Government Operations Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[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.