Thank you.
I appreciate the comments made by Mr. Masse in regards to this issue. It's important for us to recognize the importance of this investment to the industry.
To the point made by all of you, we recognize the importance of this to Canada's vitality, economic prosperity and engagement in creating jobs. Certainly, for Ontario and for Canada, in the auto sector, it's a prominent industry, and we have done much over the years, over multiple different governments, to invest in it and to support it. This is about continuing to support this investment and to secure Canada's position as we go forward.
We are an attractive destination for direct investment. We have been, and we want it to continue to be so because we are competing against other jurisdictions around the world for this.
The matter being proposed through this motion puts in jeopardy some of the very issues in, and the nature of, these contracts. I recently heard one of the members talking about this as though it were the private sector, and the shareholders of this are now the public because of taxpayer dollars engagement. Even in a private sector or a public company, the shareholders are apprised of the generalities of the investment, but not the sensitivities and the competitive nature of those investments. That's restricted to the board and to the executive for fear, of course, that they have a competitive industry with other players and stakeholders involved.
I find it ironic that now we're talking about foreign direct investments and the issues of South Korea when that very trade agreement was brought in by Stephen Harper, prior. Now they're contradicting that, just as they've contradicted the Ukrainian free trade agreement that was just proposed. It's as though they're not into free trade agreements, and they're not into enabling Canada's competitiveness as we go forward, which I find interesting.
Canada does the same thing with other countries and with other investments. There were the CANDU reactors in the past. We foster the investment, and we enable Canada to compete in other parts of the world. We've brought forward certain expertise and used that to construct the nature of those factories and the production facilities.
In this case, there's been some inflation and some misinformation. I appreciate that we need to get to the bottom of it by way of reviewing those contracts. However, we are talking about the production of permanent jobs here in Canada for Canadians by investing in the skills necessary to compete in this new EV strategy and the production facilities. Of course, like every contract that some have discussed, there are performance measures and trigger points by which it would be enabled. When we look at a prediction or at a plant that may not have proceeded, it doesn't mean the monies were invested by Canadians at that point. It means it didn't meet their measures at that point. There are measures in place. The monies going into this plant are from Stellantis. The initial investments are from Stellantis first. Canada comes in at a second position and at a second phase.
When you look at the duplication of some of the requests, we have other committees that are also reviewing them, or wishing to review them. I think it would be important for us to engage with them in order for this body, us here in this committee, to have a better understanding of what's in those trade agreements without, of course, exposing those companies, who are nervous about other competitors being aware of their deals, and their shareholders aren't aware of the particulars of those deals. That would be inappropriate as well.
However, the interests of Canadians and our economy, and creating permanent jobs in Canada, are at the forefront of everything we do. I'm shocked at the way this is being developed by the opposition. Had we not done the deal, we would have been accused of not being at the table. We would have been accused of letting the Americans take it over. We would have been accused of not being competitive and of the idea that Canada is not an attractive place to do business, and, in fact, we are.
Proprietary information and patents also have to be secured. We need to secure our position in that regard as well.
All in all, it's as though they don't want to be part of the EV strategy. The whole world is going in this direction. If we want to sit back, let it go beyond us and put our heads in the sand, as the opposition seems to be proposing, then we'll be left behind, and Canadians will lose. We are fighting hard to ensure that we're at the forefront of economic development.
I support Mr. Masse's idea and notion of eliminating the preamble and initiating some purpose by which we allow our members here in this committee—and others—to review the contract in greater detail and to have confidence in what is being said without jeopardizing the confidentiality of these deals and without jeopardizing Canada's ability to continue to attract foreign direct investment, or we'll be seen as a banana republic that is not there to protect the interests of these deals.
That is what the opposition is trying to suggest: putting Canadians at risk and not really fighting for Canada, but instead fighting for their YouTube hits and enabling themselves to look like stars and not looking at the interests of Canadians, as we are doing here.
I support the notion of providing the information that's being requested, but doing so in a way that protects the information without being exposed to the competitive nature and other jurisdictions that will then take advantage of what we're doing here.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
