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.