Government Operations Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to resume consideration of requests for contracts between the federal government and electric vehicle battery manufacturing companies.

I will remind you not to put your earpieces next to the microphones. This causes feedback and potential injury to our valued translators.

When the meeting was adjourned on Friday, we were debating an amendment moved by Mr. Sousa. We are resuming debate on the amendment.

I see already that Mr. Masse has his hand up.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm waiting for translation, Mr. Chair, so maybe take me off the list for now. I have something coming, but the translation is not ready. Maybe you could go to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, before I go to you, we will recognize and say hello to Ms. Shanahan, one of our OGGO alumni.

Welcome back. We'll move away from you now and go back to Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to be here with our committee mates. I welcome some of the new members to this illustrious committee, the mighty OGGO. I'm sure we're going to have an interesting, enlightening and illuminating discussion. Two out of the three would be good. It's a friendly discussion, I would say. That's really important.

Nonetheless, this is an obviously important issue. The stakes here are significant. That's why we're having discussions that, at times, can be a little heated. This is serious business we're talking about here, and there is a lot on the line. I think that's why, again, these discussions are sometimes difficult. The debates are sometimes difficult. At the same time, that's the reason we've been meeting on these issues for many hours last week as well as this week. I believe we have a six-hour meeting scheduled this evening. We know this is a serious issue in which all sides are taking a great interest.

I want to pick up on some of the commentary from last week. The importance, really, of what is at the heart of this debate that we're having here today is balance. That is really what this issue and debate is about. It's balance, and what we are trying to balance. We are trying to balance, on the one hand, the sharing of as much information as we can with Canadians to live up to that standard of being an open government with, at the same time, ultimately protecting the interests of Canada.

I know my colleague from Windsor West had a chance, just as I did, to serve as a city councillor on Windsor's city council. He served there for many years. He left a legacy there. He was in many ways a pioneer. He blazed the trail for those who came after him, including me, for which I am grateful.

I know that, as city councillors, we all had to find a balance between those two polarities of transparency, and at the same time protect the interests of the country. In that case, they were the interests of the municipality.

When you look at the city of Windsor and you look at most municipalities in Ontario.... I believe there was a study that was done. Every year statistics are published. Most municipalities in Ontario meet in camera probably 20% of the time. That's what the statistics normally say. Those are confidential meetings. Those are meetings that are carried out behind closed doors. Decisions are made by the mayor and city council.

As city councillors we had numerous important meetings that dealt with sensitive issues. Again, about 20% of our time was spent in camera. Some of those issues were sensitive. For example, when we had an economic development partnership, a deal or an agreement, some of that information was not made public. Some of that information was kept in camera.

City council also went in camera for even minor issues. I was sitting in camera when a parking lot was being transferred. Ownership was being transferred of a parking lot worth less than $100,000. We met in camera to discuss the disinvestment and dispossession of that parking lot. It underscores and highlights that, again, like I said, we discussed a spectrum of issues in camera at city council.

Surely a lot of those issues are quite minor compared to what we're talking about here—what's at stake here—which is a $6-billion investment in my community in Windsor. It's 2,500 well-paying jobs for local, Canadian, unionized workers. There's a lot at stake here. It underscores why we're being so careful and cautious with this discussion as we try to find that balance and to strike that balance.

When you look at city councils, even, that are dealing with a whole panoply of issues of various importance, significance and sensitivity, there's a municipal act that governs what is a justifiable basis for a closed meeting.

I want to read a little bit here from a company's website that deals with open government and the Municipal Act and closed meetings at the municipal level. The article from Nelligan Law states:

While municipalities are legally required to ensure their meetings are open to the public, there is provision in the Municipal Act 2001 for certain forums to be private. However, municipalities must assess very carefully whether the limited exceptions to go “in camera” apply.

That's really important when you're looking at that. To read what some of those types of issues are—

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

I have a point of order, Chair. This is obviously irrelevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Will you get to the amendment eventually, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

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

Absolutely. I think that's what our goal is, but what I'm trying to establish here is that, even at the municipal level, there is an understanding that you have to balance transparency and accountability, again, with protecting the interests, whether it's the corporation, the City of Windsor or Canada, the country of Canada. I think it's really important for us to understand that, because it's a part of the discussion that I think has been left out.

If you look at the Ontario.ca website, the Government of Ontario website, you see a subheading titled “Balancing transparency and confidentiality”. This is provincial. It says there:

As discussed previously in this chapter, it is a good practice to conduct business in a transparent and accountable manner and that municipal meetings be open to the public, subject to certain exceptions.

In other words, municipalities are encouraged to consider openness and transparency to be appropriate in most circumstances, including when making decisions about whether or not to close a meeting.

Then it goes on to say, and this is important:

There will be times, however, in the course of business where information should, or even must, be kept confidential.

Here you have the Province of Ontario, the provincial government, talking about the need to balance those two competing interests.

Then it goes on to say, under the headline “Closing a meeting”:

A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is....

It actually spells out what the issues are that are grounds for closed meetings or confidentiality. The first one is “the security of the property of the municipality or local board”. The second one is “personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees”.

I would say that one of the concerns of looking at these contracts of these companies is that we want to make sure we're protecting certain sensitive information on “personal matters about an identifiable individual”. I think we have to be very careful to safeguard that important information.

It goes on to list “a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board”. A couple of things are pertinent here. It's what I mentioned before. Even for something as small as a parking lot worth $50,000, the city would go in camera to discuss it, even on an issue as seemingly trivial as the disposition of a $50,000 parking lot. Again, there are grounds and justification in the Municipal Act of Ontario for exactly that.

When you're talking about this agreement with the contract, you have to also be aware that the City of Windsor is very much a partner to this agreement with Stellantis and LG. The City of Windsor and my council colleagues there, past and present, made a very bold move when the City of Windsor decided to put significant resources into the deal and the agreement. The City of Windsor is absolutely a player in this. They are the ones that assembled the land.

It needs to be emphasized that it was the City of Windsor that assembled the land for that battery plant. They absolutely are a partner to this agreement, so we have to be careful also to make sure that, in that contract, there is not information that not only would in any way be injurious obviously to NextStar or to workers, but that also would in any way disclose information that is sensitive information that the City of Windsor might consider important as well.

Those are the things we have to look at.

The Government of Ontario goes on to say that other grounds for confidential meetings are “labour relations or employee negotiations”. Again, that is something that is important too.

Another point is “litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board”. Next is “advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—communications necessary for that purpose”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have a point of order, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

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

The member is reading out policies for municipalities around what information can be discussed in camera and has done that for some time.

What we're debating at this committee is making public the contracts this government has signed—contracts worth over $40 billion. The public deserves to see that information. His long trek down memory lane is obviously in no way relevant to what we're supposed to be talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Genuis.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would say that the member seems to be making a cogent argument about the balance of confidentiality and transparency. It seems to me to be highly relevant to the debate at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, did you want to speak for yourself, or continue with Mr. Turnbull?

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

No, I support my line of argument—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I understand what you're getting at. I would ask that you please come back to the amendment, at least notionally.

Thanks.

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

For sure.

Again, just to continue on, because I think it is important to highlight again, as my colleague mentioned, that there is a balance we're trying to strike here. I'm trying to utilize the provincial government and also the municipal government—the other two levels of government—to highlight the fact that, even in their worlds, in their operations, in their work, clearly there are circumstances where information is not made public to protect the interests of the organization, to protect the interests of residents or to protect the interests of...whether it's the province, the municipality or, in our case, the interests of Canadians.

Not only is there a philosophical or cultural understanding that there is that balance, which really has been around for hundreds of years—this is not something that is new; the Municipal Act has developed over time—but there is a framework. I think that's what I'm trying to point to, that this isn't something that is simply a part of our culture or values. It certainly is part of our culture and part of our values as Canadians to make that balance and be pragmatic, but what I'm trying to underscore here is that there is also a structure. There is actually a policy structure around the balancing of confidentiality and transparency, which is, again, at the heart of why we're here. It's why we're debating this. We're trying to get this balance absolutely correct. Again, it's important to highlight for Canadians that there is an absolute precedent from the provincial and the municipal level.

Here's another example that I wanted to highlight. Again, if you go down the list of the Province of Ontario, what information can be kept confidential? It says here, “information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board by Canada, a province or territory or a Crown agency of any of them”.

Even when information is being shared by a third party, whether it's another government or whether it's another organization, in confidence, there are mechanisms in place and there is an expectation in place. There are mechanisms in place and expectations in place that the information will remain confidential.

It goes on, and this is the really important one. This is the one that I really wanted to highlight because I think it really gets to the heart of the issue. Again, this is on the Province of Ontario's website. It says meetings can go in camera, can be confidential, under the following circumstances:

a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization....

That encapsulates, perfectly, what is at stake here and why, on this side of the table, we feel it is important to speak up and stand up for the interests of Canada, again, because there is so much at stake. I want to read it again, because I think it's important.

a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization...

I have one last point here because I think this one is even more important. It's shorter. It's only two sentences but I think it's really important. It says, “a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial or financial information that belongs to the municipality or local board and has monetary value or potential monetary value”.

This is very important, because, again, even in a provincial government, you have not only a culture of confidentiality—which appears in the way the government governs itself—but also the structure, legislation and policy around it, meaning that it's very purposeful. It's not happenstance. It's purposeful.

Mr. Chair, I know I have regaled you with this information. I hope that, one day, you're on Jeopardy! and this helps you answer the Final Jeopardy! question.

With that, I will yield the rest of my time to my colleague Brenda Shanahan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid you don't have that right. Mrs. Atwin is next.

Actually, it's Mr. Bains and then Mrs. Atwin in the speaking order.

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

I'll strike my name, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay.

Mrs. Atwin, we were promised something interesting. I hope you can provide that where Mr. Kusmierczyk didn't.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mrs. Atwin, then Mr. Masse and then Mrs. Shanahan.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll yield my time as well.

Thank you.