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.
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.