Industry Committee on Jan. 20th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

The next speaker was supposed to be Sébastien Lemire, but he put his hand down. So the floor now goes to the next speaker on the list.

Mr. Erskine‑Smith, the floor is yours.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's true that I'm not always reasonable, Ed, to be fair, but on this, I think my view would be that we can use this time to do the subcommittee work that would have taken place on Tuesday if we want to be a little faster with our schedule.

I wonder if we can find a compromise here. With six meetings for a single company, I feel as though I'm going to be wasting my time, when we could ask questions of this company or we could ask questions about this company. We could bring the same officials you want to bring in. We can bring the minister in and ask officials about this particular instance. I don't know why we wouldn't cast a broader net to say let's look at the critical minerals sector more broadly, let's look at the strategy, let's look at the Investment Canada Act, let's look at sustainable battery innovation, and let's look more broadly at how the government should be proceeding on this issue.

That would be what I would be more comfortable with. You would attain what you want to attain, I think. It would be in a context in which we could present recommendations that would, hopefully, be impactful. There would still be the accountability function—don't get me wrong—but we would be looking at a much broader issue, on which I think we could play a role in assisting going forward.

Six meetings seems like too many meetings for such a narrow issue with respect to one particular company. I don't know if you would be open to an amendment that casts this more widely, so we could look at the critical minerals sector more widely, including in terms of the Investment Canada Act. You'd still be able to ask whatever questions you like to the witnesses, but I think we'd be able to get more substantive work done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

I see Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening carefully to my colleagues. This is relatively new to me, the emergency meeting motion, and I also learned from my NDP colleague, MP Masse, that he had intended to introduce a subject of study for an emergency meeting, and that's news to me—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'm sorry, Brian. I don't mean any disrespect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just a moment, Mr. Dong. There is a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, I want to confirm with the clerk that my emergency motion was actually distributed last week, just so Mr. Dong is clear. I didn't propose to present something in future. I actually did propose it, and it was distributed among all members. I just want to confirm that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes, that confirmation will be helpful too. I apologize if I was notified and I somehow missed it. I do apologize for that.

In terms of the committee's schedule or calendar, I have not heard any official opposition from the last meeting or between the last meeting and today, but I remember that the game plan was that the subcommittee would come back with a proposal on what the upcoming study schedule would be. Now, we are here at an emergency meeting, discussing the possibility of doing this emergency study.

I have to be honest. Between the two studies, the one from my NDP colleague and the one from my Conservative colleague, I'm more interested in the one presented by my NDP colleague, because it's quite relevant. In terms of urgency and what could directly impact Canadians, my constituents included, I think that study is much more relevant. If we're going to have an emergency meeting next week to do an emergency study, we of course have to go through the process of voting, but my preference would be for doing the one that impacts my constituents more directly.

I'm happy to have another meeting next week, and to meet, but I just want to point out the fact that at the last meeting we agreed to a game plan to have the subcommittee look at the schedule.

My last point is that I was hearing from a Conservative colleague that there were some assumptions made, that if the government somehow, through our recommendation of a study, blocked the sale of this company or, going back, if they blocked it, it would guarantee that their product would be used in Canada. I think that's a big assumption, because at the end of the day these products are mined in another country by a decision made by executives, not necessarily by Canadians. I think we have to be very careful with drawing the assumption that just because we've blocked the sale we can guarantee that these products can be used in the Canadian market.

That's all. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

I see Monsieur Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of what we have just heard, allow me to propose an amendment.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I acknowledge that you have requested a meeting next Tuesday, with the goal of establishing the agenda and studying the 20 or so motions that committee members have introduced. This will allow us to come up with a solid program for the committee's work, which, I have to say, has perhaps been missing in our preparations to this point.

With that said, I would like to make an amendment to the motion introduced by the Conservatives, which is the subject of our discussion today.

Instead of six meetings, I propose that we have two and that they take place next week. That will give a total of three meetings, if we consider the one to discuss the organization and that will perhaps happen at the subcommittee. That is your decision, Mr. Chair.

I propose that we have two meetings next week to study the Neo Lithium deal and that we invite Minister Champagne for one of them. The minister can be accompanied by his officials, including the deputy minister, for example. While I am not part of the government, of course, I believe that it is the minister who will have to answer our questions.

At the second meeting, it might be helpful to have the Minister of Public Safety with us. Actually, I would like to ask Ed Fast, who has proposed the motion, why he would like to invite the Minister of Public Safety. I have heard no explanation about that and I would like to hear one. In addition, other witnesses must be invited for this study, like Professor Wesley Wark, as a specific example.

So I propose that we have two meetings next week about the sale of Neo Lithium.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

An amendment has been moved and we will debate it now.

The mover of the motion, Mr. Fast, has the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much, and thank you to Mr. Lemire for his willingness to study this. I think he understands the importance of making sure that Canada's critical assets are protected and used in a way that benefits Canadians.

One of the things I would point out to Mr. Lemire—and I'm asking for his response—is that if we have the minister or ministers appear before us, they will also be bringing officials who will likely occupy at least one meeting. We know that they're likely simply going to say, “Hey, there's nothing to see here. We did a review and it's done and there's no problem, no threat to Canada. This is to Canada's net benefit.”

I'm as eager to hear from industry specialists in the area and from academics.

My fear, Mr. Lemire, is that we will run out of time to get a complete and full picture of what's at risk here, what's at stake.

Would you be willing to modify your amendment for it to be a four-meeting study rather than a six-meeting study? I think it's a compromise that would allow us to address all three of those groups—the ministers and their officials, industry specialists and then some academics who have done a lot of study in the area of Canada's national security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We now have a subamendment.

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I am sticking to my proposal for two meetings and inviting the minister to the first. The officials are part of the department and I feel that, as a result, they must be present to answer our questions. That could be part of that two-hour meeting; a framework of that kind gives us the time to do it that way.

Then, at a second meeting, we could invite witnesses from the industry to find out their point of view. We can invite industry witnesses. So I will stick with my proposal for two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to hear from my Bloc colleague regarding MP Fillmore's broader study on critical minerals, as to whether he thinks it would be a worthwhile practice, because then we can talk about the potential of including what we were talking about today in that broader study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have to dispose of the amendment that's been put on the floor first.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Can I answer the question I was asked, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

Then I will come back to Mr. Masse.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

To answer your question, Mr. Dong, I feel that that is part of what will have to be dealt with at Tuesday's meeting, when we are setting up our program.

Personally, I find that Michael Kram's motion on this is particularly helpful and complete. We could have some amendments, as Mr. Fillmore had proposed, so that we can do a study on critical minerals again. In my opinion, that study should be conducted in the order that the subcommittee will determine. We will be able to give it some thought.

It is perfectly appropriate to do a real study on critical minerals, not just on Neo Lithium.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Masse, the floor is yours.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In hearing what I'm hearing now, I'm going to propose this and see what the reactions are of my colleagues. It sounds like there's enough support here to get something off the ground, whether it's two meetings or four meetings. I would suggest that we pass the motion without the.... Being open to that, we'll start next week. We have a subcommittee meeting. We'll have two meetings on this for sure, and at the subcommittee meeting, we can decide how many more meetings there should be. That will allow us to move on right now. It gets us off the ground. Then, during the subcommittee, we could decide whether or not we want to add another two meetings from there.

I know that Mr. Dong mentioned my motion too. I'm always interested in having one to two meetings with regard the executives from the grocery store industry—or at least one meeting—to have them come back to explain their issues over pandemic pay. I hope we can squeeze that in somehow, and if not in this next week, in at least one meeting when we've returned to the House of Commons. I'll park that aside not to get more confusing.

Perhaps, Mr. Fast, you can respond, or Mr. Lemire, if, for example, we have a motion here that comes together and we get two meetings for next week locked in and then we also have our subcommittee meeting where we can decide whether we want to carry on with a couple of other meetings. I will just note that outside of two meetings with witnesses, we will need at least one meeting for preparation for a report or some type of reporting process back to the House of Commons. There's almost a guarantee that we have to have additional meetings, which would have been built into the six meetings, I believe. We need to keep that in mind, because we will need that time.

I'll leave that—if my colleagues perhaps want to comment on that—as a general compromise to get going on stuff, because I really want this committee, which has a history of doing a lot of really good stuff, to just get to work. It's such a big file. This file is huge for industry, and I'd hate for us to get ground out for one or two meetings.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

In looking at our colleagues on the screen, I think there's a broad agreement that members want to get this committee going.

I see Madam Lapointe.