Evidence of meeting #97 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We should ensure that the interpreters receive the motion so that it can be interpreted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Wait a moment, Mr. Lemire.
I notice that it says “2 hours” in French. However, we're talking about 6 hours?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I understand that we are doing this on the fly, as was mentioned before, but the witnesses would be the ones listed by Mr. Masse, not the ones of the original motion.
You've all heard Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I'm looking around the table to see if there is consensus on this proposed amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are there any other amendments or comments on the main motion?
Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have another amendment to propose here, and I hope we can get to a consensus on it.
We have spoken about contracts in the past, and members have wanted them to be made public, in a sense, or for the committee be allowed to view those contracts. I want to propose something that is a good compromise that is building off a precedent that was implemented for the VW contracts prior.
Maybe I'll propose the wording, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, this is not a part of the witness list that was proposed by Mr. Masse. It's really the part that's dealing with all documents related to government funding, Canada job creation, etc.
This would be my proposal for the amended wording: “and the committee request the contract with Stellantis-LG regarding NextStar EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor, Ontario, with job numbers unredacted, in both official languages upon adoption of the motion; that the contract be available at the clerk's office for viewing by committee members for a minimum of 48 hours before the meeting, under the supervision of the clerk, and that no personal mobile, electronic or recording devices of any kind be permitted in the room that week, and that no notes be taken out of the room, and that the committee meet with ISED officials in camera following the viewing of the contract.”
In essence, as permanent members on this committee, we'd all have access to the contract for no less than 48 hours prior to meeting with the ISED officials, and we'd also see the unredacted job numbers. Obviously, there are still some redactions that are necessary, but the job numbers would be unredacted, and it would be in both official languages, of course.
I'm just reviewing that. I can send along an email with the proposed language if you'd like.
Thanks.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
I appreciate, Mr. Turnbull, the purpose of the amendment.
For those who may not know, when we had a similar motion and viewed the Volkswagen contracts, the jobs weren't redacted. It was other things that were redacted—the construction schedule and the production numbers—so that's not a fear.
It's a little challenging and difficult for us to question witnesses in a study on this if we actually don't get access to any form of this contract publicly. The rules of seeing them in confidence is that you can't talk about the contract.
I will oppose this amendment simply because I'm not going have my hands tied about what I can and cannot ask the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
All right.
It's clear for all what the terms of the amendment are.
Mr. Turnbull, I see that you want to....
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I just wanted to say that I think if we had a meeting with ISED officials in camera, we could speak to them and question them about the contract. It just wouldn't be able to be in public, obviously. I think that removes the challenges with having seen something that would normally not be given public access. We could maybe deal with it that way. That way members could be assured they would be able to ask the questions that they want to ask the ISED officials. That, to me, seems like a good compromise.
I know we've said six hours of meetings. I'm thinking three meetings. The committee might choose to break it up in different ways. It might be an extra hour per meeting. I'd rather see us do it in three two-hour meetings. That way we would get the ministers in one meeting. I think the ambassador and any other witnesses would be in another meeting, and then probably there would be a third meeting, which would be to review the contract, unredacted job numbers.... Mr. Perkins said that those numbers were unredacted in the previous Volkswagen contract. That's great. Members would get the answers to their questions. Then they could ask questions of the ISED officials. That might be a way we could move forward on this.
I would be interested to know what members of the various parties think.
I'll be sending along the wording of the proposed amendment right now.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just prefer to keep what we have in place at the moment. I thought we were working towards consensus. I'm kind of surprised that this wasn't part of what we previously had. I'm hoping that we can actually....
Procedurally, I'm a little bit confused about whether this is another subamendment or a separate motion outside of what took place. We kind of took a break from dealing with the last one and then having this thrust upon us is kind of unusual. We just dealt with the Liberal amendment during the break.
I'll be quick, as I see Mr. Turnbull has his hand up. I'll let him explain that.
I also want this to be purposeful with regard to the meetings. I don't understand how, if we did what was suggested, it would make our meetings purposeful.
This is about more than just the Windsor jobs; this is about setting a precedent and also setting an expectation that we can get jobs for Canadians in Quebec, in other parts of Ontario and also in British Columbia. I just want to keep that in focus.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I understand completely that it's a bit confusing to have two amendments on the fly like this. I'm reacting to different pieces of what's been—
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm sorry. Mr. Turnbull is not coming across. We've lost the audio.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes, I can hear you, Mr. Chair. It's just Mr. Turnbull, but I know that his mike was on.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I was just going to say to Mr. Masse that I totally appreciate the challenges with working on the fly like this. I think we're all amending on the fly, and I appreciate your patience with that. I'm putting things forward that relate to different pieces and my reactions to a motion.
I think it's important, though, that we all agree that there is commercially sensitive information in these contracts. I think we can all agree that we wouldn't want to inhibit future contracts or inhibit the companies in terms of that sensitive information. I think it has to be kept confidential.
We're offering a solution here so that we, as members of Parliament, as permanent members of this committee, can view those contracts. It's consistent with the way we dealt with the VW contract at the committee, and I think it makes sense. I think members had that opportunity before.
I would just say that we need to both make sure that the sensitive commercial information is protected and also that Canada as a whole is not undermined in terms of its ability to negotiate. I think this is a pretty fair compromise so that members can get to the bottom of it and have questions asked and answered based on viewing those documents.
Thanks.
Liberal
