Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, go ahead.

We have Mr. Johns on the subamendment to the amendment.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

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, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

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

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It's the original.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I don't think we need to leave (h) in. It's a little early for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're on the subamendment.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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....

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Vignola, your hand is up.

Is it on the subamendment that we're discussing right now, Mr. Genuis's subamendment?

Please go ahead.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Vignola, can I interrupt for a moment?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would therefore keep paragraphs (g) and (h).

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

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 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.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

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, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

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, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Shall we move to the vote then, members?

Mr. Jones, go ahead.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

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, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll advise all to stick to the motion.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Bains, go ahead on the amendment.