Government Operations Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Stephanie Tanton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Innovation Canada, Department of Industry]

Do you mean access to the contribution agreement?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, the unredacted contribution agreement to determine the redactions.

[Stephanie Tanton]

There would be officers within the program who were involved in the negotiation and the development of these documents who would see those documents, yes. There is a team within the department that works on all of our contribution agreements, but those are treated as commercially confidential, and we don't share that information outside of the department without the consent of the company.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That is our time.

We'll go to Ms. Sudds now for six minutes, please.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here this morning.

Obviously, it's an important opportunity to better understand the current situation. I was hoping Stellantis would be here, but it seems that's not the case today, so my questions will be directed to you.

Could you please describe the details of the strategic innovation fund, as it's historically been called, and why it was created? What is its intended purpose?

[Philip Jennings]

I may get corrected on this, but I think it was created in 2017. Previous to that, the funding by the Department of Industry was really focused on very specific sectors, the automotive and aerospace sectors, in particular. There was a perspective that we were losing out on some very interesting investments that were taking place in other sectors of the economy. At the end of the day, there was a decision that was made to have a fund that would be able to capture broader, attractive investments that Canada wants to have, including automotive and aerospace, but actually broadening out in terms of other sectors.

Since that time, I don't have the exact number but I think there have been 152 projects that have been undertaken under the SIF, and now what is called the strategic response fund, just over $11 billion federally has been invested under that program. That's for what we think is about just over $75 billion of economic activity in Canada based on those investments.

The investments are pretty broad in terms of the sectors. I mentioned automotive and aerospace, but biomanufacturing and life sciences have also been very important recipients, as have steel and aluminum and heavy industries, which at this time under the tariff threats from the U.S. are all the more important. There's digital and emerging technologies, clean technology, critical minerals and artificial intelligence. You really have an ability to capture the right investments.

The broader context is that other jurisdictions are also trying to create a policy space and a financial attractiveness space. We're trying to attract these same investments. We are, at the end of the day, trying to attract those investments in Canada. It would be a tremendous benefit. By and large, provinces typically also support these investments financially. At the end of the day, there's a recognition by both levels of government of the importance of attracting these.

I would just add a point on redactions of documents. One of the reasons we also feel it's important to have some redactions is that there are sometimes some elements in these agreements that we'd rather not have competing jurisdictions have a full understanding of, so that we're able to leverage those investments as best as possible. Just like other jurisdictions, we think there are moments in time when it's better not to release the full information from those agreements.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] point. Just this morning, I was at Nokia with a SIF-related update on its project. It certainly touches a lot of sectors.

Can you explain for us the context of the Stellantis contract negotiations, if it's not commercially sensitive to ask that?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is that what we're discussing right now? The question that Ms. Sudds asked. I'm just double-checking. She is asking about contracts and negotiations. Is that what we're discussing right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] the original motion, but that's fine.

Go ahead.

[Philip Jennings]

I had not joined the department at the time of the negotiations, so I'll turn to the SIF team that was here. I'll turn to Stephanie and Denis to walk through that. Benoit may also have something to add.

[Stephanie Tanton]

For clarity, I wasn't here at the time of the negotiations either. I can talk generally about how we approach entering into a negotiation for a contract through our due diligence and then how that process unfolds, if that is useful.

When we examine a project moving forward under the strategic response fund, we undertake significant due diligence. We look at the technical merits, the market assessment and the financials of the project. From that, we develop a term sheet, which is the basis for our negotiations.

Depending on the nature of the project, we're trying to secure different benefits. Typically, any term sheet or agreement we would enter into is going to have benefits with regard to jobs. They're going to have benefits with regard to capex investment, R and D investment, indigenous jobs—usually co-ops—and those types of investments.

In the case of these, where we're looking to secure mandates, there would also typically be commitments with regard to those mandates. That is in a negotiation process with the company, whereby we come to an agreed-upon term sheet that then leads into the signing of the contribution agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Madam Gaudreau, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to return to the principle. Based on past experience and my own experience, protecting private information is entirely legitimate. We have just received the document, which is partially redacted. This leads me to wonder about tax dollars. What we want to know is what is happening in terms of jobs, commitments, and the effects of the economic situation. There is a lot of information in the document. I can see what has been redacted, since I have the document in front of me, in a restricted environment. I experienced this during the whole WE Charity scandal. We were with the clerk, we had no cell phones or assistants, we met behind closed doors and we were not allowed to take notes. People elected us to look after their money.

In my opinion, we must not only respect democracy but also ensure that we don't restrict competition, even though Stellantis is a major player on the global stage.

Explain to me why we can't have the entire contract in a completely restricted environment, in which only elected officials will be present.

[Philip Jennings]

In a way, that's the balance we're trying to strike. When we talk to Stellantis, we want to make sure that they are as open as possible with Parliament, since accountability is important. At the same time, we want to protect what needs to be protected.

We haven't discussed with Stellantis the possibility of the committee having access to the entire contract. We could ask them if a Stellantis representative joins the meeting; we could also do so at another time if it isn't possible today. We are seeking to strike a balance; we are not trying to hide anything, but we understand that access to certain elements of the contract is necessary if we are to do our job. We respect that.

We need to ensure accountability for the investments that are made. This information really allows us to exercise due diligence for each contract.

However, I agree that it is sometimes necessary for confidential elements of the contract to be sent to Parliament and its committees so that the documents can be reviewed.

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

That's why it shouldn't be public. I don't know if anyone from Stellantis is listening, but I want to say that they are using taxpayers' money. Who's in charge? Is it democracy, the government, or the company?

As an entrepreneur myself, I've signed contracts. When you sign a contract, it involves public money.

What are they afraid of if they don't want us to sit down and review the contract in camera? We're not asking for the moon; we're only asking for what every member of Parliament should be asking for, namely respect for our democracy and for taxpayers' money.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to Stellantis' response. What I understand, considering that disclosure occurs on a sliding scale, is that there probably won't be any big surprises.

I think we could get this done quickly if Stellantis agreed to our request and we did the review in camera, without access to our electronic tools, much like we do during the pre-budget briefing with the media. I have been through this kind of situation before, as has my predecessor.

Do you think that could happen here?

[Philip Jennings]

The issue wasn't discussed with Stellantis. In the past, other parliamentary committees have requested access to certain documents. These documents were always redacted to some extent, but they were provided to the committee, which met in camera.

As for the document I sent to the committee, the intention was simply to review it in camera and not to forward it. These were the conditions that Stellantis agreed to.

In my opinion, the redactions were minimal and involved what Stellantis considered to be confidential business information.

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

Okay.

I've run out of time, so I'll pick up on this later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We will start our five-minute rounds with Mr. Patzer, please.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jennings, you are the deputy minister. Are you the one responsible for the redactions?

[Philip Jennings]

I'm not responsible for the redactions, sir.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Who was responsible for putting the black ink over all of the parts that were redacted? Who's responsible? Who's the one who crossed each line out?

[Philip Jennings]

My team had direct discussions with Stellantis.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Sure, but who's the one who had the Sharpie marker in hand?

[Philip Jennings]

Stellantis ultimately had to agree to what it was willing to have shared with this committee behind closed doors versus what not to. Regarding the document you have in front of you, the condition of that agreement, which Stellantis had asked for, was that it be shared behind closed doors with this committee. That is why the redactions were as minimal as they were.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Okay.

The motion by this committee asked for all the documents fully unredacted, so why did we receive redacted documents?