Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

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

I have a quick follow-up.

There are misconceptions out there that some indigenous people are against natural gas projects. Are you able to convince them or show them the data that it's better for the environment and some of the local benefit agreements that have flowed from that project? How do those conversations unfold?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give us a quick response.

[Sharleen Gale]

I'm the former chief of Fort Nelson First Nation. We have the biggest gas basin in North America.

It's just about building trust with industry and governments and having real conversations at the ground level, especially with our hunters, gatherers, elders, youth and members. It's really important to have that understanding and share our knowledge with other neighbouring nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Mr. Guay has the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gale and Mr. Fantauzzo, thank you very much for being with the committee today and helping us learn from your experience and the broad exposure that you have had from participating in multiple first nation major projects. In that spirit, I would really like to hear some of the key learnings from an equity model.

Mr. Fantauzzo, you were talking about some of the recent projects that have different constructs. If we had a magic wand, what would be templates for participation in the future? There are many different economic models. There are different levels of maturity and risk-taking when we're talking joint ventures, equity stakes and royalty agreements.

I actually would like to hear you talk, Mr. Fantauzzo or Ms. Gale, about going forward. What should be the template or templates?

If we don't have time to answer all of those questions today, then I would love to have your submission, because the government is really looking forward to having good ideas and good templates that we can engage for major projects in the future.

[Shaun Fantauzzo]

Thank you for the question.

I want to reiterate something that Mr. Wuttunee mentioned in his testimony as well, which is that capacity and the resources to participate meaningfully and to make informed decisions are integral to any of these types of deals, whether they're involved with jobs, procurement, benefit sharing, environmental stewardship or, ultimately, equity investment. The ability to have the resources to make informed decisions is extremely important.

The next thing I would mention is that access to capital supports must be tailored to the economic and financial realities of these projects. What I would say about the loan guarantee programs that are out there, for instance, is that many of them have been designed for traditional energy or linear infrastructure projects. Many of those projects fall within rate-regulated industries in which risk can be contained, novelly, in a project finance structure.

When it comes to critical minerals, for instance, the economic and financial realities of the sector are quite different. Therefore, those tools will need to change and the deals will need to change to adapt.

While I'm hesitant to say there is a template, what I would say is that when first nations have the ability to make informed decisions—like anyone in these deals—those deals will come together in a faster and more legitimate manner. Ensuring that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for these deals is the best thing the federal government could do.

What we're now seeing, as first nation ownership and economic participation in the natural resource sector is expanding, is that these deals are taking many different shapes. We've shifted, as I said, from passive investment, 5% or 10% equity investment postconstruction, to seeing full ownership of projects, such as the three ventures Sharleen mentioned.

Ensuring that there are the resources available to make informed decisions will get us to the right outcomes on these deals. Capacity support is important—ensuring that the programs that are advanced federally aren't tailored to one specific outcome and that they're tailored to the diverse opportunities that are out there in the natural resource sector. I think this would be the most important.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gale, you mentioned that the loan guarantee program is not substantial enough. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I thought that's what I heard. The government recently announced that we were increasing the pool for loan guarantees from $5 billion to $10 billion. Is this enough?

If I understood you correctly, what adjustments should we make?

[Sharleen Gale]

In the next 10 years, there's going to be major project development happening within our country. I think that foreign investment can help Canada scale its critical minerals strategy but only if it aligns with indigenous values, our environmental standards and Canada's national interest.

The reality is that first nations are now being approached directly by international investors seeking access to our lands and resources, often without significant transparency or due diligence.

We need to develop those relationships, but we also need a clear federal framework and resource processes to help our nations with potential partners in assessing their integrity, their financial capacity and their alignment with our community values. This target requires funding for legal commercial capacity and transparent disclosure statements from foreign entities operating in indigenous territories. Canada must also ensure that foreign investments strengthen our sovereignty and partnerships rather than reproducing the extractive relationship of the past. I also think of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and how important it is to really increase its mandate.

The indigenous loan guarantee has a low-risk mandate geared to supporting operational or near-operational projects, and this mandate will need to change to support projects going forward, especially critical minerals projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gale.

Thank you, Mr. Guay.

Wrapping up this round, we have Monsieur Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gale, can you hear the interpretation?

[Sharleen Gale]

Yes, I can.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I really liked what you said in your remarks. You mentioned that venture capital, which provides the opportunity to become partners in critical minerals projects, is limited. I'm telling you this because Quebec has a critical minerals corridor project. As part of the Grande Alliance protocol, the Cree nation would like to restore part of a railway line.

How could indigenous communities develop a framework for owning infrastructure or becoming its proponents? I don't know whether you have done this in the past or whether you have a model. However, I think that it would be worthwhile to provide this information to the committee.

[Sharleen Gale]

Quite interestingly enough, as a chief I was looking at having a partnership in the ownership of a railway, but infrastructure must be codesigned with first nations from the onset to serve both the economic and the community purpose. There are roads, ports, power lines and digital networks that need to be built, but not solely for industry; they also connect our communities.

I think that a lower local cost of living enables long-term regional development. This means that we need to design things for multi-use and have climate resiliency and regional integrated systems, which are working together and providing value beyond a single project.

First nations are also leading in this space, and they are equity partners already in the transmission lines, renewable projects and transportation corridors that are going to be very important for remote-like locations and southern markets.

I think it's very interesting, because first nations are already talking about these issues in northern Canada, port to port to port. It's very interesting to see the ideas that are coming from these conversations being invited into these spaces. Any infrastructure going forward is going to cross indigenous lands, and I think it's really important for our success as a country to ensure that these nations that are coming up with these ideas and want the ownership of these projects are well funded and supported.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you for your enlightening response. However, I would welcome further details. You clearly identified and outlined the issue of multi‑use infrastructure in the north. I would like to understand how indigenous communities could become some of the proponents of this infrastructure. If you have any documents on this topic, I believe that the committee would greatly appreciate them.

I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Rowe, who has a few questions for you.

Thank you for your remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Go ahead, Mr. Rowe.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Thank you.

Ms. Gale, I have a question. Last week we had a witness encouraging the government to double down on development in southern Canada, where infrastructure is already in place. I know, like in Newfoundland, many of our small communities were able to receive infrastructure because of mining development in that region.

I see a quote from you saying, “What is common among First Nations across Canada is that there are many infrastructure deficits in our communities, on our lands, and on our reserves. That includes deficits such as water, sewer, broadband, housing, roads, community services, transmission lines, reliable clean energy sources, and health [care services].” That's certainly a mouthful, but right across there's infrastructure that needs to happen.

Do you think that focusing our mines near indigenous communities should be a priority for this government as it would jump-start the implementation of necessary infrastructure in those regions?

[Sharleen Gale]

I think the primary barrier is structural, not technical.

Many first nations are being asked to engage in complex capital-extensive projects while still contending with the legacy effects of underinvestment in basic community infrastructure. I live in the north. I've seen mines be in operation for 50 years, and the roads to a community neighbouring the project are gravel and haven't been paved.

If a community does not have reliable drinking water, accessible health care, housing or education, it's really unrealistic to expect them to dedicate sustained attention to building a project or even have the capacity to evaluate multi-million dollar mineral projects when they have many social issues at home that they're trying to address. The foundation for participating begins with ensuring quality of life and continued federal and provincial investment in infrastructure at the community level, including housing, broadband, energy, transportation and social services. It's critical. These are not separate from economic development; they are the preconditions for it.

Communities that have stable infrastructure and well-being can create the time, space and capacity to discuss these projects. It's really important to know that when you're part of a project and you can create your own-source revenue, then you're able to build up your housing and you're able to build up your community, so that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

All right. Time's up, I'm afraid. Thank you both.

We're going to move on to our final round. That's going to take us past the top of the hour, colleagues, but let's go.

We have MP Malette, followed by MP Hogan, and MP Simard. It's five minutes for MPs Malette and Hogan, and two and a half minutes for MP Simard.

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

Ms. Gale, I have a question for you.

Could you describe your experience with the assessment process for critical minerals and mining projects, and how it has been beneficial to indigenous stakeholders? As well, what are some of the changes that you would recommend being made to ensure efficiency and transparency within the approval system?

[Sharleen Gale]

I would like to pass this on to Shaun.

[Shaun Fantauzzo]

Thank you, Sharleen.

What I would say, kind of generally, about the impact assessment process.... I'll preface this by saying that FNMPC has recently published two reports on the value of phase-zero engagement, which we're calling pre-engagement in these processes, and capacity all throughout. Both of those things are very important. Capacity is the foundation that allows first nations to engage on a level playing field with both industry and government. It means having that access to a full range of expertise—legal, financial and technical. It means having access to in-house professionals. It also means the ability to engage first nations' own citizens through meetings, language, translation and transparent access to project data, like Mr. Wuttunee mentioned earlier.

These are things that transform these engagement and consultation processes into meaningful participation, ultimately transforming participation into consent.

We could probably spend too much time talking about this issue, but I think the most important element for these impact assessment processes and permitting processes is early engagement that is sufficiently resourced for first nations. We'll only move at the pace of trust here.

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

On the same subject, since the Impact Assessment Act, known as Bill C-69, have there been indigenous-led projects that have contributed positively to furthering indigenous economic development?

What more could the government do to ensure that indigenous projects are not stuck in regulatory delays?

[Shaun Fantauzzo]

I'm happy to take this one as well.

Several projects are now being advanced, not only with indigenous participation but with indigenous leadership, many inside and outside of federal and provincial impact assessment processes. There are projects that are successfully moving forward that are indigenous-owned or have significant indigenous involvement.

Again, one of the biggest components here is having the capacity to advance these projects and to make informed decisions. Having the technical expertise and having trust in relationships to advance joint ventures are the key components here. Ultimately, first nations want to exercise the right to self-determination and to advance projects on their lands, in their waters and with their resources, so finding ways to ensure that these projects are given resources and attention is what leads to success in the impact assessment processes.

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

Thank you.

We have one more minute.

Could you give us an example of a success story, of a project that has been extremely successful?

[Shaun Fantauzzo]

Yes, I'm happy to do that.

Perhaps one of the most prevalent examples at this moment is the Cedar LNG project in British Columbia, and also the Woodfibre LNG project. Both of these projects had extensive involvement from the first nation governments and the first nation communities.

For Cedar LNG, for instance, the environmental team for Haisla Nation was an in-house team, with a member from Haisla who worked extensively with the community. There were referendums within the community throughout the process, as well as outside of the community, where Haisla members were living off reserve or outside of Haisla territory. That project was successfully assessed and permitted on a very decent timeline.

The next example, with Woodfibre LNG, was the same thing. The Squamish Nation undertook its own indigenous-led assessment concurrently with the federal and provincial governments.