Industry Committee on Sept. 19th, 2023

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Really quickly, I support this first motion. I think the second one is maybe a little premature. We could revisit it in the future, perhaps, because I'd like to see what the first one actually comes to. On the second one, I have an amendment. We could have a redacted copy, but that would almost be a process for a decision as well. I don't want to suggest that we have to have information redacted. In the United States, it's very clear that their process for investment was taking place.

I'd prefer to get this first one done, get it going and then have our steering committee, because we'll have another guest and then decide what order will be in place. Therefore, I'll support the first one. With the second one, I'd prefer to wait on that in terms of how we get our house in order.

Thank you to the mover of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's duly noted.

To rein in the debate, I think it's worthwhile that you mention it, so that we know where your mind is, but we're dealing with the first one. Hopefully, we can keep the debate on the first one, and then we'll move to the one Mr. Vis proposed on the contracts.

I have Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Vis.

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

I appreciate the clerk's suggestion about “request”.

I think this is straightforward, so I don't think we need to have a lot of debate or discussion. The PBO put out his report recently and I think it would be appropriate to have him come here to have a discussion about that report, since it's on, obviously, 28 billion to 30 billion dollars' worth of contracts that the Minister of Industry is responsible for. It's a valuable report. I'd be able to question him.

I'm not sure where else he would go other than here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't see a problem with this one. I think we'd be supportive of it. It seems pretty reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before we move to a vote, this is basically to inform the committee of what we want to study as a committee and what we decide we want to pursue, knowing full well that Bill C-27 takes precedence. That's what we're going to be dealing with for the next few weeks.

Do we need to vote on the first motion? I sense that there's consensus on the motion proposed by Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Lemire, you look skeptical.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'm wondering when the Parliamentary Budget Officer could come and testify. If the study of Bill C‑27 leads us to have several meetings—the list of witnesses is quite long—would it be responsible to invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer much later in the fall or even in the winter? Would that be the responsible thing to do under the circumstances? Since it's just one meeting, we can probably find an opportunity to meet with him sooner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I think we can deal with that at the subcommittee at the appropriate time. It may be practical to hold a meeting of this kind in reserve, in case the clerk can't find witnesses or witnesses drop out, for example. That would allow the committee to avoid wasting an hour or two of meetings. Generally speaking, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is quite available for this type of meeting.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That's perfect.

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

This is a suggestion for the committee. I think we're all assuming that we start Bill C-27 on Tuesday. We obviously haven't gone through or been able to get witnesses yet—I don't believe—for Thursday, so perhaps Thursday might be an opportunity for the PBO or the Privacy Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just to dispose of that first motion, I see there is consensus. It's adopted by the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

On the second motion, Mr. Vis, I recognize you.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

What's very important to note here is that it states very clearly “redacted copy”. We understand commercial sensitivities. I will note that the minister has basically said everything in that contract publicly already.

I think it would be beneficial to all committee members if we're going to have a discussion with the PBO on the government subsidy that we have those four contracts available to us at the same time. It's just about being able to do our job as best we can. We know the dollar amount. We just need the details in front of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Perkins.

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

Can I just clarify the “redacted”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, Mr. Perkins.

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

I just want to clarify the “redacted”. The reference to “redacted” is that, when committee members had access to the contract, we saw a redacted version. That's the version I'm talking about, because Volkswagen had redacted certain parts of it before we saw it. It's that version. It's not a further redacted version beyond what was shown to committee members. It's the one that was shown to committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull is next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to say that I sort of share the sentiments of Brian Masse, my colleague. I want to consider that there seems to be a little bit of a.... I realize that it's a redacted copy that you're asking to be released. I know that members had, based on their parliamentary privilege, the ability to review that document that was redacted already, but there is also a portion of this that says “no speaking restrictions be placed on committee members”, so there is some consideration here as to whether there are sensitive details in that contract. There were very few redactions in it, as I understand. I haven't reviewed it myself.

I think we should take more time to consider this. Perhaps we could bring it up in the subcommittee, which I understand I'll be on. Maybe we can talk it through there and just make sure that we consider every aspect of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think the motion comes from a good place. I think Mr. Vis comes from a good place.

My concern right now is that I'd like to see what we have going forward. The entire debacle cost us jobs. The plant in Windsor was actually shut down for a while, and there still is a lot of angst, anxiety and issues that I don't want to stir up unnecessarily without a real plan or a reason for it.

Again, I'm not even sure that we need, at some point, a redaction entirely. The auto policies that I've been pushing for here on the Hill are actually similar to those of other countries, where there are measurables for jobs and so forth, and getting a redacted document is not necessarily where I want to be at the end of the day.

I'm not necessarily opposed eventually to going down this road. I think it is a possibility, but I think the motion we have before us is a strong, good motion, and we can do our work on it. I chose not to get one of those briefings, because I also didn't want to get myself inadvertently into a conflict of interest on the file and not be able to represent my constituents by getting an in camera briefing on something. I have a lot of reservations about supporting it at this moment in time.

Again, I think it does come from a good place. I don't think it's mischief. I don't think it's unreasonable, but at the same time, for me, it doesn't make a better process right now. I won't support it at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Brian.

I have Mr. Perkins.

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

Just in terms of time, we're not looking for hearings or anything, obviously. We're just talking about the release of the document that we've already seen and that it be made.... I don't think it should cause any angst, since it's the signed contract and we're not holding hearings on it. Volkswagen was asked before we saw it what they didn't want to show us for commercially sensitive reasons, and they exempted three elements of the contract. By inference that means everything else they were comfortable with from a commercial perspective or a commercially sensitive perspective.

I don't see any reason for there not to be transparency to support the government's position on these record-setting production contracts of $30 billion, where it's been all focused in one province. There haven't been any similar types of production subsidies. By the way, production subsidies are not something we normally do in any other province. Also, so that we actually see what it is that's claimed.... Because the minister has made claims that the PBO disputes already in terms of the payback time, the contract could help provide some certainty for the public out there that there aren't other things in the contract that are inconsistent—or consistent—with what the minister said publicly about them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm hearing pretty strong sentiments from others that we're perhaps not going to get to a vote today, so perhaps we want to talk about this in subcommittee. I'm uncomfortable with this without considering it in more detail. We need to think about how this could prejudice other deals and relationships in the future. We need to consider some of the aspects of how it's worded. With respect to the “no speaking restrictions” part, I think what we're saying is that something we've reviewed in camera as part of our parliamentary privilege would be made public. I think we need to consider—very strongly consider—what the ramifications or unintended consequences of that might be.

I feel as though we may be able to achieve a path forward on this, but I think we need a little bit more time. If members would agree to defer this to the subcommittee, I think we could talk it through in a reasonable manner and hopefully find a path forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Vis, go ahead.