Evidence of meeting #3 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was china.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jeffrey B. Kucharski  Adjunct Professor, Royal Roads University, As an Individual
Guy Saint-Jacques  Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual
Wesley Wark  Senior Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation, As an Individual
Flavio Volpe  President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association
Nikos Tsafos  James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics, Center for Strategic and International Studies

4:15 p.m.

President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association

Flavio Volpe

Forget my opinion. Why don't we look at the investment decisions of the major automakers in North America, who are committing to generational investments in battery electric vehicle production throughout North America? That includes Mr. Masse pointing out “very close” in Michigan. There are no lithium deposits in Michigan. They're all north of Michigan. Why do you want to make cars in Michigan? You want to be close to that capacity.

Despite the fact that Professor Wark doesn't like the word “local”, the fact of the matter is that on the ground, this is how those investment decisions are made. This is why Mr. Masse is saying we have to be careful and we have to watch out that the Americans don't eat our lunch; it's because the Americans are obsessed with local. In fact, they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars into local because their customers are local.

A lot of this theory that we're looking at in terms of what should or could be there for a national security review doesn't happen in a vacuum; it happens tested in the market. Who drives the market? Right now, the American consumer drives the market and the American government drives the market, and we serve it in Canada.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

My last question is based on something that Mr. Wark said. If it's so economically unfeasible for Canada to access this resource for the purposes that we need, why would China be interested? Geographically they would be just as far away from Argentina, if not farther.

4:20 p.m.

President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association

Flavio Volpe

Mr. Tsafos has alluded to it. You know, there is a great interplay between energy resources around the world, and our reliance on the types of critical minerals that underpin batteries and their deployment in both transportation and utilities as well as in other areas overlaps really well with China's global ambitions. China's global ambitions in Central America and South America are the subject of many public studies. Their investments in infrastructure in those regions would probably benefit from the acquisition of a lithium mine there. Also, the export and foreign direct investment objectives of Chinese automakers into those regions that have less disposable income and that could accommodate Chinese-produced vehicles at lower costs with lower customer expectations of range and durability make lithium more viable in Argentina than it would be in New York or Ontario, or for that matter in Coahuila.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

That's great. Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much, Mr. Gaheer.

That concludes the time we have for questions.

I wish to thank all of the witnesses, on behalf of the committee, for taking the time to speak to us this afternoon. It's much appreciated. Thank you very much for that. We might hear from you again in the future.

Before we adjourn, I would like to ask the members to stay on for a few more minutes. There's a bit of committee business we need to take care of: I'm hoping that the committee wishes to adopt the subcommittee report that's been distributed by the clerk. I was promised that everyone was on board. I hope that's still the case.

Oh, no—I see Mr. Erskine-Smith with his hand up.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Rather than “oh, no”, to be especially collegial I'll just say I move that the committee adopt the subcommittee motion and that we proceed with the schedule that we've set out there.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say something that I should have said earlier, when the full version was sent to the members of the subcommittee.

I would like to include the issue of processing in a mining region to motion 4, the one dealing with critical minerals. It could be included under the third point. Then, the witnesses whom we are going to invite will be able to discuss it.

In my view, the issue of processing is key. The witnesses said so too a little earlier, when I asked them about it.

Basically, I agree with the rest of the motion and I will be very happy to vote for it.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Mr. Lemire, from what I can see, no one has any objection to your proposed amendment. However, I will ask for the clerk's advice.

Mr. Clerk, can we proceed in such an informal manner? It seems that we can.

Since silence implies consent, I am advising committee members that the report from the subcommittee is carried.

(Motion agreed to)

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you.

Thank you, all. The meeting is adjourned.