Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 29th, 2025

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you to both of the witnesses for their opening testimony.

Mr. Volpe, your members represent 100,000 Canadian jobs. Without a question, the tariffs are the catalyst for the manufacturing sector, both auto and otherwise.

We've heard testimony on this committee from numerous people associated with the manufacturing and auto industry who cite regulatory issues, tax framework and overall competitiveness issues vis-à-vis the U.S., especially given its aggressive approach to attract business through tax reduction strategy and regulation reduction strategy.

How would you describe Canada's current competitiveness relative to the United States jurisdiction?

[Flavio Volpe]

Removing tariffs from the conversation, it's very competitive. Obviously, we're dealing with the last Trump administration's approach to corporate tax benefits and the Biden administration's approach to flooding the zone with production subsidies, but in the packages that landed these investments—like the one that we're talking about from Stellantis and General Motors—there were good workarounds.

Also, Canadians buy a lot of cars—up to two million a year. It's also a very valuable market for profitable car companies to participate in.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Is the EV mandate making it harder for your members to justify new investment here?

[Flavio Volpe]

You may have heard me say from the beginning that the EV mandate was unachievable, unworkable and not based in reality, although it was noble.

One of two things was going to happen. Companies were going to pour money into earlier programs that were less profitable to meet the targets or they were going to have to buy credits from other companies that don't manufacture in Canada—like Tesla or VinFast—to meet the targets. Both of those were inefficient and would not result in more business for Canadian auto parts suppliers.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Would you say the EV mandates have caused some unintended consequences for the auto sector?

[Flavio Volpe]

You can Google me on the record on that. I've been a lot less generous than you were there.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

So would you agree with that, for the record, for this committee?

[Flavio Volpe]

Yes, sure.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Do you believe in allowing consumers and industry to decide the pace of transition to EVs and that this sort of approach would strengthen the auto sector overall?

[Flavio Volpe]

Well, there's a balance to be had. The Canadian economy has some benefits that come from some stretch goals in EVs. They just have to be based in reality.

Canadians should be able to buy whatever they want, and I don't think, up until this first year, 2026, we've offended that principle of a 20% margin. We've implored the government to hold those mandates, review them and change them. They've done that. We are going to hold them to that very closely when the 60-day review period finishes, and there had better be some changes.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Ms. Payne, at a previous meeting that we had on Monday, we had executives from the auto industry here. They were highlighting a similar thing to Mr. Volpe regarding the EV mandates. They said that federal regulations such as those should be scrapped entirely and were a net-negative to the auto sector. One of them went so far to say that it was actually the one thing the government could do immediately to give immediate relief to the auto sector.

We also heard some similar remarks from the president of Stellantis Canada.

Would you agree with that assessment?

[Lana Payne]

This isn't the reason that Stellantis is making the decision it's making right now.

The other thing I would say—

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Excuse me, ma'am. That wasn't the question.

The question was, with respect to the EV mandate, do you believe that it should be scrapped and that this would be a benefit to the auto sector?

[Lana Payne]

My advice to the government is, if they were going to scrap the EV mandate, which they've currently put on pause, they should be getting something for it from these companies—commitments that they need to live up to.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

You, yourself, have said that a mandate alone won't secure the Canadian EV industry. We're talking here about trade policy, which has been a disaster for manufacturing. At the end of every data point is a family, a job at the end of the line, as I know you're very well aware.

If there were something we could do immediately, like get rid of this mandate, would you not agree that we should take that approach?

[Lana Payne]

I would say to you that you had better get something for it. If you're going to get rid of the mandates, you need to get commitments from the companies that they're going to keep jobs here, as a result.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Do you believe that there should be enforceable job retention or clawback clauses written into these contracts that the government makes with companies like Stellantis?

[Lana Payne]

Yes. With any kind of government support for any industry, whether it's the auto industry or the aerospace industry, no matter what you're talking about, there should be strings attached to those investments, including jobs, including Canadian content, including all of the things that we should be demanding when we invest in industrial policy and in industries in Canada.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Just going off your opening remarks, do you have confidence in what the president of Stellantis said regarding their desire to keep jobs in Brampton and in Canada?

[Lana Payne]

At this moment, I do not, and I will tell you why. They just violated a commitment to us, and have said that they're shifting the product that was promised and committed to the workers of Brampton to a plant in the United States in order to appease Donald Trump's trade aggression.

There was not one word of commitment that I heard there in terms of whatever other product they're talking about. We already have a product. We already have a committed product and vehicle program for Brampton. That's the one we need to keep there, and the retool needs to restart immediately.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you. That's all the time I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Madame O'Rourke, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

We're all aware of the strength, the productivity and the importance of Canada's auto sector. It represents more than 100,000 direct jobs and more than 500,000 indirect jobs and is Ontario's top exporter.

In Guelph, we are home to Linamar, Magna and DENSO, some of the world's best auto parts manufacturers, so I'm sure, Mr. Volpe, that you've been to Guelph many times.

We're also one of Canada's most vulnerable cities to tariffs. We all want to see section 232 tariffs lifted. We all want the renewal of CUSMA to be the priority. We should all want a team Canada win on this. We want to see Canadian automakers uphold their commitments.

Mr. Hines was talking about certainty. He attributed the move to the U.S. to uncertainty caused by American tariffs. Are the actions of Stellantis themselves...? Does that move itself contribute to the uncertainty in the sector? Should they stand their ground, stand with Canada, stand with the sector and with our auto workers?

[Lana Payne]

I think it sends the message that if Stellantis can get away with this, everybody can get away with it.

We know that these kinds of decisions are being made in many places right now, not just the auto sector. This is why our union was very propositional in the early days of this trade war and actually recommended to the government a remission plan in terms of how we would deal with production and manufacturing—particularly in the auto sector—in the face of the threats we were facing. It was based on a simple principle, and that is, “If you sell in Canada, you should build in Canada.” If you have a footprint here, and you've made commitments to working people here, and if you've made commitments around investments, you would be given, basically, a quota. If that footprint and those commitments changed, then that whole picture would change for you as a company.

That's what we saw evolve last week.

I get that this is tough to hear, but every day Donald Trump is pressuring corporations in the United States—I have used the word “extortion”—to do exactly what Stellantis is doing right now. If we don't find a way, as a nation, to pressure back and make sure that we keep production in Canada, keep plants going during this period, until we get to a point where we can get a trade deal and the kind of certainty that the president of Stellantis is talking about, then we will lose it all.

This is difficult for our members to hear. I have been honest with all of them about what it is we're currently facing, but the reality is we also have a lot of leverage as a country. We have a lot of ability to be able to secure the auto industry and make sure that we can get through this period. We have to use all of those tools to do exactly that.

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

Thank you.

As chair of the auto caucus, we've had opportunities to visit plants. We met with Unifor at the end of the summer.

This committee has a current study on productivity. I'm imagining that establishing a new product in a factory would take years of planning, investments in retooling and training of the workforce. Does the Stellantis decision make any sense, from a productivity standpoint, this late in the game?