Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Evidence will be recording it all, so we do not need a repeat.

Please go ahead.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, so much of this conversation focuses on workers, and that's really where my approach is right now.

I really want to point out, again, another fact: There has been one temporary foreign worker permit issued and advertised, which led to a lot of the discussion that led to the original motion and, of course, our amendment, which is all relevant.

When a temporary foreign worker permit is issued, a labour market impact assessment is done, and the permit is only issued if the company can prove that eligible Canadian workers are not available for that job. Again, it speaks to some of the confusion and, I would argue, the inappropriate use of the “replacement workers” term that has led to why we're all here this evening.

Many of us, in our offices, were inundated. This was IRCC'S work, as I'm sure many of the members are familiar—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have a point of order.

Where is the relevance to the motion about why the contract should be secret versus public to the Canadian taxpayer? It's not about whether or not there are jobs created.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

I will repeat, Mrs. Atwin, that you seem to be debating the original motion and not the amendment itself. Again, we always give a wide latitude to discuss issues, but I ask you to, please, get to the discussion of the amendment itself.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

Of course, the amendment is about whether or not we're willing to risk these very important investments, the reputation that we have here in Canada, and the possibility of deterring future important investments like this. They have the potential to transform our economy, and I am thinking specifically about those in Windsor. We've heard a lot about that this evening.

It's important to know that investors need to have clarity that we're not going to play games with their contracts. I really believe that's what this is about, and that's really what I have tried to explain this evening with my facts that I really want to focus on. Again, for me, this is about games. I find it incredibly reckless, and I don't want to participate in those games.

I certainly support this amendment that allows our committee members to have access to the information they seek. We really want them to have good peace of mind. This is about good governance. It's about all of us representing our constituents in the way that we would want them to know that they're represented, in the interests of transparency and accountability.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us to come together and see that this is the path forward, that we look at the information and that we do it in an appropriate setting while, again, protecting the interests of this very important and transformative contract.

Because of the risk of being repetitive, Mr. Chair, I'll leave it there.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mrs. Atwin.

Now we have Mr. Kusmierczyk, please, and next we will go to Mr. Berthold, Mr. Masse, Mr. Sidhu and then back to Mr. Sousa.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about an issue that I believe is central to this discussion and to this amendment: the issue of intellectual property rights.

We've talked a lot about public trust. We've talked a lot about trust. I believe that it is important that when companies partner with the federal government on major investments—like the $5-billion battery plant in Windsor, the Northvolt battery plant in Quebec, or the $1-billion battery plant in B.C.—those companies have trust in the federal government, in that partnership.

We talk a lot about what we're protecting in some of these sensitive contracts. I believe that one of the central considerations is intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights can be, for example, patents, copyrights or trade secrets. That's important because the businesses enter into an agreement or a partnership with the federal government, and there is an expectation there that this information will be protected.

I am proud to say that my dad, who is a retired electrical engineer, worked his whole life in the automotive industry. He worked for a large manufacturing company and—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

Sorry, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

My dad was an electrician, not an electrical engineer, but I don't see any relevance to what our fathers did for a living to the amendment before us, nor do I see, speaking as a lawyer, any suggestion that intellectual property rights would be relevant to this discussion. There are no diagrams and there are no schematics. This a contract, and there are no intellectual property rights in the wording of a contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead, but again, I implore everyone to stick to the amendment, as you started out with.

Please go ahead.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The reason I raise my father being an electrical engineer is because he devised a number of patents. They were registered with the United States patent office, and they're hanging in our house—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, there is a point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Probably everyone here knows what a patent is, knows how you go about getting a patent or why, but that has nothing to do, I would suggest, with the relevance—

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

We don't.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Well, Mr. Sidhu, you can find out with a Google search.

It is not relevant to the amendment before us. That's what we're debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead, on the amendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I appreciate that. Let me just finish my thought here before I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Before you do, you're getting a bit noisy in the back again, folks. You're missing a lot of riveting information; I'm sure you want to pay attention.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, our colleagues in the opposition are basically throwing out points of order like candy here. Is there a quota? I mean, there has to be a quota here because every two minutes we get interrupted. We can't seem to finish our thoughts here. I'm just wondering. Are we just going to see point of order after point of order after point of order here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There have been a lot of points of order, but to be fair, I think we've gone quite past fairness on relevance and repetition on the amendment itself. If we're ready to vote on it and people have stopped being able to debate on the amendment itself and want to get to the motion that we seem to be debating a lot, let us do so, but if we just get back to debate on the amendment, I'm sure we'll have fewer points of order.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're talking about confidential information and why it needs to be protected. We're talking about sensitive information. We're talking about competitive information advantages. That's why we're talking about intellectual property and trade secrets, which companies do not want to share with the rest of the world, specifically with their competition.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I have a point of order.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You can say irrelevance all you want, but this is the absolute heart of the issue.