EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates NUMBER 088 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, November 27, 2023 Le lundi 27 novembre 2023 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 27, 2023 Committee NUMBER 088 NUMBER 088 NUMÉRO 088 88 27 11 2023 2023/11/27 11:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des opérations gouvernementales et des prévisions budgétaires Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates OGGO Chair Mr. Kelly McCauley 1 44

(1105) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)) :

Good morning. I call this meeting to order. Thanks for joining us. Yes, I see hands. I'll get to you. Despite Air Canada's best efforts yesterday, I see that most of us are here. Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to consider the request for contracts between the federal government and electric vehicle battery manufacturing companies. Before we start, I'll just remind you to not put earpieces next to the microphones as this causes feedback and potential injury. I see Mr. Perkins, Mr. Berthold and Mr. Lewis starting the speaking list. Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're here to discuss the Standing Order 106(4) motion with regard to the EV battery contracts, the four of them, with the Stellantis one being the one that's been most in the news. I'm not going to read the motion out. I presume it has been circulated. Has it, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

Yes, it has.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you. I'll take it as read and maybe give a brief explanation as to the why. There are four contracts that total almost $50 billion of taxpayer money over six years to subsidize three battery assembly plants for EVs and one small manufacturing company for a part of the EVs.

Mr. Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

Excuse me. I have a point of order. I understand that this is Kelly Block 's motion, and she is not here to present it. I understand that's not how it's done.

The Chair :

You are incorrect. It is allowed. I knew this was going to come up, so I looked it up. It's on page 1036 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition. It's allowed. I can read it to you if you wish, but it is allowed.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

I will start again. What we have here are four contracts that begin with a controversy, the controversy being the almost $50 billion to subsidize battery assembly plants for some of the world's largest auto manufacturing companies for the EV battery portion of their vehicles. What has come to light over the last week or so started with meetings that were held in Windsor with officials from the South Korean government. It looks like up to 1,600 of that particular plant's employees will be taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers.

We have had a lot of media coverage since then, as well as questions in question period. If I go back to the original announcement, the Prime Minister said this will create thousands of good jobs in southwestern Ontario. Unfortunately, apparently, that's not the case. This will create many jobs for temporary foreign workers, and maybe not so temporary, foreign-funded replacement workers, or taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers. Minister Champagne said the same thing at the opening. We have had all these reports that have come out from officials in Windsor as to what's going on.

There's great concern, because instead of 2,500 jobs going to Canadians, 1,600 are apparently going to go to taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers. We're looking at a situation here where we have four contracts that all mirror each other, we're told. In my case, I have had the privilege of reading the Volkswagen contracts. There are two of them. The Stellantis deal mirrors that. It wants the exact same rights that Volkswagen has. That, obviously, includes the ability to bring in foreign workers. What's not in those contracts is a clause that guarantees that these will only be Canadian jobs.

We know that not only because of the media reports but because the company itself has confirmed a couple of different numbers. On Tuesday, the company said there would be 2,300 good, solid Canadian jobs, and it was bringing in 900 foreign workers for the set-up, which is a big set-up. There would be 600 permanent foreign workers, foreign taxpayer-funded workers, in that plant—not the 2,500 permanent Canadian jobs that were announced by the Liberals when they said we would have construction workers in addition to that. It looks like the majority of workers at that plant are going to be from outside Canada.

Even the union itself is outraged by this lack of transparency. We need the contracts released, because we're getting different stories. The minister initially said there were one or two jobs. Apparently, the government thinks now there may be more. The Minister of Industry has now decided that he wants to meet with the company to discuss the contract he signed to find out how many foreign workers are coming in. The Minister of Natural Resources tweeted last week that, of course, there are foreign workers coming in. The government can't seem to get its act straight.

The Minister of Industry said, “Oh, there might be a few.” The company says 1,600. These mirror Volkswagen, which mirrors Northvolt in Quebec as well. In fact, the Swedish company in Quebec has also said publicly on the weekend that it was bringing in taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers. It appears that the government, at least from what was set up, didn't do its homework. The Minister of Industry now wants to renegotiate, apparently, the contract he signed. He should have probably read it in the first place, which he clearly didn't.

If he did, he would know that these companies have the right to do that, including in the Volkswagen contract. In the transparency that's required, when you're spending a record amount of subsidy for foreign multinational companies, the best way to ensure that is to release the contracts. That's why we have this motion before us to please release the documents. What's not in the Volkswagen contract is the ability, or a clause, that allows the government to keep that contract quiet. It's not there. It's not the government's right.

(1110) I know we're going to hear lots from opposition members about commercial sensitivity and all of that, but the companies themselves have the ability to exempt the few clauses that may be commercially sensitive. However, most of what's in these contracts you can read—elements of the battery subsidy in the IRA and the commitments maybe on jobs, maybe not on jobs. However, there's clearly a confusion in the government and among the companies as to how many taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers are coming in, and how many jobs will actually go to good, unionized jobs.

We have an unemployment rate in Windsor of 7%. The governments have invested and are ready for the training. We did this in Halifax with the shipbuilding contract. On the $30-billion shipbuilding contract—the community college, the industry, everyone—all that training was done in Canada for Canadian workers. That's what everyone expected with these contracts, so it's shocking that the Liberal government seems to be hiding their incompetence in these contracts. This is the reason we put it forward.

Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent and whether it's being spent for jobs for replacement workers from outside Canada.

The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Perkins. I see as well Mr. Johns and Mr. Kusmierczyk have their hands up. I've added you both to the speaking order. Mr. Berthold, go ahead please. Welcome to OGGO.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The subsidies granted for these electric battery plant projects total $50 billion in public funds, or $3,000 in taxes provided by every Canadian family. That's a lot of money. Imagine what every Canadian family can do with $3,000. The government chose to send this money to three companies to create what were originally called Canadian jobs. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we've learned that this money won't just be used to create Canadian jobs in the plants that were announced with great fanfare by the government.

Two weeks ago, we learned that in Windsor, foreign replacement workers would be paid with this money provided by Canadian and Quebec families. The Liberals first said, when we reported this, that it was disinformation and not true. Then they changed their story, saying that there would probably be only one foreign worker there to come and give advice. Now we have confirmation, from the company itself, that at least 900 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers will be hired to work in the Windsor plant.

From there, we also have to ask questions about what will happen in the case of the Northvolt plant to be built in Quebec. In fact, two Northvolt plants will be built in Quebec. Following questions that have been asked, and in light of what we've learned in the media, we now know that Northvolt, in Quebec, will bring in hundreds of foreign replacement workers, who will be funded by taxpayers to fill jobs that should go to Quebecers. Northvolt will receive more than $7 billion in public funds to carry out this project.

So we know that foreign replacement workers will be at the Stellantis plant and the Northvolt plant, and there's every reason to believe, if the trend continues, that the Volkswagen contract will also call for hundreds of foreign workers, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. We will therefore support the motion, with good reason, to obtain a copy of these contracts. Why do we have the right to see these contracts, you may ask? It's because they're on an unprecedented scale. They represent $50 billion, or $3,000 in taxes per family.

This hard-earned money that families have given to the government is going to be given to these companies. We had hoped that this would create Canadian jobs, but we're learning that this will not be the case. For all these reasons, it's important that these contracts be made public. We need to know if the government took steps to ensure that this money was going to be used to create Canadian unionized and skilled jobs that are paid for by Canadians. This is absolutely essential. Of course, Mr.

Chair, you're going to hear from the Liberals today that this is a contract and we can't release all the information, because that would interfere with future negotiations with other companies to attract foreign investment to Canada. However, this is Canadians' money. We're talking about $50 billion, or $3,000 per family. Canadians have a right to know what kind of contracts this government is signing with private companies, and they have a right to know what is being done with their money. So it's important that we have all the contracts quickly, in their entirety, because Canadians have a right to see them.

We have a right to know how sensitive this government has been to protecting jobs for Canadian and Quebec workers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

(1115) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. Go ahead, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC) :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the committee for allowing me to come to committee this morning. It's obviously incredibly near and dear to my heart and incredibly concerning, Mr. Chair, because this is my own backyard. I represent an excellent riding called Essex, and that butts right up to Windsor, where the Stellantis plant is going to be. There is one good thing about Air Canada being late, and it's that we get more time to spend on our phones with folks—at least I do. Last night I spoke to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I also spoke with the carpenters union.

They said nothing less than that these are jobs that are going to be stolen from the very fingertips of Canadians. Now we have potentially $50 billion on the laps of each and every one of us around this table that is basically unaccounted for. We need to understand. We need to know exactly what the numbers are. This is only about good-paying, skilled trades jobs, both unionized and non-unionized jobs. That's what it's about.

I was told last night that there are a few folks that need to come in for the programming of the computers, but the rest of this work has already been duplicated time and time again in other portions of the automotive industry, an industry that's been absolutely decimated due to COVID, an industry that drives southwestern Ontario—not only Windsor but certainly Windsor—an industry that works very closely with our counterparts in Michigan and downriver Michigan. To suggest for a moment that we don't open the books on this and really find out how many folks are coming here to take away good-paying Canadian jobs....

That's the question. Anything shy of that answer is not doing justice to our skilled trades jobs. When I reflect back on it, it's not only the battery plant itself. It's the tier twos and the tier threes that are going to be affected—the same ones that have already been affected and couldn't get folks across the border on the shop floors. They had to put all the investment into this new material, this new technology, to play the game. They deserve it. They deserve the answers. The workers deserve the answers. The unions deserve the answers, and the folks of Windsor-Essex deserve the answers.

I think it would be the world's biggest mistake if we did not look at the $50-billion investment into this. I'll take it one last step, Mr. Chair. It's as simple as this: It's each and every family, every Canadian family, that is trying to feed the mouths of their children. If it's $1,000 a family, or it's $3,000 a family, whatever the number is, they deserve to know as well. I would strongly ask that this committee take a really hard look at this and take a hard look in the mirror, because you're affecting a whole bunch of people's lives and a whole bunch of businesses. Thanks, Chair.

(1120) The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Lewis. We'll go to Mr. Scheer, and then we'll go to Mr. Johns.

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is a very important motion because Canadians deserve answers as to where their tax dollars are going. The Prime Minister decided to give $15 billion to a large multinational company to set up shop here in Canada. In essence, he made every single Canadian a shareholder in this project, in the case of Stellantis, to the tune of $1,000 per household. If you lump them all in together, that number goes up to about $3,000 per household.

We're going to hear arguments, I suspect, and we've seen them in the media over the last few days, from Liberals saying, “We can't divulge the details of the contract because of commercial sensitivities.” Well, shareholders can absolutely demand to see documents when their company does something. When CEOs make decisions, they are held accountable by their shareholders. In this case we, as members of Parliament, are the representatives of the shareholders of this country.

Having foreign replacement workers coming to Canada, thanks to taxpayer subsidies, is of interest not just to the workers in the area but also to every single Canadian family whose tax bill is underwriting this. Let's talk about workers in the area. We've heard from union representatives that there are qualified Canadians who can do this work. The Windsor area, in the case of Stellantis, is home to hundreds if not thousands of qualified Canadian workers who have worked in the auto sector, in some cases for their entire lives and in some cases for multiple generations.

The idea that there is no one in Canada who can fill these jobs is an insult to those hard-working men and women who have built those communities and worked in that industry for decades in some cases. That is what this motion is all about. If this is such a good deal for Canadian taxpayers and such a good deal for Canadian workers, the government should want to make the details of the contract public. If they have a different story to tell as to the number of foreign workers who will be paid for out of this contract, let them come to committee. Let them explain it.

All we're asking for here is that famous prescription about sunlight being the best disinfectant. We want to bring the details of this contract out of the darkness and into the light. That is something this government has touted, as my colleague Mr. Perkins outlined. Even though it seems as though the minister doesn't know what's in the contract, that didn't stop him from going around for weeks and months talking about its benefits.

If that's the case, now that these reports are out there, it's incumbent upon us to scrutinize those and to determine whether or not this is as good a deal as the government pretended it would be. Billions of dollars are going to multinational corporations to build a single plant in Canada. To then have those taxpayer dollars used to underwrite foreign replacement workers is very concerning. If this is the way the government is going to conduct itself in terms of an industrial strategy or a job creation strategy, then, absolutely, Canadians have a right to know.

I'm looking at the numbers for the Stellantis deal itself, and the reports indicate that up to 1,600 of these jobs will be filled by taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers. That's out of 2,500 direct jobs from the plant. That's 1,600 out of 2,500. That's not a very good ratio if you're talking about the percentage of tax dollars going to create jobs for Canadians versus to create jobs for foreign replacement workers. That's a terrible ratio. We need to get to the bottom of that for those reasons. It's our job to hold the government to account when it spends tax dollars.

It's our job to scrutinize the details on behalf of the shareholders of this country, every single Canadian taxpayer, every single Canadian citizen. I do hope the Liberals will agree to this motion because all it concerns is getting the documents in front of this committee so we can do the job that Canadians sent us here to do, which is to defend their interests, defend their tax dollars and make sure they're getting the very best possible deal.

(1125) The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Scheer. We're going to go to Mr. Johns and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish I were there in person, but my flight got cancelled last night due to fog from Vancouver Island. Thankfully, Dana Hawkes, the chief shop steward from B.C. Ferries, loaned me his tie so I could be here. In all seriousness, we want transparency and we want to avoid future problems, which is why we're supporting this motion today. I want to raise a few points as well. The government investment in the auto industry is a long-standing strategy in Canada, the U.S. and around the world. It has benefited the Canadian economy and has built the middle class in this country over many decades.

The workers and the unions are the ones responsible for sustaining the industry and creating opportunities through decades of negotiations to get the industry to transform for the next technological change to electric vehicles. It's really a once-in-a-lifetime, multi-generational situation. This government has had to meet the challenges the U.S. government created through the Inflation Reduction Act auto provisions. While doing so, they have fallen short on the disclosure and transparency that exists in the U.S. government's plan, which is why we're supporting this motion.

A national auto strategy—something the NDP has called for, for two decades—would have provided the transparency and accountability this government has decided to ignore. Over the past two weeks, from a revelation from the South Korean ambassador that 1,600 foreign workers from South Korea were coming to help build and operate a plant, there have been many questions that the government has refused to answer. Last Monday, the government said it was one job. Then on Tuesday, it was 100 jobs, and then on Thursday, it was 900 jobs, etc.

The confusion has damaged public trust and sowed division among the various unions and communities. This is a failure of leadership and it needs to be corrected. It's what we're working on today, hopefully. These investments in our auto sector are very important. They'll be transformative for the industry and create many new jobs for Canadians. Accordingly, this must have public support. To do that, the public needs all the information on these investments and facilities across this country.

This is an opportunity for the government to rebuild that public trust by demonstrating how these investments will create jobs for Canadians and new training opportunities, and employ our brightest engineers and scientists and world-leading skilled auto workers along with our highly skilled building trades professionals. Full disclosure also means outlining how many foreign workers from countries such as South Korea, Sweden, Germany and other countries will be coming here, what jobs, paths and training they will be carrying out, and for how long.

This will ensure the public has the full knowledge and understanding of the facts. Once the public has all the facts, they will support these investments and public trust will be rebuilt. That's the hope. That's what we want, ultimately. I know that Canada’s Building Trades Unions is still concerned. During all the public announcements, ribbon cutting and victory laps, neither the federal Liberals or the provincial Conservatives identified that hundreds or thousands of workers would be coming.

We just want to make sure that all references to building a battery plant, training and becoming experts are going to be done here. There are a few important things. This gives us an opportunity to understand. It can be demonstrated that if we are short some skills—which we don't believe—starting with this first project, let's learn to train our workers, who are already used to travelling to different provinces to do that work. Every community right now is struggling with housing at the moment. Why are we not using this as an opportunity to plan and create permanent housing as well?

The real fight here is for the initial bill. Let's get it going. We, the New Democrats, have confidence the public supports clean energy jobs, transitioning the economy and being competitive. Our difference is accountability through an auto policy, so people appreciate and support the value of our partnerships. These investments need to be for workers and their families, not CEOs or shareholders as the primary beneficiaries. One concern I have that I wanted to highlight in the motion is that it's drawing the report to come back to the House. I don't believe that's necessary at this point.

I think we could order the documents from our committee. We can do that without going to the House. Normally, it would just be reported to the House and then turned into an order from the House if a committee request is ignored or broken. I would like to amend anything that refers it to the House and move that direction to report it back to OGGO.

(1130) I would like to move that amendment to the motion, and hopefully I can gain support for that from my colleagues.

The Chair :

That is just to strip that one line about reporting it to the House, Mr. Johns.

Mr. Gord Johns :

That's it. It's just reporting it back to the committee.

The Chair :

Okay. We have Mr. Genuis on the amendment.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. Conservatives are here pushing for transparency with regard to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. We certainly do not support the idea that an important safeguard like reporting this matter to the House should be stripped from the motion. This is the mechanism for ensuring that the government follows through. We've had many instances where committees have ordered the production of documents, and the government has flagrantly ignored the right of committees to order that.

Committees have an important job to do, but we've seen consistently that this government does not respect the work that committees have to do through ordering documents. We want transparency. We believe that taxpayers have a right to see all of the details of this contract. The motion we have drafted provides the safeguards to ensure that this will actually happen. The amendment proposed by the NDP would, I think, substantively allow the government to do what they have done in many other cases, and that is to simply ignore the order to produce documents to the committee.

The question before this committee is this: Are we committed to ordering these documents, and are we serious about ensuring that we actually get them? If we're serious about ensuring we actually get them, as Conservatives are, then it is important we have this mechanism of reporting it to the House as well.

The Chair :

Ms. Vignola and Mr. Kusmierczyk, do you mind putting your hands down, because we're debating the amendment. I do have you on the speaking list. If you wish to chime in on Mr. Johns' amendment, leave your hands up. We'll go back to Mr. Johns.

Mr. Gord Johns :

I agree with Mr. Genuis. We want the answers. Here is where I would like to go. We order the documents to be submitted to the committee, and if they don't, then we can go and talk about going to the nuclear option, to the House. However, I don't believe that's necessary right now. I think we need to take a look at them at our committee and decide whether that's something we want to do.

The Chair :

Before I go to Mr. Scheer, we have Mr. Kusmierczyk and Ms. Vignola. Mr. Kusmierczyk, you still have your hand up. Is that to speak on Mr. Johns'...?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Yes, it's for the amendment, and then I'd also like to speak to the motion.

The Chair :

Yes, I have you on the list. We have Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Mr. Scheer for the amendment.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I just want to say that we do approve of the NDP amendment. We will be supporting the amendment.

The Chair :

Thanks. Mr. Scheer.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

I'm not shocked at that. I want to reinforce a point that my colleague Mr. Genuis made, that this is about protecting the interests of taxpayers and safeguarding their hard-earned money. On the idea that it's somehow the nuclear option to report this to the House, I utterly reject that. Procedurally, what that would mean is that the House would be advised. Should the government fail to abide by this duly constituted, properly passed motion, in the event that the committee adopts it, there needs to be a “what if”.

If the government looks at this motion and says that the committee has asked for something and they can just ignore it, then they will. They've done that in the past. The reporting mechanism is very straightforward. It would inform the House that an order of the committee is being ignored. It would then be up to the House as to whether or not to adopt and concur in that report, at which point the powers of Parliament kick in. That's really the crux of this matter. In order for the government to be forced to do something, it needs to be elevated to that level. Otherwise, we would have to wait.

If we adopt this amendment, the NDP member is suggesting that this committee would then have to become seized with this issue again. The genius behind this motion is that it all gets done in one step. It orders the production...and includes a mechanism that if the will of the committee is not respected by the government, there's then an enforcement mechanism to compel them to do so. Otherwise, this would be an expression of opinion with no actual follow-up. The reason that this is important is because Parliament is not somehow a backdrop for the Prime Minister . It's not a set in which he plays his role.

We're not extras in his movie or in his productions. We have a constitutional duty to hold the government to account. That's the purpose. That's why we're all here. We're not here to enjoy the November weather in Ottawa. We're here to do a job. We're here to pore through the books, bring out the magnifying glasses and go through every detail. That is our role. This isn't just wanting to get a few exchanges of emails from somebody. These are multi-billion dollar contracts, in which the government seems to have failed to ensure protection for Canadian workers.

It's hard to think, other than with national security issues, of other types of issues that would rise to this level of importance for parliamentarians. Poring through the books to identify how tax dollars are being spent and the impact on Canadian workers are the top two or three jobs that members of Parliament could think of having to do throughout the parliamentary day. I don't see the problem in reporting it back to the House. In fact, I see the problem if we don't do that, because then we'll likely be back here in a few weeks. Let's just take that off the table.

Let's think of every possible scenario to get a one-stop shopping type of motion to ensure not only that we pass this motion compelling the documents, but that there's an enforcement mechanism to ensure the government respects the democratic will of this committee.

(1135) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Chair, on a point of order, I wonder whether Mr. Johns can clarify this. He moved an amendment. My understanding, looking at the motion, would be that his amendment proposes to remove paragraph (g). Just so we know what's on the table, is the amendment to remove paragraph (

g) or is it something else?

The Chair :

Mr. Johns, do you want to answer Mr. Garnett to confirm that it's removing paragraph (g)?

Mr. Gord Johns :

It is just to remove the words in the motion, wherever they're stated, “to the House” with “committee”. That's it. All it would be doing in paragraph (

g) is saying "present a report to the committee”. If I could, when I get a chance, I'd like to respond to my colleague Mr. Scheer's comments.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Okay. We need to know what we're debating. It's to replace the word “House” with the word “committee” in paragraph (g). That's the amendment.

Mr. Gord Johns :

Yes.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair :

It's Mr. Sousa, then back to you, Mr. Johns, then over to Mr. Genuis. Go ahead, Mr. Sousa, on the amendment.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the amendment, I'm a little shocked that we have an opportunity here to continue to enable foreign direct investment. These are confidential matters. The members opposite appreciate that, and I appreciate members' desire to review the contracts and determine—

The Chair :

I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Sousa. We're discussing the amendment.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

It's on the amendment. I understand. This is why it's important that we maintain the confidentiality of these contracts in enabling us to continue to track these investments. For us to provide them, then expose them to others, puts at risk.... It jeopardizes the very existence of the enablement of these investments coming to Canada. I would ask us not to make this...to the House, as a result. However, I'll allow the members the opportunity to review it.

(1140) The Chair :

Mr. Johns.

Mr. Gord Johns :

First of all, I can't imagine how that would play out, if we start doing that at this committee—ordering all documents directly to the House. We're starting from a position.... If we send it directly to the House, we're just stating that requests we make at OGGO will be ignored. I don't know why we're assuming this. Going through the House can also be slower. The committee can order the documents today. Kicking it to the House means reporting to the House—perhaps later this week—and debating it sometime next week, or whenever. I think this is a starting point.

Getting the documents to the committee is the normal procedure. If we don't have positive results, I'm happy to entertain having conversation about taking it to the next level. From a procedural standpoint, I think that, if we start doing this with our committee, it is going to be a big problem for us. It's undermining...as well. It's just bad faith to start with. I don't believe in that. We need to start from the position that the request needs to be honoured. That's where I want to start on this.

The Chair :

Thanks, Mr. Johns. It's Mr. Genuis, then Mr. Housefather and Ms. Vignola.

Mr. Garnett Genuis: I see where this is going.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather, on the amendment.

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.) :

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like some clarification, as well, because I think this is a bit confusing. Paragraph (

g) says, “the Chair be instructed to present a report to the House”. It is clear Mr. Johns is suggesting this be changed. I don't know that you would need to present a report to the committee, because the committee is aware this would be adopted. I think the right intention would be to remove paragraph (g), but I leave that to Mr. Johns. Then there's paragraph (h), which refers to the same thing. It talks about what happens in the event the documents are not produced as ordered by the committee, then states this would then go to the House. It sounds to me as if Mr.

Johns would like to reconsider this, in the event it is not done—not have it in this motion right now. There's also the amendment Mr. Johns proposed. It would also have to deal with paragraph (h). I'd ask my colleague Mr. Johns to reread paragraph (

g) and paragraph (h), and to provide some clarity as to what the amendment would do. It makes no sense to me that we wouldn't also be amending paragraph (h), because he was globally amending it to remove references to the House at this stage. We're not supposed to presume the documents won't come as the committee requested. I leave that, again, to Mr. Johns to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Johns, do you want to take a stab at clarifying that? Then we'll go to Ms. Vignola and Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Gord Johns :

It makes more sense—I think Mr. Genuis raised this, as well—to remove paragraph (g), because it won't be necessary. Looking at paragraph (h), I think we could look at.... I would be open to—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Johns. We can't change your amendment. I think Mr. Housefather was looking for clarification from you on what you were trying to do, originally.

Mr. Gord Johns :

What I was trying to do was get the documents produced and reported back to the committee. I was hoping we would have the conversation from there. I'm open to a friendly subamendment by Mr. Housefather to paragraph (h).

The Chair :

A friendly amendment to the subamendment.... We're going to go to Ms. Vignola and then to Mr. Genuis.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

It's on the original amendment, please.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I've missed something, I think. I'm going to speak to Mr. Gord Johns' amendment, because I need some clarification. As I understand it, if we pass the original motion, any member of the committee can recall the report to the House of Commons for a three-hour debate on the matter. However, this in no way prevents the committee from receiving the requested documents and studying them in depth afterwards. Is my analysis of the original motion correct? Am I wrong that tabling the report saying we've passed the motion—that's all the report says—could lead to a three-hour debate?

(1145) [ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? I'm having trouble with the

interpretation. Just repeat the question, please.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

If I understand correctly, keeping the original motion as is, without Mr. Johns' amendment, any member of the committee could ask the House that the report be debated for three hours. Have I understood correctly?

[ English ]

The Chair :

No. I'm going to step in here. I'll step back because it seems to have been adjusted as we go. When I look back at the original, from what I can see, it was not to remove (

g) and (h), but to remove the part where it says, “the Chair shall be instructed to present as soon as possible a further report to the House recommending that an Order of the House do issue for the foregoing documents”. I think that is what Mr. Johns was intending or was originally—

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I'll get to you. I'm sorry.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Could I have a copy of the motion?

[ English ]

The Chair :

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for two seconds. We're going to go back and double-check the transcript just to confirm things. Again, we end up with subamendments to subamendments of things that were apparently never intended to begin with. We'll suspend for two seconds, colleagues.

(1145) (1145) The Chair :

We're back. Mr. Johns, go ahead briefly.

Mr. Gord Johns :

I'm going to withdraw.

The Chair :

You're going to withdraw. We need consent for Mr. Johns to withdraw that.

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Thank you. We're going to go back to the original speaking order, now that the amendment has been withdrawn. We are with Mr. Kusmierczyk, so we're back on the original debate. Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Can I ask for a brief suspension? Can you give us one quick minute, Mr. Chair?

(1150) The Chair :

For what purpose, please?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I need to clarify our direction here moving forward. We just need a quick suspension, please.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order. From whom do you need direction?

The Chair :

I'm not going to suspend for that. We have quite a—

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I need clarification on what just transpired.

The Chair :

We're not going to suspend. I can clarify that for you. I will repeat that Mr. Johns has withdrawn his amendment, and now we're back to the original speaking order on the motion.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Okay. I'm happy to do that.

The Chair :

Thanks.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, as a Windsorite, I think that this is the most important investment in the history of our community. It is important that, when we talk about it, we talk about this investment in facts, not in political games, not in what we're seeing—false information and confusion being sown by the Conservative Party, by Conservative members. This is not the place to play politics—with people's livelihoods, with this investment that is the most important investment in the history of my community.

By way of a little bit of context, eight years ago my community of Windsor had an unemployment rate of 11.2% under the Conservative government. The present leader of the Conservative opposition was the then minister of employment, but he might as well have been the minister of unemployment for manufacturing communities like mine, which had 11.2% unemployment. There was 11.2% unemployment in my community. This investment, this battery plant, is the single most important investment in the history of my community. It is important that when members of Parliament talk about it, they speak in facts.

I want to put forward some of those facts. I spoke last week with the current president of Unifor Local 444, Dave Cassidy. I also had a chance to speak this weekend with the CEO of the NextStar battery plant. Here are the facts. There will be 2,500 full-time jobs building batteries, building two million batteries every year at that battery plant, the Stellantis battery plant. Those workers will be local, will be Canadian and will be unionized. There are 900 workers currently building the battery plant. When all is said and done, there will be 2,300 workers building the battery plant. I had a chance to tour it.

Those workers are all local. They're all Canadian. Don't take my word for it. Dave Cassidy, the president of Unifor Local 444, which will represent the 2,500 permanent workers at the battery plant—the person who represents all the Stellantis workers at the Windsor Assembly Plant—says: “We are going to have 2,500...Unifor 444 workers building batteries in that facility”, and they will be building those batteries for generations to come.

This is what else he says: “The Koreans are going to come over, and they're going to assist in the building of the proprietary equipment [that will go into that building]—and [that is] nothing new.” What he means by that is this: Anyone who has ever set foot in a manufacturing factory will know that, when you install machinery or equipment from abroad, the companies from abroad send their workers to help install that machinery and equipment because they have the know-how. They built it. They have the know-how, and they have the proprietary information. The equipment is proprietary. It's the same way in Windsor.

When you have local companies, such as CenterLine or Valiant—Windsor companies—installing equipment, whether it's in Alabama, Germany or Japan, they will fly Windsor workers to install the equipment, to test the equipment and to debug the equipment. It is part of the contract. They are contractually obligated to do so to maintain the warranty of that equipment.

(1155) Dave Cassidy goes on to say that this is nothing but “political hay” and a "circus" given the misinformation being shared with the committee and Canadians. Dave Cassidy goes on to say that, if Pierre Poilievre had his way, this battery plant wouldn't even be built—wouldn't even be built. The president of Unifor Canada, Lana Payne, published an

article this weekend with the headline, “Canadians deserve better than misinformed battery plant debate”. This is the president of Unifor, the largest private sector union in Canada representing hundreds of thousands of workers, including automotive workers at Stellantis and at Ford. This is what Lana Payne writes: “Anyone who knows anything about the start-up of major industrial projects knows that it takes a lot of different people, in many different jobs, to pull these things together.” That didn't stop the information mill from working overtime, referring to the Conservative misinformation mill. Ms.

Payne, president of Unifor, goes on to say, “Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, the ringleader of this media circus, went so far as to call for a national inquiry into the matter.” Lana Payne, the president of Unifor, goes on to say:

For one thing, there is nothing new about Canadian firms leaning on foreign professionals when launching new industrial projects. Anyone who has spent half-a-second studying the auto industry knows there isn't a single, mass-scale battery cell production facility operating in Canada. This is the reason Stellantis opted for a joint venture with LG Energy in the first place: to tap into this technical expertise. This is no different than what happens during a new vehicle product launch.

In fact, teams of U.S. workers were temporarily brought over the border to help get the GM Ingersoll plant up and running and building new EV delivery vans. This plant also received substantial government investment. No one batted an eye.

She continues—and this, again, is the president of Unifor, Lana Payne—“It's embarrassing, quite frankly, the tenor of political debate on this issue”, and this is the important part to me and to every resident of Windsor:

And it's doing a disservice to all of us who have been scratching and clawing to rebuild the auto industry into the powerhouse it once was—no thanks to harmful Conservative trade policy or economic ideology.... No one has more at stake in this matter than Canadian autoworkers.

These are the Canadian autoworkers that Unifor represents. I don't understand, quite frankly. I don't understand why the opposition MPs around this table ignore what the president of Unifor says. I don't understand why the opposition members around this table are ignoring what David Cassidy says. Dave Cassidy is the president of Local Unifor 444 in Windsor, representing thousands of auto workers at Stellantis in Windsor, the Windsor assembly plant, and will be representing 2,500 workers who will be permanently building batteries in the battery plant in Windsor. I don't understand it. I don't understand it. Our message, of course, when I met with NextStar was to say that—

(1200) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order, Chair, on relevance.

The Chair :

Continue, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I appreciate that very much.

The Chair :

I would mention that there is much repetition, and I'd appreciate if we could get back to the point of the motion.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I think, Mr. Chair, you can appreciate how important this debate is to me and to my community in Windsor—Tecumseh. The truth of the matter is, the reason why we're here is that the success of electric vehicles and the success of EV battery plants are a direct threat to Conservatives, a direct threat. They don't believe in climate change. Conservatives don't believe in electric vehicles. They never supported from day one the Stellantis—

Mr. Rick Perkins :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I would ask that we stay away from the more insulting stuff and just stick to the motion, please, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Mr. Chair, it's not insulting. This is the truth.

The Chair :

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I'm going to interrupt you again. Could you please just stick to the motion.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

The truth of the matter is the battery plant demonstrates that when you have an environmental policy you have an economic policy and you have jobs, and that's what the battery plant represents. Again, the facts are: two and a half thousand full-time Canadian, local workers building battery plants for generations; 2,300 construction workers building the battery plant, local Canadian workers. Yes, we are partnering with our Korean partners at LG to install the machinery and the equipment.

There will be 900 Korean workers who will come in and help us, share their knowledge and install the machinery and equipment and get it up and running as soon as possible. But there will be 700 Canadian trades helping with that installation at its peak. We know that. Those are the facts. That's been known for months. That's the fact. Those are the facts. We are partnering with our Korean partners because we've never built a battery plant in Canada before. We are starting an industry from absolute scratch.

We don't have the expertise so we're leaning on our partners in Korea, LG, because they are the world leaders. They have been building batteries for 30 years; they have over 24,000 patents on the construction of batteries; they are the experts and they are coming here to help us get the battery plant up and running as quickly as possible and to share their knowledge and expertise with us. They are temporary and they will leave and what will remain are two and a half thousand Canadian local workers building batteries. Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment that I would like to put forward to this motion.

I wanted to emphasize, again, this is the most important investment in the history of my community. This is why, again, I ask and I beseech my colleagues around the table to speak with facts about it, to keep the politics and the games and the misinformation out of it. I do have a motion.

The Chair :

Are you reading it in, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I have an amendment, pardon me, to the motion.

The Chair :

Go ahead, please. Because you're not in person, the clerk is going to jot it down so don't go too fast but please start, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

I would like to start by striking (

g) and (

h) from the original motion.

The Chair :

You said start. Is there more?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Yes, there is.

The Chair :

We have that. Go ahead.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

We can vote on that first and then actually vote on a subsequent subamendment as well. I will just put that amendment forward, please.

The Chair :

Okay, we'll start a speaking list on that amendment. Mr. Genuis.

(1205) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Sorry, Ms. Vignola, I see your hand up. Is that for the amendment, or is that for...?

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

I wanted to talk about the amendment to the original motion. It's an amendment to what Mr. Gord Johns said earlier. So it's the same comment as a few minutes ago.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Johns has withdrawn his, but you're on the speaking order of the original amendment after Mr. Kusmierczyk. Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Kusmierczyk said he would start with an amendment to strike paragraphs (

g) and (h). I suppose his next proposed amendment will be to strike paragraphs (

a) through (f), which would achieve the objective that he has made clear he wants, which is that he does not want taxpayers to be able to see what's in this contract. If he takes matters seriously, as he purports to, I think he would take seriously the role of taxpayers in looking at these documents. Look, Chair, Conservatives put forward this motion. We believe the motion is good as is and should be supported as is. I do think it's important to make a distinction between (

g) and (h), in that (

g) is to provide an immediate report to the House on these matters, which is something that we think is worthwhile, and (

h) is to say that in the event the documents are not produced there would be a follow-up from the committee. In our view, these are both important, but (

h) is substantially more important, because (

h) provides a safety valve if the government doesn't provide the documents. By proposing to remove (

g) and (h), Mr. Kusmierczyk has made it clear that the government's intention is to not provide these documents even if the committee orders them, because he doesn't want there to be any safety valve. I think it was evident in his comments that he doesn't think these documents should be provided, and he has proposed the removal of any kind of safety valve mechanism that would allow that. I want to propose a subamendment—that is, to undelete (h)—which I think, though not rendering it perfect, substantially improves the amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. We'll start a speaking list on the subamendment to the amendment. Mr. Kusmierczyk, did you want to respond?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

No, not at all. My subamendment is quite clear and I'm not sure why Mr. Genuis wants to waste the committee's time.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

We're ready to vote, Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Johns, go ahead. We have Mr. Johns on the subamendment to the amendment.

Mr. Gord Johns :

I'm fine with removing (h). I mean, the safety valve is that the committee orders something and if it isn't complied with the committee gets to decide what to do next about it. I support removing (h). If we don't get the documents.... I'm worried about the “one week” because of translation. I think that two weeks would make sure we get the documents. I want to get the documents. If we don't get the documents, then we can look at next steps, but I think ordering the documents for the committee would be the first step, so I'll support this.

The Chair :

Are you supporting Mr. Genuis's or are you referring to the original amendment?

Mr. Gord Johns :

It's the original.

The Chair :

Thank you.

Mr. Gord Johns :

I don't think we need to leave (

h) in. It's a little early for that.

The Chair :

We're on the subamendment. Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

This is a little bit disappointing, and I think it's important to just make the case very clearly. Liberals have said that they do not believe they should provide these documents, which is mind-boggling but typical of this government. They don't believe that they owe taxpayers an explanation of how taxpayers' money is being spent. I would hope that we would have had some agreement from the opposition that these documents should be provided. The removal of (

g) and (h), as proposed by the Liberals, has the effect of removing the mechanism by which the committee can actually substantively follow up and insist that these documents come. Without those provisions in there, we know what's going to happen. The documents are not going to be provided, effectively, as was made clear by Mr. Kusmierczyk's comments, and then, when they're not provided, the most we can do is propose another motion, to which likely the Liberals will insert additional roadblocks, and they'll try to lean on their coalition partners again to prevent this moving forward. Paragraph (

h) provides a mechanism by which this committee can ensure those documents come. Liberals don't want (

h) to be in there because they don't want the documents to be provided. They don't plan to provide the documents. We've put (

h) in there because we believe the documents should be provided and we need a mechanism to ensure those documents will be provided. If the opposition parties actually want these documents to be provided, we need (

h) in there. If they don't want these documents provided, if other opposition parties want to go along with the Liberals in covering up these documents, then they'll support Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. We're very much interested in working with others on this. If two weeks is preferable to one week—

An hon. member: Up to two weeks....

Mr. Garnett Genuis: —up to two weeks—sure, we can support that change, but the removal of (

h) will have the effect of allowing the government to do what they have clearly indicated they intend to do, which is to prevent these documents from coming to light. We Conservatives will insist that these documents do come to light, and I hope we'll have the support of other parties in ensuring the mechanism is in this motion to follow up if the documents are not provided. I'll end there.

(1210) The Chair :

Ms. Vignola, your hand is up. Is it on the subamendment that we're discussing right now, Mr. Genuis's subamendment? Please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're also part of the parties. It would be nice not to be forgotten in the discussions. Personally, I would keep paragraphs (

g) and (

h) of the motion, precisely in order to give us a safety net in this situation. In my humble opinion, if we were to discuss this for three hours in the House of Commons, it wouldn't be a waste of time. After all, we're talking about 1,600 workers. I heard Mr. Kusmierczyk talk about the need for specialized workers. I understand all that. Some Canadian companies are doing exactly the same thing elsewhere in the world. However, I've never seen a Canadian company send 1,600 workers to a plant. So I'd like some clarification on that. We're talking billions of dollars, and a decade before full profitability for Canadians.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Vignola, can I interrupt for a moment?

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

I would therefore keep paragraphs (

g) and (h).

[ English ]

The Chair :

That's perfect. You are next on the speaking order when we get back to the motion after this. We're done with speakers. Mr. Genuis's subamendment was to delete the deletion of (h). We'll go right to a vote on that. Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment was to delete paragraphs (

g) and (h); Mr. Genuis' was to change that to just delete (g). Are we clear on what we're voting on? Okay. We'll go to a recorded vote. (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: The subamendment is defeated. We'll restart our speaking order for the amendment. We left it with Mr. Genuis with a subamendment. I don't have a speaking list, but I see Mr. Scheer.... Mr. Scheer.

(1215) Hon. Andrew Scheer :

I just want to make sure that we're clear on a few things. I know there's some conversation about the issue itself that we've outlined, but listening to my colleague from the NDP, I just want to clarify—because he's used the expression a few times—that these documents don't need to go to the House. They can just stay here in committee. Just to be crystal clear, this motion calls for the committee to receive these documents, not for these documents to be tabled in the House or delivered to the House.

All that would go to the House, as this motion is written, is kind of one thing for sure and one thing if necessary. The thing that would happen for sure if this motion is adopted is that the chair will present a report to the House notifying the House that this motion has been adopted. It's just an FYI. It doesn't automatically come with a debate. He would just get up during routine proceedings and table the report. I don't see how that uses up House time or committee time. We've been in the House before when chairs table reports—sometimes it takes a few seconds.

There's nothing that would automatically flow from that, so I don't see how (

g) would be a procedural problem for anybody. It's very innocuous. Reports come from committees on a near daily basis. That brings us to (h):

in the event the documents have not been produced as ordered by the Committee, to the Chair’s satisfaction, the Chair shall be instructed to present as soon as possible a further report to the House recommending that an Order of the House do issue for the foregoing documents....

That is really the crux of this. It would ensure that the government must comply. Again, Parliament is the body that holds the government to account. It's our job to shine a light on everything from how taxpayers' dollars are spent to what kinds of agreements were contained in this and whether or not, in fact, there were safeguards protecting Canadian jobs. That is the step that's included here—to save committee time, to anticipate a possibility that would be in contempt of the committee and, in one tidy motion, to provide for a course of action in the event that the government ignores this motion.

If all goes well, if the government respects the democratic expression of this committee in terms of the adoption of this motion, we'll never need paragraph (h). It will never come into play. The report to the House saying that the government has defied an order of the committee will never need to be made because they will have respected it. In the event that they don't respect that, I hope my NDP colleague would agree with us that it would be an affront to this committee.

It would be an affront to the principle of parliamentary accountability, an affront to the taxpayers who are paying for this and an affront to the qualified Canadian workers who are being left out in the cold as taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers fill the jobs that their tax dollars went to create in the first place. I implore my NDP colleague not to think that somehow this motion should not be supported because it anticipates a potential problem and solves for it.

In the event that this motion is ignored in the first place, I would hope that he would fight for his rights as a member to have committee decisions respected and would vote to support a version of (

h) anyway. Let's just deal with this all at once. We've been talking about this for a little over an hour now. I know there's a lot of business before this committee, and there are lots of issues that we should be seized with. Let's take care of this. This is an ultra-efficient motion that will save the committee time down the road, and it will save the House time as well if the government ignores us. If the government doesn't ignore this motion, then there's no problem, and life will can go on.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Scheer. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? Mr. Perkins.

(1220) Mr. Rick Perkins :

I'll make one quick reference just so that everyone is up to speed on the translation issue, which is an important thing. The Volkswagen contract is already translated. It was translated in the spring when the industry committee got a look at it. Regarding the Stellantis contract, if it's not already translated for signing, it's on its way to being translated and will be done shortly, according to the government.

The Chair :

Thanks. Shall we move to the vote then, members? Mr. Jones, go ahead.

Mr. Gord Johns :

That just brings up a point that Mr. Perkins raised. Maybe he can help me with this. If this is already at the industry committee, why is it coming to OGGO? Can someone maybe chime in from the Conservative bench?

The Chair :

We're actually on the two amendments, not what's going on in other committees. Can we address the amendments, and move to the votes on the amendments, Mr. Johns? Go ahead, Mr. Genuis, on the amendment.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

I think it's important to underline where we are process-wise with the amendment. This is a motion that the Conservatives have put forward, because an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars are being spent in a process that involves bringing in replacement workers. Conservatives are saying that we need to see the contracts—not only parliamentarians but Canadians, the people we represent. We're here representing people who have elected us and who have a right to look at how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.

What's been striking in the conversation at the committee up until now is that that Liberals have been clear that the call for basic accountability is, in their eyes, a political game. The very existence of a parliamentary committee process looking for accountability and for information and documents is something they consider a political game. Obviously, that's just nonsense. It's the nonsense we typically hear from Liberals.

Anything that at any time we're trying to hold the government accountable for, a government that's clearly struggling in popular support, and get information to the public, the Liberals diminish that as insignificant or unimportant. We're saying that we need to get these contracts. The Liberal member, Mr. Kusmierczyk, made clear in his arguments that he doesn't think these documents should be provided. Mr. Souza threw in the point that there is confidentiality involved, and so forth. He doesn't believe Canadians should be seeing these contracts. The Liberals have been clear about their position.

Conservatives believe that Canadians should see these documents. Liberals believe that Canadians should not see these documents. I think the Bloc is with us, as well, in saying these documents should be seen. The swing vote for the outcome of this is the NDP. I think the position of the NDP, in light of what's happened, is either shifting or—to put it charitably—is a bit unclear. After saying outright that they do not think the public should be able to see these documents, the Liberals then moved an amendment that dishonestly doesn't actually take the issue of production of documents.

I'll withdraw the dishonestly part, out of deference for you, Chair.

The Chair :

I'll advise all to stick to the motion.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Chair. I will proceed. What they have done is to not actually directly engage the production issue. They have said, well, we're going to take out a couple of these additional sections such that if the documents—and these two paragraphs, (

g) and (h), deal with the follow-up that would happen if the documents were not produced—are not produced, there has to be a process of follow-up, or else the government is just going to not produce the documents, which is their stated intention anyway. But rather than directly change the motion to remove the document production order, they have tried to change the motion to remove the enforcement mechanism, the necessary follow-up enforcement mechanism that would actually ensure these documents are provided.

We have heard some say well, if the documents aren't provided, then we can consider what we're going to do at that point. Well, I say this committee has important work to do later. Let's put in the automatic follow-up mechanism because we know what's going to happen. We know that in a week or two weeks, based on what the government has said, they will not provide these documents even if they are ordered to, if there's no enforcement mechanism, and then we will have to bring it back to this committee at that point, and at that point we will see the same kinds of efforts from the government side to tie this up.

This is why this amendment should not pass. It is quite evidently an attempt by the Liberals to undermine this whole effort. I predict that if this amendment passes, they will not provide the documents, and then we will be back here again and Conservatives will be saying I told you so. Then we will have to repeat this whole discussion at that point. Hey, maybe I will be surprised. Maybe they will finally come through on something, but I suspect, and it's clear from what they are saying, that they do not intend to provide these documents unless we take the steps required to force them.

Frankly, if they wanted to provide the documents, they would have already. We will continue to insist on the provision of the documents. The Conservative position is clear. I think the Liberal position is clear. Now, if the other parties are serious about accessing these documents, we're open to identifying a reasoned compromise, but we need a mechanism to ensure that these documents will actually be provided. I will leave it there. Thanks.

(1225) The Chair :

Thank you, sir. Mr. Bains, go ahead on the amendment.

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.) :

Yes. There is a lot being said here. I just want to mention that Mr. Genuis is saying that we don't want to bring this information forward, the Liberal members don't want to bring this forward. Mr. Perkins also mentioned already that these documents are available, translated, and everything and are being studied in another committee already.

Just for the record, I want to make sure it's being said that the other committee requested that the contract with Stellantis regarding the electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility in Windsor, Ontario, with job numbers, unredacted and in both official languages be available at the clerk's office for viewing by committee members for a minimum of 48 hours before the meeting, under the supervision of the clerk, and that no personal mobile, electronic, or recording device of any kind be permitted in the room that week, and that no notes be taken out of the room, to protect the security of this contract, that the committee meet with ISED officials in camera following the viewing of the contract, etc., and that a number of members be invited to that committee along with the ambassador of South Korea, including the Minister of Innovation and Science for two hours and the Minister of Finance.

The information will come forward, so I think we should get on with what's being proposed here. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead on the amendment. Then we have Mr. Berthold, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Johns and Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

That's on your original amendment.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to state that I disagree with what my colleague, Mr. Genuis, stated and the way he characterized our position. We have shared the information and the contracts with the INDU committee. That information is being shared as we speak. There are six committee meetings dedicated to studying these very contracts. What we oppose, Mr. Chair, is what the president of Unifor characterized as a mill of misinformation that is working overtime. That is what we object to.

Because of the sensitivity of this investment and how important it is to my community and to communities across Canada, we speak in facts and we do everything possible to refrain as much as possible from misinformation and disinformation. We speak in facts. That's the part that we oppose. Again, I want to emphasize that we have already voted in support of other committees looking at the documents, looking at the contracts and studying them.

I want this information to be shared with Canadians because they will be proud that we have a Liberal government that has delivered $30 billion of investments in the automotive sector in just the last three years that will be creating tens of thousands of jobs across Canada. These include the 2,500 permanent jobs at Stellantis in Windsor, the 5,000 permanent jobs in St. Thomas because of Volkswagen, the 3,000 jobs at Northvolt in Quebec and the hundreds of jobs being created in Maple Ridge, B.C. All of those investments were delivered by the Liberal government for Canada.

I want Canadians to get the information, because they will see that these are agreements they will be proud of, which are creating thousands of jobs in communities across Canada. Thank you.

(1230) The Chair :

I have Mr. Berthold on the amendment.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Berthold :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to know that my colleague also wants Canadians to be able to see the contracts. I hope this will be reflected when we vote on the motion. This will give him the opportunity to withdraw his amendment. If he really wants Canadians to see the contracts, the way to do it is as described in the motion. It sets out a very clear and precise process to ensure that these documents are disclosed first and foremost here, to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Then, if the documents are not produced in accordance with the motion, it provides that we will have recourse to the House to ensure that the Liberals do not once again shirk accountability. The Liberals have accustomed us to this, since they do it regularly. I need only recall the famous saga of the National Microbiology Laboratory documents in Winnipeg. I can also mention the McKinsey documents. The Liberals take advantage of every loophole, no matter how small, to avoid making documents public and accountable to Canadians for their mismanagement and incompetence in awarding contracts.

They'll do anything to avoid making contracts public. My colleague talked about misinformation, but in the case of the issues we're currently dealing with, the misinformation came first and foremost from the Liberals. There's no doubt about that, and I can give some blatant examples. This is why we absolutely must defeat this amendment and adopt the motion as we have presented it. I want to remind you of two things. First of all, two weeks ago, in Windsor, we learned that foreign replacement workers were going to be brought in, paid for by taxpayers. Who told us this?

It was the chief of police, who was warned that 1,600 South Korean workers were coming to fill jobs that had been promised to Canadian workers.

[ English ]

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Chair, can we deal with the subamendment? We're doing another [ Inaudible—Editor ] here.

The Chair :

Is this a point of order, Mr. Sousa?

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Yes, it's a point of order.

The Chair :

Thank you. I allowed a bit of leeway for Mr. Bains, I'll allow a bit of leeway this way, thanks.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

All right, thank you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Berthold :

Mr. Chair, I'm speaking specifically on the proposed amendment before us. It's very important because we've been talking about disinformation. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages first told us that there was only one foreign worker. Later, there was talk of a small number of foreign workers. We now have confirmation from the company hiring the workers that at least 900 taxpayer-funded replacement workers will be brought in to work at this plant. We recently learned that the Northvolt project in Quebec will benefit from a $7‑billion public subsidy.

CBC/Radio-Canada revealed that hundreds of workers—we don't know how many—would be brought to work in Quebec to fill jobs that would normally be filled by Canadians, and particularly Quebeckers. As I mentioned at the outset, the Liberals have accustomed us to the fact that, if there's no pressure, if there's no timetable, if there's no way to access the contracts, they'll find a way not to respond to this committee's request. Let me remind you of paragraphs (

g) and (

h) of Ms. Block's notice of motion that the Liberals want to abolish. I'll start with paragraph (g):

the chair be instructed to present a report to the House forthwith advising it that it has adopted this motion, and

This motion calls for the production of documents. These documents are contracts. They are contracts that will give four international companies billions of dollars of Canadian money to create jobs that were thought to be Canadian jobs. If $50 billion in funding isn't enough for us to have a three-hour debate in the House about the appropriateness of these contracts and the appropriateness of producing documents, I don't know what could possibly justify a three-hour debate in the House of Commons.

I'm talking about $50 billion, which represents $3,000 per family, when right now, as we know, there are endless lines at food banks. People are suffering, people are hungry, and all the while, the government is willing to take taxpayers' money. If it was to create wealth and if he's so proud of these contracts, let him show them to the public. He shouldn't be afraid to make them public. He could explain why he's taking $3,000 per family to create these plans. If it's to create wealth and help all of Canada, we want to see it. Canadians have a right to know, because it's their money. Paragraph (

h) of Ms. Block's notice of motion is precisely the point that is absolutely necessary, and my message is particularly addressed to our NDP colleague Mr. Johns because I know that my Bloc Québécois colleague Ms. Vignola has already announced that she agrees with paragraphs (

g) and (h). I'm going to read paragraph (

h) that the amendment seeks to eliminate. We haven't had a chance to talk much about it yet in French. Here's what paragraph (

h) says:

(

h) in the event the documents have not been produced as ordered by the committee, to the chair’s satisfaction, the chair shall be instructed to present as soon as possible a further report to the House recommending that an Order of the House do issue for the foregoing documents, provided that they shall be laid upon the Table, in both official languages and without redaction, within one sitting day of the adoption of the Order and thereupon be deemed permanently referred to this committee.

What does this mean? If, for any reason, the Liberals prevent or deny this committee access to the documents, we will notify the House, and by extension all Canadians, that the Liberals refuse to do so. We will ask the House to issue an order of reference so that the documents can be produced and sent back to this committee so that we can study them. It seems to me that this is the basis, that this is simple and that this is the way to proceed with committee review, given the Liberal past, which we know well, when it comes to the production of documents. Mr.

Chair, you will understand that I will be voting against the amendment proposed by my Liberal colleague. I hope that all the opposition parties who are here to hold this government to account will also vote against this amendment. These points are an insurance policy to ensure that documents are produced for the committee. It's an insurance policy so that we can have access to them.

(1235) Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. I have Mr. Perkins and then it will be over to you, Mr. Johns, on the amendment.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I spoke at the beginning when I introduced this motion, and now we have this amendment. I'd like to address the second part of the amendment, which concerns paragraph (h). Actually, before I do that, perhaps I could address this issue in relation to the industry committee, as I believe I'm the only member of the industry committee who's here. On the Volkswagen contract, our original request last year was for it to be released publicly, and the government amended it to make it secret so that we could only view it under in camera conditions.

Our proposal last week for all of these contracts was to make it public, and the government amended the motion to keep them secret, to keep them behind. Contrary to the impression that was left that these documents will be made public, they will not be made public under what's going on at the industry committee, and they will not be made public to provide the clarity that the Liberal MP for Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned that he thinks all Canadians should have access to. Of course, they should have access to it. The only way to have access and to clear up the confusion here is to deal with this and make them public.

It was the Hon. François-Philippe Champagne who said at the start that all the jobs in construction and all the jobs that are permanent would be Canadian union jobs, which turns out not to be the case. How do we know that? It's because the ambassador for South Korea went to the community and met with officials and said they needed housing for 1,600 South Koreans who are coming here to work at the plant. Paragraph (h), the document request that the Liberals are trying to remove, reads:

in the event the documents have not been produced as ordered by the Committee, to the Chair’s satisfaction, the Chair shall be instructed to present as soon as possible a further report to the House recommending that an Order of the House do issue for the foregoing documents, provided that they shall be laid upon the Table, in both official languages and without redaction, within one sitting day of the adoption of the Order and thereupon be deemed permanently referred to this committee.

So what the heck would that mean for everybody if the paragraph were removed? It would mean that the government would not produce these documents in spite of an order from this committee that this has to go to the House. That's in the event that the documents aren't produced. I don't see what the risk is of having this in the motion because if the government produces a document, then this is not necessary.

But it's absolutely necessary in the case that the government does not produce the documents, because we know that the government was given eight weeks to produce the McKinsey documents for this committee and refused to do so on committee order. Where did this committee end up? It had no ability to report back to the House given the way the government reacted. The government already has a history of ignoring document production requests. The member from Windsor—Tecumseh, as I understand it, was at the forefront of refusing and arguing that those documents not be produced.

So, yes, there's a history of ensuring that we don't have transparency about the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. If he's so proud of these jobs and this initiative in his riding, he should be proud of the contract. He should be proud that the contract requires Canadian workers, which apparently it doesn't. The question before us is, why would you want to hide this?

The company, presumably, has the ability in the contract to take out the few bits of it they might think are commercially sensitive, but large parts of these contracts are not commercially sensitive because the Minister has talked in generalities about them before. But he's been very confused, because at the beginning he said that these would all be Canadian jobs, and then as recently as this weekend, the Hon. François-Philippe Champagne admitted that he didn't guarantee that the jobs would be for Canadians when he signed this $15 billion deal with Stellantis. Now he's saying he wants to sit down.

That's the implication. Why would the minister need to sit down with Stellantis and NextStar to figure out what the job situation is of foreign workers if foreign workers were not allowed in this contract in such massive numbers—1,600 out of 2,500 workers.

(1240) He's contradicting himself. At the beginning, these were Canadian workers. Now he says that obviously he needs to sit down and clarify the contract that he signed—that perhaps he didn't read—and whether or not it allows us—

Mr. Charles Sousa: I have a point of order.

Mr. Rick Perkins: So this is the transparency—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Excuse me—

Mr. Charles Sousa :

We're going through a diatribe again. Let's just stick to the subamendment and then move on.

The Chair :

Excuse me for a second, Mr. Perkins. We're on the amendment, but I hear Mr. Sousa, I think Mr. Perkins is addressing some of these issues. Please continue, Mr. Perkins.

(1245) Mr. Rick Perkins :

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the point of order. However, that is the issue. The heart of the issue is transparency. The government has a history in this committee, and quite frankly with the Winnipeg labs as well, of ignoring production of documents motions. So yes, we're skeptical that the government will actually comply with a nice motion that doesn't include these things. “Trust us. Don't worry. We've made sure that they're secret in the industry committee, but we don't want them to go public here.

We're going to maybe ignore this, using the excuse from government members that it's already in another committee and nobody will be able to talk about it publicly. Let's just sit down to see how that goes and ignore what this committee does.” They have the out here, of course, with the French translation. I'm sure it will take them an awful long time, with the 100,000 new bureaucrats since they were elected, to actually translate these documents. The issue is that they will use every trick in the book to not produce these documents.

They did not vote to have these public at the industry committee; in fact, they voted the opposite, to keep them secret. That's what the members of the government, the Liberal side, are trying to do here today, to make them secret. For everybody, for all Canadian taxpayers, it's important to know whether what the minister said when he announced this deal in the spring or what he said this weekend...which version of the truth it is that the contract supports. There's only one way to do it, which is to produce them. The problem is that we don't trust that the government is going to do that because of their history.

In paragraph (g), which says that the chair will be instructed “to present a report to the House...advising that it has adopted this motion”, it's important, obviously, that the House be aware, through the work of this committee, that these documents have been requested.

It's important, given the track record of this government, that all 338 members of the House of Commons are aware that this committee has asked for these documents to be made public, and that if they're not made public, there will be a report back to those same elected members of Parliament that they have refused, once again, to produce documents as compelled by a House of Commons committee and have ignored the will of Parliament. Mr. Chair, I'll leave it there on this amendment for now. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thanks. We'll hear from Mr. Johns on the amendment, please, and then Mr. Scheer and Ms. Vignola.

Mr. Gord Johns :

I'm going to pass.

The Chair :

Mr. Scheer is next, and then Ms. Vignola.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

I just want to address some of the statements made. The Liberal MP moving this amendment said that he opposes this production order because he wants to stick to the facts. This order would get the facts. This production order, if passed, would produce the documents. I don't imagine there's a lot of editorialization in the documents. I'm not sure if the Prime Minister is going to write a cover letter with the documents to put some of the government's spin on it. The contract itself would be the fact, and that should speak for itself. That's the part that's so puzzling here.

They're saying there's misinformation out there. Okay, what's wrong, and who's wrong? The local union rep said that there were qualified Canadian workers who could fill those jobs, but they would be left in the cold as taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers come to fill jobs that should otherwise go to Canadians. Is he wrong? The police representative said that they were asked to prepare for up to 1,600 foreign workers to come in to the Windsor area. Was he wrong? Is the reporter who first cited the number of 1,600 wrong? Is it closer to 1,200, or is it closer to 2,000?

There could very well be some details being discussed publicly that could be off the mark. What better way to ensure that we're all dealing with facts than to get the contract itself and to see exactly how many jobs the Liberal government guaranteed would go to local Canadian qualified unionized workers and how many jobs it allowed the manufacturing company to fill with workers who would come from overseas? Once we get the contract and once we can see it, then we can have a conversation about whether it's letting in too many replacement workers and whether Stellantis needs more.

We could actually have a discussion based on the facts once we get the contract in front of us. This comparison to the production order passed in another committee is totally bogus, because it doesn't count if you can't inform the Canadian people themselves. Basically, what they're doing is like what they've done, by the way, in many other instances where they said they will allow the actual information to be shared with parliamentarians, but they're going to force them to keep it secret. They will to let them look at the contract, but they can't take notes. They can't talk to anybody else about it.

They can't inform Canadians as to where their tax dollars are actually going. That's no way to run a government. Then, I'd like to address the idea that somehow sharing this information with the public would somehow be injurious or would damage the overall deal. The government chose to make Canadians shareholders in this deal by signing this contract. If we put ourselves in the shoes of shareholders in a private sector company—let's take Stellantis as an example—and if we owned shares in Stellantis, we could show up at an AGM, and we could demand to see the details of the contract.

We could demand to know what the board of directors had decided to do with our investment dollars. It would only be fair for taxpayers to have the same rights as Stellantis shareholders because taxpayers are the shareholders on the government side of the equation. Informing Canadians what has happened with their tax dollar should be just as important as Stellantis shareholders knowing what has happened with their investment dollars. Why should the Canadian taxpayers be treated almost as second-class shareholders versus what the shareholders in the private sector company have as their rights?

Why should Canadian taxpayers have fewer rights to get to the bottom of this decision than Stellantis shareholders have? That's what Conservatives are fighting for here. We're fighting to get the facts. We're fighting to protect the interest of tax dollars. If the government is so proud of what it's done, and if it's so sure this is a good deal for Canadians, then it's certainly not acting like it. It's acting like it's embarrassed of this. They're acting like they're afraid of what's going to come to light.

(1250) If I were in the shoes of my Liberal counterparts, I would be eager to get this published. In fact, I think my Liberal counterpart actually said he wanted more Canadians to know about this deal. That's great. Let's make sure every Canadian knows every aspect of this deal. Let's publish the contract and—this brings me to the actual amendment itself—let's make sure this motion actually comes to fruition and actually gets results. We've seen too many examples where there have been orders like this that don't include an enforcement mechanism and the government just ignores it. We've seen them say things.

Remember, with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, they said they were going waive attorney-client privilege, but not for cabinet confidences. We still don't actually know what type of pressure was applied to Jody Wilson-Raybould during that whole scandal because even in that example they refused to waive all cabinet confidences. We've seen this with the McKinsey production orders. Remember that sordid affair?

The government failed to comply with production orders to get to the bottom of McKinsey's role in government consulting, its involvement in big pharmaceutical companies and the role it played in causing the opioid crisis. It seems like there's a lot of agreement that the facts should come to light. We're all agreed on that. It sounds like the Liberals at least pretend they are. They claim they are. They said it. We all agree on that. We should all agree on the important role that committees play, as parliamentarians and if we take off our partisan hats.

No matter what the order is, once a committee adopts it, we should all agree, even if we voted the wrong way on it, that the will of the committee should be respected. When Parliament exercises its privilege on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of Canadian taxpayers to inform the public as to what has happened with the tax dollars, we should all agree on that principle as well.

If we agree that the facts need to be made public, that the work of parliamentary committees is important as they pass motions and issue instructions and production orders, and that those orders should be respected, and if we agree with the important role that Parliament plays in protecting tax dollars and informing the public as to decision making, this should pass unanimously. Unamended, this should be a routine motion.

We should have talked about this for maybe five minutes and then moved on with the committee's work because we all agree on those principles—unless there are some people on the committee who are pretending they agree with those principles, but in reality they are not and it's just a phony smoke screen for covering up the Prime Minister 's error on this. I hope my colleague, the NDP member who opposed this motion, will have some time to reflect on what the problem would be with passing it unamended and in its original form. I really do think it achieves the objectives he stated.

I know we're coming to the end of the allotted time here.

(1255) The Chair :

I'm just going to interrupt you there. Colleagues, I'm going to suspend because I think we are kind of at the end of our rope, so to speak. We are suspended. We'll continue this at a later time. Thanks, everyone.

(1255) (1835) The Chair :

Good evening, everyone. We are back in session. We are continuing with the debate on Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. We have a speaking list. It's Mr. Fortin, Mr. Genuis, Mr. Sousa, and Mr. Kusmierczyk. This is the speaking order on Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. Mr. Fortin, welcome to OGGO. The floor is yours.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here. Mrs. Vignola will be with us as soon as possible. She'll be here in a few minutes, I hope. She's on her way back from Quebec City. Mr. Chair, in the meantime, I'd like to propose an amendment to this motion on behalf of Mrs. Vignola. However, I understand that this is not the time to do so, if I correctly understood the discussion we had. We are currently working on other amendments to remove paragraphs (

g) and (

h) from the motion. Is that it? That's where we're at. I'll tell you right now, then, that I'll propose an amendment to this motion, but I'll hold back, and I'll table it when we've completed our work on paragraphs (

g) and (h). Mr. Chair, I would respectfully submit that, in our view, these provisions are unnecessary. In fact, paragraph (

g) in particular is unnecessary, and we'd be more in favour of keeping paragraph (

h) in the document. Paragraph (

g) doesn't seem useful to me at this stage. We won't get into a long debate about it. We'll defer to what the committee as a whole wishes, but, if we have to vote, I'll announce right away that we'll vote in favour of withdrawing paragraph (

g) and in favour of retaining paragraph (h).

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin. Next, we have Mr. Genuis on the amendment.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Thank you, Chair. Because we're continuing from an earlier committee meeting this morning, I want to reiterate where we're at and the lines in the sand from our perspective in the Conservative party. Chair, we have put before the committee today a motion to get contracts for our awareness and the awareness of the public about how billions of dollars of taxpayers' money is being spent effectively in corporate subsidies.

We have proposals from the government for billions of dollars worth of corporate subsidies, and we hold to the fairly modest proposal that people should be able to see the details of those agreements. We note that it has recently come to light that, in one particular case at least, there appears to be a very large number of foreign replacement workers being brought in to work as part of this subsidized project.

As such, we feel that it is reasonable and urgent for this committee to request access to these documents so that Canadians—the taxpayers, the people whose money we are spending, at the end of the day—can understand the terms of those agreements and what is going to be the impact of them. We've heard in this discussion that Liberals do not want these contracts to be requested. They oppose this motion and, in the meantime, they will do everything they can to water it down, because they do not believe that the taxpayers have a right to this information.

This is consistent with what we've been seeing for the last eight years, which is the complete lack of respect for taxpayers' money from this government. In the process of trying to water this down, they have effectively tried to take the teeth out of this motion.

That is, they've said, “Okay, if we request the documents, then we don't want to have a mechanism for the committee to follow up to ensure that those documents are delivered.” We have added a provision such that, if the documents are not provided, the chair may make a report to the House, and this would initiate proceedings that provide the committee and the House with tools for insisting on the production of the said documents. If we do not have provisions (

g) or (

h) in this motion, then there is no mechanism for ensuring that those contracts will be delivered. This is, of course, what the Liberals want. Ideally they would prefer there be no motion at all requesting this contract, because they do not want to share this information with the public. If there must be such a motion, they would rather the motion be toothless and have no enforcement mechanism, because it will be their intention not to provide these contracts, certainly not in a way that's transparent and will allow the public to access this information. They have moved an amendment to remove (

g) and (

h) from the motion, trying to remove teeth and enforcement capacity from this motion. As we have said earlier, provision (g), the request for an immediate report to the House, is nice to have, but it's ultimately less important. Provision (

h) is crucial. Provision (

h) only kicks in if the documents are not provided. If documents are provided as requested, provision (

h) is irrelevant. The fact that Liberals are keen to remove paragraph (

h) underlines that they intend to not provide these contracts to the committee. If they intend to provide the contacts to the committee, leave (

h) in. It's no big deal. It's only a provision that applies in the event that the documents are not provided, but, because Liberals are so keen to have (

h) removed, they are making clear to the committee that they do not intend to provide these documents. The Conservative position on this is clear. The Liberal position is now clear. The question, then, is where the other parties—where our friends in the NDP and the Bloc—stand on this matter. I believe that the Bloc have made clear that—and I'm pleased by that—they agree with us that at least provision (

h) should remain in the motion. It is not an automatic report to the House. It is simply a provision that kicks in if, and only if, the government does not provide these documents. The deciding vote on this will swing to the NDP, whether the NDP sides with the other opposition parties in insisting on accountability and transparency in asserting that sunlight is the best disinfectant or whether the NDP votes with the government in a way that facilitates the bearing of these contracts.

(1840) The government has made clear that their intention is not to provide these contracts, which is why they want paragraph (

h) removed. Therefore, the NDP now have to decide if they will vote with us to keep paragraph (

h) in and insist that the documents be provided and that there is a mechanism for ensuring that the documents are provided, or whether they will vote with the government for the removal of paragraph (h), which, in effect, will mean that the government will not provide the documents to the committee and that the government will stymie subsequent attempts to hold the government accountable for it. I hope that this committee votes in the majority to order the production of contracts that provide details on corporate subsidy deals worth billions of dollars.

Parties that stand for the interests of taxpayers and parties that put the interests of people ahead of the interests of corporations will vote for transparency and to keep paragraph (

h) in this motion and will, therefore, oppose the amendment from the Liberals to strike it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. Now we have Mr. Sousa, please, on the amendment.

Mr. Charles Sousa :

Yes, it's on the amendment. I have a lot more to say, obviously, on the general motion. However, on this amendment, we already have paragraph (f), which states that we will supply the documents to the clerk within the period of time that I think is being suggested—and we may amend that as well—“and without redaction”. That's how it's being presented at this point. By deleting paragraphs (

g) and (h), we're also being sensitive to some of the confidentiality matters of the documents. The members will have the opportunity to review them more in depth—and I think that's appropriate—without compromising the situation and the competitiveness of what foreign direct investment requires. I find it rather surprising that the members continue to ask this to be provided, when we already have other committees requesting the same documents going forward. I, therefore, reinforce the issue that it is being asked that the documents be presented, which we'll be obliging, and that's that.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Kusmierczyk, you're next on the list on your amendment.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

You probably put yourself on the list about eight hours ago.

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk :

Yes, exactly—when it began eight hours ago. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that, again, we're interested in facts. We've said from the very beginning that there are 2,500 full-time, permanent jobs building batteries at the battery plant that are going to local, Canadian and unionized workers. We know that there will be up to 2,300 construction jobs in building the battery plant. Those will go to local, Canadian workers. We also know that close to 50% of the jobs for the installation of equipment will be going to local, Canadian workers.

Those are the facts, and we're interested in establishing and sharing those facts and supporting those facts with Canadians because this is good news. It's not just good news for Windsor. It's very good news for other areas that have landed a battery plant thanks to federal leadership, whether it's the Umicore battery plant near Kingston, the Northvolt battery plant in Montreal or the battery plant in B.C. We are eager to share the good news about the thousands of jobs that are being created in those communities.

At the same time, in the industry committee, we've already stated that we are interested in making sure that the information about the contracts is shared with MPs. We voted for that. There are six studies being conducted at the industry committee to study those investments. Again, like I said, our interest is to make sure that facts and information are being shared with Canadians because, again, these are investments that are changing the future for communities like ours, communities that, eight years ago under the Conservatives, had 11.2% unemployment.

Today, we have workers working, and we have 2,500 permanent jobs coming to communities like mine. I just want to say, at the same time, that we also want to balance the information in the contracts with the fact that we don't want put these investments at risk. We know that there's commercially sensitive information in those contracts. We want to make sure that we don't risk the current agreements and investments but also future investments that we know are on our doorstep. In the case of Windsor, we know that there are billions of dollars on our doorstep from suppliers that want to locate in Windsor.

They want to supply the battery plant. We just want to make sure that we're not taking any false steps that put those additional investments in jeopardy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

(1845) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk. Next, we have the other half of Windsor. Mr. Masse, welcome back to OGGO. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Thanks, I'm a repeat offender, I suppose.

(1850) The Chair :

We get a lot of repeat offenders.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Thanks. I appreciate the committee, and the work it's doing on this. We've had a couple of our members here from the industry committee. I listened as I did another committee at the same time this morning. I appreciate the hours the committee has put in on this. I'm going to be direct, because it's the best way to deal with this. I came here tonight trying to, hopefully, get answers for the public as best I can. There are a number of different things I intend to do tonight. We don't support (

g) and (h), because we don't support concurrence motions in the House that will cause problems. We do support, though, making sure the government is going to follow through with this commitment. I would be a bit concerned, hearing there might be an amendment about translation later on. I know it would be pertinent for documents to be translated sooner rather than later, but maybe one week is too much. We'll see. I hope there wouldn't be any issues with that. As well, I'll tell you this much that, tonight, I won't be supporting some of the

preamble language proposed to me after seeing the amendments by both the Conservative and Liberal parties. The reason being is that it's basically an opinion as to what's out there. I want to find some more facts here to restore public confidence in the investments that are taking place, but I believe we need to try to be as transparent as possible. I'm also concerned.

I do have an amendment at some time to work through it if I can, and, hopefully, find consensus like we did at the industry committee about how we can get the actual information of the foreign workers who are coming, the foreign workers who will operate the plant, and also the specific foreign workers who will be doing the training of the Canadian workers, and for how long. Is there a way to protect proprietary information? Can it be done in a trustworthy way?

I worry about handing all of that over to companies and the government, so I'm trying to find a way to do all of those things, and I know there are other amendments coming. To be clear, we won't support (

g) and (

h) at this particular point, but I take the reservation the Conservatives sincerely have about it concerning whether we're going to get the information or not. I believe we can under (h), and I believe there will be the political will to do so, because the companies, which are noted in this thing right here, don't want this story to continue to go on and on in perpetuity. I think the government will be understanding of that, because if it doesn't produce these documents as soon as possible, it's going to continue to undermine public confidence in the materials here. I will be supporting the amendment to remove (

g) and (h), but I have high expectations that they will be deliverable in terms of the rest of the motion. Much like I did at the industry committee, I will be voting to get rid of the

preamble, and just get to the contracts. I'm searching for ways to bring some consensus to the fact that we do want as much information as possible, and not unilaterally turning over the entire keys of the operation for redaction to the companies and the government. I'm working on those elements to see if I can find a way as we go through this day. Again, we won't be supporting (

g) and (

h) at this particular time.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Masse. That exhausts our speaking list on Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment. We'll go to a recorded vote on the amendment.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Mr. Chair, could we have two separate votes, since the withdrawal of paragraph (

h) and the withdrawal of paragraph (

g) are two different amendments?

[ English ]

The Chair :

No. It's one amendment to delete both (

g) and (h). (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: We're back to the original motion without (

g) and (h). We'll start our speaking list with Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I live in hope that the government will live up to the words they've said, which are open transparency. I'm not surprised that there seems to be some confusion among the Liberal members about what actually is being seen at the industry committee, since that committee is not seeing public documents. It's a secret, hidden process that tries to ensure that members are unable to ask questions, once they see the contracts, about what's in them. Having read the Volkswagen contract, I can tell you what's not in it.

What's not in it is a commitment to Canadian jobs, contrary to what the Liberal members say. That contract has no commitment to hiring jobs for Canadians. I can also tell you what else isn't in it—a power of the government to redact the contract on request of it being public. Those are facts. Those aren't in the contract, and since the minister has said these marry with each other, we know that that's the case in Stellantis.

Why would anyone want to presuppose what should be released by picking and choosing contracts, which most members here have not seen, and by picking and choosing which clauses should be public? They don't know what clauses should be public, because they haven't seen the contract.

There are provisions in most normal commercial contracts with the government that allow when you're getting taxpayer money, particularly in this case more than $15 billion of taxpayers' money, $1,000 per household, that you expect when you're doing business with the Government of Canada, that elements of your contracts will be open and transparent. That's part of doing business. If you don't want to do that business, then don't take taxpayer money if you want to be secret and hide from what you're trying to do.

The question here before us in this main motion is that we have a motion that simply asks for transparency. I just came from questioning the Minister of Industry in the finance committee on this contract. When I asked him if he read the contract, he gave a “Bernadette Jordan” type of answer. You remember Bernadette, the former fisheries minister, whom I beat. She was asked if she had read the Marshall decision, a pretty fundamental thing for the fishery, and she said no before committee. Do you know what the minister said? He said he'd been apprised of it and has been kept informed about what's in the contract.

The minister, a corporate lawyer, has the department approve a $15-billion contract, which he hasn't read. Obviously, that's why he's confused, because the ambassador from South Korea said there are 1,600 South Koreans coming as foreign replacement workers. They're going to need housing, and that's why he met with everybody. At the same time, the minister—this minister—has said only a couple of days ago that there are only a few jobs, contradicting the South Korean ambassador, who I don't think was freelancing.

Then we had another minister, the Minister of Natural Resources , saying on Twitter last Thursday that of course there were foreign workers coming from South Korea. We've had the company in the space of a week give out three or four different numbers about what's coming. Is it 900, is it 600, or is it 1,600? Every day they seem to give out a different number. This has become so bad, and our motion mentions the four contracts—the Volkswagen contract; the NextStar one, which is the Stellantis contract; the Ford contract in the Bloc Québécois leader's riding, with a Swedish company.

Guess what they said on the weekend when they were asked what was going on? They said they're bringing in foreign workers, because, of course, that contract mirrors the Volkswagen contract, which I've seen, and the Stellantis contract, which clearly don't have a provision that prohibits foreign workers, and actually allows for it, and does not require Canadian workers as the only ones. The government disputes this.

I've asked questions in question period and the minister talks about the amount of money the companies are putting in, and some “fairy dust” thing about 300,000 jobs in Ontario from a report by Trillium. Trillium, if you search it.... I engage MP Sousa and MP Bains to come back and find the word “VW” in the Trillium contract. It doesn't appear. Find the word ”Stellantis” in the Trillium contract. It doesn't appear.

(1855) Yet the minister fancies himself as some guy who is creating 300,000 jobs in this industry if you sprinkle fairy dust here. In fact, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer was before the committee on his estimates, he said that the five-year payback, which the minister said in the House, would actually be 20 years.

I said that really, if you take the Volkswagen contract alone, or the Stellantis contract alone, and you take the number of jobs—if they were Canadian and if they were paying Canadian taxes at the average range of $100,000—it would actually take 150 years for that $15 billion to be paid back to taxpayers. I don't think we'll be buying lithium batteries 150 years from now and I don't think we'll be buying EVs 10 years from now, as this government has decided to invest in the Betamax of batteries.

When you go forward on this and ask, what are they hiding, what the government is trying to hide, clearly, is transparency. If they believed that the contract meant Canadian jobs only, they'd be rushing that contract out publicly to say, you guys are wrong. See, we're telling you they're wrong because we've released it. For the jobs in the Bloc Québécois leader's riding, the jobs in the member for Windsor's riding, the jobs in St. Thomas, Ontario, they clearly are not required to hire Canadians only. The government members say that we're going to get all the information. How?

The only way to get all the information is to release the contract, and for anyone around here to assume that they know what's in the contract, I'll just ask for one line in the contract, the contract you haven't seen. You don't know all the provisions of every clause of a 20- or 30- or 40-page contract. Hopefully a $15 billion contract is more than 20 pages, but I can tell you, you'd be disappointed if you read the Volkswagen contract to see it much longer than that. In the case of this, the IRA, the minister has made it public that this mirrors the IRA.

The IRA, if you've read it on the provision part, says very clearly what the IRA does, which is that 100% of the cost of developing a battery between now and 2029 is covered by the taxpayer; 75% the year after; 50% the year after that; 25% the year after that. That's in the clause in the IRA. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, at committee, confirmed that the contracts mirror that provision.

We're talking about massive government subsidies that are paying 100% of what is 40% of the cost of an electronic vehicle so that batteries made with parts from China, where over 80% of the cathodes and anodes and the parts for EV batteries are made—they're not made in Canada—can get assembled, not manufactured, in Quebec and in Ontario, and shipped to the United States to be assembled in vehicles in the United States and sold in the United States.

That is $15 billion in Stellantis and another $15 billion in Volkswagen of taxpayer money for foreign replacement workers to work in those plants, to pay taxes back home in South Korea so that batteries can be shipped to the United States and sold in the United States. We're using Canadian taxpayer subsidies to subsidize the profits of global multinationals so that cars can be sold in the United States. If anyone is going to get the discount because of that—and I doubt Volkswagen and Stellantis will pass on a discount—it will be the Americans, not Canadians.

Meanwhile all the employee taxes, or three-quarters of them, are going to go off to the foreign replacement workers who are being brought in by Stellantis and by the Swedish company that is partnering in this. If you have confidence, which you espouse and project and say you have, then put your money where your mouth is and release the contracts.

If you won't do that, you're clearly hiding something because you know what you're hiding is the fact that there aren't Canadian job guarantees in this contract, and that Stellantis is free to do exactly what it is they sent their South Korean Ambassador to Canada to do, which is to bring in 1,600 people from Korea to work in that plant, out of the 2,500 jobs—some bargain. The minister said he hasn't even read the contract when I asked him less than an hour ago. He knows the elements of the contract.

He is too busy getting his Aeroplan points around the world and doing his salesmanship and trying to generate his media for his leadership bid to actually read a contract. I thought the guy was a corporate lawyer and actua