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.
