Government Operations Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We will go to Mrs. Block, then Ms. Khalid, then Mr. Gasparro.

I will note that part of this motion in a way is already in the original motion, that departments responsible for producing the documents suggest redactions in writing and their reasoning for such.

Before you go ahead, Mrs. Block, I will note that we did go out of our normal format with Ms. Gaudreau because we don't normally ask questions during such proceedings. However, because we have Mr. Bédard here, we might as well make use of our asset with his being here right now, so if you wish to refer to him in your interventions, please go ahead. I think it would be to the betterment of our committee.

Go ahead please, Mrs. Block

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

You basically stole my thunder in pointing out that this notice of motion is not completely different from the motion that was passed previously, and I would add that the part you were speaking to was an amendment put forward by Ms. Sudds to include the detail of asking the departments and agencies tasked with document production to suggest redactions in writing. I'm assuming that, along with their suggestions, there would be some rationale.

What is not clear to me in this new motion is what exactly they're asking for. I think the question was, are you asking for these witnesses to attend a committee meeting, or are you simply wanting them to provide in writing...? That is not clear in this motion; it remains silent. It is just asking them to provide their rationale.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that we could simply call for them to provide some rationale, if they haven't already provided that in writing when they submitted the redacted documents, and to a degree—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The clerk does have the documents; no one else has seen them.

Was there anything with the documents beside the redactions?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Marc-Olivier Girard]

Yes, this letter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

But not the specific...? Okay.

[The Clerk]

No, not the specifics....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, so nothing else was provided.

[The Clerk]

They are already redacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

Go ahead.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

They would not clarify why they were providing us with redacted documents.

The other point I would like to make is that ISED has already provided us with the rationale for why they were in conversation with Stellantis to determine what they could and could not share.

I think this is a bit of a redundant motion, but I would leave that for you to rule on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Khalid and then Mr. Gasparro.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to touch on a couple of points that we've heard.

First and foremost, none of our members are here to defend anything of the government or of private companies and their interactions. That's why I'm putting forward this motion to say let's hear why ISED and Stellantis are redacting the documents that they have provided to us.

I think it's really important for us to be able to ask those questions and to be able to verify and clarify what is in the national interest, what is best for Canadians and our economy and what is best for jobs in our country. We as a committee, as we're coming to decisions, need to verify and to clarify with the people who are involved. That is very important.

Ms. Block mentioned that we didn't hear from these organizations as to why they redacted the documents that they did. It's important for them to come to our committee to clarify why they are redacting these pieces. It's important for us to make informed decisions.

Ms. Jansen may find this amusing, but I think we have a responsibility as a committee to provide oversight. We are not representing anybody except Canadians here, and we want to make sure that whatever decisions we make here in this committee are responsible, accountable to Canadians and in the best interest of Canadians, as well.

In order for us to do so, I think we need to get the full statement of facts from everybody who is involved here as to why the documents that we've received are redacted and the reasons for the redactions. It's the best way that we as a committee can make informed decisions for the public interest.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Gasparro, please go ahead.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the importance of this motion that has been brought forward is simply that it's the next step in the process of potentially seeing documents or not. All of us have spoken really in theoretical terms.

Ms. Gaudreau and I, when this was first raised.... I talked about the thesis around commercially sensitive information being put out into the public realm and the importance of making sure that not only this government but future governments are able to engage in contracts and are able to keep commercially sensitive information exactly that: sensitive.

In this phase of the process, getting Stellantis here, for example, to actually speak to why the documents need to be redacted just seems to make sense. We're all working off of a theoretical nature. I'm saying it's commercially sensitive and I'm speaking in theoretical terms, but if we actually get the company here—in camera, hopefully, or in some form—saying why they need to keep these documents redacted, and we have ISED, the DM and other officials here saying the same thing, that will help to inform our decision.

That is why I think it is important that we not jump into anything too hastily by making sure that we have the company here to defend why the documents, or portions of them, need to stay redacted. It's the same thing with the officials, the people who are well aware of this, and not just, frankly, a bunch of politicians around a table here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Hey, what's wrong with politicians?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Nothing. Hey, I'm now part of the club.

It's just a bunch of politicians talking in theoretical terms, and that includes me.

I led off, Ms. Gaudreau, by talking about commercially sensitive documents and current and future governments being able to engage in transactions and not have those transactions spilled out on Twitter and into the world.

Instead of speaking in these theoretical terms, let's get the company and department officials here to say why. Let them make the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Rochefort.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would simply say that we're equally all concerned. This is a very disturbing situation, obviously, but I'd like to amend the motion, Mr. Chair, to suggest that maybe we specify that it's an in-person meeting that we're seeking. I find that to be very important so that we—Madam Gaudreau, Madam Jansen and all of us as committee members—will be able to challenge the company on their position and why the information has been redacted.

We could even, on the spot, maybe seek an in camera meeting, so that they could explain the rationale—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can I interrupt?

You've put forward an amendment. It's to clarify what's come up a couple times, that it would be an in a meeting and not written, as is partially in the original.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do we need to have a debate on that or is it something we can just accept as an understanding of the original motion?

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

This amendment states that we want the individuals to appear in person so that we can ask them questions.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I think that goes without saying.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I wanted to make sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do we need to discuss this or are we fine?