Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 29th, 2025

[Lana Payne]

Absolutely none.

What also doesn't make any sense is that we've had a partial retool at Brampton. That plant is in a much better position to be able to complete the retool and get cars out the door, product out the door, a lot faster. If you noticed and read their news announcement when they announced the $13-billion investment into the United States, which also included our jobs and our investment that had been committed to in Brampton, they said they were doing this in order to make sure they could get vehicles quickly into the market and into the showrooms. There's no better place to do that than Brampton right now.

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

I certainly hope Mr. Hines is still listening.

Mr. Volpe, I was happy to hear you say that our sector is anchored in assembly. I would agree.

Can you give us an idea what the knock-on effects are for the parts manufacturers, for a decision like Stellantis announced recently?

[Flavio Volpe]

I was pleased to meet and discuss with you personally these types of dynamics in Guelph, at the Linamar centre for innovation. At that event, we talked about how a job in assembly is usually worth three or four...in auto parts that feed that plant. When you make a car, it's like a “jigsaw puzzle” operation, where 75% of those components are made at supplier factories.

In a plant like Brampton, when it's going at full hum, 3,000 workers, whom Lana represents, are making the cars that I buy. There are about 9,000 or 10,000 workers at auto parts facilities who are making the components that go into that jigsaw puzzle.

We were all waiting for that Compass. In support of the argument that Lana just made, let me add that the $13-billion announcement included over $600 million for retooling Belvidere, Illinois. In addition to the amount that was spent in retooling, and icing workers and suppliers in Brampton, they're investing another $600 million into a product that has a 6% or 7% profit margin.

Productivity is not the reason behind that decision.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For our last question, very quickly, the federal government has, of course, announced that it's taking action on Stellantis. We have also announced a number of supports for our workers in a number of tariff-affected sectors, including enhanced EI, trades training, the regional tariff response initiative, which is $6.5 billion for new measures to protect Canadian businesses and workers and, of course, the ongoing negotiations.

In your estimation, how critical is it to maintain these measures, and what actions, if any, can the Canadian government take to further stabilize the investment environment for the auto sector?

[Lana Payne]

I'm never going to argue that we need to have robust supports for workers when they're facing job loss but, in this case, what I would say is that our priority is to make sure that people have jobs and that the plant operates.

We have many elements in our collective agreement. Obviously, you heard Mr. Hines reference these. We have met with them around what continued benefits and income support for our members would look like. Let's just say that we're nowhere near a solution to that yet.

The reality is that, to stabilize the industry, there are a number of things we need to do: support production and make sure we're keeping these plants open during this period of time and, obviously, get to a place where we can get a secure trade deal with the United States.

We have leverage here. Canada is a massive market. You heard Flavio speak to this. It's a $100-billion market. We're the main export market for these companies outside of the United States in terms of where they sell their cars. That should be worth something. This is a critically important place for them not only to build cars but to sell cars. I think that has to factor into the equation here and into the decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses.

My questions are for the Unifor representatives, and I thank them for being here.

Your presentation highlights the seriousness of the situation. As you said, Ms. Payne, manufacturing jobs across the Canadian economy are at risk. In particular, you mentioned what's happening at Paccar, in Sainte‑Thérèse, in the northern suburbs of Montreal, and the hundreds of jobs that are being lost. Today we're talking about the Stellantis plant in Brampton. It all stems from President Donald Trump's trade war and illegal tariffs.

First of all, do you believe that the U.S. courts will correct the situation by declaring these tariffs illegal? They are indeed illegal, in my opinion.

[Lana Payne]

I wish I had a crystal ball for this one.

I would say that there are two types of tariffs we're dealing with. One that the Supreme Court will be looking at is the IEEPA tariffs. Also, what we are facing in terms of the tariffs on the auto industry are the section 232 tariffs, which are different in the context that they come through a different process in the United States.

Of course, those are all subject to our trade negotiations currently with the U.S., because they're the tariffs we see on auto, on steel, on aluminum, on copper and now on heavy-duty trucks, including the ones they would make at PACCAR.

There are many other tariffs or many other trade investigations on sectors that are also currently under way, which is why this is a very difficult time for our economy. We're looking at an aerospace investigation. We are looking at an investigation on pharmaceuticals. There is no end to the number of tariff attacks we've been facing and will continue to face from the United States.

This why our position has been that we have leverage as a country, and we need to think about how we use that leverage going forward if we're not able to get to a trade agreement. Every day, the goalposts appear to change with this president. I think that's something that's very clear, and the demands grow, and the extortion grows. We will therefore have to assess our position going forward and how we get to a deal.

The other thing I know is that the tariffs that the United States have put on us are now causing considerable pain in the U.S. and, as hard as this is to hear, we need that to happen. We need their industries to hurt as a result of the fact that they have a 50% tariff on our aluminum, because they can't build things without us. They can't grow things without us. As a country, we do have a lot of leverage in this trade war, and we need to make sure that we're letting that leverage be known.

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

That's very clear. Thank you very much.

They are the two most integrated economies in the world, so Canada has power. You said that until the tariff problems are resolved, the government should take more action by implementing a remission plan to compensate for the tariffs paid and preserve jobs in the manufacturing sector.

With regard to the Brampton plant, what lessons should the federal government learn from the cavalier manner in which Stellantis announced its change in plans to workers and the government? What does the government need to learn from this situation so that it doesn't happen again?

[Lana Payne]

I think we always have to be prepared to play hardball, that's for sure. What I will say to you is that in previous testimony from Mr. Hines, he mentioned over and over again the third shift that they have hired in the Windsor plant. I just want you all to understand that they are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. This was something our union negotiated in 2023, the same way we negotiated the commitment for Brampton.

The reality is that we expect these corporations to live up to the commitments they make. If there becomes a period in time...because conditions change. The way forward there is to sit down with the union and try to figure out a way through this, and potentially with government partners as well.

That did not occur here with Brampton. We found out 15 minutes before. That's why there were the robocalls. All of this was happening at the same time. Our union was notified 15 minutes before this was made public. Right up until that period, we were being told over and over again that they were committed to Brampton and that this product would be going to Brampton. Within a span of less than an hour, our members were getting robocalls. We went through a period of eight months when we were telling this company that they had to do a much better job of communicating to their loyal workforce about what was happening during that eight months. The communication that our members received was from us, not the company.

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

I'm sorry, I'm going to choose my words carefully in the few seconds I have left, but I think Stellantis' approach is disgusting. Fortunately, the union was there to inform and support workers. I imagine that the community's trust has been broken.

My time is up, but I will certainly have another opportunity to ask you questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Madam Dancho, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Just briefly, Mr. Volpe, you are here representing the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, which I believe represents 250 big companies in many parts and 90% of Canadian auto parts manufacturers. I didn't actually get how many jobs you represent in total, but I know it's several thousand.

[Flavio Volpe]

It's about 100,000.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That's a lot: 100,000. Thank you very much for your advocacy on behalf of those workers.

My understanding is that in Brampton it certainly impacted 3,000 direct jobs, but I have heard that it impacted as many as 12,000 indirect jobs, many of them in your sector, the auto parts sector. Is that correct?

[Flavio Volpe]

That's correct. When that plant is operating at full capacity, there are about 9,000 or 10,000 jobs in suppliers, in that region and then the rest of Ontario, that supply that production. Those jobs without cars there do not exist.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes. I just wanted to confirm that, because you represent a significant number of workers. Thank you for that.

Ms. Payne, I have similar questions for you. Of course, Unifor, as you well know, represents many auto workers, but how many in general?

[Lana Payne]

We have 40,000 members in the auto sector. They would work in assembly plants and also for some of the suppliers that Flavio represents. When you speak about Stellantis and the Brampton decision, we also had about 1,000 members in the supply chain who were impacted by this decision. Then there would have been thousands more who potentially were not part of our union. It's a significant impact.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes. From what you've said in some of what I've read, and you might have said it today as well, we can easily classify this as a crisis for our auto sector. To paraphrase what you said—correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was quite impactful—we will lose it all in terms of our auto sector if we don't get a trade deal.

[Lana Payne]

Yes. I mean, I think there are many ways we can do things right now. We have worked with these auto companies through what has been a very difficult situation. Some of them are investing still in Canada. What I fear, and this is why we have been promoting the fact that this is an industry where a tariff is going to cause a continued loss of investment in the industry, is that, to your point, without the investment, without new product going into these plants, you don't have a future. The investment right now is very limited and is based on previous times. We have seen a lot of new investment being announced, all of it going to the United States at this moment.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes, I'm glad you brought up the tariffs. Of course, this is a huge part of what we're dealing with, as many of you have outlined in this study that we're doing.

I think what I'm quite concerned about, and I'm sure you've seen what I've seen, is that the communications from the Trump administration are quite serious. They're in essence saying this is their goal. They want to bleed us dry of our auto sector. I'm paraphrasing their words, but that's my read of their goal. It's pretty ruthless, and it's impacting thousands of jobs already, and we're only a few months in, so to speak.

I'm also concerned, though, that we aren't hearing a confident communication in any way from the Liberal government that they are going to deliver an auto deal for Canadians. We have not heard those communications. It has not been prioritized in their communications, so I'm very concerned that we are just at the beginning of this and that it's going to be quite some time before we get an auto deal, if we ever get one.

I think what we're trying to figure out is if there's anything we can do within our domestic sole control to make the auto sector more competitive here so we can hope to keep some jobs. I know that you mentioned mandates previously regarding the pause and that they were necessary given unprecedented challenges facing domestic industry. This move provides temporary relief to an industry reeling from Trump's tariffs. I appreciate that you appreciate the temporary relief.

I would argue that a permanent relief would do even more for some of the certainty that's required and, Mr. Volpe, I know that you've classified to the Toronto Star the mandate as “economic punishment”, and we couldn't agree more. We've heard this at length, Mr. Chair, from a number of witnesses about the EV mandates. I really do believe that they're like a noose hanging over the auto sector's head. Surely we can do something to help support them right now.

I will move the following motion, Mr. Chair. I move:

Given that the federal Liberal Electric Vehicle mandate is currently paused but not repealed, and may be reinstated following the government’s ongoing review; Given that the mandate: Reduces consumer choice and affordability, with electric vehicles costing around $15,000 more than comparable gas models, and winter range losses of up to 40% affecting rural and northern drivers; Does not reflect consumer demand, as electric vehicles made up only 8.7% of new vehicle sales in early 2025, a 23% drop from the previous year; Is out of step with the U.S. market, where no comparable federal sales mandate exists and automakers are given greater flexibility to meet consumer demand; Upon reinstatement, would require automakers to meet strict quotas—60% zero-emission sales by 2030 and 100% by 2035—or face penalties of up to $20,000 per vehicle; Would once again channel millions in compliance payments to foreign companies like Tesla, instead of supporting Canadian automakers and jobs; Has been criticized by industry experts, including: Huw Williams of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, who called the EV mandate “a pending disaster” and stated: “If you want to help Tesla, and not your local car dealer, keep the EV mandate”; and Brian Kingston of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association who called it “a direct challenge to our competitiveness as an auto manufacturing jurisdiction because it is levying punitive costs on companies that do not achieve these arbitrary sales targets”; That the committee report to the House its recommendation that the federal Liberal Electric Vehicle mandate be abolished.

Mr. Chair, we feel quite strongly about this, and I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'll just seek clarity from you, Madam Dancho. Are you moving notice or you are moving the motion?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I'm moving the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You're moving the motion.

Colleagues, I note that I have three hands raised over here.

I'd like to make a recommendation to the committee, and should colleagues not accept that recommendation, that's fine. We'll abide by the Standing Orders.

We have three witnesses with us. We have about 12 to 15 minutes of testimony left. If we get into a long, drawn-out discussion or even a discussion of any kind on this motion, that is going to either prevent us from speaking to the witnesses further, or it is going to mean that the witnesses have to sit here, wait and listen to us deal with committee-related business that was not the reason they were brought here today.

Here's what I would like to recommend. We allow for the line of questioning to continue, and we agree with unanimous consent that we will honour the moving of Madam Dancho's motion, which we will engage on once we're finished our line of questioning, so that we can make full us of the expertise of the witnesses who have made themselves available to us today. Following the conclusion of that, we will resume debate on this motion.

In order for us to do that, I'm going to need unanimous consent from the membership.

Go ahead, Madam Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

How long will we have to discuss it?