Evidence of meeting #21 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was stellantis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jennings, at the last committee, you basically threw Canadians under the bus. You threw Stellantis under the bus, and you threw the previous deputy minister under the bus by saying that he's the one who issued this contract, but you keep saying that it's a standard contract.
Is this still the type of contract that your department is going to put out going forward, this very same contract? Will you use the same template going forward?
Deputy Minister, Department of Industry
I'll answer the question by saying that we do have a standard template that we start off with for contracts with any company, and then we modify it based on the types of investments being proposed and the types of commitments we're trying to secure. There are modifications from a standard contract. We don't ever take an exact contract and share it with another company. We essentially modify it based on the sector they're in, the types of investments they're proposing to do and the types of commitments we're trying to secure.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Do you accept that Parliament supersedes the Access to Information Act?
Deputy Minister, Department of Industry
I accept that Parliament can get access to documents it requests, yes.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have a matter-at-hand motion that I would like to move, if that's okay: “That the committee classify as public the redacted copy of SIF Agreement No. 813-816251 and amendment agreement No. 1 and amendment agreement No. 2.”
December 9th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
I would just like to make a couple of remarks on it. We had Stellantis come here and say that all the redactions are for the commercially sensitive information. We've had the confirmation from these folks here today, but also last week, that it's the commercially sensitive information that is redacted.
The minister has been clear that she is going to or that she is suing Stellantis. We know that in court proceedings, these types of things will be made public anyway. I think it's only reasonable for the document to be made public. Of course, I'm only asking for the redacted copy. I'm not asking for the unredacted copy.
Conservative
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
I think a summary of what we've heard at committee so far is very important and relevant to why this motion should be supported. I hope it's going to be supported unanimously by all parties.
What we heard very clearly when Stellantis was here is that the whole contract isn't commercially sensitive. That's on the record. That's what the Stellantis representative said when she was at committee. I then asked her if all of the commercially sensitive materials had been redacted from the redacted version of the contract that we received, and she said yes. That is what has happened.
We know that these redactions are what the Government of Canada considered commercially sensitive, because they were the ones who did the redactions. We've now figured that out. We heard it was a collaborative thing; but no, in fact, it was the department that did the redactions, and clearly they would have redacted what was ever considered to be commercially sensitive by the government. What we have now is a document whose commercially sensitive parts will not be available to the public.
I will echo what Mr. Patzer said. As a former litigation lawyer, what I can tell you is this. The Minister says she's going to sue Stellantis. As part of that lawsuit, the first stage of that will be the drafting of the pleadings. In the pleadings, they are required to outline their case, which will include citing sections of the contract they are relying on for the breach. Those would include things like the job guarantee, because the minister is alleging that it was breached. If you're going to allege that the jobs guarantee was breached, you're going to have to cite that section of the contract in your pleadings. That is going to be public shortly, as the minister has said she is going to sue Stellantis.
As you move on in a lawsuit, you move to documentary production. Given that this is the document that the lawsuit is based on, this document will be produced through the documentary production process. Lawsuits are public. That's how our lawsuits work in this country. Therefore, this document in its entirety without redactions will likely be produced in the lawsuit.
What we're asking the committee to do now is to release the redacted version that protects all of the alleged commercially sensitive material.
You have to ask yourself why this would not be supported. I suspect that my colleagues across the way are not going to support this motion, and you have to ask yourself why. The government itself redacted what it thought was commercially sensitive, and Stellantis has said that the commercially sensitive materials have been redacted. The only thing the government is trying to do by not releasing these documents is to protect itself from the embarrassment of what's in the contract.
I want to be very clear with Canadians on this. This contract is an embarrassment, and these Liberals are probably going to seek to stop the production of this contract to protect themselves from some of the very embarrassing decisions they made in the contract. They're probably going to filibuster this motion, hoping that the Christmas adjournment will come and that they can once again hide the details of this contract from Canadians.
On that, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that if the Liberals do decide to filibuster in order to block the release of this contract to protect themselves, perhaps we should extend the meeting on Thursday. I'd be more than happy to sit until midnight or later to get this document released. I leave that to your discretion.
With that, Mr. Chair, I am urging my colleagues from the Liberal Party to not hide this contract from Canadians and to agree with this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To be clear, work always comes first. I am more than happy—and I know my colleagues are also more than happy—to sit for as long as we need on whatever day it is to make sure that the work of this committee gets done and make sure that Canadians are well-served. That is absolutely not a problem.
I have a question, but before I get to my question, I want to be very clear. I think that all members on this committee have provided effective scrutiny as to what has happened here. I don't think any of us have been defending anything. We have been fulfilling our duty and our role as members of the mighty OGGO and making sure that government is held to account to make sure that, in the future, we do governance better and that we enter into contracts better as well.
As members may know, we agreed to make sure that we had this meeting today on this topic. I think it's very disingenuous for members to make accusations against other members on this committee about their intentions.
With that, I just want to seek a point of clarification from you, Chair.
I know that one of the Conservative members moved a motion on December 4, and I just want to know how it is different from what Mr. Patzer has moved today as a matter at hand. Also, what happens to that motion if we dispose of this today? I would think that it's basically the same thing, from my understanding.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It wasn't moved. It was only read into the record. It's not moved, so it's kind of a moot point.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Yes, can we circulate what exactly Mr. Patzer has moved today?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Do you have that in writing?
It doesn't matter, because that one wasn't moved. They're not the same. Normally the rules are that you that can't bring in the same one.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Chair, I'm not questioning whether that can come or go or what have you. I just wanted to know if this then remains on notice for members to move at a later time, or if this motion—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I would assume it becomes moot, because I can't imagine that, if this one passes, someone else would move it, but because it's on notice, it can be moved, I assume.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
It's basically the same.
That's it, Chair. I don't have any other remarks. Thank you.
