Natural Resources

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources met on October 23, 2025, to continue its study of the development of critical minerals in Canada. Witnesses included Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, accompanied by Julie McGregor and Benjamin Green-Stacey; Heather Exner-Pirot, Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Meg Gingrich, Assistant to the National Director of the United Steelworkers Union; and Paul Blom, Chief Operating Officer of the BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council.

National Chief Woodhouse-Nepinak emphasized that critical minerals development must include free, prior and informed consent from First Nations, and that economic reconciliation must be a guiding principle, not an afterthought. She called for a constitutional review of the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements, which she said were imposed without First Nations consent and continue to impede self-determination. She also urged the committee to recommend First Nations water legislation with statutory funding, and noted that the Indigenous loan guarantee program, while welcome, does not address community infrastructure needs and has effectively replaced a promised benefits-sharing framework. She stressed that First Nations must be included as true partners in federal-provincial-territorial meetings and in international trade delegations.

Julie McGregor added that the government has not adequately consulted rights holders on major projects, and that the Indigenous advisory council for the Major Projects Office is not a replacement for direct engagement with First Nations. She argued that solving the infrastructure gap—estimated at over $350 billion—is essential to enabling First Nations participation in resource development, and that the loan guarantee program’s $200,000 grants are insufficient for meaningful engagement. Benjamin Green-Stacey noted that regional impact assessments, such as those for the St. Lawrence and the Ring of Fire, risk being ignored under fast-tracked project approvals, and called for regional development plans developed with First Nations.

Heather Exner-Pirot argued that Canada’s critical minerals policy lacks nuance, bundling 34 minerals into one category when they require different strategic responses. She identified four categories: minerals where Canada has global market power (e.g., potash, uranium), major GDP drivers (e.g., gold, copper), future-growth minerals (e.g., lithium, graphite), and minerals with weak markets but essential for security (e.g., gallium, tungsten). She said Canada has taken a laissez-faire approach and needs structural regulatory reform, not just the Major Projects Office, to attract investment. She recommended using state financial tools for defence-critical minerals and leveraging technologies like small modular reactors and airships for northern development, and disagreed with the notion that Bill C-5 alone is a sufficient remedy.

Meg Gingrich stressed that critical minerals development must build an integrated value chain in Canada, with binding requirements for unionized labour, Canadian content and community benefits. She said public money must deliver public good, and that Canada should enforce fair trade and reward low-carbon domestic production while ensuring imports meet the same standards. She noted that the mining sector already employs more Indigenous people than any other private industry except construction, and that unions are developing mining schools to recruit and train workers. She disagreed with framing workers’ rights as red tape, arguing that strong labour standards are a Canadian advantage.

Paul Blom described the BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council’s critical minerals strategy, which calls for tripartite co-decision-making on environmental assessments, consent-based approvals, and fair-share benefit agreements including equity, revenue sharing and procurement. He said capital flows more quickly when First Nations partner with project proponents, and that the Indigenous loan guarantee program is a good start but needs more flexibility beyond the $200,000 grant. He recommended creating a resource negotiation support team for communities lacking expertise, and pointed to the regional energy and resource table in B.C. as a promising tripartite model.

The committee also heard brief debate on Bill C-5 and the Impact Assessment Act, with Conservative members arguing that the government’s policies have made Canada uncompetitive and that Bill C-69 needs reform, while Liberal members emphasized the importance of protecting workers’ rights and environmental standards. No motions or procedural votes were recorded.