Thank you for your comments.
First, on the specific issue of the Hong Kong economic and trade office in Toronto, the reason we have spoken about its operations is that, at least, in the United States—and I assume here in Canada, and wherever else it's located throughout the world—it was established in recognition of Hong Kong's autonomy, a special status that no longer exists, which is why we and many others are recommending that its special privileges be revoked.
On the issue of critical minerals, this is something that is of concern to every country around the world. As in many other instances, we have collectively fallen into a situation where my country, and Canada and many other countries around the world, rely upon resources that are basically lodged in China one way or another, whether these are manufactured, mine-owned by contractor, or whatever.
One of the key things that has come to view in our own internal discussion in the United States about the future of our relationship with China—and it's something that I discussed with people in London and Berlin, when I was there earlier this year—is the need to diversify our resources and our supply chains across the board.
It's not just critical minerals. There are many other aspects of this problem. It's not to say that we need to break off or disrupt those exchanges of commercial interest, but we need to diversify them. Critical minerals, I'm glad to say, is something that is turning up as other countries start looking for them in their own territory. We have some great possibilities in the United States. I understand that you do here in Canada as well. There are other places in Europe and Scandinavia that can be exploited.
It's more expensive perhaps to do it in other countries, but it's also very necessary that we do that, both as a matter of industrial policy and also as a matter of government policy, because it is really a security issue over time to which we need to pay attention.