Evidence of meeting #118 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Perkins. It will be really quick.
The Building Trades Unions have issued a statement in a letter to me and they've also put it up on their social media, I believe, saying that they do not want the motion to proceed.
I wanted the member to be aware of that, but I do appreciate his intervention. I just wanted to make sure that's on the record. I'll read that into the record at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you.
That's not a point of order, but I always appreciate an intervention.
Mr. Perkins, go ahead.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I appreciate MP Masse's intervention. I know that he's worked hard on these issues, but I'm just quoting from their letter, unless they're denying that they sent the letter.
I'm citing Government of Canada job postings. There's a Government of Canada Job Bank. These are on the Government of Canada site for Windsor. It says that there may be some overtime for this material handling by Jeil Special Canada Inc. They're one of the recruiting companies being used by NextStar.
It says here: “Who can apply for this job? Other candidates with or without a valid Canadian work permit.” You don't even need to have a valid Canadian work permit. I can tell you, having read the Stellantis contract, that you don't even have to be a Canadian to get the jobs. There is no clause in the contract that requires that.
On NextStar here, I went through it this morning. I said that about “general affairs”. This is from NextStar. That's their logo. A general affairs specialist is basically an office management/administrative position. It says that it requires “Fluency in Korean”. I don't know how many—and perhaps I should know this—fluent Korean unemployed people there are in Windsor, but apparently that's what's required to work at the plant. There's another one for a general affairs specialist on the website by one of the job things. Jeil says for this one again, material handler, Korean is needed.
In order to speed things up and not read all the jobs that were listed, here are some highlighted ones. As I said, a general affairs specialist requires fluency in Korean; for electrode quality engineer, bilingual in English and Korean; for module production planner, English and Korean proficiency; and it goes on, process quality engineer.... These are not specialist jobs. We have office managers in Canada. We have office managers in Windsor.
If I gave the benefit of the doubt to the government, which I tend not to do, because they seem to have been either not reading it or.... When I asked the minister months ago in committee if he had read the VW contract, basically he said no. When you sign a $15-billion subsidy contract I think you would, especially if you're a corporate lawyer like he is. I wouldn't imagine that he would give any client advice that says, “Don't read the contract you're about to sign.” I don't think that's legitimate legal advice that I've ever heard a lawyer give. I don't know.... Maybe the government says otherwise.
This is why we're here having this discussion. When you look at it, there is page after page of NextStar in the media saying one thing and changing their expectations on the other. I talked about some of the quotes from the Windsor Star. There are quotes from NextStar, where they said, no, there are no foreign workers...well, maybe there are a few, maybe there are 600 in the construction, maybe there are 600 in the permanent jobs, maybe there are none in the permanent....
If the company is confused, no wonder Canadians are confused. If the contract were not confused and said in the contract “Canadian workers only”, or maybe even “Canadian union workers only”.... I know that doesn't apply to the MOU with Honda that's been signed because they're not a unionized auto business, but Stellantis is. It seemed like a pretty obvious thing to put in the contract both for the construction and for the permanent jobs, “Canadian union jobs only”. Not Canadian residents, because anybody could be a resident.... Anybody can come here from Korea, come here from Mexico...“now I'm a resident”.
Now, some have claimed that's what may or may not be there, and that it says, “Canadian resident”. “Canadian resident” isn't Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and it doesn't say “Canadian job”. Clearly, the company and the ambassador are thinking something very different, because this issue has been out there quite a bit and we had the famous announcement on Honda recently—last week—where Honda was asked, “Why didn't you get a production subsidy?”, and they said it was because the government said they had run out of money.
I think that's the first time I'd heard the federal Liberals say that they had run out of money. It didn't look like it in the budget, with a $40-billion deficit and no sign of balancing it.
They said that they had run out of money, but they said that between them and the Ontario government, they would give $5 billion of input tax credits.
A plant that Honda is proposing, which I understand is much bigger and producing more batteries than what these two plants do combined, will actually cost a lot less than the subsidy that is in the contracts for Stellantis and Volkswagen.
If they are out of money now, why weren't they out of money when Volkswagen came knocking or when Stellantis came knocking for Volkswagen's deal? Why didn't they say, “Sorry, we don't have that kind of money. We can do some input tax credits, but we're not going to do that kind of thing. If you want to come here and get access to our critical minerals, to our excellent workforce, to our well-educated and well-trained workers, and eventually create a supply chain for EV battery manufacturing parts, come on down. We'll give you some input tax credits.”
That's a tax credit for actually making something—for building it. It wouldn't cost anywhere near this 100% battery subsidy.
I guess when the political pressure came along after the first two on the foreign replacement workers, the government finally said that they have to do this differently. I don't know what the Minister of Finance said. Maybe it was that she could only borrow $40 billion this year, so she can't add any more; she's only added $800 billion to the national debt, so she can't borrow more to subsidize companies that are larger than the Government of Canada, so she'll only do input tax credits.
It looks to me to be about half or maybe even less than half of that. Now, I'm sure they'll still get the accelerated capital cost allowances that the Liberals put in previous budgets to pile on top of the 10% tax credits for this.
In question period today, when I asked the minister the question, he energetically defended bad deal after bad deal and said that somehow I was “spreading disinformation”. I had actually read the contract. He admitted that he hadn't, but I was spreading disinformation.
If he had read the contract.... I ask him to just release the clauses from all the contracts that deal with jobs. Let's see the clauses that prohibit foreign replacement workers in those contracts. Release those. I challenge the minister and I challenge Liberals as I did in the House today. If I'm wrong...release the contracts. Release the clauses. Prove me wrong. I'll admit I'm wrong if they release the contracts or the clauses and show me that it guarantees that only Canadians will be working at both the construction and at the permanent jobs in this.
The Liberal Party ran holier-than-thou-ish in 2015 by saying that disinfectant is the best sunshine to show what's going on in government, but time after time in this committee and other committees, the Liberals have refused to even admit that what the ambassador from Korea was saying is right. They refuse to acknowledge that what the union is saying is right. They have refused to say, “I'm sorry, you're right. We should have provided more specific language in the contracts, but we'll work on it. We'll set up. Maybe we'll go back and do an amendment.”
Of course, the company writes to committees here in Parliament claiming that they want to hire Canadian workers, but then they turn around publicly and allow foreign replacement workers in.
I don't know if that's misleading Parliament or not—when they submit letters to this committee and others claiming that they're hiring nothing but Canadian workers and then do the opposite in reality. Perhaps they don't know the consequences of misleading Parliament. We might ask the owners of GC Strategies how that feels.
On this issue, I would love to be proved wrong. I would love the Liberal members to prove me wrong. Release the clauses and the contracts. Show Canadians that you negotiated contracts that require Canadian workers only. Show those to us. That's all. Show us the money, from that famous movie. Put your money where your mouth is if you're saying they say this. Release those clauses.
However, they haven't been willing to. Again, I'll remind people—even if I hadn't read the contracts—that they haven't been willing to do that, which tells you, in itself, that they're hiding something. Since I have read the contracts, I know that those clauses are not there. I can't talk about what's in the contracts, but I can talk about what's not there, and what's not there is a Canadian job guarantee.
Mr. Chair, I think that there is ample evidence that we continue to require these contracts—I personally would like to have officials come—that we release these contracts or any element of the job clauses that are in them. If you're afraid that somehow the contracts list the number of batteries that some house...or that there's some sort of proprietary technology that's covered in these contracts and that Stellantis or Volkswagen doesn't want their proprietary battery technology displayed, you could redact it. However, I can tell you, having read the contracts, that there are no proprietary technology clauses in the contracts. There is nothing to that end in the contracts.
In fact, when we got to look at the Volkswagen contract, the only thing they redacted was the number of batteries that they thought they might produce every year, but it took a grade 12 student about five minutes to figure it out from the other numbers. They also redacted the construction schedule for some strange reason. It was odd. They redacted the construction contract, but everything else was there.
As you would expect in any contract that the government signs that is supposedly commercially sensitive, the signatory—the private sector company—would have the ability, you would think, to have a clause in there that says that before they release any contract publicly or any part of the contract, somehow they get a shot at deciding which parts of that contract get released to politicians and the public and which don't. They're dealing with the government, so they know that some things have to be made public if they're going to take taxpayer money. I would expect that those clauses are there. I don't think this committee would ask that the government abrogate those provisions in the contract that allow the company to protect commercially sensitive....
I think that's why MP Masse, in his motion before this committee before Christmas, was suggesting a third party of some sort to arbitrate that and figure out what should be in. It's not that we don't trust the government, but some third party, like the law clerk of the House of Commons—or I think MP Masse suggested the Information Commissioner—should arbitrate. If the company says that these things are commercially sensitive, there should be a fact check, a reality check, from a neutral body, like the law clerk or the Information Commissioner, to see whether those are truly commercially sensitive or whether it's just playing politics because somebody negotiated a bad contract and didn't want the job clauses released because they're vulnerable.
We all expect that those terms, if they exist in the contract, would be respected, but we want them.... Trust but verify, I think, was the intent of MP Masse's motion that we do that. However, the government hasn't even been willing to do that. The government has not even been willing to ask Volkswagen and Stellantis to tell it which clauses they don't want released to Canadian taxpayers so that it can have a third party look at them to make sure that the government isn't playing politics.
The government hasn't even been willing to do that. I think that's a reasonable request, too, but it's been rejected.
We keep getting these issues in spite of this. This could have all been solved in December, when these motions were being discussed, by doing as MP Masse suggested. We didn't, so here we are again, where we have foreign replacement workers coming into Windsor. We have gotten to that obscene position where they're taking Canadian workers off the job site who are not specialized Korean secret sauce. “Our battery is this, therefore we have to have special technicians.”
When you take your car to your corner garage rather than the dealership—if you have a relatively new car—they say, “Rick, I'd like to repair that, but you have to take that into Volkswagen because there's a special tool to undo that part.”
4:15 p.m.
A voice
Right to repair....
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The right to repair legislation.... You have that person and that interest. It's a bit of a monopolistic game that car companies play, because nobody can buy that tool unless they're a dealer. It forces you to pay twice the labour rate at a dealership than you would pay at your local garage.
It's that type of thing. It's saying, “There's a guy with the specialized tool for the specialized machine in Stellantis who needs to be installing this, because they have a special training.” That's not what the union is complaining about. The union recognizes that. I still don't know why you would need 1,000 of them out of 1,600 construction workers. That's not what the union is complaining about. The union is complaining about forklift drivers. The government is doing other ones here on the permanent jobs—as they get ready for these plants to open—that have absolutely nothing to do with specialized requirements and skills. There is no special requirement, other than the experience somebody has in Canada, to be an office manager. Yet, that's what they're advertising for.
I've probably gone on as much as MP Kusmierczyk did, so I will conclude here. I may come back on the issue that we need to have that disinfectant sunshine by releasing these contracts—which the Liberals knocked on doors saying we needed in the government.
Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's shocking to hear, yet again, a repeat of what we went through only a few months ago when we were talking about the sensitivity, competitive nature and proprietary information at hand, in terms of releasing some of this information. The member opposite just admitted to having reviewed one of the contracts, notwithstanding the duty of confidentiality he's obliged to. He's yapping on about stuff that's not in the contract, inferring what should be in the contract.
Recognizing, of course, that there are other competitors in play and other matters of confidentiality—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I would never refer to the former Ontario finance minister's dissertation as “yapping”—even though he delivered poor budgets—so I would ask him to use more respectful language.
Thank you.
April 29th, 2024 / 4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Point well taken, and there were actually six budgets, one that I did twice, I have to say. I balanced the budget, and the one that I did twice was actually the one that gave us a majority government going forward.
With regard to the matter that the member has mentioned, I do apologize for using that term, but the gums were going so much and you didn't take a drink and I was just a bit concerned about you. I'm glad that you're relaxing a little bit now and allowing yourself to take a bit of a rest.
I'm not going to go on too much more here, Mr. Chair. We have already discussed the sensitivities of these contracts. It's essential that we do not breach some of the confidential aspects that enable us to compete against other jurisdictions around the world. It's also a matter of reputation for Canada, to allow us to be known as a secure partner in these endeavours.
When it comes to jobs, I'm going to allow our colleague from the NDP to elaborate upon some of the very discussions he's been having with members of the union, who only days ago were tweeting out that they appreciate and support the work that's being done and look forward to enabling that contract to take fulfillment. Then we can then elaborate more clearly on what's involved and dissertate on some of the issues that have been raised by chambers of commerce and others. They are cautious and very distressed by the engagement that was taken in OGGO and by some of the members in this committee who are trying to advocate for open and transparent aspects of the contract that then put at risk the deals as we go forward.
We all want to safeguard jobs. We all want to ensure that Canada succeeds. We all want to create innovation and investment in industry, and that's exactly what we're doing. It's unfortunate that the member opposite doesn't appreciate that, or the members of the Conservative Party, for that matter, don't seem to appreciate the necessity of us being at the forefront of these issues.
I'll stop there, Mr. Chair. I do look forward to getting a better understanding of what the union is actually saying in regard to this contract and these investments that are being made in Canada.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as a guest back at committee here.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, there's unfinished business, and I'm not too terribly surprised that we're back here.
Mr. Perkins has been on this file for a long time, not only just at this committee, but also at industry, and he raises a lot of valid concerns and points. I think that comes because we don't have a national auto policy that's transparent, something I've been after for a long period of time. We have had, in the past, some of that structure, and that's missing, and so inasmuch as these deals are different, that creates questions and concerns, and obviously the Building Trades Unions have had some discomfort recently and issued a letter to the Prime Minister.
I did reach out to them today, because that's why we're here. We have this motion in front of us and with their interest in mind, and currently this doesn't happen with their support because they feel things are sensitive at the moment and they do appreciate it. I'm going to read the statement they sent to me so it's on the record.
Canada’s Building Trades Unions is aware of the ongoing discussions at OGGO. While we are pleased that all parties are concerned with Canadian unionized jobs, we do not believe it is in the interest of our ongoing discussions in pursuit of MoUs with global automakers for a such an expansive production order to be proceeded with at the current time, while sensitive negotiations are being undertaken. At minimum, we believe such disclosures should be limited to only jobs forecasts, and only then with Nextstar. Our preference would be to revisit this issue in one month and allow all parties to conclude negotiations.
That's from Sean Strickland, CBTU.
I've also been on the phone with them as well as Nathan Carr to get an idea. They have their convention going on as well, and they've had to advocate for their workers in a strong sense. I think it's been very frustrating, not only for the elected officials, but of course for the workers who have lost hours of employment as they've tried to negotiate and sometimes it hasn't gone as well as it should have.
Keeping that in mind, they have said that they would revisit this issue at the industry committee by issuing a letter to the chair at an appropriate time when negotiations are concluded or if there's a problem in the future that requires our attention.
So with that I want to withdraw the amendment from the NDP with regard to this. We don't need that. We don't need it to go to committee right now. We don't need the motion right now.
For me, I hope we can get to a vote because their convention is going on right now and this is another distraction for them at the moment. They've had to advocate strongly for their workers, and you know, they don't back down. You've seen the letters to the Prime Minister. You've seen the letters and their members have been reaching out to us. I want to thank them for advocating strongly because public dollars are very important, especially when we have to renew our sector the way that we have to now. Accountability is everything.
I trust them with this and I take my advice from them. They're at the table right now. As members of Parliament, we all need to be supportive of them and allow them to actually exercise their strength at negotiations and not undermine them in one way or the other.
With that, I won't be supporting the amendment that we have. I can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and then we won't be supporting the main motion either.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
You're taking away the work of the bargaining unit by doing my work and asking for UC. Shame on you, Mr. Masse.
I assume we have UC to withdraw the amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
(Amendment withdrawn)
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, everyone.
I appreciated everyone's politeness as we debated. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned.