Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 19th, 2021

[Jeff Labonté]

I'll try to pick up again.

We were talking about building value-added midstream and downstream activities that utilize the minerals. When we talk about value chains, there are a lot of different connotations. Essentially, we're talking about building the value-added, all the way from exploring to discovering, to developing, to smelting and mining and processing, to creating the minerals and metals that are needed as inputs, to products and then to actually utilizing those things.

Earlier we would have spoken about the difference between and the importance of supply and demand and the linkage between the two things to connect the dots. This is an easy example as we think about electric vehicle batteries, where Canada has all the materials and minerals. We have a world-leading mining sector and research community, as we've heard. We have a strong and integrated automotive economy and we have much expertise in these areas, in addition to plenty of renewable and affordable energy. Together, these form a value chain that would enable Canada and its partners to work more collaboratively.

The other part that we would underline about critical minerals is that they are a pan-Canadian opportunity. Critical mineral activities or critical mineral potential is seen across the country. It is not concentrated in one region, but rather regions that are interconnected between the north, south, central Canada, western Canada and of course running north-south with our partners in the United States and east-west to partners in Asia and Europe.

This is why NRCan has been working together with other partners across the federal system to build value chains and to focus our attention on how we can develop and further advance working more collaboratively to achieve outcomes. One such example is the battery initiative, where we've conducted consultations with partners at Innovation, Science and Economic Development on what is necessary and what is needed for Canada to succeed in this space.

It certainly has been demonstrated—and we have heard—that a concerted action in each part of the value chain is necessary. We call this the “mines to mobility” approach.

Moving forward with this in mind, our work on critical minerals takes advantage of a whole-of-government span across many departments and many layers and levels of expertise, both in and outside the federal government. Our work with our provinces and territories as partners, and full partners, is through the “Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan”, which is a pan-Canadian strategy developed with the provinces and territories that lays a vision for a stronger, more competitive Canada in the mining sector.

We are also working together with our provinces and territories as partners in a new task team that we've built around all-Canadian critical minerals and battery value chains. This is an important area in which Canada...and our efforts are working to develop a finalized critical minerals list for Canada. It is a list that identifies which minerals and metals are of strategic importance. Our partners in the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Australia all have such lists and are using them to orient investment, to identify strategic assets and to prioritize decision-making to support critical mineral projects and industrial chains.

Beyond Canada, our current collaboration with the United States is already a positive success story. We have a critical mineral action plan with the United States that provides us with a solid foundation to continue our work with the new U.S. administration and to advance mutual objectives on clean energy supply chain security and economic recovery. We are equally working bilaterally with the EU and Japan.

There is much more to say, and I'm sure other experts have already added. I'd like to conclude by saying that I'm joined here by my colleagues from NRCan. We are looking forward to responding to your questions and providing more information on our actions as we help achieve a vision for working together to make Canada a success in critical minerals.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Labonté. I appreciate that, and particularly your timing. We can tell you've done this before.

First up, I believe, is Mr. Patzer for six minutes.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin, I think we have some unfinished committee business that we need to get to. At our last meeting, we had tabled a motion for a study on Keystone XL and we went into debate. We never did vote on our motion.

I would like to retable the motion, as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline including (a) the loss of jobs and investment across Canada in all sectors that supply the energy sector, (b) the impact the cancellation of this project will have on the economic recovery from COVID-19 of Canada's energy sector/natural resource industry; that the committee invite relevant witnesses, including representatives of industries and workers affected, as well as, the Minister of Natural Resources; that the Minister appear for not less than two hours; that these meetings be televised; that six meeting be allocated for this study; and that following this study a report with recommendations be presented to the House of Commons.

I feel it's important that we do this, as we all know it's extremely important for the recovery of our economy and also for several interested parties. In particular, I'm thinking of my riding and the Neekanet First Nation, the chief of which is the president of Natural Law Energy, which had an equity stake invested in the Keystone XL pipeline.

There are several other groups, of course, who are interested—be it workers or companies—and would want to see this study completed and the government take seriously that this project is a must-have for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

I didn't want to interrupt you.

I assume that what you're doing is bringing forward a motion to resume debate. Is that correct?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We definitely want to have a vote on it as well, but if we want to resume debate, great. However, we definitely want to have a vote on it today as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I think there are some procedural machinations that need to be followed here.

Madam Clerk, perhaps you can confirm that for me.

[The Clerk]

Yes. The member would officially need to move that the committee proceed to another order of business, and then we can go to a vote right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay.

Mr. Patzer, perhaps that's what you intended to do.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, I'd like to proceed to a vote on this motion because it's of utmost importance.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, in the circumstances, then, we go straight to a vote. Is that right?

[The Clerk]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Just so I'm clear—it's been a long day—do we just go straight to that vote now on the motion, or do we need to vote on his motion to proceed to do that?

[The Clerk]

We would be voting on the motion that the committee proceed to another order of business, which would be Mr. McLean's motion. That is considered a dilatory motion, so it's not debatable.

We are voting that the committee proceed to another order of business right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, can you do a roll call, then, please, and we'll have a vote?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

That was easy.

Now we proceed to vote on Mr. Patzer's motion. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

Yes, the committee has agreed to move to a new order of business. Mr. Patzer has moved that motion, and we can now vote on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I have a point of order.

Isn't it appropriate, if the motion has been moved again, to go into the motion itself, debate the motion and then go to the vote? We're not debating the motion, and that would be unusual, just like what we just did was a little bit unusual.

I would just challenge the clerk that she is doing things in order.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I understood that Mr. Patzer wanted to proceed right to a vote in any event, but, Madam Clerk, do you want to respond to that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

There is still a procedure that has to be followed.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I understand that, Mr. Zimmer. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, if there is an appetite to debate it, then....

I see hands up.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that, the last time we had the opportunity to discuss this, some of us were not able to speak.

In that sense, I don't know whether it will be possible to debate the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I think that's what we're going to do.

I see hands raised. Let me....

Mr. Simard, you would be up first in that case, so you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I will repeat what I just said, more or less.

As I recall, the last time we had the opportunity to discuss the motion, some of us did not have time to speak. I didn't and neither did Mr. Cannings. I was wondering whether it is appropriate to debate or discuss the motion before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're doing that now. The speakers list I have right now appears to be Mr. Lefebvre. Mr. McLean had his hand up, but I believe he has taken it down.

Mr. Simard, if you're finished, I'll move to Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Actually, Mr. McLean put his hand back up.