Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

You're being generous.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I know.

Can we take any conversations outside? It is also especially difficult for those listening on translation.

Mr. Sousa, go ahead.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, you are being generous. I'm not sure how many people are actually watching this, but I think many of them will actually pay attention to what's written. I think members of the industry, stakeholders, union workers, investors and other jurisdictions around the world will be paying attention to what we conclude. They'll want to know if we're to be trusted. Can we do business in Canada where we will provide agreements that are subject to commercial confidentiality, that cannot and should not be disclosed—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Perkins, please go ahead.

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

Once again there is a repetition issue. He keeps saying the same thing over and over again about some sort of mysterious commercial harm that'll be done in some theoretical, fairy-dust world that the member lives in. I ask him to stop repeating, as per the rules I pointed out earlier in the big green book we all abide by.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Sousa, please continue, but be aware of the ongoing issue that we're dealing with today, which is the relatively narrower scope of the amendment.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am listening to the obstructions by the member opposite and others, and the issue of the fairytale. This is a serious matter, and the amendment that I have put forward is a serious matter.

The member opposite is suggesting that this is a fairytale. These are real jobs, real investments, real money and real economic growth. We have now been able to achieve a tremendous number of investments and foreign direct investments that would not have happened if we were not there negotiating and supporting them.

The member opposite doesn't like to hear about the amendment that provides the ability to review the documents while still maintaining confidential information. Confidentiality, in the end, is at the heart of the issue. He wants to suggest otherwise.

I say, once again, that the partnership in this is not just the Government of Canada having a contract with foreign workers or foreign companies that are bringing in skill sets and building construction to the tune of $3 billion to $5 billion of their money first. It is more than that, and the agreements will specify some of that.

We're going to give the opportunity for that to be reviewed, but with sensitivity around those confidential matters. That is why I am reaffirming, in my discussions here, what LG Energy is saying, what Stellantis is saying, what the mayor of Windsor is saying, what the union leaders are saying, and what the Conservative Government of Ontario is saying.

The details are confidential, so that means that they need to do due diligence to have that completed before disclosures. Disclosures will occur. Plant constructions are scheduled to begin later this year, with production operations planned to launch some time in 2024 and the facility to be operational by 2025. We don't want to jeopardize that opportunity.

To say that somehow this is all a fairytale is at the crux of why the amendment has been put forward. It is about dealing with the facts. The fairytales and the fairy dust that is sprinkled around this deal are manufactured through innuendoes and misinformation. It is unfortunate that this is done in such a way to dismantle and jeopardize those very jobs that are coming to this country.

The member opposite has suggested that things are broken, that there's nefarious activity, and that somehow all of these negotiations were done on the back of an envelope. I have no idea where he's getting his information. We will provide that information. The amendment enables that to occur, and I would encourage us to be sensitive about the confidential matters as a result.

I have restated—and I don't want to repeat myself—for the benefit of the member. I don't want to reaffirm that, but let's bring it into another context, then, for the benefit of the discussion around this amendment.

If we look at all of our different ridings across this country, we will see that the supply chain that comes from this investment, an enablement of this investment in Windsor, in Hamilton and in northern Ontario, where we're doing some of the mining for this battery operation has a huge pickup for Canada.

There are ripple effects that are not even based in this contract, but we know the economic benefit will occur. I just implore us to be sensitive to that, too, and to think long term. Avoid election psychopolitics, please. Stop considering this as what you're going to do tomorrow for your YouTube hit, what you're going to do for your social media or what kind of partisan stuff we're going to do. Forget that for now.

Consider what it really means for your future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future and what it means for Canada to be at the forefront of a new economy and a green economy. Do not put that at risk. Allow this amendment to proceed in a way that protects those confidential matters.

You have a duty and a responsibility to do that. You are the member and representative, not just for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party; you are a representative for Canada. You need to do what's right, and this enables us to do what's right for that reason.

Mr. Chair, I will take a break for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

When you were saying “you”, I am assuming you meant me.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I meant you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, I will be worrying about my kids' future.

Next up is Mr. Jowhari, please. Then we have Ms. Atwin, Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Mr. Berthold.

Go ahead, sir.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask for my colleagues' indulgence for about a minute or two so that we don't have the relevance conversation because, in my initial intervention, I talked about five elements. I talked about the willing partner. I talked about the transparency and the way we are being transparent. I talked about the fact that we need to keep the integrity of the process. I talked about the accountability. I talked about the fact that the hiring plan submitted to the Government of Canada during the process of incentive negotiation is available, regardless of whether what we're going to look at is redacted or unredacted.

This conversation started as, “Oh, my god, we're going to lose 1,600 jobs. All these jobs are going to be taken over by foreign workers.” I think that myth is being demystified. Now we've realized, “Oh my god, there is a hiring plan.” This hiring plan is actually talking about some labour, some experts coming in on a temporary basis to train our guys, to implement the hiring plan and to make sure the system is safe. Then they're going to move away.

Now, what is left? What is left to talk about is, “Why don't you guys want to publicize the contract? Why don't you want to have it open?” Well, that's where the sixth element comes into play. That element is responsibility. That responsibility is talking about the risk of us making full disclosure, as opposed to calling it “secrecy”.

What is the risk of us actually making this contract fully public and open without us even having had the opportunity to look at it?

I'd like to go back to the notion of reasonable doubt. Is there reasonable doubt that by making publicly available the unredacted contract there could be any risk as to the current investment, or a potential loss of the jobs that we are already counting on?

I also want you to think about whether there other investments and other negotiations ongoing that could potentially be put on pause and move Canada from the leadership position that we are in. That brings doubt to the countries and to the organizations that have cautiously made the decision to come to Canada and invest and are in the process of negotiation.

Will they think, “If somebody doesn't like it, then something shows up in social media. Now all of a sudden, they're going to say, 'let's make that contract public'”?

Think about putting this contract up. Potentially, individuals who are in ongoing negotiations will look at the terms of the contract and say, “We are not competitive,” or, “We should be more competitive,” or, “Oh, we're way too competitive.”

There is a risk. This risk is an unintended consequence.

As MPs, as representatives of Canadians, as the ones who have fiduciary responsibility to make sure that we mitigate risk, are we actually introducing a risk, an unintended consequence, by opening up the contract that puts the Government of Canada, the leadership in the world and investors coming to Canada at risk?

What would happen if we were considering exporting our SMRs or our CANDU reactors to a different part of the world, and all of a sudden the terms of the contract and our intellectual property were going to be opened?

What would we think as the Canadian government? Do we want to operate in that environment?

Now that we are over the fact that there is no ticking bomb, that there aren't 1,600 foreign workers coming over to take over the jobs, we're going to say that the real issue is that we should make the contract public, which is more risky.

I talked about the fact that it is our responsibility to mitigate risk. How we mitigate risk is by managing the disclosure of the document. How we manage risk is by ensuring that we make that document open to all of us. We are the representatives of Canadians—at least I'm the representative of the 100,000 people in my riding. They trust me; they voted me here. I'm going to have access to that document. I'm going to look at it. I'm going to ask what sections of it are going to get redacted and if it is going to put Canada at risk. I'm going to ask that question because, one way or another, we as members of Parliament, regardless of the motion and how it goes, are going to get access to the unredacted contract, and we're going to read that contract in a room.

I'm not willing to be part of a group of MPs who are going to put the interests of Canada and the interests of Canadian workers at risk by not thinking about unintended consequences. I'm not going to put the fact that our government proactively may be negotiating other terms, other battery plants.... How about if you're negotiating on the technology around carbon capture?

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

I have a point of order.

We just had, in the last two or three minutes, a total repetition of what he said in the first few minutes of his speech. He's going back to this theoretical—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

With all due respect—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Just let him—

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

I would invoke the repetition provisions of page 1059 of the big green book: that you're not to repeat when you're filibustering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do disagree with my colleagues. I am trying to highlight various risks that are associated with the position that the colleagues opposite are taking. I'm trying to give examples of what these risks mean and how it's going to impact....

The impact, at the end of the day, is about the fact that the risk of exposure, without our initially reviewing it, is high. I'm asking that we raise reasonable doubt. Let's look at the fact that there is reasonable doubt, that if we go back and make public an unredacted document, we may run the risk of nullifying a contract that exists. We may put 2,500 jobs, plus the 1,600 jobs that are making the plant, at risk. The plant, in a week, is about ready to install the machinery. Are we ready to take that risk? Is my colleague across the aisle, whom I listened to very carefully and very attentively when he was talking passionately about the jobs in Windsor, willing...?

MP Masse, are you willing to put those 2,500 jobs, plus the 1,600 jobs, at risk as a result of an unintended consequence? Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that our publicly reviewing an unredacted contract...? There is a reasonable risk. That's going to be the issue. That's the heart of the issue. That's the heart of the amendment. The heart of the amendment—now that we know there is no labour-related ticking bomb—is the fact that we have to be responsible.

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

I have a point of order.

I think we should allow MP Masse to answer the question posed to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Masse will eventually have his turn.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm not sure if Mr. Jowhari wants to go down that road, but yes.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I listened to Brian for hours, and I believe I was the only one who was listening to him.

What are we going to tell Canadians? If there is reasonable doubt that we are exposing ourselves by making this disclosure as an unintended consequence, are we going to tell Canadians that we're sorry? What are we going to tell those 2,500 employees? What are we going to tell Stellantis and our other partners internationally? We are sorry; we thought there was a ticking bomb. There is no ticking bomb. There are no international laws any more, because we decided to respond to an article from CBC or social media posts, or something like that. Is that what Canada has come to?

As I said, if you are sitting at the negotiation table and are watching this, you're going to say, “Holy crap, is this what contracts and disclosures are going to look like?”

All I ask is a simple question. I would really love to know how many contracts our government is negotiating and how many of those are on pause because they're actually looking at the outcome of this committee. If you think this is irrelevant, I beg to differ. This is extremely relevant. Why? It's because we are risking many things. We are risking the Canada that has set itself to be a leader. We are risking the fact that we are saying that Canada is a safe place to invest. We are risking jobs. Therefore, it is extremely relevant.

We're at the point when we have come to suggest, as an amendment, “Let's look at the contract, unredacted.” We will ask, as input, from Stellantis or whoever designed the contract, which parts are extremely confidential. We will have a real look at it unredacted. We'll look at the contract and we'll get an idea of what needs to be redacted.

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

Let the company decide that.