Evidence of meeting #24 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was china.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thanks, Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today.
When we talk about the five-year stockpile, is that five-year stockpile based upon Canada's needs or based upon Canada and our allies' needs?
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
The five-year notion comes from Eisenhower in the U.S., who was saying that the country should have a five-year stockpile in the event of war. He considered that to be a prudent amount for a country to have. I am proposing that simply as a measure. That would be for only the country. That would not necessarily be for the allies. I am saying that Canada should look towards its own needs first and then towards the needs of its allies.
There is a difference, though, between Canada and the United States in that in minerals, we tend to produce much more than the U.S. historically did. In that sense, we would be able to support our allies to a far greater extent.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Just so we're clear, when we're looking at the new NATO metric for defence spending, the 3.5% plus 1.5%, the 1.5% can be used for stockpiles, for investments in mining operations—refining and processing operations—and the infrastructure to get those critical minerals to and from the mine to the end-user. Is that correct?
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
This is my understanding.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Is that true for all of you?
You are all shaking your heads. Okay.
Mr. Anderson referred to the length of time it's taking to get projects approved. Should we then be using the Defence Production Act in Canada? It doesn't get used that often. The last version is from 1985. Should that be updated? Should we be using national security exemptions to expedite the actual building of the mines, infrastructure and processing facilities required to get around some of those timelines and problems that we're facing?
You mentioned the NIMBYs and the reluctance on behalf of some of our other partners, including the provinces, on how we actually get this done and in the process create jobs and opportunity.
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
I'm smiling because I'm a professor of constitutional law, so this is a very difficult question for me to say yes to.
Yes, I think it is necessary to take steps. Before taking such a radical measure, I would engage in consultation, and one of the things that might work for communities is equity stakeholding. I'm a proponent of softer measures that get community buy-in, rather than hitting them over the head with a hammer.
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
I agree with that.
Canada has a number of instruments. Some have been mentioned here, such as the Infrastructure Bank, the export development bank and the new sovereign critical minerals fund. All of these things need to be applied to standing up the industry, standing up the infrastructure around it and using the stockpile, which, if I'm correct, is only limited to two minerals at this point. Clearly, that seems insufficient. We need to use those to meet our NATO commitments as well.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We're talking about the critical minerals and rare earth elements that China seems to have a great deal of control over, not just within mainland China; there are also PRC influence and ownership in mines in Africa and the Americas.
Look at how COVID impacted us and how critical supply chains were disrupted. Russia and China hold the hammer on a lot of these critical minerals. As a case in point, helium is another one that's really necessary in the production of semiconductors. Korea, Japan and Taiwan are really concerned about access to helium.
Is there a role here for Canada, again, to ensure that two of our adversarial nations, Russia and China, don't have complete control of some of these critical minerals?
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
That's right. Absolutely.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
It is beyond the 30 you're listing here. Actually, if you dig down into supply chain impacts on the economy and manufacturing lines, it's a much bigger list than what we are currently looking at, is it not?
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Certainly. It goes back to the issue of critical minerals being not just minerals for defence, but minerals for the broader economy. We should be looking at where there are bottlenecks that are important to our economy here and in the United States, and then secondarily, maybe, to allied countries.
The other thing that I think is worth mentioning is this issue of Canada mining in Canada and Canadian mining companies being some of the most important mining companies in the world. We should be looking at possible investments in mines in other jurisdictions.
I focus on Latin America, so I think a lot about Latin America. For 20 years now, the Chinese have dominated the mining scene there in terms of having feedstocks go to China and then being refined in China. We should be thinking about ways—the Biden administration tried to do this in some ways—to enter into new long-term offtake agreements so that feedstock is diverted from China, or doesn't go to China as much, but goes to refiners in allied jurisdictions. That could be Canada. The U.S. doesn't have very much refining capability. You try to see where there are refiners in countries that are stable and are our allies.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you.
I know, Dr. Byers, that your hand is up, but it is Mr. Malette's time, so I'm going to pass it over to him and we'll see how it goes from there.
February 9th, 2026 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you.
I have a question for Professor Byers as well. It may be what you were interested in speaking to.
My first question, however, is for Professor Steyn. It relates to consultation, as we talked about earlier in a question from my friend, regarding some communities. Are there national security risks that could arise if projects proceed without stable legal and indigenous partnership foundations?
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
Absolutely.
Liberal
Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON
Can you expand on where we might see some of those issues arise, or how they may arise?
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
If we talk about indigenous consultation not happening, we will see the fabric of society tear apart, and I don't think I am exaggerating here. With UNDRIP and indigenous rights coming forward, we see a movement now, and have seen it recently, where first nation members have said this will be like Kahnawake, just much worse.
I don't think we want to go there. I don't think we have to go there.
Liberal
Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON
To my point, that is how critical.... I believe that indigenous partnership and consultation on any aspect of what we're talking about is critical. Thank you very much.
Professor Byers, I know you had your hand up on the previous question. Given that the large majority of Canada's critical minerals processing is done in foreign countries—most notably China—what investments or strategies are being implemented or should be implemented in order to decrease the reliance on other countries and to ensure full end-to-end domestic supply chains? I'm talking about mining processing, manufacturing and even recycling.
Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I just want to start by making a point concerning aboriginal rights. It is important for us to recognize that, yes, we need critical minerals as a nation-state, but it may be that, for a particular indigenous group, a caribou herd is a critical resource.
A critical resource is very much in the eye of the beholder. It depends on your position. It depends on your particular needs and self-interest, so this is not necessarily obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. That's just my point. There will always be a need, not just for consultation but for compromise.
On the issue of investments generally, I also want to point out that we are talking about a long-term process here. It can take 20 years to develop a single mining operation. It can take 10 or 20 years to develop the infrastructure to support mining operations in some remote locations.
I felt some frustration from one of the members of this committee a few minutes ago about the pace of movement here. My general sense is that the current government is moving quickly and, for the most part, getting decisions correct.
You know, one can always second-guess, but I would suggest that this needs to be an all-of-Canada process, and there needs to be buy-in from all the different political parties. We are in a state of geopolitical urgency right now, and it does not simply concern China.
I'm glad this discussion is taking place, but please be patient with the government. It's going to take time to make this happen. We need to be careful, but we also need to be patient.
Liberal
Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you.
I have one last question for Professor Steyn. As president of the G7, Canada has launched the G7 critical minerals action plan and unlocked the first round of strategic projects under the Critical Minerals Production Alliance. These 26 new investments, partnerships and measures will accelerate and unlock $6.4 billion of critical minerals projects, and we do this to the highest environmental, labour and indigenous partnership standards anywhere in the world.
This circles back to my prior question. In your estimation, what advantages do those latter standards and practices bring us in attracting partnerships outside of, say, the U.S., which doesn't seem to give much credence to those standards and practices? Does that help our case in that regard, in developing partnerships on these critical minerals issues?
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
It does, because it is exactly in accordance with the European Union's critical raw materials standards. This is a phenomenal market. It's much more than we can supply, in fact.
Liberal
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Hernandez‑Roy, I think you were speaking earlier about Chinese geopolitics in relation to critical minerals. Basically, where are China's efforts being developed? We know that China is very active in Africa. Is Africa one of its areas of importance and influence for obtaining minerals?
You seem to want to add something on this subject. Go ahead.