Government Operations Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Good morning, colleagues.

Welcome to meeting number eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, known as the mighty OGGO, a committee so nice they named it twice.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to consider the request by members of the committee to undertake a study of Stellantis. The request was distributed by the clerk last Friday.

Mr. Genuis, you have your hand up, so please go ahead.

We'll start a speaking list with Ms. Sudds, Mr. Gasparro, and Ms. Kirkland.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

We are here to—

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

I have a point of order. I want to add my name to the speakers list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I hope we're not already seeing plans for a filibuster with every single Liberal member getting themselves on the speaking list, but I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

We are here to fight for Canadian jobs. Last week, workers in Brampton got devastating news. Canadians are already struggling in so many ways because of the cost of living crisis and the crime crisis. We increasingly see this escalating job loss crisis, the continuing increases in the unemployment rate, and now this announcement from Stellantis leading to over 3,000 jobs lost.

It's important to underline that Stellantis is a company that has gotten over $10 billion in subsidies from taxpayers. Yet, in spite of those subsidies, it's announcing the killing of over 3,000 Canadian jobs, sending them south of the border. We know the Trump administration met with the Prime Minister last week. Yet, less than a week after that meeting, we have more announcements of more jobs getting killed in Canada and sent across the border.

As we fight for Canadian jobs, it is important to know what exactly was in these contracts signed between the government and Stellantis that led to these subsidies. In the process of forking over billions of dollars to this company, did the government negotiate, as part of these contracts, the protection of Canadian jobs or not? This is what we need to know to hold the appropriate people accountable.

The question for the government is this: Will it support our efforts to get to the bottom of what happened here by helping us get these contracts, or will it act to block the exposure of these contracts?

We're going to move a motion today summoning or ordering these contracts to this committee. I am confident that a majority of members of this committee want to see these contracts, but it will be up to the government whether it works with other parliamentarians to help us fight for Canadian jobs, or whether it runs interference on behalf of this company. Let's be clear, the only reason to filibuster and block the exposure of these contracts would be to protect this company, which is moving jobs out of Canada to the United States. If the government cares about Canadian jobs, I hope it will come and work with us. We will see how it responds.

Our motion, Chair, is as follows:

That an order do issue for the production of copies of any contract, memorandum of understanding or any other agreement entered into by any minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, since November 4, 2015, related to the manufacture of automobiles at the Brampton Assembly Plant in Brampton, Ontario, with any of Stellantis N.V., Stellantis North America, FCA US LLC, Stellantis Canada Inc., FCA Canada Inc., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., NextStar Energy Inc., Volta Energy Solutions Canada Inc., any of those companies’ subsidiaries or any other companies which are not at arm’s length from those companies, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee within two weeks, in both official languages and without redaction.

I believe the motion was distributed in both official languages, so I see no reason for a delay.

This motion orders that the contracts be given to the committee. Notably, it does not contain language around the automatic release; it simply orders that the documents be handed over to the committee, so that the committee has a chance to review them and consider additional steps.

We've seen taxpayers give over $10 billion to this company. Meanwhile, it just announced the killing of over 3,000 jobs. We would expect that companies that receive these massive public subsidies would be creating jobs in Canada and not killing jobs in Canada. That's why we need to see these contracts.

Again, I see no reason that this would be delayed. It's a straightforward motion. It's supported by the majority of the committee, so I hope it will pass promptly, and we can get on with the important work of examining these contracts.

Mr. Chair, I'll yield the floor at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We'll go to Ms. Sudds next.

We'll continue a practice from the last session. I will inform who's the next speaker after that. Otherwise, it's your responsibility to put up your hand again to get on the speakers list.

After Ms. Sudds, we have Mr. Gasparro.

Ms. Sudds, go ahead.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm happy to be here today to discuss such an important issue to Canadian taxpayers.

I appreciate that the motion was circulated this morning and has just been read in. I would like to move an amendment to the motion. It has been forwarded to the clerk in both official languages.

I can read it out in the meantime, while we distribute it to the committee. The amendment is simply, at the end of the existing motion, to remove “and without redaction”, and to add “and that the departments and agencies tasked with gathering these documents apply redactions to protect cabinet confidences, respect privacy legislation, and protect sensitive commercial interests.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll start with Mr. Genuis. I'll give you a few moments before it comes out.

This is a very small room. We normally have some banter back and forth, but keep in mind that this is a very small room.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, we've been through this rodeo before. I'm sorry to see the government proposing an amendment that would effectively undermine the entire objective of this motion.

This motion is to order the contracts, full stop, so that we can get to the bottom of why more than 3,000 jobs are being killed in spite of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

The Liberals are putting forward an amendment that would effectively give them wide discretion to redact these documents. It would give them the discretion to do that. The proposed redactions are not redactions that would be done by independent entities. The proposal gives full discretion to the government to redact what it wants, using fairly broad room for justifications. This would prevent the committee from actually scrutinizing the contracts as they are.

Let me underline, Mr. Chair, that the motion we put forward does not call for the immediate release of these contracts. The call is for the full contracts to be given to the committee. The committee would then have reasonable discretion and would, I believe, use its powers responsibly to look at what's in these contracts to consider the various issues and implications of releasing information, and releasing information to the degree that is appropriate.

What the parliamentary secretary has proposed is to prevent the committee, even in private, from having access to this information. I'll make a few points with respect to this.

As members know, or should know, committees' powers to send for documents are limitless. The Privacy Act contains specific exemption language exempting documents that are ordered by a body such as this. Again, the other issues could be taken into consideration and likely would be taken into consideration by the committee when deciding what and how to release these documents, but parliamentarians need to see these documents in order to do their work properly.

I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised that the Liberals are putting this amendment forward, which would effectively neuter this motion. We are opposed to this amendment, and we will continue to fight for Canadian jobs by seeking the full, unredacted documents without giving the government the discretion to redact whatever they feel like.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next is Mr. Gasparro, then Ms. Kirkland, and then Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Gasparro, go ahead, sir.

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

The honourable member, in his opening remarks, talked about Canadian workers. He and I have spent a little time together before this committee, and I actually fully agree with him on protecting Canadian workers and doing what's right for them. I completely agree with him.

When you listen to some folks from Ontario, Conservatives like Premier Doug Ford and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, they clearly lay the blame for this on the unjustified tariffs that President Trump has put on our country. A direct quote from Patrick Brown is, “Stellantis is bowing at the Trump administration” via this “bullying tactic”. I think we need to keep that piece in mind.

In regard to the documents themselves, if the documents are released, it would damage Canada's standing in the marketplace. When the Government of Canada engages in agreements, regardless of which party is in office, they are trying and we are trying to attract foreign direct investment, where large publicly traded companies are looking to build manufacturing plants that would create hundreds if not thousands of jobs. They have to know that commercially sensitive terms and conditions do not make it into the marketplace. That comes to the full standing and credit of the Government of Canada.

It is absolutely critical that any documents that are released be redacted for these very commercially sensitive bits of information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Gasparro.

Ms. Kirkland, welcome to OGGO.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate being here on behalf of workers, specifically auto workers. Mr. Chair, that's why I'm sitting here at this committee today, to speak for auto workers.

I feel strongly.... It has been said many times in the House that the government stands with auto workers, but as I said in the House, it feels a whole lot like the auto workers they're standing with are U.S. auto workers.

With the redacted contracts, we cannot possibly do our work effectively as parliamentarians. With all due respect to the member across, saying things like “Stellantis is bowing at the Trump administration”.... I think that perhaps they feel they have to, because the Prime Minister continues to bow to the Trump administration.

Auto workers in Oshawa, Brampton and Windsor, and across Ontario and across the country, feel like their jobs don't matter. They feel like they are on the chopping block in order to make some sort of other deal and that their jobs don't matter. I spoke this morning to my local Unifor president, and I can tell you that they feel like they're being left behind and aren't cared about whatsoever. The 3,000 people who are losing their jobs have mortgages to pay. They perhaps have kids in hockey. These aren't numbers. These are people. These are families.

I would very strongly ask that this committee vote in favour of the original motion, unamended, so that we can do our job as parliamentarians and so that Canadians are no longer paying for U.S. auto jobs, because Canadian taxpayers, if this happens, are essentially paying for U.S. auto jobs. Something has to be done to make sure that this doesn't happen and that those jobs stay here in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Madame Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the report—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

One moment, please.... I don't have translation.

Try again, please.

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

I would like to go back to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 2023 report—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize. A couple of us are having problems. Just bear with us for a couple of seconds.

We'll start at the beginning. Thanks for your patience. Please start again.

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

I would like to go back to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 2023 report on the production subsidies we're discussing today. I'll read the highlights.

The federal government and the government of Ontario recently announced production subsidies of up to $15 billion for Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions (LGES). Based on the federal government’s estimates, this brings announced production subsidies for Stellantis-LGES and Volkswagen to $28.2 billion by the end of 2032. PBO estimates that federal and provincial government revenues generated from the Stellantis-LGES and Volkswagen EV battery manufacturing plants over the period of 2024 to 2043 will be equal to the total amount of production subsidies ($28.2 billion)—a break-even timeline of twenty years.

It would have taken 20 years for the government to break even. That's an important point. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' role is to ensure that public funds are well managed. That means production subsidies must not only create jobs, but also be cost-effective.

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

This is obviously very worrisome. I'm thinking of the people. This weekend, I was in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and I could see that people are worried about every dollar in their pockets.

I'm a businesswoman, so I know it's important to be vigilant about information disclosed concerning investments and the current economic climate to ensure good international relations going forward. However, why isn't there someone gathering all the documents to ensure that we really have everything this committee needs?

I'm saying this because this isn't my first rodeo. We weren't even given a chance to consult confidential documents in a set-up where we couldn't take notes. We couldn't even use our phones. I understand that all these commercial transactions are sensitive, but I'm so concerned about taxpayers.

I won't say how I intend to vote. I'd rather hear from my colleagues because I'm concerned about guarantees that we can access everything we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have Ms. Jansen, and then that's the end of our speaking list.

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

You know, folks, it's pretty simple. When government cuts these massive deals with big corporations, the least they can do is be honest with the people footing the $15-billion bill. We need to see what's actually agreed to: no more hiding behind commercial confidentiality and cabinet confidence. There is no public defence for keeping those contracts secret, because at the end of the day, it's not the CEOs or politicians who worry about putting food on the table; it's the workers. It's the families who built these towns and who've been waiting for that plant to open.

Let me ask you this. Are you on the side of workers and taxpayers who are fighting to keep jobs here in Canada, or on the side of the corporations taking public money to build factories in the U.S.A.? That's my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Seeing there's no one else on the speakers list, we'll go to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll go back to our speaking order.

I have Mr. Gasparro, and then Ms. Kirkland.

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

I said this in my opening remarks and it paired off with what the honourable member on the other side led off with, which is that if we are to continue to attract foreign direct investment into our country and have companies come to Canada and invest a great deal of money, employing hundreds if not thousands of people, they have to know, when they sign an agreement with the Government of Canada, that the commercially sensitive pieces of that agreement are kept confidential. That is the only way we will continue to attract that foreign direct investment. If they can't trust that we are going to keep commercially sensitive items confidential, they won't come here. That sucking sound that we hear going to the United States currently will be enhanced. We cannot allow that to happen.

It doesn't matter which party is in government, Mr. Chair. It doesn't matter. This will impact our country for decades. My concern is for future generations of workers, for my kids—and I know that some members of this committee have kids too. Are we going to roll the dice on attracting foreign direct investment because they believe that some committee at some point may be able to show commercially sensitive information that can move markets and damage Canada's reputation within capital markets and within the labour market more broadly?

I share a lot of the concerns my honourable colleagues within the Conservative Party and the Bloc have raised around workers, but we need to look long-term. All of you are very smart people. I have a lot of respect for you. If a short-term opportunity here to request documents could damage our country for decades, and damage our ability to continue to attract these jobs from around the world—as I said, this is regardless of which party is in office—I urge you to please reconsider your position about redacting the commercially sensitive pieces of these contracts. Maybe there's some other agreement we could come to. To just ask for a full release of documents into the public could damage our credibility as a country and impact future jobs that we would be able to attract.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Gasparro.

We have Ms. Kirkland, and then Mr. Leitão.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

When I think about the sensitive commercial interests, I'm sensitive to that, but I feel what outweighs that is the fact that Canadians have invested $15 billion in U.S. jobs if this continues. Stellantis chose to make a decision primarily because our Prime Minister failed to get a deal. He's been promising deals on tariffs since July. He said it would be July 21. We are now just about to November and we don't have it.

Members opposite were correct when they said they're bowing to the U.S., bowing to Trump, because of tariffs. Well, let's stop putting auto on the chopping block when we're negotiating a deal and negotiate a win for Ontario and for Canada. Canadians deserve answers. I know that in the previous Parliament this was asked for. I believe that in previous committees it was asked that the contracts be released so that we could see what the deal was. Were there any assurances in that deal that jobs would stay in Canada? Canadians deserve to know that. It was asked in the last Parliament. It was denied in the last Parliament in a committee.

Okay, let's bend for it not happening in the 44th Parliament, in those times. But times have changed. We are now dealing with a situation that requires Canadians to know the truth. This is their money. It's not ours here at the committee table. It's the money of Canadians. It's $15 billion. What do we get for it? Do we get 3,000 U.S. auto jobs or do we get to have our 3,000 Canadian auto jobs? Those of us from auto towns know that those 3,000 jobs aren't just 3,000 jobs. We're probably looking at double that in the supply chain. This can have a catastrophic effect. We need to know what they promised and what they were assured. This has to happen. There's no way around it. Quite frankly, the time is now that this has to happen.

Stellantis took that risk, in my opinion, for their sensitive commercial interests to be displayed when they decided to take jobs out of Canada, but the truth is that we deserve to know. We need to fight for Canadian jobs. How are we going to do it? Parliamentarians need to know this information. We need to know what the contracts were. Now is the time.

I'm done. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Leitão, welcome to OGGO, sir.

The floor is yours, please.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to attend your committee.

I would like to expand on what my colleague, Mr. Gasparro, said just now and on the importance of ensuring the confidentiality of commercial contracts.

However, I do want to say one thing before proceeding.

I'd just like to make one point really clear. I think we all, on both sides of this House, want what's best for Canada. We all want what's best for Canadian workers. Right from the start, we said that we would be helping Canadian companies, big and small, navigate through this very complex and difficult time that has been created by the United States, not by us. Let's get this clear: It's the United States government that has come up with these tariffs. They said very clearly—Mr. Lutnick said it not long ago—that their objective is to repatriate manufacturing production as much as possible to the United States. That's their objective. That's what we are facing. We are not helping them do that. We are fighting against that.

To achieve results, what is necessary, in our view, is that despite the provocations, which is what they are, we continue to talk to our counterparts in the United States. We have been able to obtain something that nobody else has obtained, which is a CUSMA carve-out. Goods that are compliant with CUSMA can cross the border tariff-free.

However, we do have a number of strategic sectors that are not covered by the CUSMA carve-outs—steel, aluminum, autos and softwood lumber. What the government is trying to accomplish with the negotiations is going along a two-track road, if you will. On the one hand, maintaining the CUSMA carve-outs—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, respectfully, it's clear that we are in a filibuster, which is allowed, but this is the government operations committee, not the trade committee or the finance committee.

This motion is to order the production of specific contracts. I am very interested in commenting on the government's approach to softwood lumber, for example, but that is not the motion and that is not the issue before us. If the gentleman opposite wants to filibuster, he has to at least do so in a way that is relevant to the topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I am sure Mr. Leitão will get to the motion at hand.

Go ahead, Mr. Leitão.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I was just getting there, Mr. Chair.

We want to achieve what's best for Canada, and what's best for Canada is to maintain our industrial base, of which the auto industry is a major component. How do we do that? We continue talking to the Americans. We continue discussing. We continue negotiating, and those negotiations are now at a very critical point. We need to continue doing that, no matter how unpleasant it might be.

Back to the motion, in this context, where we are continuing to negotiate with the U.S. administration, I think the motion would be very damaging to Canada, in the sense that we would be making public information that is contained in private commercial contracts. That would damage Canada's reputation as a welcoming site for foreign direct investment, which is the case. Canada welcomes foreign direct investment. We've always done that, and we will continue to do that.

What we also said—and what the Minister of Industry has said—is that we are hugely disappointed with the role that Stellantis took, and they will face the consequences if and when they go ahead with this.

In the meantime, if we are to release those contracts, totally without any provisions to keep private information confidential, it would be, in my opinion, very damaging for the reputation of Canada, especially given the environment in which we now find ourselves.

I agree with Ms. Gaudreau that every dollar counts. Every dollar truly is very important. We want to keep attracting foreign investment. To do that, confidential information must remain confidential. If contracts end up being broken, the responsible parties will face the consequences. However, we won't make assumptions about how this will unfold. This is an extremely sensitive time in our negotiations with the United States. It would be a shame to spoil that at the last minute just to achieve some very short-term political objectives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, sir.

We have Ms. Gaudreau, and then Mr. Gasparro.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've listened to all of my colleagues. I'll start by reiterating the purpose of the motion, then I'll move a subamendment.

The purpose of the motion is to allow members of the committee to see copies of contracts and the memorandum of understanding. During my career, I signed contracts, and I can tell you that I would be held accountable if I did not honour them. Many people here know exactly what I'm talking about. However, in the case before us today, we're not talking about $20,000; we're talking about billions of dollars.

You know I'm not being partisan with this. I'm interested in the committee's goal. We need to know. Earlier, someone said this is public information and we have to protect our commercial interest given the current crisis. That is very true. However, examining contracts signed with these companies is part of the mandate of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Colleagues who have been here longer than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that government operations and estimates are part of our job. Accountability is for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to handle. However, the situation is critical.

For my part, I want the information that was requested to be provided to the committee, and I want it to be accurate. Some of my colleagues also want it to be protected. I am therefore moving a subamendment. I won't read the whole thing, but I'll send it to you.

The section I would amend is this one:

provided that these documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee within two weeks, in both official languages and without redaction.

I suggest replacing the words “without redaction” to indicate that the documents must be redacted by a House of Commons law clerk in accordance with applicable legislation.

That's how I suggest we come to a consensus because it is critical that we respond to the concerns of taxpayers who are very worried about their economic future and the status of our industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Do you have that in writing for distribution?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will start a speaking list on Ms. Gaudreau's amendment.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It hasn't been distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think it has been.

We're going to pause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back in session.

Thanks, everyone, for your patience.

I have Mr. Genuis, and then Ms. Gaudreau.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just quickly, Chair, I know we have some newer members here, and I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. There is a difference between ordering the production of documents to a committee and ordering documents to be released immediately.

Years ago, on the Afghan detainees issue, for example, I know the approach taken by other parties when the Conservatives were in government was to order the production of documents for immediate release, and that was contentious under the circumstances. We are not proposing that in this motion. We are proposing that the committee order the production of documents so the committee can look at those documents, and then the committee can make decisions. What the Liberals proposed with their previous amendment was to order the production of documents but allow the government unfettered discretion to redact those documents. If that were to happen, we would likely be getting blank pages from the government, as has happened in the past.

What we are saying is that the committee should be able to look at the documents and the committee should have discretion in its review of the documents, but that's not the same as publicly releasing all the information in them. That allows the committee to exercise responsible discretion once it has those documents. The committee can exercise that discretion, which is different from the government exercising that discretion to prevent the committee from seeing this.

I know there have been cases in the past at this committee where we have ordered and received full unredacted contracts, and the committee has approached it very judiciously in terms of what to do with those contracts, once received. I think some Liberal members are confusing this issue of ordering the documents versus the public release of the documents, and I think it's important to be very clear on that.

What we are proposing now, which I hope will allow us to move to some consensus or at least reveal the true intentions of members, is a subamendment that replaces the existing amendment language with the following: “and that the departments and agencies tasked with the document production suggest redactions in writing along with the unredacted documents; and that the committee review the suggested redactions in conjunction with the parliamentary law clerk”.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm missing some of the text because the interpreters don't have it. Perhaps my colleague can read it in French as well. I want to be absolutely sure I understand because this is the most important part of my colleague's proposal.

I want to see the text in French because the interpretation couldn't follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's just getting emailed out.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I understand there were some modest revisions to the version I sent to the clerk a moment ago, but I will send a revised version now. This is not from my email account. I'm using someone else's email account. It's a long story.

The point is that what we are proposing with this subamendment is that the committee should still be able to see these contracts. At the same time, the government should suggest redactions that the committee will then review with the parliamentary law clerk. That would allow the committee to exercise responsible discretion around its use of this information, but it would not allow the government to unilaterally decide not to share a whole bunch of information that it doesn't want to share.

I think this is a reasonable process that orders the production of the unredacted contracts and allows proposals for redactions that the committee can then consider—and I think this is what Madame Gaudreau was envisioning—with the parliamentary law clerk, who can advise us appropriately. This is the way to be responsible and to ensure we have proper accountability. I hope this will get us to a consensus, or at least reveal the true intentions of all around this table.

I'll leave my comments there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll start a speaking list on the subamendment.

I understand the clerk is sending out a new email with the subamendment that has slight alterations in French. That will be coming out shortly.

On the subamendment, I have Ms. Sudds.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you.

It's wonderful to see the efforts around the table to get to a place where we can move this forward, as it certainly is an important piece of work to dive into.

I would make two comments or two suggestions that I think would strengthen this slightly.

As it reads, I think it is great. The only thing I ask is that we specify that the meeting for reviewing the documents with the committee be in camera, for obvious reasons; we don't want to be reviewing documents in their entirety in public.

The second piece is that any documents being circulated be sent only to our P9s.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We cannot amend a subamendment. We'll have to dispose of this first.

Perhaps we can dispose of this subamendment first, and you can propose that. I'm glad you brought that up. It allows us to have the discussion in the rather informal way that we do.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Does anyone else wish to speak to the subamendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

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

I want to be sure I'm following.

The proposals on the table would give us access to important information. I think our constituents will say that's fine and we're doing our job even if the meeting is in camera. We'll decide what's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry; it's not about the in camera meeting. We're dealing with Mr. Genuis's subamendment to your amendment.

Ms. Sudds suggested an in camera meeting, but we'd have to pass this and then get to your amendment and pass that, and then subamend that to add in camera. I understand what you're saying, but we'll have to get to that.

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

Mr. Chair, we have two options. There are other proposals on the table, so we can either vote on this one, which we are ready to do, or we can reach a consensus to adopt it. That's how it was done at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when we had consensus on proposals.

Another option would be for me to withdraw my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're on Mr. Genuis's subamendment that has come out: “and that the departments and agencies tasked with the document production suggest redactions in writing along with the unredacted documents; and that the committee review the suggested redactions in conjunction with the parliamentary law clerk”.

It goes to the original amendment offered by the Liberals, which is to have it redacted. I've seen this before, where the officials will say, “This is what we'd like to redact and why”, and that's presented to us. We don't get it redacted; we get “This is what we want redacted.” That's what Mr. Genuis suggested to add to your amendment. He was agreeing with you, but he added that the redactions be reviewed with us. It's not specified, but we can add that after the fact, I assume.

Are we clear on that, Ms. Gaudreau?

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

I'd like to hear from my colleague before I give you an answer.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

I'd like to clarify something, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Genuis was moving an amendment in place of Ms. Gaudreau's amendment. It's not a subamendment. It's an amendment to replace Ms. Gaudreau's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We were on Ms. Gaudreau's amendment. We'd have to vote her amendment down and then introduce his. We can't have him introduce an amendment when we're debating her amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

I understand. However, a subamendment cannot completely replace an amendment by proposing to do the exact opposite of the amendment. The proposed subamendment to Ms. Gaudreau's amendment is not in order because it would completely change it by getting rid of it.

I just want to make sure everyone understands that because we're ready to proceed. Mr. Chair, to make things easier, we could all give unanimous consent for Ms. Gaudreau to withdraw her amendment. Then we can talk about Mr. Genuis's amendment, which is complete. Then we can consider Ms. Sudds' proposal that the meeting be held in camera. It would be easier to do it in that order rather than amend something that isn't the committee's original intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can I interrupt for a second?

Do I sense that all three parties are getting to where we want to be with the in camera and the redactions?

Can we suspend for a minute so we can go ahead and draft it, so we don't have someone dropping an amendment and walking out the door?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

That's exactly why I proposed what I proposed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you again, everyone, for your patience. We are back.

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to try to find a compromise to move ahead with what I suspect is a whole new amendment.

We need to dispose of Mr. Genuis's subamendment. If I could seek unanimous consent, we'll withdraw that.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

We have to withdraw Ms. Gaudreau's amendment.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Wonderful.

Now I understand Ms. Sudds has an amendment.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

I think, Mr. Chair and colleagues, the goal here is to move forward together to be able to take a look at these documents and ensure that we do right by the Canadian public and the auto sector. As we stated earlier, there's definitely concern around unredacted documents and ensuring that we maintain the confidentiality of commercial dealings—as one would expect and as we, as a government, believe that we should be doing—to ensure that commercially sensitive and confidential documents are maintained.

Public disclosure of these documents not only is illegal, but it also diminishes our reputation as a country, as a jurisdiction for foreign investment. At a time when the U.S. market has essentially closed off and there are, certainly across government, many efforts to open new global markets and unlock new opportunities for our businesses and our workers, I think it would be counterproductive and would do more harm than good for these documents to be made publicly available. That's the chief primary concern here on this side. I think publicly disclosing these contracts implicates thousands of workers whose jobs are tied to these contracts, which—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can I interrupt for a second?

I think we're going to have the amendment. You're welcome to speak to your amendment, but we should do the amendment first.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Sure.

Can I just read the addition, Chair? The addition to the amendment is this: “and that the departments and agencies tasked with the document production suggest redactions in writing, along with the unredacted documents; and that the committee review the suggested redactions in camera in conjunction with the parliamentary law clerk; and that the documents be distributed to the P9s—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

May I interrupt?

It should read “distributed to the members' emails”, if you could just change that. It's a technical thing. We'll just change it to “the members' emails”. It was the clerk's suggestion.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

So it's not our general emails that our staff see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No, it's our members' emails.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Okay.

It would read, “and that the documents be distributed to our members' emails only for four, to be named, Liberal members; one, to be named, Bloc Québécois member; three, to be named, Conservative members; plus the chair.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect. I'm just going to address the issue of named members. Instead of having the specific OGGO members, it will be decided by the whip's office if it's someone outside of the normal committee who will view it, and that would be the person who continues to be able to access that.

Are we clear on that? Okay.

You can speak to your amendment, or we can open up the floor for a speaking list.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We go now to Mr. Gasparro to speak to the amendment.

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

I think it's absolutely critical that whenever we are looking at documents more broadly—my honourable colleague from the Bloc is a business person, which you can tell—we look toward the long term and the long-term implications of what happens when we request the distribution of documents more broadly. It could have long-term implications not only for this government, but for future governments.

Way too often, politicians get accused of short-termism. I think this is a perfect opportunity to look to the long term and what could happen to future governments if we do not protect this incredibly sensitive economic information. It's an opportunity to ensure that future governments are able to enter into agreements without having critical information disclosed that could harm any future company more broadly, because we simply need to attract that foreign direct investment.

It's just a warning about this. I know it's weird, because I'm a new MP and I've been here for a hot second, but I think this is something we just have to continue to focus on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Can we get to a vote then, please, on the amendment? Then we'll vote on the amended motion. We'll do a recorded vote.

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

The amendment carries. Thank you.

We'll do a recorded vote on the amended motion. We passed the amendment, so now we have the motion as a whole.

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

I'm sorry. Now that we've passed this, I'm just trying to figure out—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We passed Ms. Sudds' amendment, so now it's to pass the original motion as amended.

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

I apologize, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's okay. Wait until we get into subamendments to subamendments.

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

I'm assuming we're voting for this as we just voted. Wouldn't it just be the same?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Exactly. You understand well. That's the thing to do.

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Wonderful. That has passed.

Leave it with the clerk and me. I'll get back to the vice-chairs about how we'll move forward with dates and locations for that. I think we said “within two weeks”, but leave it with us. We'll figure it out and get back to the vice-chairs.

With that, there's nothing else. Thank you very much, everyone, for your co-operation.

We are adjourned.