Evidence of meeting #93 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ndp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The NDP said initially that they were with us in favouring transparency and supporting workers. They flip-flopped. In their earlier vote, they were against transparency for workers.
We're giving them a chance, with this amendment, to flop back and to recognize that, when thousands of dollars per Canadian family are on the line, when public subsidies are going into companies that are using those subsidies to hire foreign replacement workers instead of creating good jobs here in Canada, Canadians deserve to see what is in those contracts.
Our amendments restore the original language that was used. I think it is the right and appropriate approach. It gives the NDP and all members a chance to actually stand with workers.
There's an important principle here, Mr. Chair. In a minority Parliament—in any Parliament, frankly—committees should exercise the powers they have to send for documents, to hold powerful people accountable, to challenge the executive and to deliver meaningful results.
What we have right now is a desperate, flailing government that is profoundly unpopular and responsible for untold misery across this country. They are sustained in their position not by persuasion and not by openness or argument. They are sustained by a secret backroom deal that leads to constant concessions from the NDP. We have, in effect, an NDP-Liberal government, where spending is out of control and we see crime, chaos and disorder escalating.
We have a Prime Minister, it's worth remembering, who said eight years ago that sunlight “is the best disinfectant”. He said that he wanted to lead a government that was open by default. Now we have not only a Liberal government that's against openness and transparency, but we also have the NDP doing their dirty work by helping to hide these contracts and this information.
Their fig leaf of cover for it is to say, “Let's request an ATIP. Let's go through the ATIP process.” The member doesn't need this committee to do an ATIP. If the member for the NDP wants to do an ATIP request, he can go online just like any other citizen and file an ATIP request and ask for this information to be provided. If he hasn't used the ATIP process in a while, he will find that the government will stonewall, delay and do everything it can to avoid actually providing the information.
This is where, on critical issues of public interest, parliamentary committees should have the courage to exercise their powers. We have an NDP-Liberal government now that is shutting down that transparency. I hope that the NDP will reconsider. I hope they will flop back to their original position, after flip-flopping once, and support our amendment, which will lead to the full disclosure to the public of these contracts.
Again, we don't want MPs, by themselves, looking at these things in a dark room. We don't want, as Mr. Sousa and now Mr. Masse have proposed, restrictions and limitations constraining the ability of people to actually know what happened here. We believe in what the Prime Minister used to say about the value of sunlight, openness and transparency. It's time that these contracts be disclosed.
Mr. Chair, I'll leave my comments there.
I believe that Mr. Perkins is next. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you for trying to take over, but I'm afraid it's Mr. Kurek, not Mr. Perkins.
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Have no fear, Mr. Chair. I don't think there's any reason to be afraid.
Although I am not a regular member of this committee, I am a member of the ethics committee. What I find so incredibly disappointing is that you have at every turn, every committee, the Liberal government propped up by the NDP, and a willingness to do everything imaginable to cover up, shirk responsibility and hide behind procedure, behind whatever it takes to keep answers from being made public.
This goes far beyond politics. Over the last number of years we have seen a profound erosion of trust in our national institutions take place, a profound erosion of trust that has led many Canadians to question not just how their tax dollars are being spent—that's an age-old political question—but also every aspect of whether or not government can be trusted.
One of the most disappointing things—and I think I speak for many Canadians on this—is that, although the Liberals talked big about transparency prior to their election and they continue to peacock that they care deeply about it, when it comes to action, they fail every step of the way.
To ensure that I keep this brief, I won't go through the many examples that I could point out of where that has been the case, of how they have truly talked out of both sides of their mouths. I've seen members of this committee misrepresent what the committee is trying to accomplish here.
Chair, if I may, just to ensure members of this committee, I will read from the book that governs the work we do here, which is known as Bosc and Gagnon. I'm reading specifically from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017. I'll quote for the benefit of all in the committee here, so that they will remember that they first serve their constituents by the power of the supremacy of Parliament in our system. That's important, because I think we see that members—specifically of the Liberal Party but also those of the NDP as my colleague, Mr. Genuis, outlined—seem to be quick to serve their political masters as opposed to the purposes that we have to serve Canadians.
I will quote from page 137:
The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdictions.
It goes on to say, interestingly, how the only individuals who committees are not able to compel to attend committee—and this extends to the production of documents—are “the Sovereign, the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, Members, Senators, officers of another legislature or persons outside of Canada.”
Chair, we have the ability to get answers and this committee needs to act on that. The Liberals and the NDP need to serve Canadians, not their own personal political interests.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Let me interrupt you. We have bells ringing for a vote.
I will ask as usual if we can seek consent to continue until closer to the vote. These are the 30-minute bells.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. We'll continue for five more minutes, and then we'll suspend.
Conservative
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Chair, thank you for that. I'm glad to have the confidence of this committee to finish my thought before handing it over to the very capable Mr. Perkins to continue.
When it comes to the substance of this amendment, it ensures that it has teeth and that it doesn't simply skirt over the substance of what Canadians deserve answers to with regard to a massive—absolutely massive—government expenditure. We're talking thousands of dollars for every Canadian family.
Chair, I will ask to be put back on the list; however, I would simply say that we saw before how the NDP flipped and voted against the common-sense, very practical motion that we brought forward. I suspect that pressure the Liberals applied then.... I would hope they reconsider and serve Canadians, not their political masters within the Liberal Party.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Before I go to Mr. Perkins, this amendment and Mr. Masse's motion, somewhere along the line I'll just ask someone to put through a change. It's asking for about three weeks, landing at about Christmas day. As much as I love to work, Aimée, I don't think would appreciate that.
Colleagues, just somewhere as changes come up, let's keep those dates in mind.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're going to go for about four more minutes. Then we're going to go.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That's fine. I'm just wondering how much time until we get back here in time for...because we have interpreters and everybody else waiting here.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to say that, between the discussions in the House and the industry committee and this committee, we're at a place here that's very disappointing. We had a call, I think a fairly united call, from the opposition parties to have the contracts released. There are clauses in the contracts that give the company the right to withdraw the things that are commercially sensitive, but other than that the contract should be released.
In fact, the leader of the NDP has been up publicly calling for that from the government in question period. It's surprising to me right now that what we have before us is a motion that says what we should do is have the contracts released and then have a secret discussion at some point about what the Information Commissioner says about the contracts. I'll remind people that 44.7 billion dollars' worth of subsidies are in this between Northvolt, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Ford. The reality is that we're in this place because the government, the Liberals, don't seem to have their act together on what this does.
It started off with an announcement saying there would be, in Volkswagen.... The minister actually said publicly that there would be 30,000 jobs at Volkswagen. It turns out, of course, that's not true. It was said of the contract itself that there are two contracts for each of these—a construction contract and a production subsidy contract. That wasn't true. It's about 2,700 jobs, so it's plus or minus 10 times...for the minister.
When it comes to the Stellantis contract we know that even the president of NextStar, the Stellantis company, seems to be confused. He's put out so many numbers that he qualifies to be a member of the Liberal government. He said only a week and a half ago there would be 2,300 local tradespeople to help with the construction and the installation at this plant. Now he says there are going to be 900 people coming from Korea to do that work.
Which is it? It seems like on a different day there's a different story from the company.
That's why we're calling for a little bit of truth here. The truth comes from the release of the contracts. Most of the contracts are fairly simple. I understand these contracts are not some great corporate intellectual property secret. They are contracts about how much money per battery produced the federal government will subsidize these large global players for the production of them. The IRA, President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, sets out clearly what those subsidies are. They are that 100% of the cost of the batteries will be subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada between now and 2029. Then, in the following year, it will be 75%. Then the following year it will be 50%. The following year it will be 25%, until we're down to no subsidy in 2033. That's public. That's what's in the IRA. That's what is mirrored in these contracts, if you're to believe what the minister said, which is that these contracts mirror that.
Having read the Volkswagen contract myself, as the only one here who's read it, I can tell you the minister is right. It does mirror the IRA numbers. The PBO also said that in committee. What you have here is, until the year 2029, in all of these contracts, the taxpayer is covering 100% of the cost of the production of these batteries. I'm shocked that any company would come here to Canada for a 100% subsidy. I don't think there's a fear that these jobs are going somewhere else, since nobody else other than the U.S. is offering a 100% battery subsidy.
I'll put it more gently. One of my heroes is Sir Winston Churchill. He famously switched parties. He went from one party, the Conservatives, over to the left side and then he went back. Do you know what he said?
He said ratting—crossing the floor in England is called ratting—is easy. Re-ratting and going back to where your ratted from, that's hard. We're giving the opportunity, as Mr. Genuis said, to the NDP to give this consideration and re-rat or go back to their original position, which was to call for the open, transparent release of these contracts so that Canadians can see exactly what it is this $44.7 billion of taxpayers' money. That's $4,213 per household going to these large multinationals.
We're very disappointed that the NDP has chosen to change its position. We're hopeful, through the debate we'll have shortly, that the NDP will listen to the logic they once agreed to, which was transparency. We know that the Liberals don't agree with that, but we're hoping the NDP will come back to their original position. The best way to ensure there are Canadian-only jobs—because the story changes every day—is for these contracts to be public.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair, and go back on the speakers list.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I think we've exhausted the five minutes, so I'd like to move that we adjourn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
There is a dilatory motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
We're adjourned.
