Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

[Mike Greenley]

It's very important to lay out those road maps, and those road maps are not short. They're 20 years long in terms of the major technology areas that the defence procurement process is going to go after.

The notion of horizons is very important in a defence industrial strategy. We have Canadian industrial maturity for some things we require immediately, and we can buy them from Canadian industry straightaway. Then there are areas that will be in a second horizon of technologies. They're going to come next. We should have R and D projects, as the other gentlemen were saying, but they should be R and D projects that actually flow through to procuring the resulting capabilities into that second wave or third wave of operational systems.

Industries need to invest. R and D projects need to target the second and third wave of defence procurement through policies that bring the results of the development phases into operational systems in the second and third waves.

There's the notion of horizons. Then mapping out which technologies should feed into early R and D in order to result in future procurements is very important.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Lombardi.

[Matthew Lombardi]

Thank you.

I think there are four pieces in answer to your question, Mr. Bardeesy.

First, after the policy is announced, Canada does need to build delivery architecture. Again, I'll borrow off the shelf from an ally. In the U.K., their director general for delivery model, which is used to execute certain large strategies, has an accountability lead. You might consider something like an interdepartmental defence industrial council, which would be co-led by DND, ISED and the new Defence Investment Agency, to make sure that all these entities are on the same page.

Second, there should be some sort of formalization of industrial base mapping. My organization has done a first pass at this, but we need to adopt some sort of defence industrial preparedness framework that ties the capability-based planning and the key industrial capabilities.

Third, I do think we need to pair promotion with protection. The Business Council has warned about this. An industrial strategy does need to include supply chain, counter-intelligence, cyber-protection and safe harbour data sharing.

Lastly, I do think we need to institutionalize procurement reform—

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

This is really helpful. Thank you.

Hopefully, the brief will have a bit more on this.

I need to sneak in one question for Mr. Smith because we have a unique opportunity given his background and his current role.

You mentioned your work on autonomous weapons. This is something that is going to become more of an issue. I don't think it's the role of just the defence industrial policy necessarily to have a perspective on this question, but do you have any comments for the committee about how we reconcile the need for a strong defence industrial policy with the emergence of ever more potent weapons that don't involve human delivery?

[Michael Smith]

Absolutely. You're speaking my language.

I can tell you that my colleagues in the office of the judge advocate general are experts in national and international humanitarian law and are working every day to craft policies to ensure that Canada's procurement of any new means and methods of warfare comports with domestic and international law.

Nobody in the world has a real solution to what happens when we separate in time and space the human decision-maker from lethal decision-making. It's an ongoing project that, at a certain point, actually jumps from law to policy. At a certain point, a government that is willing to use lethal autonomous weapons systems will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of risk and perhaps a certain amount of messiness.

These are more like policy than legal decisions and where a nation's comfort lies when we really enter uncharted territory.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, that's the end of the time we have allotted today for the defence industrial strategy. I would like to thank the witnesses.

Mr. Smith, if you'd like, I can ensure that the clerk delivers to your parents a copy of today's transcript. They have a little bit of homework. It's very much appreciated.

Colleagues, I know you want to thank witnesses, which I'm going to give you 30 seconds to do, but we then need to go right into the other matter at hand.

Mr. Greenley and Mr. Lombardi, you are free to go, gentlemen. Thank you very much for your insights. We appreciate your being here with us this evening.

Colleagues, as per the letter I received from Mr. Ste-Marie, Madam Dancho and other colleagues requesting a 106(4), as we refer to it, we're going to move into that.

I just want to clarify something because I know we have some new members around the table. We're not delving now into the specifics of a prospective study at the moment, in terms of the study itself. What we're doing is that we're meeting to have a discussion about what that framework may look like. My understanding is that, in line with what has proven to be a very productive and collegial committee membership thus far, some discussion has taken place between the parties prior to this that I hope will position us well to move swiftly through this.

With that, Madam Dancho, I believe you'd like the floor in order to move a motion. I will give you the microphone.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, Conservatives initiated this emergency meeting because of the shocking news we learned last week that Stellantis, one of the largest auto sector employers in Canada, announced that it's moving production from its Brampton facility to the United States, which puts 3,000 Canadian jobs at risk. To date, those workers have received no indication that they'll be getting their jobs back. Again, there are 3,000 Canadian families who had a very rough week last week.

At the same time—and it was just shocking to hear this—Stellantis announced a $13-billion investment in the United States that will create tens of thousands of American jobs. To add insult to all this injury that Canada is receiving from Stellantis, just a few years ago the Liberal government signed deals with Stellantis of up to $15 billion from taxpayers for electric vehicle battery production, on top of $1 billion from taxpayers for capital support.

It would appear, based on the actions from Stellantis, that despite these multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies, there was not a requirement in those deals to safeguard the broader Stellantis employment footprint in Canada. That is frankly unacceptable. We are deeply disturbed by this news. We feel very strongly that these 3,000 families deserve immediate answers and Canadians deserve accountability and transparency on upwards of $15 billion of commitments of their tax dollars.

For those reasons, I move the following motion:

Given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the cost of government support for EV investment in Canada at up to $52.5 billion between October 8, 2020 and April 25, 2024;

Given that Stellantis has announced it will move production of the Jeep Compass from its Brampton facility to Illinois, putting 3,000 Canadian jobs at risk, despite taxpayers providing over $1 billion in capital support for their plants and up to $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies to support their EV battery plant in Ontario;

That the committee undertake a study to defend the interests of Canadian workers and taxpayers by examining the short- and long-term commitments made with Stellantis;

That the committee invite as witnesses:

The Minister of Industry (for no less than one hour);

The former Minister of Industry, François-Philippe Champagne (separately from the Minister of Industry, for no less than one hour);

Relevant departmental officials involved in contract negotiations and subsidy approvals;

The Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers of Stellantis;

Lana Payne, National President, Unifor;

Brian Kingston, President & CEO, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association;

Flavio Volpe, President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association; and

Any other industry representatives, impacted stakeholders, experts, and other witnesses.

That the committee hold no fewer than three meetings on this study; and

That this study take precedence over all other matters before this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madam Dancho.

Again, colleagues, because we have only been through this once, maybe twice, and we have some new members around the table, we are now debating the motion that's been presented by Madam Dancho. For any amendments, should there be any, we would then engage in debate on those amendments—the same would be true for a subamendment—until we eventually make our way back to a final version.

Mr. Ste‑Marie will speak first. He will be followed by Mr. Bardeesy, Mr. Guglielmin and our new colleague, Ms. Kirkland.

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

Mr. Chair, you have just deeply insulted Mr. Bardeesy.

I signed the request for an emergency meeting, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), in light of a major change in the Canadian economy.

The automotive industry plays a key role in the Canadian and Ontario economies. Of course, there are also jobs in Quebec's automotive industry. Today, in the truck sector, we saw the loss of 300 more jobs at Paccar in Sainte‑Thérèse, in the northern suburbs of Montreal.

We're facing a really tough situation. The American president is threatening Canada and its economy by saying that he wants the automotive industry jobs and that he'll take them away from us and move them to his country. Recent events have shown that this is exactly the case. Stellantis announced that the Jeep Compass will no longer be manufactured in Ontario, but rather in the United States. The company also announced that it will invest $13 billion in that country.

This situation is really concerning for the Ontario and Canadian economies. The committee needs to address this matter urgently. I believe that we can take a non‑partisan approach to this issue. We would like to ask the people on the list of suggested witnesses about what the government is doing, what the key players are saying and what can be done with regard to the American administration. As we can see, the automotive giants seem ready to bow down.

The motion under consideration calls for at least three meetings. We could quickly get to the bottom of the matter and then get back to the committee's other equally important studies. That's why I agree with Ms. Dancho's motion. If amendments are moved, I'll listen to them with an open mind, with the goal of working together on this spectacular effort.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Mr. Bardeesy.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We support this motion.

We are in a context right now where the sector is facing a real challenge as a result of the unjustified tariffs coming from the United States.

Our government has been working extremely diligently and extremely aggressively with respect to the individual companies, as well as the sector as a whole, to protect and defend these jobs. This built-up industrial base has a history that goes back for 100 years of manufacturing in Canada and that, as we heard from Ms. Hasenfratz from Linamar, is a source of pride today, where we have productivity, where we have an export market and where we have a built-up industrial base and proud partnerships across provinces, unions, management and governments.

This is something that we are very keen to help protect and defend and to look to the other side of this generational challenge so that the shared prosperity this sector has created for so many, especially but not exclusively in southern Ontario, is something that we can continue to enjoy, something that we have currently with, at the moment, five auto manufacturers with assembly plants and a whole number of other spinoff jobs and real strength.

We want to continue to defend that strength. In the spirit of collaboration, I have an amendment to propose that I believe I can table now and that does the following three—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just very quickly, Mr. Bardeesy, before you do that, do you happen to have this is writing yet?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. It is in pen writing here, which I can hand over, because we were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Here's what I'm going to ask because you're capably bilingual. If you could present it in English, you're best to present it also in French, just to help out our interpreters, as well as out of respect to those who would like to have it in both official languages.

If everyone is okay with it, then what we'll do is get it in writing, and we'll pass it around. What we really need to make sure of, though, is that everybody understands it.

Go ahead and start in English. Do your best in French, and if we have to pause to get it in writing, we'll do that.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'll read my amendment.

The amendment is as follows. First, it's to strike the clause “despite taxpayers providing over $1 billion in capital support for their plants and up to $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies to support their EV battery plant in Ontario”. Second, it's to add to the clause “and long-term commitments made with Stellantis”, the following words: “in the context of the current situation of the Canadian auto industry”. Third, it's to add to the witness list, as a bullet, “Global Automakers of Canada, David Adams, president and CEO”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Did everyone hear it clearly?

Does everyone have that? I'm just looking around the table for consensus so that we don't have to pause.

Okay.

Colleagues, just as a reminder, the speaking order that had been established previously is paused. We're now entering debate.

I have Mr. Falk.

Madam O'Rourke, I had you, but were you wanting to speak to the amendment or to the original motion?

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Falk, the floor is yours.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're finding ourselves, as a country and as a committee, in a very serious situation here. I take issue with the Liberals wanting to strike out the sentence in paragraph two that they've indicated they don't like, which would put accountability on the Liberal government for the policies that contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today.

Our auto industry has been very clear in the last several years, with this EV mandate, that they don't see their way through complying with the mandate. They've been very clear on that: maintaining the production levels they've had here throughout the years and the capacity they have built up here.

One of the factors contributing to the decision they've made to move their operations to the United States is the fact that there's uncertainty from the Liberal government and the policies that they have put on pause but have not rolled back yet insofar as the EV mandate goes. They have paused it for this coming fiscal year, but they haven't said they're going to drop it. That creates uncertainty for the industry. That's a contributing factor here. We need to acknowledge that. As is, the motion acknowledges it. That's why I don't agree with the first point that the amendment speaks to.

I also think we need to recognize that all the auto parts manufacturers that are downstream from Stellantis are going to be impacted by this decision. It's not just 3,000 workers in the Stellantis assembly plant. It's all the auto parts manufacturers who contribute parts and materials to the factories that assemble those automobiles who are also going to be impacted. There are many more workers who potentially will be out of work.

I would respectfully ask that the Liberals reconsider their position of including the deletion of that sentence in paragraph two of the motion, and leave that in there, because there needs to be accountability. That's the reason we're inviting the ministers to come to committee: to speak to the committee and to take responsibility for the decisions they have made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Madam O'Rourke.

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

Thank you, Chair Carr.

I chair the Liberal auto caucus. We've had many of the folks on this list come and speak to us throughout the summer and in September. I am from an auto parts manufacturing city, with 11,000 jobs from one company alone and a total of 16,500 jobs in direct manufacturing. I'm acutely aware of the challenges that are downstream.

My colleagues on the auto caucus and I are also acutely aware that there are multiple factors, most importantly the unjustified American tariffs, that are driving these decisions. I support the removal of that clause because there are a number of factors. The questions can be asked with regard to any subsidies, but this attributes specifically.... It alludes to the fact that this is the driving force.

A number of automakers in Canada know that the future is electric and will tell you that. Their argument is usually with the timeline. It's usually that EV is demand-driven, so they have issues with the mandate, but they really see what is happening globally.

I don't want to, through this welcome study, frankly...because we do need to be having this conversation for our auto workers, for the communities and for our industry, which has 125,000 direct workers and 500,000 ancillary.... It's a massive sector for Ontario and we need to have a broader conversation about a number of factors. I believe this clause limits our ability to do that, and I'll support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Madam Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do very much share the concerns of our colleague, Mr. Falk. I think he outlined them quite well: that we take issue with taking out a pretty critical part of what we're seeing as part of this Stellantis issue, in that it was a big amount of taxpayer funding. I don't agree with taking it out.

That being said, I think the study and the accountability required are very important, and I don't want to derail having the ministers, those important representatives and the CEO and the CFO of Stellantis come. That is critical. For the record, we do not support taking this out, but we would be open to ensuring we can move forward either way.

Just so the committee is aware, we will be asking about this issue. We believe it's fully encompassed in the first part of our motion. In the spirit of collaboration to ensure the study does occur and begins on presumably Monday, Chair, as you've mentioned, as long as we can get those witnesses, Mr. Falk's comments very much stand, but we can move forward if we can make sure we get this motion passed today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Just for clarity—and I shouldn't get into a habit of speaking to hypotheticals—should we pass this motion momentarily, amended or not, I see no reason that a line of questioning related to the comment Mr. Bardeesy is suggesting be removed would be out of scope. We're in agreement on that.

Ms. Kirkland, did you want to speak to this?

Just as a reminder here, we can vote now on this amendment and I will resume the list, which includes Mr. Guglielmin and Ms. Kirkland, on the motion, as amended or not amended, depending on what the result of this vote is. It's up to members whether they want to speak to that. Can we move ourselves forward on the amendment question and then resume on the main motion?

Okay. I'll honour the speaking list. Don't worry.

I'm going to call the question. In terms of—