Industry Committee on Nov. 21st, 2023

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to ask this: What will we do if the company wants to redact the contract heavily? Will the Conservatives be satisfied with that? Will other members be satisfied with that?

It seems to me, or I anticipate, that if you're admitting that we don't have control over the level of redactions that will be included, the members opposite will be disappointed if they don't have information that they're looking for. To me there's an advantage to reviewing contracts that are lightly redacted in camera if you're really interested in getting the answers you want. To me that seems quite reasonable, and I've offered that as the amendment.

Maybe we just want to vote on the amendment and then debate the motion further, but I'm hoping that we can get to some consensus on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MP Turnbull, I guess the answer to my question is that I will leave it in the capable hands of Stellantis and the government to abide by the agreement that's probably there about Stellantis's ability to choose what is commercially sensitive and not. I know that in the case of Volkswagen, they redacted only three parts of it. I suspect that Volkswagen didn't trust that any politician would keep it secret no matter what they showed us. I'm willing to live with it at this stage and see what the contract produces publicly and what Stellantis is willing to put out in public. We'll look at it from there.

I appreciate the offer, MP Turnbull. I really do appreciate the offer to allow us access in private the way we had it through the Volkswagen contract, but at this stage I'd be much more comfortable saying that these contracts.... I think both of them should be public, but in this case we're dealing specifically with the motion about the plant in Windsor and the contract around that. I'm talking about the two contracts. Remember, there are two contracts, the SIF contract and the production subsidy contract.

I'm willing to see what Stellantis is willing to let go public.

I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Van Bynen, you have the floor.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, there has been a considerable amount of discussion around the impact of the amendments. I would just like to get some clarification.

I wonder if we could suspend for a few moments to have a look at the text and look at this amendment in the context of the total motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll suspend, but very, very briefly. It's been in your inboxes for a while now, while this has been discussed.

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

It's a government amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's a fair point too, Mr. Perkins. It's an amendment from the Liberal side.

I'm tempted not to suspend, actually, Mr. Van Bynen. I'm looking around the room to see if there's a need for it. I don't sense it.

Mr. Lemire, do you need us to suspend for—

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

Mr. Chair, I would never dare challenge your decision and authority. I stand by your rigour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's on the record.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm really concerned that we'll be disclosing to the public things that could be commercially sensitive. I think that could have a negative impact on further deals. It could have a negative impact on the Government of Canada's ability to negotiate.

I think these deals come with some pretty substantive agreements that are worked out and negotiated over time. I think companies would feel they are quite sensitive.

I'm a little confused as to what the objective really is here, if members aren't willing to get more information and clarity in camera. Is this really about revealing unredacted copies to the public, having that information out there and undermining the ability of some of these companies to attract further investment?

It seems like a pretty counterproductive thing. That's what's in the original motion. If members intended to get to the bottom of this, you'd think they would actually vote for more information, and access to more information would be better.

I'm still a bit confused as to what the intent is here. I'm sure it's not to undermine future investments or negotiations between Canada and other countries. I'm hopeful it's not to reveal things that are within those contracts that shouldn't be held in anything but the strictest confidentiality. Maybe members want to comment on that. It still strikes me as a bit of a sticking point here. I'm trying to understand the motivations of my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you.

The motivation's simple: It's transparency. It's $15 billion of taxpayer money going to subsidize one of the largest foreign auto companies in the world. There should be transparency on where it's going.

I understand that there may be something that's really commercially sensitive in this, but I didn't see it when I read the Volkswagen contract. With most of the issues, either the minister's talked about them or they're in the IRA, so I don't know why the Liberals are afraid of them.

Apparently Marc Miller, your colleague and a minister of the Crown, just tweeted, “South Koreans are eligible to work at NextStar EV factory”. What is it? Are they not allowed to, or are they allowed to? Perhaps we should listen to a minister of the Crown.

Going forward, that's why we need transparency. We need to hear from witnesses on the public contract and what the company is willing to put out about what's going on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Gaheer.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I appreciate the comments, but respectfully, I don't think the intention of the original motion was about the $15 billion. It was really about local jobs. Is that right? I think that's what the 106(4) meeting was about.

Mr. Perkins, you already know those numbers, based on what's been clearly identified by the minister. Isn't it really just a verification that those numbers are in this contract?

To me, we're saying, “No problem; we can provide a lightly redacted version of it in camera for you to verify.” That's contrary to what you've claimed, which is that somehow the minister is not being forthright and transparent about this. If it's really about transparency, isn't it about seeing whether those numbers we've been saying publicly are actually reflected in the contract?

As per the minister's comments, I have the article in which the minister said very clearly that under Prime Minister Harper, a free trade agreement was negotiated with South Korea. It has reciprocity as well. It allows for South Korean workers to come to Canada. The Conservatives set it up, and now you're concerned about local jobs.

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

I'm concerned about the contract.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You're concerned about the local jobs of workers, yet you're the party that allowed South Koreans to come here without a visa in previous—

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull, there's a point of order by Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay. I hope it's a point of order.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I'm sure Mr. Turnbull's not trying to say that you would be responsible, Mr. Chair. If the member would kindly go through you when making his outlandish accusations, that would be fantastic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's duly noted.

If it's possible, given the context of this discussion, speak through the chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure, yes, absolutely....

To me, there's a very clear indication in Minister Miller's remarks that were quoted in the CBC article very clearly that the free trade agreement allows South Korean workers to come to Canada. Those are called intercompany transfers, individuals who are helping train people and get facilities started at the first-ever battery manufacturing facility in Canada. One would expect some of those South Korean workers, who are highly trained and skilled, to come to Canada to ensure that Canadian workers can learn the skills they need. I understand that some of those skills and some of those jobs require a specific skill set. That's not to mention that companies have very specific ways in which they want to train their workers, and part of that is a part of their brand.

If members want to debate this further, we can continue, or maybe we are prepared to move to a vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand that on the Liberal side, there's a willingness to proceed with the vote, but I still have some speakers. I have Mr. Masse and Mr. Vis.

Go ahead, Brian.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I call for the vote, Mr. Chair.