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.