Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, a.k.a. the ongoing OGGO.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to resume consideration of a request for contracts between the federal government and electric vehicle battery manufacturing companies.

I remind you to keep your headphones away from the microphone. When it is too close, it causes feedback and potential injury to our very valued interpreters.

When the meeting adjourned yesterday, an amendment had been moved by Mr. Sousa, so we are resuming debate on the amendment by Mr. Sousa.

I am starting a speaking order. I see Mr. Sousa, Mr. Genuis, Ms. Vignola and Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Sousa, the floor is yours.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As mentioned in our discussions yesterday and throughout the day today, we put forward an amendment, notwithstanding some of the comments already made, to protect the interests and integrity of this investment. It's to ensure that when we track foreign direct investment, we do so in a manner that enables the stakeholders and parties involved to have confidence in the measures put in place and in the confidentiality of those contracts. This enables us to then compete for other investments.

Notwithstanding some of the comments made that the shareholders—in this case the taxpayers, which I agree with.... However, in normal practice, even in a public sector corporation or a private corporation.... After 25 years in the private sector and having been on seven boards and involved in a number of acquisitions and measures to attract investments into Canada, I am always concerned about putting at risk the opportunity to attract even more, given the complexities and some of the sensitivities of these contracts. Some of the mechanisms in these contracts have triggers to protect the interests of shareholders, who are the taxpayers in this case. We have taken those precautions. We want to be able to share that information with members of this committee, but we want to do so in a way that protects the integrity and sensitivity of those contracts because of other potential investments coming to Canada.

The amendment enables us to review the contracts in detail. It enables us to dig into the particulars. It will allow us to see some of the triggers. It will also protect the existence of new jobs coming to Canada and to Windsor, particularly. Certainly, the president of Unifor has been very clear that disrupting this investment—its disclosure—puts at risk some of the opportunities for confidential matters they have also been engaged with. They're aware of what this requires.

The notion that we're giving foreign workers the ability to take jobs away from Canadians is also not necessarily correct because, when Canadians sell abroad, for example, a CANDU reactor or something of that sort, they bring forward some of the expertise and skill sets required to do the initial transition and construction of that facility, as it is here. However, we're also enabling a lot of skilled Canadian workers to be trained in some of these matters, as a result of the investment being made. It's also important to note that the initial investment, the first tranche of the $3 billion to $4 billion, is not from the taxpayers. We're there in the second play. This would be highlighted in the contract itself, which, again, would be available to the members to review.

We're also suggesting that it be reviewed in conjunction with representatives from Innovation, Science and Economic Development so that all of us can have a sense and an appreciation of what's being done.

However, to now suggest that we disclose the entire contract for public consumption gives other jurisdictions an opportunity to see what is being done and how competitive a nature Canada has in terms of attracting some of these investments. We are competing with other jurisdictions and territories around the world. The parties involved look to Canada and Canadians to ensure we protect their interests as a party to this contract.

I know Dave Cassidy, the union leader, is here today. They've had some discussions around this, and they're also perplexed and concerned about the integrity of what's being put forward and suggested by this committee, which would put at risk the possibility of future investments in the auto sector system.

The auto sector in Ontario and in Canada is prominent, and it's critical to the well-being of our economic recovery. It certainly was in 2008 when Ontario, including Canada, participated to facilitate and protect the interests of the auto sector. The Conservatives were actually opposed to it. Gladly, we were able to proceed through it notwithstanding to protect the industry in Ontario and in Canada. Of course, there are billions of dollars of trade daily going through in the production and establishment of these very high-paying, skilled jobs. Many permanent jobs are going to be established as a result of this investment for Canadian workers.

The amendments are also somewhat of a compromise in allowing some of the full disclosures in camera, so people can appreciate what that means. It's appropriate, I think. I would implore the members opposite to appreciate that you'll be seeing the sensitivities of the contracts, at the same time protecting the interests of the parties involved. One of those parties involved is the Conservatives from the Ontario government. The other parties involved, of course, are the companies themselves.

I would like to remind the committee of some of the comments that are being made not just by our group here in this committee, but members outside the committee. When I read and look at what is being put forward by others, it actually makes very clear that the game being played is risking the very opportunity of Canada to be competitive. The work that's being proposed or suggested here puts Canadians and the government, including all of us, in a situation that precludes the ability, I would say, for those parties that have protection measures to be exposed. It's contrary to the very issue I think the members opposite would want.

I look at the recent article by Lana Payne where she has the notion that the “firestorm”, as she puts it, “started as an innocuous social media post”. That's what's happening here. People are using this misinformation as a means to promote YouTube and promote themselves in such a way, at the expense of others, and putting at risk.... She says that it all “started as an innocuous social media post from, of all groups, the Windsor Police Service [to] become a fire-and-brimstone level debate in this country.” She goes on to say, “It’s not everyday the police find themselves making major industrial job announcements in this country”, but it was cryptic, suggesting—unsubstantiated—that some “1,600 South Korean [workers] were coming to 'work and live' in Canada”.

Well, we have the ability right now with the amendments being put forward for you to review and discuss and see exactly how that is.

Lana Payne goes on to say, “Don't misunderstand me”, and then that the police tweet is actually rather head-scratching. Furthermore, she says, “Anyone who knows anything about the start-up of major industrial projects knows that it takes a lot of different people, in many different jobs, to pull these things together”, and that it was unclear, precisely, what jobs were being referred to.

Let's make it clear by having the members opposite review it, but let's be certain that we don't then expose the other competitive sensitivities of this deal to other potential investors in other competitive jurisdictions.

Furthermore, she goes on to say, it “didn't stop the misinformation mill from working overtime.” She went on to say, “Rather than investigate the claim, every Tom, Dick, and Harry in this country decided to form an instant opinion on the matter.” That's the problem. People are jumping to conclusions and making accusations and standing by them without having misinformed.... It's just like when they said there was a terrorist attack on the Niagara bridge when, in fact, that wasn't the case. You can't just jump to that conclusion and recklessly say something and then find yourself having to backtrack.

I'm suggesting we don't backtrack at all. Let's review the documents in better conditions.

She went on to say, “Federal opposition critics cried bloody murder—outraged that foreign workers are coming here to take away promised Canadian jobs.” The ringleader of that circus, as she calls it, wants a national inquiry into the matter. We don't need a national inquiry. We have the ability to inquire into it right here amongst ourselves and enable you to see it without exposing the conditions that put us at risk. She went on to say, “For one thing, there is nothing new about Canadian firms leaning on foreign professionals when launching new industrial projects.”

That is so true. We have a lot of investments. In the 20 years that I was in the private sector finding and supporting business that are attracting and building plants and investing in Canadians.... These are Canadian partners. Of course they're using foreign machinery and acquisitions. They bring in some foreign workers and management in that transition. In the long term, it's for great Canadian benefit and grows our economy, just as, as I said, when Canadians sell abroad.

She went on to say, “Anyone who has spent half-a-second studying the auto industry knows there isn’t a single, mass-scale battery cell production facility operating in Canada.” It doesn't exist. There's nothing to support what is necessary, because we don't even know ourselves. This is a brand new concept and brand new facility. She said, “This is the reason Stellantis opted for a joint venture with LG Energy in the first place, to tap into this technical expertise.”

She further goes on to say, “This is no different than what happens during a new vehicle product launch. In fact, teams of U.S. workers were temporarily brought over the border to help get the GM Ingersoll plant up and running and building new EV delivery vans. This plant also received substantial government investment. No one batted an eye.” Why is that? Why is it that all of a sudden this one is of consequence whereas the other ones from our U.S. counterparts are not? It is the same idea.

She said, “When the news first broke, our union committed to investigate. What we learned is that, yes, there will be a team of hundreds of Korean workers temporarily coming to Canada to install equipment and machinery. Not 1,600, as reported by the police. And, no, these workers will not be working permanently in the plant. Nor will these jobs count toward the promised 2,500 direct jobs. In an ironic twist, we’ve learned the program through which NextStar is transferring these Korean nationals into Canada—that has the Conservatives up in arms—exists only because of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement—an agreement negotiated and signed by the Conservatives themselves back in 2014.” This existence is as a result and enabling this, so we needed that support.

She said, “Unifor was among the few groups vocally opposed to the Korea deal at the time, warning it would do further damage to an already ailing Canadian auto industry.”

The industry has strengthened since. We at various government levels took positions to support the industry. It was a symbolic blow at the time that blamed job losses, but those plant closures and possible extinction were at risk, and we don't want that to be the case today.

By opening up these contracts, by putting forth some of what's being proposed in the manner in which it's being suggested puts at risk that very issue. She said, “Now, either Poilievre and his Conservatives had a political epiphany about manufacturing jobs, or they’ve got terrible memories. Either way they are officially talking out of both sides of their mouths. It’s embarrassing, quite frankly, the tenor of political debate on this issue.”

The motivation is not about protecting Canadian jobs, and it's not being seen as protecting the industry. It is being seen as supporting their own political disability. They're promoting themselves as though there's something of consequence here, when all they're really trying to do is promote themselves and not protect the industry that we're trying to support.

She further said, “And it’s doing a disservice to all of us who have been scratching and clawing to rebuild the auto industry into the powerhouse it once was—no thanks to harmful Conservative trade policy or economic ideology. Yes, there are major problems in Canada with hugely exploitative migrant worker programs. These problems deserve the same degree of political passion and attention that’s on display right now.”

That's why, in the contract, we make reference to some of the labour market agreements. I believe that the Bloc and the NDP were concerned about those very issues and language rights. Again, those are issues that we need to review and revise, and we want to make that clear. That will be made clear, even including the amendments that this side of the table has, but that doesn't preclude that from being the case.

Had the situation really been about stealing away Canadian jobs, that's one thing, but that's not the case here. In fact, we wouldn't have the opportunity to have those permanent Canadian jobs if not for the investment being made. The fact that we're having some foreign workers coming to Canada to help with the implementation of the plant doesn't preclude the fact that now we're going to have a lot of permanent jobs. The alternative is not to do it at all.

The consequence of the addition that they're suggesting—$15 billion is the equation they're using—is done in parcels. The first tranche of $3 billion to $5 billion is coming from the foreign entity, not from Canadian taxpayers. We are being protected with the execution risk. A major risk in this proposal is the construction and development of the plant. The initial capital investment is huge. It's massive.

There is going to be subsequent support on an operating basis thereafter that's done in tandem with the creation of those permanent jobs. Then there's the revenue stream that's going to be coming into Canada and the taxes that it'll also provide to support Canadian taxpayers.

That'll be done subsequently. It's not being done all at once. It's certainly not being done by Canadians at the start. The risk is being assumed by the foreign entity. That is important to note.

Now, Lana Payne further says, “It’s embarrassing, quite frankly, the tenor of political debate...it's [also] doing a disservice to all of [those] who have been scratching and clawing to rebuild [this] industry.... Yes, there are major problems in Canada”, which we need to support in regard to the working....

Had the situation been around Canadian jobs not being provided, that's one thing, but they are being provided. They're not being stolen. No jobs are being taken away as a result of this investment.

She continues, “No one has more at stake in this matter than Canadian auto workers. This NextStar battery plant will provide jobs to help transition workers, including Unifor members, displaced in the EV shift. And it is the lynchpin for future EV assembly Unifor members will do in both Windsor and Brampton.”

We should and could have had greater opportunities in this investment had we had initial support as well. That is why we continue to foster this engagement. It's important that we do it at this time.

Frankly, it's a bit too late. I would have liked to see more of these EV investments from the get-go. In Ontario, we had a cap-and-trade system that had dollar-for-dollar reinvestment in green energy projects, by law. That cap-and-trade system was taken away by the Conservative government after they came into power in 2018. It's a disservice, initially, to these EV opportunities.

We're four years delayed in some of these enablements because it was secured when we were part of the western climate initiative between Quebec and California. We were netting about $1.2 billion to $1.9 billion. It was reinvestment in opportunities to grow our economy, grow the green economy and get ahead of the curve on these very factors. It's critical that we stay at the forefront.

If we don't find and encourage these investments, then we're just stepping back and letting the world get ahead of us. By disclosing these contracts, ensuring that you review them, and putting it out for public consumption, you are telling the very investment entities and the other jurisdictions that they can't trust the Canadian government. The Canadian government is just going to show everybody the deal.

What's important to share with the taxpayer and with the people of Ontario and Canada—one is being built here and the other one in Quebec—is that there will be initial requirements to share the job opportunities, the GDP growth and the net benefit to Canada. That net benefit is being done.

To the members opposite, you will have a chance to see it. You will have a chance to review it. You're going to see as you require it, but do not then put on public display the sensitivities of the competitive nature of those contracts and what we are doing.

As Lana Payne concludes, “NextStar battery plant will provide jobs to help transition workers, including Unifor members, displaced in the EV shift. And it is the lynchpin for future EV assembly Unifor members will do in both Windsor and Brampton. Without comparable government supports for battery plants as provided by the U.S, this plant would have been built south of the border.”

That's the crux of this matter. You and this committee have a responsibility and a duty to Canadian taxpayers and to Canada to ensure that we protect the interests of Canadians and Canadian taxpayers by not letting the United States of America and those U.S. border states that are providing...in this competition to see exactly what came to be.

We know this, though. There is integrity and there is respect for the Canadian auto sector, because we participated and we partnered with them over the tough times and the challenging times. They need us to be there for them today.

What the members opposite are doing with regard to this motion is not supporting the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian job market or the Canadian auto sector. They're actually doing the exact opposite. To suggest that in a world where the board has to be responsive to the shareholders.... That board in most private companies will not jeopardize the livelihoods of those shareholders by disclosing the sensitive information of the contracts being done in any acquisition, any merger or any investment.

What they will do is share the intent of the investment. They'll share the net benefit of the investment and they'll budget through the benefit over the long term. We've done that. That's being done here. What you're going to now do...what you're going to put at risk and what you're going to divulge are the very sensitive matters that the workers, the union workers at Unifor and the supply chains are relying upon. The mining sector that's also going to be looking at Ontario and Canadian supplies for these batteries.... Those are future investments that are going to go forward. You're not going to enable them.

Now, they'll say, “Oh, gosh. If we do this and we make these proper investments, we're going to have to show our competitors what our margins and what our deal is, and then risk not competing effectively.” You're acting no better than a monopoly. You're acting no better than a communist government. These guys are proposing to suggest that they're going to administer and control the deal. It's a market function. We're living in a democratic, market-competitive industry. Do not put that at risk. That is what you're doing.

Again, I remind the committee that we are going to allow the viewing of the documents. We're going to allow a review of the contracts. We're going to allow everyone to see exactly what takes place, with constraints and protection measures, so that when it goes to the public realm, you're not then going to put out that sensitive information for others to see and then take advantage of Canada and the Canadian supports that are being used to attract foreign direct investment.

Imagine. We are now at the top three in FDIs, foreign direct investments, around the world. This area of southern Ontario is probably about 50% to 60% of the Canadian GDP. The auto sector represents a huge part of Canada's GDP, and now you want to play around as though you're suggesting that this is nothing and everybody should be aware of it. Everybody should be sensitive to what is being done.

I agree that we should have awareness of the deal. We have made that clear. However, even small business transactions and small investments...they will not want to share, for example, the construction of a building or a real estate project with other contractors. They'll put it out to RFPs. They'll attract 10 or 12 contractors and suppliers to bid on the deal, and the best will take it. We've done that here.

If you open it up, you're giving the other competitors the opportunity to say, “Well, wait a minute. That's how it's played. That's what they've done. That is what we have to tweak.”

We need them to do that on their own, we need them to be competitive. We can't allow Canadians and Canada to be taken advantage of for that purpose. And it will end up costing all of us that much more.

She goes on to say that in “today's politics, why should the facts get in the way of a good story?” I think that's a great conclusion here. So much of what I've been hearing, certainly in this committee and throughout some of the antics in the House, is misinformation.

There has been constant misinformation and misdirection. On the one hand, I hear the leader of the Conservative Party talking about investing, trying to explain to an audience in Toronto on Bay Street in an economic club the merits of quantitative easing, to somehow reflect on monetary policy after his Bitcoin debacle. In fact, all he did was read from a script and then he misinformed himself because he didn't know what he was talking about. By doing this, you're reinforcing your lack of sensitivity, lack of understanding in multi-billion dollar transactions and investments into this country.

If you do this in the way that's being proposed without the amendments being suggested...because the amendments add those protections, while still allowing members opposite and elsewhere to review it and to give themselves the necessary information to protect their own assumptions, because that's all it is at this point. Fine, let's determine what the reality is. Let's determine what the truth is and then speak with greater confidence, instead of making it up. All you've done at this point is created fear, created division, created uncertainty in the industry and in the marketplace, and that is a disservice to Canada and to Canadian taxpayers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've just heard the former finance minister under Kathleen Wynne talk for half an hour about transparency and economic management, and I would just briefly encourage the listening public to consider the source.

I will be brief in my comments, because I think the positions of all of the parties are very clear at this point and I think it's time for the committee to pronounce itself one way or the other.

Conservatives are looking at the fact that over $40 billion are earmarked to be spent on corporate subsidies, and we believe that in such cases the people who are working hard and paying the taxes that go into those subsidies deserve to see the contract. That's a simple principle we will stand on that when you have massive corporate subsidies involved, there's a certain basic amount of information that the people who are paying for those subsidies deserve to get to see, especially when we're talking now about a situation in which a large amount of the jobs ostensibly being created by this spending are jobs for foreign workers, not Canadians.

The members of the government say, “We're doing awesome. These are great. We're really happy with what a great job we're doing.” That's what the government will tell you. We've said, “Show your work, then. If you're happy with what you're doing, if you think these contracts are great, if you think the way you structured these deals is defensible, then show your work.”

The government does not want to show their work. We favour transparency; they don't. The amendment the former Kathleen Wynne finance minister from Ontario has proposed is about trying to bury this information. It talks about hiding documents, no notes being able to be taken, copies of documents being destroyed. That's the Liberal approach. They want to bury this issue. They want us to believe they're proud of their work, but they do not want the public to see their work. We think that's dead wrong. We believe in transparency. We don't want to let these corrupt Liberals hide the nature of the deal they've made, we believe the public should get to see it.

Mr. Chair, you know our position. You know their position. We're ready for a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, are we interested in going to a vote right now?

Ms. Vignola, the floor is yours.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Madam Vignola.

We will go to Mr. Bains, please. Go ahead.

I would just ask everyone to try and stay on the amendment at hand.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get to the amendment, I am a little bit disappointed about how we've sort of landed in here today. I was scheduled to be at an ethics committee meeting for a very important topic to me.

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

Was it the “arrive scam”?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Actually, it was the social media study that we're doing to protect Canadians and future generations against misinformation and disinformation domestically—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to ask you to stay on the—

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, there is relevance. I'll get to it, but I'm just curious about how some of these proceedings take place. You know, we had a vice-chair who was able to sit in, but for some reason we're here, and we're ultimately just playing some games that I think everyone is witness to right now.

[An hon. member]

Let's just vote and then we can go ahead with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bains has the floor.

Mr. Bains, continue.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I would prefer if the clerk could maybe clear that up. We've listened to your explanation, Mr. Genuis. I'm not sure it was correct.

We're talking about batteries. They are the future of our automotive economy.

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

I have a point of order on relevance.

This is about the amendment, not EVs.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

This is about EVs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Continue, Mr. Bains.

Again, I would ask that everyone stay closer.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'm getting to that. It's the automotive economy. We're talking about EVs. We're talking about deals we're making that are important to Canada, the future of our economy and Canadian jobs.

It is important to British Columbia. We made a similar type of deal, where the Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, the Prime Minister and the mayor of Maple Ridge, alongside—

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

I have a point of order.

The B.C. deal is not an automotive deal. It's a lithium battery deal. I would ask that he stick to the amendment, which is about whether or not the contracts are kept secret or made public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

The floor is yours, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It is about a contract. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about similar deals and why we're getting into a situation where.... We all know that when it comes to large investments and when developments are included in these investments, there's knowledge sharing that takes place. We have people who need....

In this instance, with what we're talking about in our amendment, it's three billion dollars' worth of equipment that needs to be assembled, and different people need to come and put them together at different times.

We have the new billion-dollar facility in Maple Ridge. It's another leading battery e-company, E-One Moli, creating 350 new jobs and securing over 100 existing positions. I hear every day about the labour gaps. We need people. We need all sorts of people who have the abilities to put together the skills required to do these jobs.

For those who are not aware, it's a subsidiary of the E-One Moli Energy corporation, which is a global manufacturer that specializes in high-performance, superior quality, rechargeable, lithium-ion cell products. We need the special skills to put those products into the workplace.

Out of all the potential places for it to invest, it chose Canada. This is what we're talking about here, once again. There's a contract involved. We have the auto experience. We have the greening electric grid and emerging rare-earth mineral mining operations. It's our government that has not only marketed this, making sure that the opportunities are here for the future generations to come here and invest....

We all know, with British Columbia, we're two days closer to the Asia-Pacific. It's over 30% of Canada's economy, and it's integral to our economy in British Columbia and for Canadians to ensure that we can continue to attract investments here.

People want a stable partner. They don't want to see situations like this—what we see in our committees. They want integrity in their partners to ensure the protection of any specific information that can possibly put in jeopardy the specifics of contracts that could, like my colleague said, jeopardize future investments.

We need to ensure that when it comes to innovation, science and IP protection, all of these things need to be protected. Ensure that certain members who....

We look at our own technologies. We don't want technology that's developed here to get into the wrong hands. You need specifically skilled people who want to protect those intellectual properties to come and do the job they need to do. Ultimately, the assembly of this plant that we're talking about needs to get going to ensure that Canadian jobs and generational jobs that are important to this region in question are protected.

With that, I encourage everyone to take a look at the amendments that have been presented and make sure.... I hope we can all support them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bains, thanks very much.

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In support of our amendment and to address some concerns that some of my colleagues across the table have raised, I want to specifically talk about five points.

First, I want to let everyone know, let Canadians know, that we, the Liberals, are willing partners in clarifying the statement made about a lot of foreign workers coming to take over Canadian jobs.

Second, I'm going to talk about the transparency that's being discussed as a result of suggesting it could be a two-step process. Step one is that we look at an internal review of unredacted documents to put members' minds at ease that there is no collusion going on. Then, while protecting many things, including investors' IPs, the government is willing to publish a redacted document.

Third, I'm going to talk about integrity. It's integrity that we need to make sure we follow and that we trust our departments are able to uphold through the procurement process. There is the potential of unintended consequences when we constantly try to open up contracts.

Fourth, I'm going to talk about accountability. That's probably where I'm going to spend a lot of time covering how we're accountable, first, to Canadians, and second, to the workers, to our partner provinces and to our investors, while holding up our end on a lot of international trade deals that we've had around free trade.

Fifth, I'll be closing with restating the facts. The fact is that there was a hiring plan submitted to the government as part of the negotiations for the incentives that the company would be receiving. The hiring plan will clarify everything. It is available regardless of whether it is redacted or unredacted, which I think is at the core of it.

These are the issues I will cover: willing partner, transparency, integrity, accountability and stating the facts.

Let me start with being a willing partner. We, as much as every member of this committee, are committed to making sure that we clarify this. Why are we interested in that? This is a success story. This, at least in the case of Windsor, would create 2,500 Canadian-owned and -operated jobs. It would create hundreds of jobs during the construction and hundreds of jobs during the implementation. We would train our Canadian workers on the technology through the knowledge transfer by the owners of the technology. We would learn, and we would make sure there would be a lot of downstream applications.

We're not trying to hide anything. We're actually jumping on the opportunity to highlight all of these. A lot of that is done, but this is a great opportunity for us to actually use the hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiations and to highlight that. It will talk about the full-time jobs. It will talk about some of the so-called foreign labour, who are actually experts who would come here on a part-time basis. They would cross the border to the U.S. to do exactly the same thing in the U.S. That's how our Canadian workers would be trained.

We're going to show and to highlight how Canadian summer jobs would be created as a result of that. We're going to show how many individuals would be able to have an opportunity to work in a sector that's growing not only in Canada, but also across the world, and they would be a part of a success story. It would put Canada as number one.

We are a willing partner. We are a willing partner, however, only under certain conditions. Those conditions are when we are focused on integrity and accountability. There have been a lot of conversations around the fact that we are trying to hide things from the public, and therefore we are not being transparent. However, if we are representatives of the Canadian people in the House and on this committee, the opportunity is presented to us to conduct an internal review of unredacted documents. If the people of Canada have trusted us to be in this room—they have voted for us—I am sure they can trust our judgment while we have access to unredacted documents that will bring comfort to all the members in this House and on this committee, in terms of there being nothing to hide, aside from protecting everything—the Government of Canada, the investors and Canadian jobs.

As a next step, we're suggesting that we publish the redacted document on our site. Once again, I am trying to reassure everyone, to the best of my understanding, about what is happening. The hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiation will be made public, whether it is redacted or unredacted. That will help demystify things and reassure everyone. Our commitment is to full transparency. We will bring the contract to the committee members. We're saying, “Hey, look, why don't we work together?” There is a study in INDU, the industry committee. Why don't they join us? We could join them to look at these documents. Then we'll publish the redacted document. If you're not comfortable, we can come back and have another motion. I think we're being completely transparent.

Now, let's talk about integrity, which is point number three. If we do this, we are challenging.... We are saying that our public servants don't know what they're doing. We're setting a very dangerous precedent. Every time something's getting negotiated, they're going to say, “We don't like it. We heard through the media or a social media post that this is wrong, so let's open up the process.” Who's going to come back and invest in Canada if that's what the process is going to be? It's going to be supported by a majority of the 338 members of this House. Nobody will come and invest here because, if they're trying to protect their IP in the contract, it's not going to be wise for them. That's risk. Integrity also means mitigating risk.

Accountability is the fourth point. This is where I want to talk about how we're being accountable, first and foremost, to Canadians. We are accountable to Canadians because we have to make sure they understand the facts. I'll be closing on that, again. Let me reiterate. The facts are these: There was a hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiation. It will be made public. That's accountability. That's fact.

We are told taxpayers are now funding this thing and that every Canadian is accountable for one thousand dollars' worth of tax. These are incentives being provided to the organization based on performance, after the operationalization of the fact. This means 2,500 jobs are created. It means 2,500 people are working with a good salary in a leading industry. What else does it mean? It means there are downstream jobs. It means there's knowledge. It means we've secured the growth of a region that, before the initiative this government brought, had an unemployment rate of 11.2%.

We are accountable. Not only are we accountable to tell Canadians the facts, but we are also accountable to tell our taxpayers that their money is being wisely invested.

We are also accountable to our government. We are accountable to the investors who are planning to invest in Canada because Canada has once again shown leadership on clean electricity, on an extended supply chain within the EV battery plant creation, on our critical minerals strategy, etc. Investors more than ever are choosing to come to Canada. We are accountable to them.

We're accountable to Canadians. Why? We are committed as a government to putting Canada first on the map. This is another strategy. This is another investment that is putting Canada on the map. Look at the number of investments that are coming from different countries. Why? They know that we are a willing partner and a trusted partner. We have a stable economy. We have the talent. That's why they're at the table.

There's another point on accountability. We are accountable to workers. We are accountable to show them and to demonstrate to them that we are protecting their jobs, that we are creating jobs for them. We are also making sure that the downstream economies also benefit.

How are we going to show the workers? We are going to show the workers by once again sharing with them hiring plans submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiation.

Now, we are also accountable to the provinces. Why are we also accountable to the provinces? They have come to the table, especially Ontario. We all know how hard it is to get the Province of Ontario to come to the table on anything. They've come to the table as an equal partner. They are putting their money in. They're putting partisanship and party affiliation aside. Why? This is the first time that provinces and the government are now putting the betterment of Canada in place as their priority.

We are also accountable to the investors. We need to assure our investors, number one, that we are a sound investment. We are a jurisdiction where they can come, and they can partner with us to grow. Their money is safe. Their money is going to give them a rate of return. That comes from the top. It comes from the vision, the vision that our leadership has shown at the highest level by putting clean electricity and reduction of greenhouse gas as its primary goal. Investors are interested in investing in jurisdictions and initiatives that are putting greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a priority mandate.

They also want to be sure of their intellectual property. They also want to make sure that the terms and conditions of their contract are protected. Why? They are also competing in other regions. They are competing down south. They are competing in Europe. They are competing in Asia. That's really important. That's why we are accountable to those investors. We are also accountable to each other.

We are also accountable to other governments. We have signed so many free trade agreements. Now we have access to a market in Europe of over $2.5 billion. We have access to $1.5 billion in Asia-Pacific. We have access to another billion dollars in Asia. Those guys are relying on the terms of their agreement. It is under the terms of agreement of a free trade that we are now allowing special skills to be imported under the free trade agreement to be able to help us operationalize a plant.

These guys are experts. They come here and help us implement. They help us train individuals. The people who are going to do the maintenance on this equipment are not foreign specialists. I can assure you, they're going to make a lot more money rolling out this equipment all over the world rather than coming in and working as a maintenance operator, not that there's absolutely anything wrong with the maintenance officer.

We are accountable to other governments under our free trade agreement.

I'll close with the facts. The facts are that as part of the incentive negotiation, the organization has submitted a hiring plan to the Government of Canada, and that's included in the contract. It is going to clearly demonstrate that Canadians will benefit from 2,500 full-time employees for a long time to come.

It also says that they are going to help us during the construction phase. Why? There are special needs for that equipment. Therefore, it's not about bringing in a bricklayer and building a building, it's to make sure that the building we are building fits the need, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I'll draw a very simple example. When you want to build a house that you want to make a home, and you want to use the latest technology, whether it's solar, whether it's geothermal, whether it's a heating pump, whether it's wind, whether it's a high-efficiency furnace, etc., you don't do it on your own. You hire an architect. The architect, on a part-time basis, comes and does the design. You validate it, and you move on. If you want your roof to have solar panels, if you want to benefit from the green energy incentives that we are rolling out, you don't do it yourself. You bring in an approved energy auditor to do that. When you want to put in a high-efficiency furnace, you go to an HVAC expert.

This is no different from making sure we have the right experts to come to Canada on a part-time basis, as part of our free trade agreement, based on a hiring plan submitted to ensure that we can have 2,500 jobs on a go-forward basis, and a lot more downstream jobs.

Therefore, I strongly suggest that the committee agree to the amendment, because the amendment shows that we are willing to work together for Canadians to make sure that the transparency, the integrity of the process, the accountability and the facts are clearly demonstrated.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Masse, please. The floor is yours.