Welcome to today's webinar. Our speakers today are Brendan Marshall, Vice President of Economics and Northern Affairs, and Jeff Smith, Vice President of Government Relations for the Mining Association of Canada. Before I turn it over to Vice President Kyle Larkin from MPAC, I'd like to let those of you who are live with us know that you may submit questions during the webinar using our Q&A at the bottom of the screen. This webinar will also be recorded so that you may watch or re-watch it on demand at your convenience. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Kyle. Thanks, Mike. Fantastic webinar we have here today, and it's great to see that we have a ton of participants that have joined us. So we have Brendan Marshall and Jeff Smith from the Mining Association of Canada. I'm going to turn it over very shortly, but they're going to go very quickly over the mining industry in Canada, the COVID-19 impacts on the industry and what we're looking at going into 2021. So, Brendan, Jeff. Thanks very much for that introduction, Kyle. Can everybody hear me clearly and loudly and the audio and the connectivity is all good? Perfect. All good from here. Hoping the same for me. Perfect. OK, I'm just going to go ahead and share my screen to get a presentation up here. OK, we want to maximize that. Then we want to go into presentation mode. Perfect. So look, can everybody see the landing page of my deck clearly? Yes, that's great. We're all good. Perfect. OK, well, look, first of all, I'd just like to say thank you for the opportunity to engage in this discussion today. As Kyle mentioned, what I'm going to run you through here is a little bit of recent context to help understand the trajectory that the industry has been through in Canada over the course of the last year. We'll talk a little bit about pricing. We'll talk a little bit about operational perspectives at the mine site level. Then we're going to talk very briefly about a couple of key policy priorities that our federal government is advancing, a few of which are being advanced in quite close partnership with the US government. We're quite excited about the opportunities that these present for the sector, and we think that they'll be relevant for you all, given the close business partnerships you have with a number of our companies. For those who aren't familiar with MAC, we're the equivalent of the National Mining Association in the US. We have a federal mandate almost exclusively, so we primarily engage with our national government and have independent associations that would deal with our subnational provinces. Our primary function is one of advocacy, in the sense that we advance perspectives of our members into the policy and regulatory process of the government of the day. We're a non-partisan organisation. Ultimately, our goal is to try and ensure that any government that is elected with a democratic mandate achieves that mandate in a way that's reflective of a healthy and prosperous mining industry, so that the benefits that our members generate are shared by Canadians widely. We have a broad membership that focuses on a diversified mineral and metal set, as well as energy. We also have a very broad associate membership base, which would include, in some cases, mining supply firms, some of which there may be crossover between our respective organisations. We also represent the up and downstream segment of mining activities, predominantly from the development space all the way through until mineral and metal manufacturing. Our focus is on virtually any policy or regulation that you can think of that comes to bear on the ability of the mining industry to operate in Canada, whether that's exploration, extraction, processing, environmental considerations, transportation, infrastructure, trade, taxation, climate change, major project permitting, the whole gamut. Very briefly here, MAC has a program called Towards Sustainable Mining. It is a mandatory program for implementation at our members' domestic mine sites here in Canada. However, it's also one that has recently gotten some legs internationally. You can see a number of flags on the bottom. Each of those countries' National Mining Association has made a decision to adopt and implement TSM in their own jurisdiction. Rapidly, this program is becoming the de facto global mining best practice standard. This is important because some of the issues that we're going to be talking about in the policy space dovetail quite significantly with responsible sourcing. I'm sure that you and your own respective organisations can feel or are actively involved in the market pull to communicate to customers that the materials that you use are as responsibly sourced and produced as possible. In the Canadian context, given that this is a Canadian program and is leading the world in recognised best mining practice, we think that this is a pretty significant competitive advantage for our industry in Canada. In our country, the mining industry is a pretty significant industry. We account for about 5% of GDP. We have a significant number of major mining operations. We employ cumulatively over 700,000 employees. We're the largest employer of Indigenous peoples in the country. We also have a pretty significant indirect mining supply services industry that the industry supports. We are a major consumer of other industries, namely transportation. At the end of the day, from an export standpoint, we account for about 20% of the overall value of goods exported from the country on an annual basis. In terms of scale, the industry has a substantial footprint economically in Canada. To get to the COVID context here, I think that it's important to understand a few top-line contextual messages here. Throughout the entirety of COVID, and that's presently speaking as well, the priority of our members has been to maintain and ensure the well-being of their employees, as well as the communities in and around which they operate. Some companies have taken significant measures to prioritize that, and in some cases, at significant operational and economic costs. For example, in Canada's north, we had companies that ceased operations entirely on the basis of expressed community concern and the recognition that that partnership is more important for the long term of the business than any immediate associated economic loss. We also had companies that continued to pay the segment of their employees who are Indigenous, even though it was safer for them to stay at home and not attend work. I think what I'd like to say is that there was a significant effort put into thinking outside the box about how that priority of health and safety could be elevated to meet the demands of the time then and now. The last thing I'd say is that the industry is a significant part of the communities in which our members operate. I can say that that stat of over $40 million donated domestically within Canada, a number that would increase significantly were we to include our members' operations internationally, is something that was relatively unique on that scale when you consider other industrial sectors in Canada. Our members were there for their communities in those communities' times of need. Getting into the nitty gritty and the nuts and bolts of the implications of COVID on the sector, I'd say that all operations have been affected, but that the impacts have varied depending on both the product and the location. I gave you a very brief assessment of some operations in remote northern regions in Canada which were hit first and affected longest. At the end of the day, the downstream perspective was something that I think universally affected operations in Canada. For a number of products, we had customers that had shut down operations or deferred shipments. We had logistical challenges at ports where due to increased variability and volatility in the supply chain, delivery of volume of goods was either not possible or not possible in sufficient volume to meet existing contracts with shipping partners. We saw administrative delays in processing of documentation that was essential for operations, particularly mentioned at financial institution levels. Ultimately, as everyone on the call can attest from those months back in the spring, the general supply chain disruption in accessing in the level of real-time that we were accustomed to, the materials that are essential and without which our members can't operate, there were significant disruptions in the supply chain in that space. In certain cases, the level of disruption interrupted operations to the point where contractual obligations were not able to be fulfilled and we had companies revert to legal recourse on the basis of failed contracts. There were fairly significant levels of disruption at various segments of both operations and the supply chain. From a market's perspective, we saw a massive swing in volatility for mineral and metal prices, upwards of 20% for some materials. We saw initially a near-total collapse of the global diamond market in light of that uncertainty. Of course, Gold as a hedge surged, which is an important part of the role that metal plays, but when Gold surges at that rate, it's not necessarily for a comforting reason. Then we also had a massive set of demand destruction for petroleum products associated with lockdowns and stay-at-home orders that curtailed the level of transportation demand at all levels of the supply chain. The good news story here is that we've seen in recent months, not only a recovery to pre-COVID level highs for a number of prices and materials, we've also seen in some cases, a surge beyond those pre-COVID highs. Just to give a bit of an example here, if we look to the average 3-month futures on the LME for Zinc, Copper and Nickel, those are significant year-over-year price increases in any context, let alone a pandemic context. To cap that segment of the presentation off, the industry experienced fairly significant volatility ranging from closures to delays. Our understanding at this point is that the health and safety measures that our member companies have put into place have largely enabled those operations to resume and achieve their stated production levels at their respective mine sites. The health and safety protocols have been amalgamated in a way that has now enabled companies to resume a business-as-usual approach to their operations. The demand for minerals and metals at these prices bodes well for future and expanded economic activity in our sector in Canada. What are some of the policy drivers that, in addition to those market forces, are going to potentially contribute to this surge in economic activity? For those who may not be following this issue, there's a deepening partnership between the Canadian and US governments in the critical minerals space. Our Prime Minister and then-President Trump signed an MOU that evolved into a joint action plan on critical minerals. We've seen both governments now release a critical minerals list. I've observed and also participated in deepening engagement across multiple levels of government, engaging with one another about how our respective countries can deepen efforts to alleviate the type of supply vulnerability, particularly for rare earths but also other minerals and metals that China currently controls. So, this context is one that has elevated the mining industry in the level of public policy priority in Canada to a level not seen in living memory. Our Prime Minister has attended mine site openings. We have ministers writing op-eds about mines to mobility opportunities. This is an idea, an issue, and an opportunity that I would say our government is seized with right now. Jeff, would you want to provide any sort of colour commentary on that from your perspective? Jeff and I work together on these files. We oftentimes walk in slightly different circles, so he might have a bit more context on this piece. I think it's a unique time, and the factors that have aligned to contribute to clear this path of opportunity are certainly interesting. The climate transition piece being one, and it's interesting to see the emphasis points of the US administration, both of them, and our current government have placed emphasis on the critical minerals opportunities on different aspects of that. The nexus of the collaboration was very much in President Trump's efforts to diversify away from China and all that was involved with that relationship. But I would say that there aren't many policies. I think that there's almost no error between, say, the transition from Trump to Biden, and this arguably is one that has become that policy. So, it just speaks to what's afoot in light of the market prices and whatnot. We certainly have some significant momentum. Part of our government's focus on a very ambitious climate change policy agenda has also really fed that we are an industry and at least this element of mining critical minerals is one that they are embracing as a key provider of materials for that transition. So, it's been an interesting coalescence of factors and events that have brought us to where we're at, but the momentum is really almost daily in terms of announcements, whether it's investments in battery production infrastructure in various parts of the country and whatnot. This one is one that we're hoping the momentum can be continued and we've kind of talked about from framing to funding and where our real push now is to get meat on the bones and to get the supply chain, particularly for battery minerals, on the move. So, yeah, it's an exciting time. Our fingers are crossed. We knock on wood, but there's certainly a confluence of factors that has provided a real new spin on things and momentum for this issue. Thanks for that, Jeff. So, I'm not going to go through this slide. We sort of spoke to this previously and obviously we're happy to leave this deck with Kyle as a leave behind. Suffice it to say here, again, if you're not following this issue, rare earths in particular are small but essential inputs into multiple advanced manufacturing applications ranging from medical technologies, defence technologies, clean energy technologies, high tech, anything basically. And China currently controls upwards of 70% of the market for the majority of these metals and has utilised their market power in this space to maintain geopolitical control. And so, the impetus between this partnership between Canada and the US and also Canada and other countries is to gain material independence from that type of market control. You know, when we think about politicians and public policy, the favourability or unfavourability of a particular public policy topic is oftentimes a very good indicator of success. And MAC does regular public polling. We have a standard set of indicators that we poll Canadians on and we also do a segment of current affairs topics, one of which was looking at Canadian support for critical minerals development. And for any of you that have done your own public polling or worked in this space, these numbers don't get any higher than this. You never find 100% of people who will agree or support almost anything. So, for these numbers to be this high, it's unsurprising to us to see such a high correlation of policy support in these areas because it makes economic sense. It makes sense for deepened relationships with our largest trading partner. It makes sense from a Canadian sovereignty standpoint. It makes sense from a political standpoint as well, given this broad and sweeping support for government and greater industry action in this area. To zoom down to another level here, peel another layer off the onion, I mentioned that most recently the government has denounced a critical minerals list. We know that the US already has announced such a list. The correlation here between critical minerals and climate change, our government here has a very aggressive carbon reduction and broader climate change plan. A key pillar in that recently announced economic plan is the establishment of an up and downstream battery electric vehicle supply chain. As I'm sure some of you know, the forecast for increase in demand for minerals and metals that will feed into clean energy technologies, including batteries, is astronomical. We're talking about 100% to 500% increases in current global levels of production for metals ranging from copper, nickel, lithium, graphite, cobalt, zinc. The list goes on. our federal government recently prioritized the establishment of this BEV supply chain. They put about three billion dollars into a strategic innovation fund to help support, um, this effort. That funding has not started to, uh, flow yet. Our understanding is that the, um, I's are being dotted, the T's are being crossed. Um, but the, this is a very strong policy signal, uh, especially when you think about this funding explicitly calling out, you know, mineral extraction and processing, um, in all segments of the supply chain. Now, um, if we move to the bottom of the slide here very quickly, um, you know, there, nothing is ever a home run. Um, we, you know, we have our own sort of set of challenges that we're working with decision makers on one of which is this notion of off-grid mining. Currently, the majority of Canadian nickel and cobalt that's extracted derives from off-grid mines and, uh, with very limited opportunity to abate diesel in the face of surging anticipated carbon costs, we see, um, a potential challenge here for some of these operations relative to how important they are in establishing this up and downstream battery supply chain. So, you know, we're, like I said, we're, we're working with decision makers to sort of iron out some of these details to try and ensure that, um, all segments of, uh, this, this policy spectrum are taken into account to, to, uh, maximize the opportunity for success. Um, I'm not going to go over this. These are a number of, uh, recommendations and action, um, items that MAC has, uh, generated, uh, into our current pre-budget, uh, consultation. Um, we anticipate that, uh, budget 2021, uh, when it is released will include, um, more, uh, policies and programs to support, um, the delivery of, uh, actions in the joint action plan on critical minerals, as well as, uh, in the battery electric vehicle space, uh, including, uh, the mining and metal manufacturing segments of that. So, uh, you know, we're, we're optimistic that there's going to be deepened engagement, uh, that, that will provide sectoral supports, um, ultimately aligned with achieving these stated public policy objectives. And that takes us to the conclusion of, uh, the slide deck. What I'm going to do now is, um, Oh, I'm going to try and stop the screen sharing. There we go. And bring us back to this view and maybe, I don't know, hand it over to Kyle. I don't know if someone's going to be moderating the Q and a, uh, but Kyle, I'll pass it over to you. Yeah. Thank you, Brandon. And thank you for the presentation. Uh, I'll keep an eye on the Q and a, uh, no questions in there yet, but again, like Mike said, if you do have any questions, uh, feel free to put them in there. Brandon, I'll, I'll, I'll start us off a bit, uh, with, uh, with the structure and answer this question as much as you can, you know, um, since, since the investing in Canada plan was introduced four or so years ago, there's been, uh, delays all along. Um, and you know, the, the most recent report from the parliamentary budget officer is that there's a, there's $2 billion delayed in infrastructure investments. What are the impacts or are there any impacts of these delays on the mining industry in terms of, you know, building roads or bridges to, to communities that might have, uh, you know, minerals that could be exploited, et cetera, et cetera. But you tell me. Sure. So look, Canada is a massive country. Okay. Let's put, let's, let's, let's start with some context to help answer that question. It's the second largest landmass, uh, nation in the world, 9.98 million square kilometers. We also have comparatively speaking, a, uh, a smaller population that, uh, approximately 37 million people. Um, the vast majority of which whom live in close proximity to the Canada, U S border. So when we start to move out into a remote and Northern regions, uh, the infrastructure deficit increases. Okay. And you know, mining, um, is a massive consumer depending on the product being produced of both trade enabling and energy infrastructure. And there's a correlation between infrastructure access and, uh, attractiveness of investment in the mining space. If a company has a, uh, a great deposit that has, uh, infrastructure access, it's much more likely to be built, uh, assuming that the regulatory process, uh, advances. If you have that same deposit without access to infrastructure, the capex, the upfront capex to the company increases dramatically. Um, and oftentimes what we're seeing is project economics, not proving viable, uh, primarily on the basis of upfront infrastructure costs that land squarely on the company's balance sheet. Um, that would not be the case. Were they to have access to a road, uh, rail hub or power infrastructure? Um, the last thing I'd say is that, you know, to help manage expectations for your audience today, I've done some research in this area and it's two to two and a half times more expensive to build the same mine off grid in remote context in Canada than it is to build that same mine in a centrally located jurisdiction. And that's a significant cost increase. And so to come back squarely to answer your question, it has a massive impact and the extent to which not only can infrastructure investments move forward expediently, but also can be targeted to support broad-based economic development. I think the better off, um, Canadians will be because they'll benefit from greater local economic activity, but that's also longer term. And in terms of, you know, federal investments, uh, investments that can generate, uh, a project activity that results in a return to the federal treasury, uh, is a benefit because the cost of actually building that infrastructure in the first place is less in the long run. Perfect. Uh, my next question's on the, uh, the, the economic growth in the mining industry in general. Um, maybe you could talk a bit about what it is, what the challenges are with the ring of fire or any really potential areas for growth for the mining industry in the next, you know, let's say five to 10 years. But, you know, I also want to relate this to natural resource development in Canada in general, you know, there seems to be a challenge in getting projects approved. I mean, a good example is Keystone Excel was approved in Canada approved by the previous administration in the U S and, and, and now, uh, it looks like it won't happen anymore. And when the Keystone Excel pipeline was canceled the day after you lost 2000 construction jobs, but you, there were, there was also millions of dollars of losses in the heavy equipment industry because all, all of it falls, falls downhill. So can you talk a bit more about that in terms of the potential in, in the mining industry, uh, vis-a-vis these other industries that in natural resource that maybe seem to be struggling to, to, to grow? Sure. Well, look, I can say this, um, companies don't invest where they don't have confidence that they can permit a project and they don't advance constructing permitted projects where they can't operate them profitably. Okay. Like that's a, that's just a basic project economics consider consideration. And to your point about some of the challenges that Canada has, we we've had a politicized natural resources sector, uh, in recent years, uh, we had, uh, a major review resulting in, uh, changes to federal legislation in 2010, followed by a subsequent major review launched in 2012, uh, followed by a commitment to review that same act again in 2015. Um, these are not copacetic with the type of certainty that businesses are seeking when advancing long-term multi-stage multi-billion dollar projects. What we, what we need to do is create a system that works, that provides the type of rigorous regulatory oversight that Canadians expect, but that also give proponents the type of certainty that's required to advance a project. And at the end of the day, not all projects will go ahead, but I think the point that you're getting at is too few do, and we need to get this right. It's not enough to put a significant amount of investment in the window and expect that money is just going to change the problem. I mean, with our, with our current, with our current government, there's a massive push for hydroelectric power. Okay. And that will be something that will be of interest to this, uh, group here. Those are, those are substantial, uh, infrastructure projects and the, the idea that they also won't somehow get caught in, uh, multi-layered regulatory permitting processes and potentially be delayed, um, and, and face challenges just because there are, uh, you know, quote unquote, clean power project is, is, uh, unrealistic, right? So we need these pathways for all projects at all levels. It's not just whether it's a pipeline or whether it's a large mining operation. Um, at the end of the day, the world requires new infrastructure, whatever your version or vision of the economic future is. The question is, are we going to be able to build it in a, in a time effective cost effective way. And in Canada at this time, with the recent review of bill C-69, um, it's too early to tell quite frankly, we are seized with the members, our members experience in advancing their projects through that process. There's been a few speed bumps that I don't think will be surprised to everyone. Um, but early implementation of any new act is not without its own growth period. So it's a stay tuned piece. Obviously we want success in this area. Um, we'll have to wait and see. I might just quickly add that, you know, depending on what side of the bed one wakes up on, you know, I think there can be an argument that there's a reason for optimism in terms of some projects looking forward. Um, when you want to look at the broader picture of, of our sector, supplying materials for what is a priority for our government and the world in terms of that transition to cleaner forms of, of energy and whatnot, there's reason and more the consumer demand for sustainable supply and suppliers on a range of commodities. There's reason for optimism, um, different types of projects. And when energy, when energy projects and, and, and there's a politicization injected in some of these highly technical regulatory approval project, uh, processes, it doesn't lend itself to a certain amount of nuance that, that for us, you know, we aren't necessarily about the mega, uh, transmission project where challenging and permitting and community buy-in can be much different than an isolated, um, smaller footprint, smaller mindset. Um, added to that is the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples and communities that is at the foremost, uh, of, of consultation challenges, uh, and, and many cases, a lot of the new processes that are being brought in as a part of that new federal project review regime, but also a current legislation that relates to implementing the United Nations declarations on indigenous persons. So there's a lot of, uh, now our sector has over 490 agreements in place with indigenous entities and communities. So on one hand, we very much, uh, have been at the front of, uh, of those types of issues and, and have are ahead of other sectors. Um, all that to be said, it's a complicated situation where generalizations often don't fit the particular project profile. Um, but you know, we see that there's a path forward. And I think particularly, as we mentioned, in terms of the current environment and views of our government here in Canada, I'd like to think that we tilt towards optimism, but again, you know, that can be a day by day proposition. Excellent. Mike, uh, it seems like you have a quiet group here, but I'll, but I'll ask one more question. Hopefully someone will come with another question. Getting bored of myself here. Um, it's probably more for you, Jeff on a bill C69 obviously passed, uh, let's say about two years ago. And, you know, from the Canadian association of petroleum producers to the gas association to, you know, many associations you would think of naturally under the natural resources at energy space, we're firmly opposed against C69. It's still in the conservative platform to get rid of C69. If you live in Alberta, you know, C69 from Jason Kenney as the no more pipelines bill. So, uh, I know the mining association, interestingly enough, was on the other side of the equation. Can you talk a bit more about why the association was on that side and how you kind of positioned yourself there? And indeed, and, and as I mentioned just a moment ago, the nuance of some of these processes doesn't really lend itself to, uh, politicization and, and we don't disparage politicians. That's what they do. And, but what, what I think is important to remember about that bill that really did for all intents and purposes, it was an omnibus piece of legislation. And depending on, on what political system you're following the word omnibus in our system, which means the kitchen sink for lack of a better word, throw all kinds of different mechanisms into a single piece of legislation that you can then make sweeping change with a single package. Um, that's become a bit of a term that we use often now bill C69 very much was a comprehensive, uh, omnibus type piece of legislation because for different sectors, uh, of the economy that are subject to the federal review, uh, that the bill, bill C69 provided changes to each of the individual paths. If you're in the uranium business, you're going through the Canadian nuclear safety commission for much of your approvals. If you're an oil sands producer, natural gas, you're going through the former national energy board, now Canadian energy regulator path. And if you're mining or other projects such as hydropower, uh, you're now with the Canadian environmental assessment agency now referred to as the Canadian impact assessment agency. So for all of us that were looking at our specific paths, that project approvals would go down for our specific nature of projects. We were dealing with a very different perspective in terms of experience to date, frequency of projects and number of permitting, uh, versus the actual changes that were proposed for each. Now for mining, we are one of the most permitted sectors of the economy. We have, we deal with there's so much, Brendan mentioned our large geographic land expanse in Canada. We also have a hell of a lot of water. We have to deal with our fisheries act that governs any sort of activity almost around freshwater or otherwise on the land mass. Uh, so we are among the most permitted sector and that includes, uh, federal approvals that in many cases often duplicate a provincial process or run in tandem. And so what we brought into that process, when we looked at our particular lane, the legislative changes proposed for the previously environmental assessment agency, we saw an opportunity through our intensive engagement over many years of being deep, deep in those processes of an opportunity for us to make some changes that propose some changes by constructively working with the government, things that we'd lobbied on for years to have changed and improved as part of those processes were included in the bill. And so we saw a path forward that with our members working at each successive stage of that legislation, as it progressed through the process and various changes and, uh, were made and nuances were, were, were done that we could say, you know what, we can live with this and make this, uh, into an incremental change for our specific lane for those that were, uh, worried at a provincial level, such as premier Kenny, um, and for his industry and sticking up for those who elected him and as he should, and as every politician should, that particular view was net negative. And so there was some differences of opinion at that level. Uh, but for us at the end of the day, our key kind of note was as Brendan also mentioned so much of what's in legislation, that nuance, that technicality, that degree of, of specific city to the specific to the different sectors and projects, we have to make sure that it's implemented well after the legislation comes policy comes regulation. And that's really where in many cases, the rubber hits the road and we're still literally fresh into that, but being able to work in a constructive way has allowed us to kind of identify challenges along that path that we're currently in. There's been a few mining projects that have gone through and just to stay engaged. So, you know, that was our kind of view on it, Kyle, it ended up being one of the most acrimonious political, um, events of the previous parliament and one that didn't make anything any easier in terms of trying to plead our, our kind of explain our nuance and our path, but where we're at today, I think, isn't a place where we continue to, to work forward. And it's, again, it's a day by day proposition and we're hoping to with our engagement and deep experience, at least in our particular path and lane, be able to build up within the government, um, a capacity and awareness of how they can create essentially add meat to the bone of the new legislative framework for approval. So that's a little bit of how it all shook out. Kyle, I'll just supplement that and like very succinctly and say, um, it's not the bill that we would have written, uh, were we, were we to have been holding the pen, but after having experienced some extremely challenging, uh, unintended consequences from the 2012 version of that same act, we saw opportunities in the final proposal to improve our members' current, um, position vis-a-vis that process. And like any process that's complex, um, it's not a zero sum game. It's a question of, you know, what, what areas are there firm improvement noting that, um, you're not going to get everything you asked for. A question here from a Marcel. Thanks for the question. Uh, can we expect to see greater national security review of foreign investments in the metal space under the investment Canada act thinking of recent, uh, TMAC deal in Nunavut? Um, well, I think that the, the legislation, uh, sets out the requirements that trigger that type of review, um, and the, you know, the prerogative of cabinet to assess, you know, individual, um, individual mergers or acquisitions, um, below that threshold is a political imperative. So, you know, the reality is Kyle, um, it's, it's a bit of a, you know, it's a bit of a challenge from being on the outside, not knowing the granular internal considerations of the conversations that happen around that table. Um, you know, I would say this Mac is a, um, we're a free trading, uh, industry. We are a massive exporter. We host, um, a set of companies as members, many of whom are, uh, large multinational firms and the largest mining companies anywhere in the world. These companies operate in, you know, in some cases, dozens of different jurisdictions. Um, the, uh, the only thing that is mobile in our sector, uh, beyond the product that gets extracted is the finance, um, that moves these projects forward. And so, you know, we're, we're, we're not, um, uh, you know, we're, we're not oblivious to the need for a discretion in these types of, uh, considerations, but, but at the same time, we also need to ensure that, uh, Canada communicates broadly that it's open for foreign direct investment and our sector in particular, um, is highly reliant on foreign direct investment for project advancement. I would just echo that, you know, being removed from, from that, those decisions is, is clearly where, where we are situated, but as an observer, you know, the government doesn't seem to have hesitated to use that instrument to date. And so if we were to observe, you know, what might be, um, the trend, you know, there certainly doesn't seem to be, they've used it and there doesn't seem to be, uh, I would say, obviously there's caution in process, but you know, there's not a lot of hesitancy. I would say if we could speak generally about kind of what we've observed. Perfect. Uh, Mike, I'm fresh out of questions here. I don't know if you have anything or we give the gift of time. Oh, I just want to thank everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you for the questions and, and, and, and thank you gentlemen for, for joining us today. Uh, I have no other questions with that gentlemen, please enjoy your day and those members are on. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, please reach out to me. Thank you all very much. Have a great day. Thanks. Thanks Mike. On behalf of the mining association, appreciate the opportunity. Take care. Oh, thank you. Cheers. Thank you.

mining industry

Canada

COVID-19

growth

GDP

employment

challenges

recovery