Government Operations Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Seeing no one else on the list, we'll call for a vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are now on to Ms. Sudds for five minutes, please.

I apologize; it's Mr. Gasparro.

I will be apologizing and resigning in the House of Commons later today.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you for coming again.

When we looked to Stellantis appearing before this committee previously, there was obviously a lot of discussion surrounding their comments that the government recommended that the redactions be made. Obviously, there's been a lot of discussion around here.

Can you describe how this redaction process generally unfolds?

[Philip Jennings]

The general way it functions is really within the confidentiality clauses of the agreements, which are typically that we need to have consent from third parties to release information into either the public domain or a parliamentary committee. That process typically involves a back-and-forth discussion with the companies and the government about what's being requested by the committee, in this case, and what could be released.

The role of the government in this case is trying to ensure that we are as open as possible about what we release and as transparent as possible with the committees while also protecting commercially confidential information, which is important for the companies that shared it with us in trust.

There are occasions when companies will offer redactions. In this case, which I've clarified in my comments, we've had a long-standing relationship with Stellantis. We have an understanding of the types of information they feel should be redacted for commercial confidentiality reasons.

In this case, what we did for expediency's sake is highlight for Stellantis the areas we thought they wished they had redacted. Stellantis, at any point, could have changed their minds and offered to have further redactions or they could have asked for fewer redactions, but they essentially consented to the redactions that were highlighted for their consideration through that process.

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

I'm glad you referenced that joint effort, because prior to Stellantis' appearance, they issued a letter that clearly laid the blame at the feet of your department for the redactions. However, in their testimony, they describe the redactions as "a joint effort in...ensuring that...sensitive information is maintained confidential".

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy or, frankly, flip-flop by Stellantis?

[Philip Jennings]

I'd rather focus on the joint effort, because that really is fundamentally how the confidentiality clauses function in these contracts.

Our experience with Stellantis, as well as with the numerous companies we've worked with in previous committees, is a back-and-forth discussion to try to meet the transparency obligations of Parliament with this confidentiality clause.

Not because I was in the department at the time, but from speaking to people who dealt with this in the past, there have been many times when the department actually pushed back on companies in terms of trying to redact too much information. It's really about finding the right balance between meeting the needs of Parliament without compromising what would be a mistake to do, which really was commercially confidential.

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

I'm glad you talked about people, because we've spent the better part of this meeting talking about some process in Ottawa that, quite frankly, in the grand scheme of things, the person trying to put food on their table doesn't really care about.

With the Brampton facility on pause and given broader uncertainty surrounding the auto sector, what concrete steps is the government taking to help secure jobs, reassure workers and maintain Canada's competitiveness against broader pressures from the global trading environment and the changes that are taking place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 20 seconds.

[Philip Jennings]

Since the U.S. government and administration have redefined trading relationships with Canada and all other countries around the world, this government has put a number of measures in place over time to try to protect jobs and protect sectors that are most at risk.

I only have 20 seconds so I can't spend time going through them, but there have been a number of measures announced over time, including recent ones to increase the supports for the steel and lumber sectors.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an important issue, Mr. Jennings. How far can we trust the accountability process, especially in this context? Committee members are encountering some lack of clarity, administrative hesitancy and possible reluctance to provide full information, even though it's essential to accountability. As I see it, that's important.

We understand that you consulted Stellantis before sending the letter of November 3. You told us that Stellantis had agreed to the redaction. Can you provide the committee with a paper trail—I mean, with emails, instructions or internal notes—supporting your claim that Stellantis asked for certain clauses to be censored? Obviously, that is part of the committee's rules and it will benefit our work.

Can you also assure us that the department didn't try to blame Stellantis for the redactions to protect itself politically? Right now, we sense that trust is broken, and that does no one any good. The rebuttal by Stellantis seems to put the blame on you.

In short, we'd like some clarity. Can you send committee members notes explaining the reason why Stellantis asked you to censor certain clauses?

[Philip Jennings]

I'd be happy to share the documents we have with you. I haven't seen them myself, but I can ensure that they're shared with you.

What I can confirm, as Stellantis also confirmed in its evidence last week, is that Stellantis was in agreement concerning the redacted copy of the document.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

How did it indicate its agreement to you?

[Philip Jennings]

I don't know, to be honest.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Was it during a conversation, by email, in a text?

[Philip Jennings]

I believe it would have been during a conference call or by email. I'd have to confirm that. However, Stellantis confirmed it last week. Furthermore, we had received that confirmation before sharing it with the committee.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you get the impression that they simply wanted you to take the blame for something they had consented to?

[Philip Jennings]

I think that the important thing is the testimony they gave last week: It was a joint effort.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, that's it. I wish we had more time.

Mrs. Jansen, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

I just want to ask some more questions about process because, of course, regular Canadians who are having a hard time putting food on their tables want to make sure the people who they sent here are worrying about the process in order to make sure their tax dollars are spent well.

You testified that only a few people within industry had seen the full, unredacted contract. Is that still your evidence today?

[Philip Jennings]

That is still my evidence in terms of the full contract.

As I mentioned a bit earlier, there are other departments sometimes that are consulted on parts of it, to try to get access to their expertise to do our due diligence on contracts.

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

The Treasury Board officials who are responsible for spending oversight told us that agreements of this size normally undergo a robust legal review before authorities are granted, whereas Ms. Tanton said that there were no lawyers in the room during negotiations. I'm just wondering if “robust legal review” reflects what happened in this contract.