Industry and Technology Committee on Dec. 10th, 2025

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I think you're making lots of assumptions for someone who has not seen the entirety, sir. You have the benefit of having someone who did it—

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

The only reason I haven't seen the entirety is that you've hidden it.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Sir, I'm trying to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Gentlemen, we're out of—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

If you want to pretend you were there and you know, just go on. I'm trying to help you understand the contract and the interaction between the two clauses, and the interaction with the other SIF agreement. If you look at the other SIF agreement, you see that you have a protection for 2,500 jobs. If you put the two together, you have a protection for about 7,000 jobs, which is the floor that you have in these agreements—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Minister—

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

That SIF agreement has been modified as well with an amendment that talked about the jobs—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Gentlemen, your time was up.

Mr. Seeback and Minister, both of you, please, when I intervene as chair, your responsibility in that moment is to listen to what I have to say to allow me to get us to a productive, efficient, respectful and effective space.

Minister, I was trying to afford a couple more seconds for you to answer that question. I think we've done that.

I'm now going to go on to the next line of questioning, which will be from Madame O'Rourke.

Ms. O'Rourke, you have the floor for six minutes.

I hope we can show more respect for our colleagues during subsequent questions.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No worries, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Minister, thank you for being here.

The reason for conducting investigations is to understand the substance of an issue; it should be carried out in good faith, because ultimately, we're doing it for the workers and for the industry.

Minister Champagne, can you give us a bit of background on the context surrounding your contract negotiations with Stellantis and NextStar when you were the minister responsible for the industry?

The geopolitical and trade contexts must certainly have been different back then.

Can you give us an overview of Canada-U.S. relations at that time?

I'll have to ask you to be brief, because I want to ask a follow-up question.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's an excellent question.

I'd like to remind my colleagues of something that I think will make them happy. Some may recall that in 2024, Bloomberg reported that Canada was outperforming China within the EV supply chain. Canada had positioned itself in an interesting way.

Today, we're focusing attention on one investment, but there are others. Honda has invested in Canada. Volkswagen has invested in Canada.

I understand that people want to get to the bottom of things, but we need to consider the context. At the time, the auto industry was rapidly changing. I can tell my colleagues about what we've accomplished. It surprises me that one of my colleagues can't see the bigger picture. The world sees Canada very differently now.

Imagine, one of Volkswagen's largest plants outside Germany was opened in Canada. The company chose Canada. Bécancour was selected as Quebec's jumping off point into the automotive industry. We managed to get the NextStar plant, which is going to manufacture batteries. We managed to secure an investment by Stellantis.

The geopolitics were very different back then. Remember the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States? Canada positioned itself to defend the industry, to defend its workers. We wanted to position Canada in an enviable way.

As I was trying to explain to my colleagues earlier, you have to understand that these contracts are based on international models. It's not something that's unique to Canada. In a way, these are standard contracts. Any commitments made are usually spread out over a decade. They not only include jobs, but also local spending and investments, which is what happens with research and development. I can assure you that we've made solid gains through these contracts, for workers, for industry and for Canada. You just have to look at the big picture to see the investments that we've been able to attract.

What we wanted at the time was to position Canada within a 21st century auto industry. When you've been doing the same thing for a hundred years, there's obviously a technological transition involved in moving on from internal combustion engines to electric motors. Consumer habits, supply chains, technology—all of that evolves.

People looked at things in a certain way. If you take the Ford Model T, however, you'll see that it took quite a long time before it became successful. I'd also remind my colleagues that it took Tesla 17 years to turn a profit. There's a change in technology.

I think that the electrification of transportation is still our north star. Yes, I'm proud of what we were able to negotiate for Canada. It's true that we're going to fight to ensure compliance with the provisions we included in this contract to protect workers, our industry and Canada. I can say that all of these provisions were thoroughly negotiated.

That's why I'm happy to come before the committee to shed light on all this. Much is being said, but few people were there at the time. Those who were there and who've come before you today can answer those questions. They can even tell you about the transaction and the negotiations. They can tell you about the meetings that took place to reach these provisions.

I'm pleased to be here and to speak with you in full transparency. I think everyone here should join forces. What we want is to stand up for workers.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm just going to switch to English for a second, because you're talking about being here for transparency and that the clauses in the contract make a lot of sense in context and still do today. There's a lot of misinformation floating around about this conversation.

Minister, what is it you would want Canadian auto workers to know, Canadians to know, about the routine clauses that are there, things like requirements to report material changes, benefits commitments, defaults and remedies, all that stuff?

What were the actual amounts disbursed? I think we heard in the House of Commons again today an allegation that $15 billion was disbursed. It's nowhere near that. You've talked about the floor for jobs, but what's the misinformation out in the world right now that you would like to clarify and put on the record today?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I wish I had more than one hour to do that, but I can certainly start. First of all, I've heard the number of $15 billion.

Mr. Chair, for Canadians, the commitment of the federal government under the special contribution agreement is $9.704 billion, so $15 billion does not represent the undertaking of the federal government. That's the first thing.

Of that amount, remember that the special contribution agreement is production support, so this is not a cheque. This is akin to a tax credit. Of that amount—and I'm so happy you asked because I'm sure my colleagues from the Conservatives have read the public accounts of Canada. I'll be very specific, because I love that, and I'm so happy you asked the question. If you go to page 340, you will see that the actual amount disbursed—and I hope my Conservative colleagues listen to this because it's very important—by the federal government is $40 million.

I know that there are a lot of people floating a lot of numbers, and I would invite them to go to the public accounts of Canada, which are audited. On page 340, they would see the exact amount that has been disbursed. That's what I'm saying. I'm trying to bring light to a discussion because people make a lot of allegations, but I'm happy to go to each line to provide you the details so Canadians can form an opinion.

Of the amount that has been stated in the House and the amounts that I've heard today, $40 million has been disbursed, and that's in the public accounts of Canada on page 340 of volume II.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Rourke.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, Mr. Tessier and Mr. Vincent, thank you for being here.

My questions are for Mr. Champagne. I have six quick questions to ask in six minutes. We'll try to manage that.

First, organizations that help develop artificial intelligence, like Scale AI, are reaching the end of their funding. Does the government plan to announce any support for these organizations in the coming weeks or months?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, thank you for your question, Mr. Ste‑Marie. It's a pleasure to see you again. We haven't seen each other in quite a while.

You will have noticed in budget 2025 that we've set aside significant amounts of money to continue providing national and even global leadership in the artificial intelligence field. As you know, Canada was the first country to acquire a national strategy on artificial intelligence and quantum technology.

It's true that Scale AI in Montreal is one of the organizations that played a key role in that. As I told you, funds have been provided in the budget, and the minister responsible will determine how much of those funds will be allocated to the operational sector when the time comes.

I think we should be proud of the advances we've made in the field of artificial intelligence in Canada, particularly in Montreal.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you very much.

When you were Minister of Industry, you promised us an aerospace industry strategy and policy.

When can we expect them?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It's still a matter close to my heart. I think we need them, especially considering the investments being made in the military sector.

I've spoken to the Premier of Quebec, and it seems that the province has made some interesting advances in the aerospace industry and others. We know that Quebec has developed a solid industry in this field. I think that our defence investments will allow us to help the aerospace industry, which is at the centre of Quebec's major industrial sectors.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you very much for your answer.

I'll move on to another topic.

I must admit that I was saddened and disappointed to find out that the $25 million previously allocated over two years to the community encampment response plan, or CERP, associated with the Canada-Quebec agreement on unsheltered homelessness and encampments, is not going to be renewed, as one of your colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities confirmed for us last week.

We're experiencing an early winter and terrible cold spells. People are living in encampments. Municipalities, the Quebec government and everyone are taking action, yet we've learned that Ottawa is withdrawing its direct assistance for homelessness and encampments.

It's only $25 million. Why are you opting out?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I'm sure you noticed that we've made record investments in housing under the last federal budget.

I think we're happy to do our part. We're happy to support municipalities. I'm glad you highlighted that, because I think that housing is the cornerstone of affordability.

Either this very evening or tomorrow, we'll be sitting down for another federal-provincial meeting with our colleagues. I think we have a role to play, but so do the municipalities and the provincial government. We're pleased to have made a historic investment of roughly $13 billion to build more affordable housing in the country.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

In that regard, we welcome the commitment, including the $1 billion payment to transition houses to fight homelessness. That's good.

What really saddens me is that organizations on the ground are finding out that they're going to lose $15,000. When I said $25 million, that was per year for Quebec. The shortfall will have to be filled to pay salaries.

Moving on to another topic.

Stellantis was mentioned in connection with the auto sector crisis. In Quebec, this crisis is also affecting the PACCAR plant on Montreal's north shore.

What's being done to help that plant's employees? Are they going to land on their feet, considering the trade dispute with the U.S.?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We're trying to help them.

I reached out to the CEO of PACCAR.

I understand that you're saddened. However, there's something that should make you happy: Over the past few years, we've managed to get Quebec into the auto industry. Five or 10 years ago, I don't think you or I would have been talking about Bécancour as an auto centre. Now that municipality is part of the Canadian auto industry, and I think that's an important step forward.

The same applies to groups like PACCAR, with an assembly plant near Mirabel.

I'm well aware of the situation. As Quebeckers, I think we should celebrate the fact that Quebec has become part of the automotive industry. I think that was a long-standing wish. Even when I go to Tokyo or Seoul, people talk to me about Bécancour. It's a Quebec success story, and I think you're as proud of that as I am.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you. We can only hope that the situation with our U.S. partner will return to normal.

I'll move on to another topic again.

In an article published this morning by Radio-Canada, we were told that the Prime Minister wants to circumvent federal laws in the name of innovation.

Some provisions of Bill C‑15 give any minister the authority to disregard any law or any regulation in the name of innovation.

Bill C‑5 already allows the possibility of circumventing the law for the purposes of major projects, and now it's innovation. Seeing that concerns me, because we live under the rule of law. To me, that prospect sounds like an authoritarian policy.

If this kind of policy were passed, wouldn't it undermine the trust of the people and of businesses in the impartiality of the state, which is supposed to uphold the law? Why is the government doing that?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm glad you asked that question, but I think it demands a lot more clarification.

Canada is catching up with the other G7 countries. We need a “sandbox” in order to have innovation. We're getting better at it, but the other G7 countries all have a fairly similar system. Why? We know that in certain industries, innovation calls for a “sandbox”. In that small space, we can innovate. We can set bureaucracy aside and innovate. This is a fairly common practice in G7 countries. Most of our colleagues do the same; I even checked that this morning.

I saw the article, but I think it overlooks a lot of necessary distinctions. If you read international reports on innovation, you'll see that it's fairly common, at least in G7 countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I'm requesting a written response if possible. I'm deeply concerned.

I see that your colleagues are here, Minister. Can they email the clerk international examples of this model? That would help us move forward.

Thank you for your generosity.