Evidence of meeting #89 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
On a point of order, it's repetition. He said it about five times now.
If you're going to filibuster, you have to not repeat yourself. That's the rule.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins does have a point on the repetition.
Continue, Mr. Kusmierczyk, without the repetition.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I asked myself, “Why are the Conservatives so hell-bent on their campaign of misinformation?” I have some theories, which I'd like to share with the committee.
I'm going to read what Dave Cassidy said into the record. This is important. He said that the facts of the matter are these: “If it was up to the Conservatives, we would not have this investment in Windsor today.” You know, Dave says it as straight as it is. He said that the Conservatives “look at it as corporate welfare instead of a return on an investment for all the workers that will be there.” Again, Dave says it straight. If anyone knows Dave Cassidy, they will know that he doesn't beat around the bush. He just says it. He looks you in the eye and tells you the truth—flat out, as simple as that.
We know the Conservatives view this investment as corporate welfare. They are against our government partnering with labour in a historic fashion to deliver this battery plant for Windsor. It's historic—$15 billion. It's partnering, by the way, not just with labour but also with industry and the provincial government. It's remarkable. That's how you get things done. It's when you partner. When you work together and partner, you get things done. That also means partnering with our Korean partners.
I also believe the Conservatives are against this investment because they don't believe in climate change. They don't believe in electric vehicles. They don't support our battery plant. They never once said they support the battery plant—not once in two years have they said it. They've had plenty of opportunity. They've had plenty to say; they've just never said that. They've never supported our battery plant investment.
They also believe our electric vehicle battery plant is a direct threat to the entire existence of the present Conservative Party. They're against the belief we hold: that you need to have an environmental plan to have an economic plan. When you have an environmental plan, you have an economic plan and create jobs. That's what the battery plant in Windsor illustrates clearly to the rest of the world.
Finally, the battery plant in Windsor is a direct threat to the Conservatives because it undermines their entire narrative that Canada is broken. If Canada were broken, we wouldn't have a $6-billion battery plant investment in Windsor, a $10-billion battery plant investment in St. Thomas, a $7-billion battery investment in Quebec, a $1-billion battery investment in British Columbia, and so on and so forth. That is $30 billion in investment in Canada in the auto sector. We've never seen such investment in the auto sector in three short years. It's incredible—Oshawa, Ingersoll, St. Thomas. It's up and down the 401. It's in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
We're building this industry from scratch. That's why we need partners. We talk about partnership a lot. That's why we need to partner with the experts. LG has been building batteries for 30 years. They're coming here to share their expertise and knowledge with us.
I was speaking with Mr. Danies Lee from NextStar. He said, “Irek, we have families. We left family in Korea. We left our communities. We left our homes, and—”
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I draw the chair's attention to page 1059 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which deals with both relevance and repetition.
The amendment to the motion before us deals with the simple subject of making contracts secret. The member is nowhere near that and has been warned a number of times by the chair to be relevant and stop repetition. After a number of those interventions by the chair, this guide we all use says the chair should shut the member down and move on to the next speaker.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you for your advice, Mr. Perkins.
I do have that issue up on my screen right now.
I'm sure Mr. Kusmierczyk, though, will get back to the amendment shortly. I notice he did mention “finally,” in which case, I hope we are at that point. We do have other speakers on the list, including Mr. Sousa.
Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk, but please avoid repetition, and get back the amendment.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was speaking about my meeting with the CEO of NextStar, Mr. Danies Lee, last Friday, and we talked about the fact that his team came to Canada openly wanting to partner and build this battery plant, lift our community up and provide jobs for thousands of Canadians. He said, “You know, we left our families behind; we left our homes behind.” Their intent is to share their knowledge with Canadian workers, share their expertise with Canadian workers, with Windsor workers, and then go back home. It's to transfer that knowledge, to leave that knowledge in Windsor and to go back home. That's their ultimate goal, so that it is Windsor that runs the battery plant and Windsor workers who drive the battery plant. I think that's important, and what an incredible partnership that is.
Going back to the amendment, this is about balancing transparency and accountability, which is what this amendment is all about. It will allow all members of Parliament around this table to look at the agreement unredacted. It will allow Canadians to look at the redacted version and get the information that they need about jobs.
The information is there. We're proud that Canadians will be able to get that information. They will see, again, the tens of thousands of jobs that are being created in communities that have gone through some tough times, communities like mine. I think it strikes the right balance. I think it protects our competitiveness and future investment. I think this is reasonable. It's pragmatic.
I ask my colleagues around the table to support the amendment because I do believe that it is the path forward. We've worked so hard to attract these investments, and we want to protect those investments and do everything we possibly can, not just to attract and protect investments but to bring additional investments to communities like mine in Windsor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'll just say I agree with everything MP Masse said.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
The heart of this debate is in some respects all about free trade, something I think my opponents across the way would appreciate, having been part of a number of negotiations around the North American Free Trade Agreement, and recognizing the importance of the auto sector's relevance to Canada.
Free trade is all about ensuring trust in the activities of the Canadian partnership, the Canadian government and the Canadian provincial areas as well, and in jurisdictions that are part of these negotiations. Free trade is something that I thought the opposition members were all in favour of in years past. It doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly, it wasn't the case when we talked about modernizing the free trade agreement with Ukraine, and ensuring that we continue to support—
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
What is the relevance? This is about whether you get access, publicly or privately, to the contracts, and whether the Liberals are trying to hide it. We'll show Canadians...on transparency.
It is not about free trade or his assumptions about what may or may not be in the clauses of a contract he has not seen, or his minister has not read.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That is a valid point. Perhaps we could get to your amendment at hand.
Before we continue, I am going to suspend for about two or three minutes to allow for our table assistants to attend to some issues. We'll be right back.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Can we request five minutes so we can actually make it to the washroom?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:59 p.m.
Conservative
7:59 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the motion itself, in regard to the amendment and the issue around trade, that's at the heart of the issue we're dealing with in the motion. The relevance here is the disclosure of confidential material that jeopardizes some of our free trade ability and the investment of some of these operations that are looking to come to Canada.
We don't want a repeat of what happened with Avro Arrow, for example, under that Conservative regime. It did away with an opportunity in aviation to grow a specific market, as is this with the EV strategy. This is a new opportunity to build an economic recovery. Thankfully, we're looking at an “EV arrow” as a result.
This is an opportunity to clean the environment, including getting out of coal. The member opposite is talking about gas plants. He is bringing forward another reason that EV is so important. We want to get rid of emitters. We want to ensure that we clean our climate. This is what this is about. We're trying to invest and we're trying to attract investment into Canada to provide for clean energy and a whole new green economy.
Now the Conservatives may not appreciate that. They may not want to diversify Canada's economy. They may want to get stuck 100 years back when we were reliant on fossil fuel. We have something better that we can do and we can be leaders in it.
This investment and the confidentiality issues as presented in this amendment protect those interests, which the members opposite will be putting in jeopardy, just as they put in jeopardy some of the other agreements that I have already made clear.
Going forward, it's all about prosperity. It's all about the green economy. It's all about attracting a clean economy. This investment does position Canada to be a global leader. To sustain this investment also helps us sustain a domestic battery manufacturing sector in Ontario.
The auto workers are at the heart of the economy. They're at the heart of Windsor. There are two members here in this committee who realize better than anybody how important the revival of the industry in Windsor is. The ripple effect is huge. The supply chain right across Canada is affected by these investments. That's being jeopardized by opening up the books without this amendment, as is being proposed. This amendment would enable us to protect that.
Furthermore, these 2,500 jobs are permanent. They're full time and they're in Canada.
To the motion, do we want these investments to keep coming to Canada? I believe all members here would say, “Of course”. Why jeopardize that opportunity by putting forward some of what they're suggesting?
One thing that's critical in maintaining Canada's position as the third-best location for foreign direct investment in the OECD is something that speaks constantly to why they want to come to Canada as opposed to going to other jurisdictions. Why did Windsor, Canada win, as opposed to Mexico or some of the United States' jurisdictions? It's because they believe that in Canada they can trust and have certainty. The companies have certainty in our economy and in our workers. They can trust their skill sets, their duty of confidentiality and their duty of respecting business and the interests of the partnerships being put forward, which the members opposite would jeopardize by not supporting this amendment.
Companies' trust in Canada is absolutely vital. Commercial confidentiality is at the heart of this very amendment. We keep that trust by viewing these contracts responsibly. We're not suggesting that we don't look at them.
Some of the members opposite say that we're not giving them transparency, but we are. We're allowing all of us to review this, in effect.
The member laughs at the ability for us to review these contracts and to protect the interests of his constituency. We all have that duty. Certainly, parts of it will be sensitive and that's all the more reason to take precautions. That's why this amendment is stipulated as such.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have a point of order while he looks at his notes.
The member is simply reading his opening speech again. That's repetition.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, that's not true. He's just making that up again. That's not the case here at all.
7 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I don't believe he's making it up. You can just continue, but be aware of—
