be quite quick. Quebec can sometimes be quicker. B.C. can be longer, so it really varies.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

To that end, maybe you have some comments on the complications from overlapping jurisdictions and duplication, where perhaps there could be a permanent federal policy solution to that issue.

[Pierre Gratton]

For sure. To turn to that point, I think that, since the Supreme Court opinion was provided on the Impact Assessment Act, we have started to see some meaningful change in how the agency is approaching its work. Do they need to do more? Yes. However, what we are seeing now is more of a concerted effort. We see it with the latest lithium project in Quebec, where they have worked out an agreement with the Cree and with Quebec. They are truly focusing on their own areas of federal jurisdiction and leaving the rest alone, which is the first clear example we've seen, and it's the most recent one to come out of the agency, in terms of tailored impact guidelines. We saw that as a very positive step.

They've recently published a draft collaboration agreement with New Brunswick. It's a small mining jurisdiction, but nevertheless, that's also a positive step, having more co-operation. We're hearing that they're getting close with Saskatchewan. That would be, potentially, a game-changer.

The key issue for us has always been this. When the agency asks proponents to do multi-year studies of critters or something, when you know the answer in advance and when you know what the regulatory instrument is going to be to mitigate any potential impact on those critters, do you really need to study that for three years, when you know what the answer is? Of course, that means three years of study, so how do you possibly get a project through in three years, when three years alone are going to be spent studying this one species?

It's rethinking what they ask for and rethinking how they approach impact assessment. That has been really important, and we are starting to see some real change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Wrapping up this round—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, maybe Mr. Gaulin could provide some written response on international jurisdictional comparisons where his company operates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Mr. Gaulin, you have 30 seconds.

[Jeff Gaulin]

Now is the time to build big in Canada, and the rules are set up to build small. The risk to major or mega capital investments would favour small, incremental investments. In particular, clearing up the regulatory responsibilities between the feds and the provinces would be extremely helpful to streamline them and make sure they're in the hands of mining policy-makers, not the environmental departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

We'll go to Mr. Danko for five minutes.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is mainly for Ms. Koutsavlis.

I want to take this opportunity to talk a bit about climate change and the Canadian mining sector. Many Canadians, and especially young Canadians, consider climate change to be an existential threat to their future livelihoods. Unfortunately, many Conservatives deny the existence of climate change altogether. Many mining projects are in the north, where the impacts of climate change are the most profound and can't be conveniently ignored.

I have two questions on this topic. What progress have we seen in the mining industry on carbon reduction, climate change initiatives and environmental standards? How do the climate change initiative and environmental standards contribute to Canada's overall global competitiveness?

[Photinie Koutsavlis, Vice-President, Economic Affairs and Climate Change, Mining Association of Canada]

MAC supports Canada's net-zero goals and the role carbon pricing plays in driving that transition. Carbon pricing encourages efficiency, innovation and investment in cleaner technologies across our sector. However, as it rises to $170 per tonne by 2030, we need to carefully balance climate ambition with competitiveness. Mining and processing are globally traded industries that can't pass on costs, so maintaining strong, output-based pricing and credit flexibility and reinvesting revenues into low-carbon innovation are essential.

To answer your question a bit more precisely, in terms of global standards, Canada is the leader when it comes to low-carbon mining. Our emissions intensity is one of the best in the world, and the trend is moving in the right direction. Between 2014 and 2023, the sector's greenhouse gas intensity fell by about 3% per year. We've also cut sulphur dioxide emissions per facility. Other measures on things like particulates and energy intensity are more mixed, but they are still improving.

The overall picture is that Canada is widely recognized internationally as a high-performing, low-carbon jurisdiction, and that gives us a real edge because customers in supply chains are increasingly looking not just at what minerals they buy, but at how they are produced.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

Further to that focus on environmental standards and climate change as part of Canada's global competitiveness as a specific strategy in the industry, when consumers are looking to purchase a product or they're looking at the components of a product, how are those specific components and minerals traced back to Canadian manufacturers? Is that added value that consumers are actually looking for?

[Pierre Gratton]

Traceability is a challenge in mining. With forestry, you can go to Home Depot and see if a product is FSC-certified or comes under one of the other standards in forestry. It's much harder to do that with mining, but there is work under way.

We're involved in a pilot with the B.C. government, using our program standard called “towards sustainable mining” to create a passport that sends information to the customer about the TSM ratings the product has. It goes over to the smelter, the refinery in another jurisdiction or even further downstream. It's still early days, but we are pioneering it. The UNEP is also involved in it with us. It's the first pilot project of its kind to develop a traceability system.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

Just as a follow-up question, are there any specific climate initiatives you would like to highlight that you see as best practices in the industry?

[Pierre Gratton]

There are many things. I'll give one example of something that we would like to see and that hasn't been done, unfortunately, which is supporting investments in trolley-assist technology. It is something that ECCC was interested in as part of the clean fuel regulations, but it got deferred. They didn't approve it in time, and they deferred it to the next five-year review, which is now approaching.

There are examples in Canada. There is the Copper Mountain mine in British Columbia, where you use power to go up, but you charge on the way down. You haven't completely removed the use of power from the grid to power your mine, or you haven't completely removed diesel from your trucks, but you're using trolley assist to go up. That's something we thought should be included in the clean fuel standard. It wasn't, because it wasn't total removal of diesel, but it cuts it in half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I would make this general comment. If any of you would like to present briefs to the committee, we would welcome that.

As our time closes down on this first panel, I thank you on behalf of my colleagues for your testimony and for being with us today.

Mr. Gratton, if I could quote you, there were many good mining moments in the last hour, so thanks so much.

Colleagues, we'll suspend for five minutes while we change the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I'm calling us back to order.

Let me start with a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, 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.

As a reminder, as always, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to give a warm welcome to our witnesses on the second panel. We have with us Michael Gullo, vice-president of policy at the Business Council of Canada. We also have with us Peter Fleming, regional executive officer at the Northwest Métis Council and minister of natural resources at the Manitoba Métis Federation, the national government of the Red River Métis.

You will each have five minutes or less for your opening remarks. We're going to start with Mr. Gullo.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Michael Gullo, Vice-President, Policy, Business Council of Canada]

Good afternoon. It's a privilege to be here.

My name is Michael Gullo. I'm the vice-president of policy at the Business Council of Canada.

The Business Council of Canada is composed of 170 chief executives and entrepreneurs of Canada's leading enterprises. Our member companies directly and indirectly support more than six million jobs across the country and hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Founded in 1976, our mandate is to make Canada the best country in the world in which to live, work, invest and grow.

As you know, Canada is facing a lot of headwinds. Canadians are struggling with the high cost of living, productivity is down, and business investments are at their lowest in decades. Once a top-five supplier of many natural resources, Canada has lost market share. New energy exports have remained flat, and the share of Canadian exports to emerging economies is among the lowest of the G7 countries. Canada is no longer a top-five producer of important minerals like nickel, cobalt, graphite and copper.

At the same time, we know that this is a world poised for growth. Rising populations and the rapid growth of the global middle class are creating strong demands for energy and resources, while national security and clean energy applications are driving global demand for critical minerals. Canada has a lot to offer, and we know that our allies and trading partners are looking for stable suppliers.

Being rich in resources is one thing; how we capture market share is another. We need structural changes to translate our trade ambitions into actions. This is why the council wrote the recent report “Selling to our strengths”, which is a road map for leveraging Canada's resources at a time of global uncertainty. Our report calls for a whole-of-government approach to unlock Canada's immense potential and to position the country as a reliable supplier of energy, food and critical minerals. I would like to take some time to draw your attention to some of the main arguments in our report.

Our view is that Canada's resources should be used to advance the country's national and economic interests. In an era where the weaponization of resources and supply chains is becoming more commonplace, Canada should seize the moment to grow its global market share by trading more with its allies who value responsible resource development.

Our policy efforts should focus on achieving two outcomes. One is creating strong and resilient supply chains across North America. Second is expanding Canada's global reach with its allies.

Energy security is now a top priority for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. We argue that Canada should champion an energy alliance with the U.S. and Mexico that advances shared interests with respect to energy and mineral security. This can cover information sharing about security risks, co-operation on policies to unlock higher levels of production and export policies designed to meet the needs of our allies.

Canada has top 10 reserve status for minerals and is the leading producer of potash, aluminum, iron ore, copper and indium. We're the biggest source of imports to the U.S. for many of these minerals, which are essential to national and economic security.

Our ability to support a robust build-out of nuclear technology should also not be understated. We are the second-largest producer of uranium in the world and supply the U.S. with nearly 30% of its uranium imports.

Our second call is that Canada can be a primary supplier of critical minerals to NATO. Risks to mineral supply chains are increasing due to foreign price manipulation, export controls, rising military demands and limited inventories. NATO partners are ill-prepared to respond to global conflicts and are currently beholden to China's market dominance and powerful ability to exert export controls.

Canada's mastery of sustainable mining production and finance, stable governance structure and understanding of global markets can position it as an important supplier to its NATO allies. As a founding signatory to NATO, we argue that Canada, in co-operation with its private sector, should create a critical mineral reserve for niche metals vital to defence purposes. As Canada is embarking on one of the biggest defence buildups in history, the development of critical minerals should be central to its strategy.

While Canada holds promise and potential, much work remains to be done to overcome the challenges it faces to growing its market share. As an example, Canada has the third-longest lead time in the world for mining projects, according to a recent report released by S&P Global insights. We can and we must do better.

We can also overcome our regulatory challenges by creating a new foreign policy that underscores our relentless commitment to grow Canada's market share and deepen its trading relationship with its allies and partners. We also require a new vision for moving our goods to market: 60% of Canada's GDP is reliant on trade, but investments on a per capita basis in Canada lag behind those of our peer countries. We require a national trade infrastructure strategy that brings all levels of government and the private sector together so that we can translate our trade ambition into action.

We also need to ensure that our supply chains remain fluid and responsive to the needs of our customers. As an example, Canada experienced 62 work stoppages in the transportation sector alone in 2023 and 2024, involving more than 20,000 workers. Again, we can and must do better.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Gullo.

Now we'll go to Minister Fleming.

Minister Fleming, you have five minutes.

[Peter Fleming, Minister of Natural Resources, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members and fellow panellists.

My name is Peter Fleming, and I'm appearing today on behalf of the Manitoba Métis Federation, the national government of the Red River Métis, in my capacity as minister of natural resources.

Since the introduction and passage of the Building Canada Act, the national government of the Red River Métis has demonstrated its support for this legislation, which comes at a crucial time. The standing up of the Major Projects Office, supported by the knowledge and experience of an indigenous advisory council, is an important first step that builds trust in Canada as it invests in projects of national interest, but there is still much left to do.

As you will be aware, critical minerals are abundant across western Canada and in our Red River Métis homeland. There is no question that the Prairies form a powerhouse of critical minerals and have what the world needs. Key critical minerals, such as nickel, copper, platinum, zinc, graphite and lithium, are particularly plentiful in the northern regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

It is important to understand that Red River Métis are section 35 rights holders. Their inclusion in the development of critical minerals is non-negotiable from a rights perspective and, equally, in terms of environmental stewardship and economic participation. The exploration, extraction and movement of critical minerals within our Red River Métis homeland require improved efforts on the part of government and industry regarding our section 35 constitutionally protected rights, as well as environmental stewardship and mine rehabilitation planning and financing. Critical minerals provide Canada with the opportunity to meet record global demands for these commodities. However, as the federal government touts its technological know-how and strong environmental record, it continues to fall short in its recognition of section 35 rights holders and in its ability to maximize economic benefits for the Red River Métis and other indigenous peoples.

With the above said, there are examples of good practices under way.

The direct royalty agreement that the Red River Métis government signed with the Potash and Agri Development Corporation of Manitoba—known as PADCOM—in February of this year is a leading model of how recognition contributes to participation. Based on the Manitoba Métis Federation's relationship with PADCOM, we are now undertaking investment due diligence in the company and its projects, as well as in ancillary activities to support the extraction and movement of potash to tidewater.

Potash, a less discussed critical mineral but one necessary to help feed the world, is in abundance in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. To support the exporting of potash and other critical minerals to global markets, new and expanded trade corridors are required. The expansion and enhancement of the port of Churchill on Hudson Bay as a potential major project of national interest presents the opportunity for shorter, less congested and less costly shipping routes to allies and customers in Europe and elsewhere.

With the push for critical mineral development, there is concern that the focus on economic development will undermine the government's initiatives for indigenous reconciliation and disrupt the consultation process being conducted in a meaningful way. As stated in the independent auditor's report “The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy”, which was published in 2024, the government has just begun to develop a plan for ongoing indigenous engagement. The strategy as a whole lacks proper assessment criteria for measuring indigenous reconciliation, focusing on economic reconciliation through revenue sharing and job opportunities while ignoring important social aspects such as protecting significant cultural sites and improving the overall well-being of communities.

Thank you for inviting me to appear at the committee here today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Minister Fleming.

We're going to go on to our questions and comments. We are going to start with Mrs. Stubbs and then move on to Mr. McKinnon and Monsieur Simard. You will have six minutes each.

Madame Stubbs, go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses here today.

Michael, I want to touch on a point you made here and also mention that you helped co-write an article that pointed out, in real terms, what your words today about the third-longest lead time in the world actually mean. According to you, it means this:

the collapse in the number and value of projects in Natural Resource Canada's major projects inventory tells a story. At its peak in 2015, [it] held $711 billion in major projects. By 2023 it had dropped to $572 billion. That is in real dollars. If Canada had retained 2015 levels of planned investment and kept pace with inflation, the figure today would be $886 billion.

Shockingly, since the current Prime Minister took office, already $63 billion of investment has fled Canada. That's for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which, we would suggest, is anti-development and anti-private sector policies and laws.

Do you have some comments specifically on measures or fiscal tools that must be improved in order to bring clarity, certainty, predictability and fairness to private sector proponents to achieve food, energy and critical minerals security, as you've rightly argued?

[Michael Gullo]

Thank you for the questions and for the reference to the paper, which was written quite some time ago. I'm glad people read these things. You never know.

Generally, we're talking about what I referred to in my opening comments as a lost market share. That's really what this translates into. We have to question the competitiveness of our investment environment in Canada and whether that's stimulating the investment dollars it needs to unlock the projects that allow us to have more throughput and output and compete more effectively on the global stage.

Broadly speaking, we have a time-bound and time-limited opportunity to really get this right. We have to do a deep dive that, from soup to nuts—forgive the term—looks at all of the various measures, from tax policy and regulatory policy right through to what we're doing on climate, and challenges the competitiveness of our investment environment here in Canada.

Looking towards solutions, which is where we're at, I don't think there's an argument anymore that our regulatory processes need to be improved. We must do better. That's broadly accepted by Canadians, the private sector and all levels of governments.

The questions were these: Where do we go, and what can we do from here? There are some very practical things that I would say need to be in the window for consideration, particularly on the regulatory side.

On thresholds, under the project designation regulations, I hear from all of the different sectors of the economy that those thresholds need to be increased so we can start to effectively move not only toward a principle of “one project, one assessment,” but also further to “one decision”. That may sound like a very simplistic thing, but raising the thresholds and moving in this type of direction really does start to identify clear lanes for the provincial and federal governments' jurisdictions, which is the type of clarity that businesses need on the regulatory side.

That's one area I think is open for analysis and debate for what we can do to start moving projects faster and in tune with the moment.

The more substantive stuff is going to be on a sectoral, project-by-project basis, where we're looking at that full suite of incentives, tax policies and everything required to unlock dollars, and we're asking ourselves where we stand vis-à-vis our global competitors and what we could be doing better.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Would it be fair to say that it is your organization's view that the current layers of regulatory and fiscal policy and uncompetitive taxes and legislation, like, for example, Bill C-59—and in case you have any comments on those, go ahead—and the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, which to this moment has not been fixed, are barriers to development and deter investment in Canada?

[Michael Gullo]

On a net sum basis, there's a lot of complexity and density that I know discourages investment. Our members are obliged to their shareholders to be able to describe where this capital is going to go and how it's going to translate into a return on investment. We have done a lot of new regulatory interventions over the last several years that have created the kind of dense landscape that makes it difficult to get to a final investment decision. You've probably heard the term “pancaking” before, and we're working through that now.

Our hope is that we're looking at this moment where we really need to unlock different pools of capital in order to invest and become more competitive on the global stage, and that will start to unravel a lot of this, cut through it and make Canada a successful country.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Fleming, would you remind everybody when the court made its decision about including Métis and Inuit people in section 35 rights? Do you have any comments on whether or not the government is actually fully executing its duty to consult with Métis people?

Also, do you have any comments on whether or not capacity-building funding has actually flowed? That's something Conservatives have supported over numerous iterations, but I've been hearing that although the government has promised it, it's not actually getting to local communities.