Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's good to see everyone there. I'm happy to be back with the mighty OGGO.
I've been brought up to speed by my colleagues. I've certainly been following along as I've been on the indigenous and northern affairs committee for the last couple of weeks.
I want to weigh in, for sure, on what's being discussed today. I certainly appreciate the conversation around transparency and accountability. I can also appreciate the interpretation around risk, particularly to future foreign investment and the potential for destabilizing this kind of environment.
On the amendment, after reviewing it I really think it's a good-faith proposition that can satisfy our opposition colleagues, while protecting our partners. I think that's really paramount in the high-stakes scenario that we're looking at with this. The amendment allows, of course, the unredacted documents to be shared with our committee rather than in the public eye, which I don't think is the appropriate place for this to be discussed.
I look to the fact that we have a Privacy Act for a reason, and it's certainly not to protect nefarious deals, which is apparently the insinuation of our Conservative colleagues.
How we got here is particularly worrisome. A lot has been said in the House and on social media, unfortunately. I believe it's a controversy that's been fabricated. It's caused a lot of confusion for Canadians and perhaps for those hoping to invest in Canada, or to be part of future deals of this nature, which are groundbreaking in Canada. We should be celebrating this deal and this signal that it sends to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and certainly around the globe, about the direction of the future economy and Canada's place in it.
Instead, I'll quote Ms. Payne again, who referred to this as “the firestorm”, as we're also seeing accusations of hiding documents and burying the issue, which I certainly reject wholeheartedly.
This discussion also threatens to overshadow some of the critical voices from stakeholders, including Dave Cassidy at Unifor, who represents the actual workers who will be directly benefiting from these well-paying and meaningful jobs.
I have a couple of things I'd like to read into the record regarding that specifically. I certainly support what our science and innovation minister has noted, that this is a “once in a lifetime” chance for Canada to carve its place out in the EV industry. He specifically references as well the Inflation Reduction Act. We want to keep our fair share of the auto sector in North America, so it's important for us to participate, catch up and get up to speed.
Brian Kingston is the president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. He states, “It's really important that Canada secures some of these battery plants because this is going to effectively be the backbone of this new electric vehicle supply chain.” He goes on to say, “I really can't understate how important it is to have a battery plant of this size and scale in Canada.”
Mark Stewart is the chief operating officer of Stellantis. He said that the United States Inflation Reduction Act added incentives for companies to locate EV plants south of the border. He said that it “changed the landscape for battery production in North America, making it challenging to produce competitively priced, state-of-the-art batteries in Canada without an equivalent level of support from government.”
I see there was also a mention around corporate subsidies, and I can certainly appreciate that discussion. I think there is a place to have that conversation, but context is everything, of course, and certainly this case is no exception. The Inflation Reduction Act absolutely changed the game.
I really would like to thank our opposition colleagues for being in committee today and using, I would argue, a bit more judicious and thoughtful word choice, because what I've seen in the House, particularly in question period, and on social media is really worrisome. This issue, specifically with respect to the use of the term “replacement workers”, is sharing this idea that Canadian union jobs will be stolen or taken by foreign workers, specifically from South Korea. I think we can all agree that we need to be really careful with how this discussion is framed, and what some of those impacts could be in broader society. This language, to me, has a dangerous tone and a potential harm. We need to be clear about what we're really talking about, and what the next steps are.
This is about NextStar's plan to hire technicians, including temporary staff, to install and test equipment, to transfer some of that skill and knowledge that we require to be part of this new and exciting green economy. It is absolutely the future, and I'm really proud to see that our government is stepping up on it.
It also, again, paves the way for these 2,300-plus Canadian unionized jobs. Again, context is everything here. I think it's really important that we stay clear to the facts.
Mr. Chair, there's no smoking gun here. I don't think we should pretend that there is. I support the amendment.
Thank you.