Government Operations Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[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.