Appearance before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) by Deputy Minister Jennings - December 9, 2025

December 9, 2025

Table of contents

• Questions & answers
• Scenario note
• Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO): Mandate & Bio of the Members of the committee

Questions & answers

Questions

1. Did the ISED provide the redactions to Stellantis?
2. Did ISED and Stellantis agree to the redactions?
3. Are you willing to have the redacted version shared publicly?
4. Did the department just agree to all the information the company wants to have redacted?
5. Why were the Provincial funding envelopes redacted?
6. If the redactions were for commercial confidentiality can you explain why these initials were redacted?
7. You claim these were light reactions, but there seems to be information that could have been released to this committee from the beginning. How do you explain this?
8. Our motion was for both redacted and unredacted documents. Did the department ever ask the company to share unredacted documents?
9. Why can we access more information by ATIP for agreement on NextStar than can access via Parliamentary Committee?
10. Who is the boss on redactions, the government or multinationals?
11. Who had the marker in hand for the redactions? Name me the individuals.
12. Is the jobs commitment 100% of the jobs at Stellantis at the time the contract was signed? Are you trying to hide weak non-binding job commitments with the redactions? (number of commitments in agreement to protect workers)
13. Is Stellantis in default?
14. Is it acceptable that Minister did not read the full contract, as per your earlier testimony?
15. During your last appearance you were asked how many people in the department would have access to the agreement? How many people have read the agreement? Are you able to answer this question?
16. Do you acknowledge that your previous testimony was inaccurate? Do you accept that you did or came close to a breach of Parliamentary privilege?
17. Can you explain why your department reported only $104 million was disbursed under this agreement and then a week later it was over $200 million?
18. Is the department still paying a company that has said it will leave the country?
19. How much does the company need to pay back to Canada? How can you ensure to protect taxpayers money?
20. Is the government continuing to make payments to Stellantis through the NextStar agreement?
21. How much money has been disbursed to NextStar?
22. What is the government's position regarding Stellantis moving the mandate for the Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois?

Answers

1. Did the ISED provide the redactions to Stellantis?
   • Yes, ISED provided redactions to Stellantis
   • Stellantis provided consent to share the redacted version with safeguards on the treatment of material

   If pressed:

   • Redactions were based on ISED's interactions with both Stellantis and other companies on previous requests. The redactions were shared to ensure timeliness in our response to Committee
   • As Stellantis stated in their testimony, Stellantis agreed to the redactions "given those redactions reflected [its] business information" and ""protected [its] information appropriately"
   • As confirmed by Stellantis this was a "joint effort"
2. Did ISED and Stellantis agree to the redactions?
   • Yes, ISED and Stellantis agreed to the redactions
3. Are you willing to have the redacted version shared publicly?
   • As a condition of sharing the redacted version with this committee, Stellantis asked that safeguards be in place to ensure limited distribution
   • Stellantis would have to consent to sharing this version with the public\
4. Did the department just agree to all the information the company wants to have redacted?
   • We had discussions with Stellantis on the redactions and the treatment of material as was confirmed by Stellantis during their appearance on December 4th
5. Why were the Provincial funding envelopes redacted?
   • These redactions related to the breakdown of funding by location which at the time we were not aware had been made public by either the province or the company
6. If the redactions were for commercial confidentiality can you explain why these initials were redacted?
   • The initials were redacted at the time as personal information, but have subsequently been found in the public domain so could have been released
7. You claim these were light reactions, but there seems to be information that could have been released to this committee from the beginning. How do you explain this?
   • Department officials worked with Stellantis to provide the redacted documents to committee as quickly as possible
   • Our intent was to be as transparent as possible, but yes, it is fair to say that there are some elements that could have been released in the first place
     • For example, initials of the signatory of the Amendment (initially redacted for privacy reason, but subsequently found in the public domain), and breakdown of provincial contributions by locations (subsequently found in the public domain), could have been unredacted initially
8. Our motion was for both redacted and unredacted documents. Did the department ever ask the company to share unredacted documents?
   • No, we did not ask the company if they would be willing to share unredacted documents. We approached this request building on the approach used with previous committees
   • On December 1st, Stellantis consented to provide fully unredacted documents, subject to a number of safeguards to the handling of documents to ensure protection of confidential information. ISED documents shared these documents with the Committee on December 4th
9. Why can we access more information by ATIP for agreement on NextStar than can access via Parliamentary Committee?
   • The ATIP in question was not received by my department so I cannot speak to it
   • Section 20 of the Access to Information Act requires that "a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested that contains financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party". It further states that the government may disclose these records with "the consent of the third party"
10. Who is the boss on redactions, the government or multinationals?
    • ISED and the company work together to identify redactions
    • Ultimately is important that the government respects the terms of the agreement, and we expect the company to do the same
    • As I have previously stated maintaining the trust of third parties and ensuring that their confidential information is protected is parament to any government prior to entering into contractual relationships with businesses
    • In the case of the SRF, doing otherwise would undermine investment attraction, and in turn, jeopardize job creation and economic growth in Canada
    • Now that the Committee has the fully unredacted documents, I want to stress to the Committee that I am ready to meet at your convenience to discuss the elements of the agreement that are of interest to its members
11. Who had the marker in hand for the redactions?
    • In this instance, the department shared redacted documents with Stellantis based on our experience working with them and other companies on previous requests
12. Is the jobs commitment 100% of the jobs at Stellantis at the time the contract was signed? Are you trying to hide weak non-binding job commitments with the redactions? (number of commitments in agreement to protect workers) Note: Job numbers are not public.
    • A primary objective of the Strategic Response Fund (SRF) is to protect, create and maintain jobs in Canada. By supporting key investments, the SRF contributes to building a resilient economy. To date the SRF has created and maintained approximately 150 thousand jobs
    • To this end, the SRF agreement with Stellantis was about protecting the company's footprint in both Windsor (manufacturing plants and research centre) and Brampton
    • Job numbers in SRF agreements were negotiated with the company and as the Minister stated at her December 4 appearance at the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT) reflect the auto sector and more specifically that:

      "…when you look at an automaker over a 10 to 15 year period, you know there will be changes in models. Sometimes during that time, that lifespan, there will be a time when there's retooling and basically people are put on pause to then be rehired. That is all negotiated with Unifor. That is all negotiated with the unions."

    • The job commitments were not redacted in the document previously provided to this Committee
    • In addition to job commitments, SIF agreements include other benefit commitments such as R&D and CAPEX investments
    • We are happy to answer questions on the benefit clauses in camera
13. Is Stellantis in default?
    • As the Minister indicated, on December 4, 2025 a letter has been sent to the company to provide a Notice of Default to Stellantis
    • A previous letter had been sent to company on November 3, 2025 beginning the Resolution Process as per Schedule 5 of the Agreement)
    • Stellantis responded on December 3, 2025. The response was determined to be not sufficient
    • I cannot provide more information on the matter, given the potential for litigation and associated litigation privilege
14. Is it acceptable that Minister did not read the full contract, as per your earlier testimony?
    • The Minister has made it clear she has read the full contract
    • On the day of the announcement by Stellantis, a copy of the agreement was shared with my office. While I do not have a record of it being shared with the Ministers' office, this would have been standard practice
    • I was not aware of this at the time of our last appearance
15. During your last appearance you were asked how many people in the department would have access to the agreement? How many people have read the agreement? Are you able to answer this question?
    • I cannot provide an exact number for you, but it would a small number of people
    • Contributions are treated as business confidential and therefore sensitively with limited distribution
    • There would only be a small number of people who had read the agreement in its entirety, with others reviewing clauses relevant to their areas of expertise. This would include legal, finance and program officials
16. Do you acknowledge that your previous testimony was inaccurate? Do you accept that you did or came close to a breach of Parliamentary privilege?
    • It has always been our intention to be transparent, and to ensure the Committee has the information it needs to undertake oversight, while balancing the need to protect commercially confidential information to protect the competitiveness of Canadian industry and maintain our contractual commitments
    • As I mentioned at my last appearance, our approach to the sharing of the redacted agreement built upon similar requests by Parliamentary Committees in the past
    • This approach was taken in order to facilitate the timely sharing of information with the Committee with as much transparency as possible
17. Can you explain why your department reported only $104 million was disbursed under this agreement to the CBC and then a week later it was over $200 million?
    • Public reporting on funding disbursed under all agreements is done through public accounts
    • The Public Accounts were updated on November 7th, which accounts for this discrepancy
    • As of March 31, 2025, $222.4 million has been disbursed on the $529 million SRF contribution agreement for the Brampton and Windsor facilities
    • No payment has been made since the announcement
18. Is the department still paying a company that has said it will leave the country?
    • No payments have been made to Stellantis under the SRF agreement since the company announced its plans to move the Jeep mandate to the US. All payments under this agreement are on hold during the Resolution process
19. How much does the company need to pay back to Canada? How can you ensure to protect taxpayers money?
    • We would be happy to answer questions on the details of the agreement including remedies in an in camera session
20. Is the government continuing to make payments to Stellantis through the NextStar agreement?
    • NextStar is distinct legal entity – a Joint Venture between Stellantis and LG Energy. The company remains in good standing and neither the SRF agreement or the SCA are part of the Resolution Process
21. How much money has been disbursed to NextStar?
    • As per the Public Accounts, $490.8 million has been disbursed under the SRF agreement and $40.6 million has been disbursed under the SCA
22. What is the government's position regarding Stellantis moving the mandate for the Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois?
    • As the Minister stated in her opening remarks, "Stellantis is on the hook"
    • As an immediate response after Stellantis's October 15 announcement, the Government sent a letter to Antonio Filosa, the global CEO of Stellantis, stating that "the company's actions were unacceptable and that we expected them to honour their legally binding commitments"
    • In addition, On October 23, the Government announced a 50% reduction in Stellantis's annual remission quota
    • On November 3, the Government formally triggered the dispute resolution process
    • On December 4, the Government sent Stellantis a notice of default

Scenario note for Deputy Jennings' Appearance before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

December 9, 2025, 11AM-12PM

Committee members

Liberal	Iqra Khalid (Mississauga Mills, ON)	Vice Chair
	Vince Gasparro (Eglinton—Lawrence, ON)	Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)
	Pauline Rochefort (Nipissing-Timiskaming, ON)	Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)
	Jenna Sudds (Kanata, ON)	Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and to the Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)
Conservative	Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, AB)	Committee Chair (since 2022)
	Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK)	CPC critic for Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement
	Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, BC)
	Jeremy Patzer (Swit Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK)
Bloc Québécois	Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, QC)	Vice Chair

Details of the Appearance :

On December 4, following an appearance by Stellantis' Director of External Affairs and Public Policy, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) unanimously re-invited ISED officials to appear to discuss perceived discrepancies between ISED testimony on November 25 and a letter sent by Stellantis to the Committee on December 1, indicating that ISED had provided recommendations on redactions to the company.

ISED provided unredacted copies of the contribution agreement to the Committee on December 4, following confirmation that Stellantis had consented to sharing the documents unredacted given certain confidentiality provisions.

To begin the study, on October 20, OGGO adopted a motion ordering the production of all contracts between the federal government and Stellantis (and subsidiaries) at the Brampton Assembly Plant in an unredacted and electronic format.

After conducting third party consultations, ISED provided a lightly redacted version of the contribution agreement to the Committee Clerk on November 6. Hard copy packages were provided in both official languages. In the cover letter included with the packages, the Deputy Minister suggests that the committee adopt the model used in previous parliaments, where consideration of the agreements be viewed under strict parameters, and that officials be invited to appear at committee to discuss the documents, in an in-camera format.

Following the submission of the lightly redacted documents, over two meetings (November 6 and November 18) the committee discussed ISED's response to the motion. Parliamentary Law Clerk, Michel Bédard, briefed Committee Members on the rights of committees and Parliament regarding the power to call for the production of papers. After some heated discussion between MPs on November 6, and some additional follow-up questions on November 18, the committee agreed to invite ISED and Stellantis representatives to appear before the committee to explain the redactions and the reasons for making them.

Appearance logistics:

A number of ISED officials will appear alongside the Deputy Minister:

• Charles Vincent, Senior ADM, Industry Sector
• Stephanie Tanton, ADM, Innovation Canada
• Denis Martel, DG, Innovation Canada
• Benoit Tessier, DG, Industry Sector.

Witnesses are given five minutes for opening remarks. Following Opening Remarks, questions are asked by MPs in rotating blocks by party. The order of the questioning rounds is as follows:

• First round: 6 minutes to the CPC, LPC, and BQ, in that order.
• Second (and subsequent rounds): 5 min to the CPC, and LPC, 2.5 min to the BQ, and then 5 min to the CPC and the LPC.

Notably, OGGO is an opposition-chaired committee, meaning the governing party has less control over the agenda compared to other Standing Committees. This may lead to a more contentious atmosphere.

The meeting is expected to take place in public. Should questions be received that cannot be answered in public, the response should indicate that a full response to the question can only be made if the committee were to move in camera. Any member of the committee may move a motion for the meeting to be moved in camera. During in camera appearances, questions may be less confrontational, given that proceedings are not recorded and what is discussed cannot be quoted publicly.

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO)

Mandate of the committee

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates focuses on the estimates process as well as on the effectiveness and proper functioning of government operations.

Under Standing Order 108(3)(c), the Committee's mandate includes the study of:

• the format and content of all estimates documents
• the effectiveness, management, and expenditure plans of:
• central departments and agencies
• new information and communication technologies adopted by the government
• cross-departmental mandates, including programs delivered by more than one department or agency
• Crown corporations and agencies that have not been specifically referred to another standing committee
• statutory programs, tax expenditures, loan guarantees, contingency funds and private foundations deriving the majority of their funding from the Government of Canada

Committee operating procedures

Witness' opening statements: 5 minutes

Questions round 1

1. Conservative: 6 minutes
2. Liberal: 6 minutes
3. Bloc Québécois: 6 minutes

Questions round 2 (and subsequent rounds)

1. Conservative: 5 minutes
2. Liberal: 5 minutes
3. Bloc Québécois: 2.5 minutes
4. Conservative: 5 minutes
5. Liberal: 5 minutes

Anticipated TBS-related Activity – 45th Parliament

• Main Estimates & Supplementary Estimates
• ArriveCAN*
• Indigenous Procurement*
• Purchase of the Official Residence of the Consul General in New York*

*Considerations underway to potentially re-establish these studies

Committee members

Name & role	Party	Riding	OGGO member since
Chair
Kelly McCauley	Conservative	Edmonton West	Chair since October 2022, Member since 2016
Vice-chairs
Iqra Khalid	Liberal	Mississauga—Malton	October 2025
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Critic for Estimates & Government Operations	Bloc québécois	Laurentides—Labelle	June 2025
Members
Jemery Patzer	Conservative	Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley	June 2025
Kelly Block Critic for Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement	Conservative	Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek	October 2022 Previously a Member from 2011 to 2020
Tamara Jansen	Conservative	Cloverdale—Langley City	June 2025
Vince Gasparro Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)	Liberal	Eglinton—Lawrence	June 2025
Jenna Sudds Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and to the Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)	Liberal	Kanata	June 2025
Pauline Rochefort Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)	Liberal	Nipissing—Timiskaming	June 2025

Bio of the members of the committee

Chair: Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, AB)

Conservative

Vice-chai: Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON)

Liberal

Vice-chair: Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, QC)

Bloc québécois

Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK)

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer (Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK)

Conservative

Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, BC)

Conservative

Vince Gasparro (Eglinton—Lawrence, ON)

Liberal

Jenna Sudds (Kanata, ON)

Liberal

Pauline Rochefort (Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON)

Liberal