Government Operations Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Philip Jennings]

Maybe to answer the question, as best I can.... I'm here today to talk about this contract we have with Stellantis on the Brampton plant. Under the conditions of that contract that we signed, at the end of the day we recognize there are elements that are commercially confidential that we have to do the best we can to protect.

We've recommended to this committee an approach that we've done in past parliaments, where at the end of the day, we found a compromise, in essence, to protect this information that the company feels is important to protect for their competitive position, while at the same time allowing the scrutiny this committee wants.

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

If it's subject to the Access to Information Act, which it is, as you pointed out—you pointed us to clause 16.1—and a news organization was able to get the entire document through an access to information request and publish it online, you're not protecting anything commercially sensitive. You're just delaying parliamentarians being able to review it. We just have to wait until someone does an access to information request, then we can review it publicly and discuss it.

How does that make any sense?

[Philip Jennings]

I can't speak to the other contract. What I can speak to is this contract and for this—

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

Do you know nothing about the other SIF agreement that was signed at about the same time?

[Philip Jennings]

I can't speak to when and how what's in the public domain got into the public domain. What I can say is the information that's redacted in this document is something that—

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

You're saying we can't even publicly discuss it. You're saying this document has to be discussed in camera, or I guess we can file an access to information request and then we can have it in the public domain like the other one. It seems to me like you're saying someone who makes an access to information request has more authority to review a document than the Parliament of Canada has. I find that deeply troubling.

[Philip Jennings]

I'm not suggesting that in any way. If there was an access to information request on this contract, it would be subject to the act and the exemptions and redactions that would take place related to it.

My interpretation of the Access to Information Act is that what is commercially confidential would remain commercially confidential through that process.

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

The entire document is not commercially confidential because in even this document, you've given us limited access. You've only redacted certain things you claim are commercially confidential; therefore, the entire document isn't commercially confidential by your own analysis.

[Philip Jennings]

Just to be clear, when I shared this document with this committee, it was under the understanding—which at the end of the day is not ultimately what happened—that we would have a discussion and that the document would only be shared behind closed doors.

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

Well, the document has been shared—

[Philip Jennings]

The reason we did that—

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

The document has been shared outside of this room. No one is referencing specific sections of the contract except you. You mentioned clause 16.1 about confidentiality.

You seem to be dancing around this. If an access to information request can produce the entire document with redactions of things that are commercially confidential, but you're saying this contract cannot be reviewed by Parliament except in camera, meaning no one gets to see it, then you're saying that access to information has more authority than Parliament to review documents.

[Philip Jennings]

I'm actually trying to say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. Give a very brief answer, Mr. Jennings.

[Philip Jennings]

I'm not suggesting that. We're actually trying to find and propose a way for this committee to be able to review and have a discussion of the document so that it can do its due diligence related to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll go to Ms. Khalid, please.

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

I believe it's Tim Watchorn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Oh. [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you for allowing me to ask questions, Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Jennings.

Our colleague spoke about access to information and the document we're reviewing today. I'd like to know whether the document that would have been provided under the Access to Information Act would have been as heavily redacted as the version we're reviewing today, or even more so.

[Philip Jennings]

My team and I believe that if there were an access to information request, there would be even more redactions.

That's why we're requesting that the discussion be held in camera. That's how we presented the matter to Stellantis. Our goal was for Stellantis to provide as much information as possible. The only way we were able to convince Stellantis to provide so much information was because we agreed that it would be reviewed in camera.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

I would also like to express my frustration that no representative from Stellantis appeared before the committee this morning. It's unbelievable. I can't believe Stellantis didn't show up this morning. Technical issues aside, I find Stellantis' absence completely unacceptable.

Mr. Jennings, you and my colleague mentioned the possibility of meeting in camera to review a less redacted version of the document. You said that this had already been done at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Could you explain what the procedure would be for reviewing this document in camera?

[Philip Jennings]

I'll clarify what I said earlier. When those other committees reviewed documents in camera, the documents had undergone some redaction.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Okay.

[Philip Jennings]

Redactions were made in all cases, but they were minimal. We wanted to ensure that the committees were able to review the documents.

However, our department did not provide any documents that were completely unredacted.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Okay.

We know you haven't had discussions with Stellantis. That said, do you think Stellantis would agree to send a minimally redacted document if we were to consider it in camera?