In a striking contradiction, automotive manufacturer Stellantis has directly challenged the Canadian government's account of who demanded secrecy over a lucrative federal agreement. The company asserts it never asked for portions of a contract, worth hundreds of millions in public incentives, to be blacked out before it was given to a parliamentary committee.
A Clash of Accounts on Parliament Hill
The dispute centres on a letter Stellantis sent to the House of Commons Government Operations Committee. This correspondence directly contradicts testimony given last week by senior officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). Those officials told the committee that the redactions made to the agreement were requested by Stellantis itself.
Faced with this new claim from the automaker, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly stated on Tuesday that her department would finally comply with the committee's original demand. "I received the letter (from Stellantis) earlier. There’s no problem, we’ll remove the redactions and send it to the committee," Joly told the National Post.
This reversal follows weeks of refusal by ISED to provide an unredacted version, despite a formal committee motion passed in October. The motion demanded full copies of all agreements since 2015 between Ottawa and Stellantis related to the company's Brampton Assembly Plant in Ontario.
Scrutiny Over Incentives and Production Moves
The agreements in question involve substantial federal funding through the Strategic Investment Fund (SIF), intended to support the maintenance and growth of the Brampton facility. However, the deals came under intense parliamentary scrutiny after Stellantis announced in mid-October that it would move production of certain Jeep models from the Ontario plant to the United States.
That business decision was reportedly influenced by pressure from the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump to boost American auto manufacturing. The move raised immediate questions about the value and conditions of the Canadian public investment.
The committee's use of its parliamentary privilege—a constitutional power granting it near-absolute authority to demand documents—made the government's initial provision of only a redacted version a serious point of contention. Members had warned it could constitute a breach of that privilege.
Demand for Answers and Accountability
The conflicting stories from a major corporation and a government department have sparked demands for clarity and accountability on Parliament Hill. "Someone is not telling us the truth, and now we have to get to the bottom of it," said Conservative MP and committee member Kelly Block.
Both Bloc Québécois and Conservative members of the committee have stated that representatives from both ISED and Stellantis will need to reappear to explain the discrepancy. The first step in that process is scheduled for this Thursday, when Stellantis officials are expected to face questions from parliamentarians.
When pressed on which party—her department or the company—might have misled the committee, Minister Joly declined to comment. The unfolding situation places a spotlight on the transparency of large-scale government subsidies to private industry and the mechanisms MPs have to oversee them.
