Thank you very much.
From the outset, I would like to make it clear that the request to see the contracts is in no way a motion to blame the companies. We were elected by people who put their trust in us, and we must work for them to continue to earn that trust.
As my colleague said, questions have been asked, particularly on social networks, about decisions that deserve clarification. I see the great potential of the battery industry not only for the Quebec and Canadian supply chain, but also for the future of our communities. We're talking here not only about battery manufacture, but also about potential reuse and recycling. A battery used to power a car for 700, 800, 900 kilometres, when it reaches the end of its useful life for the car, remains adequate for other uses, including energy storage for homes, to give just one example.
I see the potential of these plants for a new impetus in the automotive industry, which, because of past investments, is now mainly located in Ontario, and not elsewhere in Canada. I also see the potential of these companies to support the energy transition in Quebec and Canada. I see all that potential.
The investments are gigantic. The potential is there. At the end of the day, will this potential be realized economically? It will be important to make sure.
I'm not in favour of the amendment for a number of reasons. First, it implies that no matter what we read or hear, we won't be able to reassure our fellow citizens or inform them if there's anything wrong. We won't be able to tell them that it's a good contract and that their money is well invested. We won't be able to explain it and prove it. We won't be able to reassure them. Nor will we be able to tell them that there's a problem with this deal and that we're going to try to fix it. We won't be able to say it either, because everything will be done behind closed doors. We'll all be sworn to secrecy. That's problematic.
If we are bound to secrecy when our fellow citizens want to be informed and reassured, how will we reassure them and how will we earn their trust?
This bothers me. We're accountable to our fellow citizens. Yes, I want to be informed, but so do my fellow citizens, and I work for them.
We're in the fifth hour devoted to this topic at the committee, and, all along, we've been talking about the fear of no longer being competitive if certain commercial details were ever revealed.
However, any contract signed with any government has protection provisions and trade secrets, industrial secrets. The four companies we're talking about now, while they've already signed contracts with governments, know particularly well that, around the world, governments are tending more and more towards transparency and accountability to citizens. If these companies don't have provisions to protect trade and industrial secrets, I wonder who their negotiators are and why they hired them.
I repeat, the problem is not with the companies themselves. It's the need for transparency and information. It's not a question of wanting to encourage one industry over another, or wanting to harm one industry more than another. It's a question of transparency, accountability and duty to my fellow citizens. It's also about ensuring that in the future, everyone's needs and demands are met.
When I'm told it will take 1,600 people to come and install machinery, it gives me pause. I thought Canada had excellent colleges and universities that trained people in industrial mechanics, building mechanics, electrical engineering and computer engineering. I thought these people were able to read blueprints, that they were able to apply a supervisor's advice when needed. It's normal—and I think I said this in the third and fourth hours of discussion—for companies that come to set up in another country to send a few employees to supervise the installation. I said “a few employees,” not 1,600 employees.
Is this figure accurate or not? We don't know. Perhaps we would know if we read the contracts behind closed doors. However, if we read the contracts behind closed doors, we will never be able to assure our fellow citizens whether or not there will be 1,600 temporary employees to ensure the machinery is in place. Our technicians and engineers would probably be able to do this installation, but, due to various choices, we don't know.
We will also never be able to assure them that, if 1,600 employees are really needed, they will be adequately treated with a respectable salary. I'm not talking about a wage that's good for South Korea, but a wage that meets Canadian standards.
A Canadian salary represents a fortune in South Korea. Are we going to pay them the salary they would earn there? Are we instead going to pay them the salary that a Canadian person with the same training would receive to provide the same service?
We need to reassure people about this too. No one wants to see Canada become the platform for cheap labour or “slavery 2.0.” No one wants to see that.
These are all questions we won't be able to answer openly to reassure or inform our fellow citizens if we study the contracts behind closed doors. Sincerely, in my eyes, therein lies the problem of a study behind closed doors.
For all these reasons, in particular, I will not be able to vote in favour of the Liberal amendment.