I've released information that the minister, in a public committee, said he hadn't read the contract. He wrote a $150-million cheque to the largest company in Japan without reading the contract, the contract that doesn't contain what he claimed it contained. Take another look, if you have access to it. Take a look. You can look for that clause. I challenge you to look for it. Please, enlighten me with the clause. Just give me the clause number.
When they don't read the contracts, they're not actually doing their work. I'm not asking them to go into the room and negotiate. They have thousands and thousands of bureaucrats, but I would think they would actually read the contract before the minister put his signature on it.
Maybe he didn't put his signature on it. Maybe it went to the autopen. In each minister's office there's a mechanical arm that can write the minister's signature. It shouldn't be done on a contract because it's actually illegal, but it happens. That's another insider tip. It happens. A lot of the letters you get back from a minister the minister has never seen. They were signed by the mechanical arm. Maybe the response by Christopher Parsons was signed by the arm.
I have a few more of these to go through. I do see some smiles and I do see some great interest in them, but I can continue at another time if you like, because I'm sure there are colleagues who would like to speak.
I'd like to end my current dissertation on transparency this way: The earnestness with which this motion was put forward by both Mr. Genuis and MP Masse is beyond reproach. One wants to get a compromise to get out of these things; the other also wants that. We want transparency, something that seems difficult for the industry department to do, whether it's in access to information or in contracts.
I'm sure MP Masse will correct me on this, but we believe that in the haste with which MP Masse put this forward in all earnestness, there were a few minor typos, and we want to make sure that the motion is consistent with all of the public statements about openness, transparency and releasing the contract.
I'm sure MP Masse would want to make sure that his leader is not left in the lurch, in that he is now asking for something that his leader isn't. His leader asked for openness and transparency; the motion as it appears now, in our reading of it, is for secrecy and for keeping the contracts hidden, even though they will be reviewed by some other officer.
The amendment we're dealing with here helps to make sure we shine light and have clarity so that government members can prove us wrong. I know that's what the government members want to do. I can see it on their faces. They want to prove us wrong. You know what? I'd be happy if they proved us wrong by releasing the contracts and showing us that the clauses that guarantee good Canadian unionized automotive jobs are part of the condition and show that these plants could not leave once the subsidy ends. I know they want to do that. I know they want to prove us wrong. I ask them because I know they've been listening intently. I can see it on their faces. You can't see it at home, but I can see how intently the government members have been listening to this.
I think I may have convinced them. I hope I've convinced MP Masse on this, even though his Detroit Lions are not doing as well as he had hoped this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.