Category: Canada

Canadian mining companies and most domestic mining associations seem to agree on one idea: The permitting and approvals process in Canada needs to be vastly improved so that mining projects come into production much quicker than they do now.

Canada’s focus on securing critical minerals to overcome the Chinese monopoly has led many politicians and policy makers to give mining approvals a second look. Critical minerals are low hanging fruit. The International Energy Agency says demand for copper, nickel, and zinc will explode over the next 15 years.   Their conclusion? Canada will lose the global race for critical minerals and rare earth elements if the nation’s policy makers do not streamline and expedite approvals and permitting.

The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) — a national organization which has served as the voice for Canada’s mining industry for decades — released a landmark report in November 2022 called “Project Permitting in Canada and the Mining Industry.” The report put a microscope on this important issue.

Here is the MAC report’s conclusion: “There is a broad consensus that the timeline for the planning and approval process for new projects, (including “no go”) must be shortened from the current 10 to 15 years without losing the requirements for good planning, environmental protection, and Indigenous consultation.”

The report went on to describe the obstacle to reform: “For nearly 30 years, the objective of “one project one assessment” remains elusive. The combination of provincial and federal assessment and approval processes, and related necessary Indigenous engagement, continues to fall short of coordinated, timely and efficient planning.  Such uncoordinated process duplication is not seen in other countries.”

Numerous reform attempts have sought to achieve this laudable “one project one assessment” goal, but governments at both levels seem to continually add more nebulous evaluative criteria to mining approvals. Indigenous consultation requirements can also affect timelines, which creates more incentive for an expedited permitting process that brings Indigenous parties into the process throughout.

Industry media have documented over the years how the oil and gas sector has managed to do a better job at creating so-called “single window” permitting process, such as the B.C. Energy Regulator, which has now added renewable energy projects to its purview.  

While there are indeed examples and case studies in Canada to draw upon, some other jurisdictions have attempted more radical changes to bring the full attention of government to the goal of vastly expediting the permitting process.

One such example is Idaho’s so-called SPEED Act. We turn to that now.

Idaho’s SPEED Act and mining approvals

On January 24, 2025, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed executive order 2025-02, the Strategic Permitting, Efficiency, and Economic Development (SPEED) Act. The Act aimed at better coordinating state permitting on major projects that promote energy independence, support national security, and drive the economy. Thus, the governor passed the law to push forward priority projects that met the above criteria.

How exactly does the SPEED Act work? Well, according to a government news release, the executive order creates a new SPEED council comprised of several state agency directors that will aim to expedite the review of permits and increase collaboration with project proponents. The order’s overarching goal is to seek to eliminate duplicative or unnecessary statutes and rules.

The new policy regime also aims to include all infrastructure requirements within the approvals process. The press release reads: “Large scale projects that require permits from multiple state agencies could include electricity generation and transmission projects, mining projects, data center development, fabrication facilities, water facilities, and other important projects that support communities across Idaho, as determined by the SPEED Council.”

Mining industry observers also highlighted the unprecedented co-ordination between the governor’s office and state agencies. During the unveiling of the new executive order, Governor Little was joined by Lt. Governor Scott Bedke and several state agency directors. Government sources announced that Richard Stover — administrator of the Governor’s Office of Energy and Mineral Resources — will chair the SPEED Council and Lt. Governor Bedke will advise the council.

At the unveiling news conference, Governor Little stated, “Idaho leads the nation in streamlining regulations and promoting good government, but there is always more we can do to improve. With President Trump’s return to the White House, there is a renewed focus on efficiency in government at the federal level. In that same spirit, here in Idaho we are going to take even more steps to make sure state government does not get in the way of projects that support our economy.”

Before continuing forward, it is important to get a better sense of Idaho as a mining jurisdiction and how the state’s regulatory climate was prior to the SPEED Act.

Idaho as an historic mining jurisdiction

Idaho is famously called the “gem state.” This was a nickname it received during its pre-state territorial days. However, it did not gain the name from its gem or mineral wealth. Historical sources say the name was more about hype. The word Idaho was supposedly derived from a purported Native American word “EDah-Hoe” meaning “Gem of the Mountains” or “Light on the Mountain.”  Thus, the name was adopted to draw attention to the territory to make its case for statehood. However, since that time, the state has become renowned for its rich mining history and potential.  

It was in fact gold that drew many non-Indigenous settlers to the state in the first place and its discovery propelled the territory to statehood in 1863. However, gold deposits soon began to disappear, leading prospectors to seek other minerals. By the late 1800s, silver, lead, and zinc were discovered in the Coeur D’Alene area.

Idaho now produces about 45% of all silver in the U.S. The state also produces about 15% of the phosphate produced in the U.S. Finally, true to its original name, Idaho now produces many precious and semi-precious stones.

To get an international perspective, it is important to see how Idaho sits relative to other similarly suited mining jurisdictions. The Fraser Institute’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies presents one tool to evaluate the mining policy attractiveness of various jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions around the world have strong mineral potential but do not possess a stable policy environment enticing to investors and mining exploration. The Fraser Institute’s survey involves interacting with mining executives, so it reflects the opinions of decision makers.

When asked about the Fraser Institute’s most recent 2023 figures, Fraser Institute Policy Analyst Julio Mejía pointed out that Idaho ranked 20th out of 86 jurisdictions in terms of investment attractiveness and 25th of 86 in terms of policy alone.

He added that, “Investors in Idaho expressed reduced concern over infrastructure issues and uncertainty surrounding disputed land claims, with none of the respondents citing these factors as deterrents to investment. Only 11% of respondents stated that Idaho’s labor regulations deter investment, a decrease of 3 percentage points compared to 2022.” One potential area where comparing Idaho to Canada becomes tricky is in Indigenous land claims. Although U.S. mining companies do have to deal with Native American groups, especially if a project affects a tribe’s lands, land claims uncertainty is much of a pronounced issue for Canada, especially given unceded lands in B.C. and elsewhere. In the U.S., tribal boundaries are much clearer.

Regarding permit times, Mejía said the Fraser Institute did not receive enough responses from Idaho to include Idaho in the 2023 permit times sub survey, as only Alaska and Nevada received more than the five necessary responses to meet the threshold to be included in the survey.  Thus, it would be difficult to state with certainty exactly how Idaho stood in permitting immediately before the SPEED Act was brought in.

U.S. well ahead of Canada in terms of permitting: Analyst

Although the Fraser Institute’s annual survey could not provide more clarity on Idaho’s position, Mejía said overall this most recent survey and previous ones have highlighted general trends between Canada and the U.S. Mejía said the U.S. has on average the highest percentage of respondents indicating that they received their permits in six months or less (80%).

By contrast, this average was 59% amongst Canadian jurisdictions. Similarly, on average, 54% of respondents for Canadian jurisdictions indicated that permit approval times had lengthened either somewhat or considerably (emphasis added) over the past 10 years, which compares to 35% who said that was the case in the U.S.

Moreover, an average of 73% of U.S. respondents indicated that the US met its established timelines for approval decisions between 60% and 100% of the time, in contrast, on average, 59% of respondents for Canada said this was the case. Also, an average of 38% of respondents for Canada said that a lack of transparency deters investment in the country, compared to 32% for the U.S.. Finally, an average of 77% of survey respondents in Canada expressed either confidence or high confidence that the necessary permits will be granted, compared to 83% of respondents for the U.S.

Thus, it seems that, at least according to the mining executives that are involved in the Fraser Institute’s annual survey, it would be more likely good ideas on speeding up permitting and approvals would come from the U.S. In fact, some mining companies seeking to build mines in Idaho are specifically mentioning the SPEED Act as a contributing factor in their decision to build in Idaho. We turn now to two projects, the first being Perpetua Resource’s Stibnite gold project and the second being Liberty Gold’s Black Pine project.

Perpetua Resources, Stibnite gold, and the SPEED Act

Perpetua Resource, headquartered in Boise, Idaho, is publicly traded on Nasdaq and the Toronto Stock Exchange.  The company is determined to complete its Stibnite gold project in central Idaho. The new operation will involve recovery of an abandoned mine site. The site is about 44 air miles northwest of Cascade, Idaho and near Yellowpine, Idaho.

The company’s pre-feasibility study from 2014 found the Stibnite gold project had the largest known source of antimony in the U.S. Antimony is a critical mineral vital for defense, technology, and energy application. With an estimated reserve of 148 million Ibs of antimony, the project could meet up to 35% of U.S. antimony demand in its initial six years of production, significantly reducing reliance on foreign supply chains.

Moreover, the study also found the project contained one of the top 10 gold deposits in the U.S. In total, the company estimated in its study that it could recover more than four million oz. of gold over the mine’s projected 12 years of life. The study also concluded the high grades of gold to be recovered would keep operating costs low relative to gold operations overseas.

The Idaho-based company has already taken steps on the mining project, including signing an environmental clean up agreement in 2021 with the EPA and U.S. Forest Service. The agreement granted permission to Perpetua to conduct early-action cleanup, and under the oversight of the agencies, to remove legacy mine waste and maintain water quality.

Perpetua was delighted when the Idaho governor introduced the SPEED Act, as it believed its mining operation was striving to achieve the same objectives the Act was designed for.

Jon Cherry, CEO of Perpetua Resources, commented, “We are thrilled to see Governor Little take decisive action to streamline permitting without compromising environmental integrity. The SPEED Act aligns perfectly with Perpetua’s vision to restore an abandoned mine site and responsibly develop domestic mineral resources for a more secure future.”

The Idaho Mining Association — a non-profit organization acting as a voice for the industry in the state — has also been impressed with the SPEED Act and is backing it.  

Ben Davenport, the executive director of the organization, stated, “The SPEED Act exemplifies Idaho’s common sense, forward-thinking leadership. We hope that by improving communication and coordination, Idaho can help vital projects like the Stibnite gold project deliver hundreds of well-paid and highly skilled jobs to our rural communities.”

Liberty Gold and the SPEED Act

Liberty Gold — a Vancouver-based mining company — has set its sights on a reviving a gold project in southern Idaho. The company has placed much hope in an expedited timeline the SPEED Act is making possible. The Black Pine oxide gold project, located in southeastern Idaho, is a past producing open pit, run-of-mine heap leach mine.

In the past, Pegasus Gold mined about 435,000 oz. of gold and 189,000 oz. of silver from five open pit mines between 1991 and 1997.

Liberty Gold says the exploration site now covers about 40 sq. km. In the middle of 2024, Liberty Gold launched a 20,000-metre drilling effort on seven new high priority targets. The company has now completed a preliminary feasibility study for the project showing strong economic potential.

Henry Lazenby, a journalist with the Northern Miner (a sister publication to the Canadian Mining Journal), has written how Liberty Gold set an ambitious 2028 construction start for the Black Pine project.

Liberty Gold CEO said, “We are establishing a strong foundation for advancing Black Pine through the permitting process to a potential construction decision within three years, ensuring the project meets the highest environmental and operating standards.”

The Northern Miner article also mentioned Liberty signed an agreement with government agencies with the aim of helping it complete reviews for the environmental impact statement. The company is expecting that process to begin next year. Final permits should be ready by 2027, and the company believes a construction decision could be made by early 2028.

Black Pine is set to benefit from the provisions of the SPEED Act as it navigates a presumably more efficient permitting landscape.

L3 Capital analysts told the Northern Miner that this kind of framework can reduce permitting risks. It also hoped that it may also speed up the construction decision process.

However, company officials stressed much of the SPEED Act’s promise is still theoretical at this stage. Matt Zietlow, Liberty Gold’s director of regulatory affairs and sustainability, said, “While the governor did sign an executive order creating the SPEED Act in January, it is not (yet) a functionally active process.  They anticipate a Q3 or Q4 launch this fall.”

He clarified, “Given that, we of course can’t opine on any actual “Liberty Gold experience” with the SPEED Act yet, but Liberty strongly supports and commends the governor’s efforts to improve and streamline the overall permitting process in Idaho.”

Zietlow also added that for more than a year Liberty Gold and key staff from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Department of Lands have already been engaged in frequent consultation on the status of the Black Pine project, proposed design, ongoing baseline studies and projected permit timelines.

He said: “These joint efforts, along with a recently completed memorandum of understanding between Liberty Gold, state agencies, and the U.S Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, directly address Governor Little’s stated first responsibility for members of the environmental council to be created by the SPEED Act.”

While expediting the regulatory and permitting process, Zietlow said the SPEED Act, from his reading, does not affect robust regulatory and environmental oversight.

He said: “The SPEED Act aims to improve overall efficiency of the permitting process with a more visible process, enhanced communication, and regular accountability to help insure reasonable and predictable permit timelines can be achieved. The Act does not circumvent or eliminate any environmental safeguards or required and appropriate environmental analyses.”

Thus, despite all the promise on paper, the jury is still out on the exact and measurable performance of the SPEED Act on the ground. Both Perpetua Resources and Liberty Gold will come to see how the executive order improves permitting timelines and whether it can enhance investor confidence in Idaho projects. Liberty Gold has already taken the next step with an optimistic timeline for construction.

Challenge is in reforming bureaucracies: Mining policy analyst

For some mining policy analysts, it is always about bridging theoretical permitting reform with actual performance on shovel-ready projects.

Heather Exner-Pirot is a senior fellow with the non-partisan Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Ottawa. She is also the Institute’s director of energy, natural resources, and environment.

When asked about the SPEED Act and permitting reform in general, she replied by email that, “Every jurisdiction in the western world is looking at how to reduce regulatory and permitting burdens. The overriding philosophy is no longer coming from the environmental side, but from the economic and national security sides.”

She added, “Getting rid of red tape and building things are politically winning messages right now. The challenge is reforming bureaucracies, so they respond in kind.”

In other words, permitting reforms are likely only as good as the bureaucracies that are administering the process changes.

Impressions of SPEED Act from Canadian mining organizations

The Canadian Mining Journal shared a full link to the SPEED Act to a few Canadian mining associations, asking for comment. One organization gave a response in time for publication, issuing a warning to Canadian jurisdictions to take the issuing of new executive orders as evidence that they need to respond likewise to maintain our competitive edge.

Michael Goehring, CEO of the Mining Association of B.C., stated, “If more states than just Idaho begin to match President Trump’s recent executive order on energy and critical minerals to boost domestic energy and mineral production, the competitive position of B.C.’s and Canada’s mining sector will further erode. These state and federal executive orders require an urgent policy response to keep Canadian capital and mining talent from heading to the U.S. Together with Trump’s tariffs, these executive orders are a double-barrel threat to our economy, people, and prosperity and underscore the urgency for the B.C. and federal governments to secure First Nations partnerships and streamline permitting processes to get new mines built in the provincial and national interest.” 

Joseph Quesnel is the daily news editor for the Canadian Mining Journal.

As a result, it may be easier to contribute Canadian dollars to a TFSA, or to use a buffer when estimating the exchange trade conversion from U.S. to Canadian dollars when contributing U.S. funds, Michelle. The exact amount of the buffer may be difficult to determine. Currency can fluctuate from day to day, and your financial institution may use a rate that varies by up to a couple percent from the posted exchange rate. To be safe, you could consider building in, say, a 5% buffer, and then ask your financial institution after the fact to confirm the contribution amount in Canadian dollars that it will report to the CRA. And if you are short a few dollars based on your contribution limit, you can top it up in Canadian dollars.

Note that your financial institution bears no responsibility with regards to tracking or confirming your available TFSA room—it simply reports contributions and withdrawals to the CRA. So, it is ultimately up to you to make sure you do not overcontribute.

Also, remember that if you withdraw from one TFSA, you do not get that contribution room back to contribute to the other TFSA immediately. TFSA withdrawals impact your TFSA room the next January 1, with net withdrawals for the year added back to your TFSA room for the subsequent year. If you recontribute too soon, you could be charged the 1% penalty tax.

Foreign withholding tax and TFSAs

When you own U.S. securities or other foreign investments in your TFSA, non-resident withholding tax generally applies. The financial institution is responsible for withholding the tax from dividends and distributions before they hit your account.

The withholding tax is your final tax obligation to a foreign tax authority, so there are no tax-filing obligations for a Canadian resident who is not a U.S. citizen when they buy U.S. securities in their TFSA.

Final thoughts

A diversified portfolio should include U.S. and foreign stocks to complement Canadian stock exposure. So, on that basis, Michelle, using a U.S. TFSA can be a good investment strategy.

You could also explore alternatives to buying U.S. stocks in U.S. dollars, such as CDRs or even U.S.-equity ETFs listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. If you are contributing U.S. dollars directly to your TFSA, just make sure the contribution amount in Canadian dollars based on the current exchange rate does not put you in an overcontribution position.

Read more from Jason Heath:

About Jason Heath, CFP

Jason Heath is a fee-only, advice-only Certified Financial Planner (CFP) at Objective Financial Partners Inc. in Toronto. He does not sell any financial products whatsoever.