Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

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

—a national contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, hold on one moment. There's a point of order.

Mr. Perkins.

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

This is about the four auto contracts. It has nothing to do with shipyards, absolutely nothing. You have to stick to the motion.

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

This has broader implications, Mr. Perkins.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please bring it to the amendment.

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

Yes. We are looking at revealing the contracts for four manufacturers related to the auto sector. You don't think that other industry partners are looking at this and are concerned about the precedent that's being set here? How would shipyards in Quebec, which deal with sensitive military information because they have military clients, feel about this? How would they feel if all of a sudden on a $5-billion contract we revealed the confidential agreement and contract?

I don't see Irving or Davie or others publicizing their contracts and their information so that their competitors can get a competitive edge. What are we doing here? This completely undermines our entire industrial strategic policy.

What are we doing? Shipyards, naval ships, aerospace.... You think automotive jealously guards its patents, trade secrets and information. Aerospace, one of the most highly competitive secretive industries because every single piece of information is parsed and has strategic value.... What message do we send to our aerospace manufacturers when we say that we are willing to publish confidential agreements at the drop of a hat? Where is the responsibility?

Where is the responsibility? For those workers who would be impacted—shipyards, aerospace, automotive, manufacturing—are we serious partners for manufacturing in this country? Heer Law is an IP company in Canada. It has a report titled “Statistics on the Value and Importance of Intellectual Property”, which asks:

How important is intellectual property? Intellectual property is an economic driver in Canada, the U.S., Europe, and increasingly around the globe: 51% of Canada's economy is represented by knowledge-based industries;—

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

I have a point of order. He's reading a patent document. There is no mention of the word “patent” in the amendment to the motion.

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

Oh my word—use your imagination, Mr. Perkins.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No. I think we have reached the point where we really need to please get back to the amendment as such, if we're ready, if we're done—

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

Mr. Chair, just let me finish—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, if we're done with discussing the amendment, we can vote on it and get to the motion that everyone seems to want to debate today, as opposed to the amendment.

Can we please get to the amendment? I'm happy to read it out again, but it seems very specific about restricting access to the contracts in camera for a very short period. Can we get to that amendment, please?

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

Mr. Chair, I would like the clerk to weigh in on this argument of repetition and what exactly.... If I can understand, because I see that argument being used over and over.... I'm trying to understand. Maybe the clerk can provide me information on what does that mean, repetition...? I'm asking the clerk to clarify what is meant by repetition because—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You cannot pose questions directly to the clerk. I'm happy to address it and then pass it over.

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

Mr. Chair, no, I'd like to continue speaking, as I do have some more things to say, but I'd like to know what repetition, in your mind, Mr. Chair, means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will read from the big green book, as it's referred to:

...the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.

It's something that's at my discretion. We always allow things to stray, but we should be on the amendment. There are a lot of things with a lot wider scope on the motion itself, and it seems that people are determined to debate the motion and not the amendment to the motion.

I'm very happy if we wish to vote on the amendment and we can move to the motion that everyone seems so preoccupied with. Until then, we are on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that, but I don't understand how you can rule that talking about protecting confidential information is not relative to an amendment that wants to protect confidential information. This is incredible. We're talking about the importance: Why is it important to protect confidential information in a manufacturing industrial setting? I'm hearing that it's not relevant to an amendment that's trying to protect confidential information...? What kind of Kafkaesque discussion are we having here? I don't understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If you look at the amendment itself—and I'm happy to read it—

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

Please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

—you will see that it talks about how, when documents are received from the clerk, they're available for the clerk's viewing. Nowhere does it state any concerns about losing businesses, business, investment, or those such issues that seem to be repeated again and again.

I sat through the public accounts committee with regard to the vaccines, it was exactly the same arguments made by Pfizer, Moderna, the government—PSPC—and various stakeholders. We actually had them in committee, and they admitted that, yes, they'd never had any business pull out of a contract. I don't see anything specific about the confidentiality, the worry about companies pulling out.

We always allow a very wide breadth at this committee, and I'm happy to continue that, but we do need to get closer to the amendment as such.

Again, we allow a wide breadth, but if we can get to the amendment itself....

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

This is why this is relevant. I am going to read part of the amendment to the motion. The new paragraph (f) states that the documents “be available at the clerk's office for viewing by committee members only, for one week to be designated by the committee no later than 30 days following the receipt of the contracts” and that “the supervision of the clerk and that no personal mobile, electronic or recording devices of any kind be permitted in the room”.

Why are we guarding confidential information? I would say that we're putting forward a reasonable path. We're allowing all members of Parliament around this table to take a look at the unredacted document, everything in it—everything—but at the same time, we're saying that we want to provide some safeguards here that keep certain information out of the public realm because it undermines the contracts. It undermines the confidentiality that, in the business world, the real world of business and industry, is absolutely vital. That's the point I'm making.

Again, as the Heer Law report states, “51% of Canada's economy is represented by knowledge-based industries”. Think about that for a second. What we do here, the precedent that we set here tonight, has the potential to impact half of Canadian companies—half—because they are knowledge-based industries. That's the precedent we're setting here today, and that's why we are being so careful with it, and responsible. Think about it: 51% of knowledge-based industries that care about confidentiality, care about trust, care about what information is shared.

My goodness, I talked about the shipyards. I talked about aerospace. Telecommunications is another sector—same thing. I can go down the list of all the industries—all the industries—that are based and operate on trust and confidentiality and that jealously guard their information and their strategies.

We are willing today.... We have a path forward, as put forward by my colleague, who has been in business, understands it, has been in the real world and understands the importance of confidentiality of agreements. He has put forward an amendment that achieves that, allowing us to have that level of accountability, of oversight, but protect Canada's position as a trusted leader, a trusted partner, with a reputation that we have spent decades building. That is why this is important in this committee. That is why it matters. That is why partners and stakeholders in our community need to know the discussions that are taking place here and the positions that MPs around this table are taking.

I'm not willing to undermine a $5-billion battery plant in my community for a TikTok video—good luck. I'm not going to sign up to that and I'm not going to sign up to weakening Canada's position as a trusted partner in manufacturing, in industry, in aerospace, in telecommunications. Trust is important.

We were sent here to represent our communities. It's a fundamental role of democracy. That is the sacred and hallowed contract between us and our communities. We understand that, and that's why we're putting forward the opportunity for members of Parliament representing their constituents to take a look at the contract. I'll tell you, I see the campaign of misinformation and disinformation whose sole purpose is to erode national support and trust in the battery plant that is so important to my community.

Now, we've opened up a second front. By this original motion, we want to undermine the world's trust in Canada. We've had $30 billion of foreign investment in just the last two years. We're number three in terms of foreign direct investment in the world. Countries are coming to partner with us to build things here and to lead the world here. Do we want to tell them that they can't trust us, that they can't be partners and that we don't believe in confidentiality? This is what's at stake here—this is what's at stake.

When companies can't trust the federal government and partner with us, and if we can't secure their information and their strategies—you can call it intellectual property, patents, strategies or information—then they're gone. They're gone.

Who pays the consequence? It's not the people around this table, I'll tell you that much. It's the workers. It's Canadian workers. When we are not acting responsibly, it's Canadians workers who pay the price, because the business goes elsewhere. Man, the margins are so tight when you're competing for investment.

We know that capital is mobile—it's global and can go anywhere—and we're literally giving them reasons to go elsewhere. We have 20 million Canadians working right now who are depending on us to make reasonable and responsible decisions.

There is an amendment here that is reasonable and responsible. I honestly cannot understand why that middle road, that middle way, the compromise and responsible path forward, is not adopted by the members of this committee. I don't understand it.

There are four companies here representing close to $30 billion of investment. There's Stellantis in Windsor. There's Volkswagen in St. Thomas, another community that has known hard times and has lost investment and manufacturing plants to other jurisdictions. There is Northvolt, a company that wants to set up shop in Quebec—3,000 workers in Quebec. You don't think they're looking at this circus and having second thoughts and having a pause? What kind of partners are we? There's Umicore in Loyalist, near Kingston, a rechargeable battery plant—again, thousands of workers. This is what we're putting on the line here.

I go back to President Lana Payne of Unifor and the article she published in the Windsor Star, which I believe was published nationally as well. Lana Payne is the president of Unifor nationally, which is the largest private sector union in all of Canada, with 300,000 members. The title of her opinion piece is “Canadians deserve better than misinformed battery plant debate”. They certainly deserve better. This is what Lana Payne writes:

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The famous quote from American author and funny-man Mark Twain helps summarize the firestorm surrounding Windsor’s NextStar battery plant.

What started as an innocuous social media post from, of all groups, the Windsor Police Service has become a fire-and-brimstone level debate in this country.

It's a national debate.

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

I have a point of order.

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

We are discussing national issues of importance here in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Excuse me, Mr. Kusmierczyk, but Mr. Perkins has a point of order.

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

I think that's the third time this member has read that same newspaper article into the record.

[An hon. member]

No, this is the first time.