Industry Committee on Jan. 20th, 2022

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Good afternoon.

While I could not support the motion that was put forward to this committee tonight, I can support the amendment that has been made by our Bloc colleague.

Critical minerals are extremely important, especially when.... I come from the riding of Sudbury, so to me the non-support of the motion does not speak to my position that lithium is not important. It is, but I also believe that critical minerals should be looked at and discussed by this committee in their broader context. It would also be important for us to look at and talk about the Investment Canada Act at this committee.

Again, I could not support the original motion, but I would be in support of the amendment that has been made around two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Madam Lapointe.

I see no other speakers on this amendment. Is there a consensus on the amendment proposed by Mr. Lemire?

If there is no consensus, then we'll have to go to a vote.

I'm looking at Mr. Fast in particular. Is there a consensus or should we proceed to a vote on the amendment? Before we do, I would ask the clerk to read what it would look like.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

For my part, I believe that we on the Conservative side have consensus on the amendment that Mr. Lemire put forward. Given the fact that there is going to be a steering committee meeting, there could be a discussion of perhaps extending this to at least provide room for the report to be drafted once we have all the information and testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. Then my understanding would be that we have the steering committee on Tuesday and that we aim for two meetings. Witnesses would have to be submitted for tomorrow, as explained in your motion, Mr. Fast.

I see Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I was looking for the voting button, but my screen doesn't have one. So I made a mistake.

In any event, I think our vote is going to be public, is it not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Actually, in light of what Mr. Fast has just said, I gather that we have a consensus. I do not see the use in voting on the amendment.

Now, do people want to discuss the motion as amended? Do we need to read it again?

I feel that we have all understood Mr. Lemire's proposal.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, could you have the amendment read out to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Clerk, could you, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

I'll do my best, Chair. There was a lot of conversation going on. It seems that there was a consensus built around it.

This is what I understood as the amendment. We would replace the words “at least six meetings” with the words “at least two meetings”. Then further on in the motion, it's “That the study begin with two meetings” as opposed to “That the study begin with three meetings”. It's essentially just changing numbers, a minimum of two and to begin with two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

There's consensus on the amendment, and I assume, then, consensus on the motion itself as presented. I think we're—

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

There's one thing, just so I have clarity. I know Sébastien had asked, but I don't know if he got an answer, about the role that the public safety minister plays in this process. Was that answered and I missed it? I understood that he was seeking clarification with a view to maybe amending it so that we would reduce the number of witnesses to the witnesses who actually play a crucial role in this process.

If the national security agencies are providing advice but that advice is ultimately actioned by the industry minister, it may well be that the public safety minister has no role to play here. I don't know.

Mr. Fast, you can weigh in here with why he ought to be a witness.

I don't know, Sébastien, if you got an answer to your question. I don't think you did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No, I don't believe we had actually formally suggested that the public safety minister appear. We're interested in having the industry minister appear. I think he knows he's going to be asked to come.

I'd like to leave room for other witnesses. There are going to be officials with Minister Champagne in any event, but I want to leave as much room for industry and academic witnesses as possible so that we have a full picture of what's at stake here.

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

The motion does read, though, “that the committee invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Public Safety, to appear separately, for one hour each”. It makes more sense to me, especially if we're reducing it to two meetings, that we would also amend that to remove the public safety minister.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I agree with you. Remember, the motion incorporated the public safety minister when we had six meetings—

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

That's fair.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

—but I think I've been clear. I think the industry minister is the one we want to have appear.

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

In that case, Joël and Mr. Clerk, I think there is consensus that we not only amend it down to two meetings but that we also remove the public safety minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes. I'm looking around the virtual room and I see consensus.

Also, because the time frame is short and we're asking for meetings next week, and we're going to have the subcommittee first on Tuesday, and it also depends on the availability of witnesses, we're certainly going to work with the clerk to try to fit those in next week. Otherwise, if we don't have all the witnesses lined up, it's going to be the first order of business as we resume Parliament.

Madam Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's just a comment that if we're not going to make it mandatory that the public safety minister be there, we do expect national security officials to be there for sure. There are a number of officials listed in that motion. We want to make sure they are in attendance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I think that's the consensus.

Mr. Clerk, I'm sorry if I'm not very formal but it seems as though the motion then doesn't need to go to a vote. I see everyone nodding in agreement for it to be passed.

[The Clerk]

The rule in the new virtual environment here, in the hybrid environment, is that if there is obvious consent for the main motion as amended then we would not need to go to a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's perfect.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I don't think there's any other order of business, so that would be the end of this committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.