Industry and Technology Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

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

I move that we adopt it on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That doesn't really exist. I understand that there may be this type of vote on an amendment. The clerk said that she will try as hard as possible to ensure that this is reflected in the committee minutes, but we need to vote.

We're going to do things by consensus here. If we are in agreement that we don't need to call the vote but that we're going to adopt the amendment on division, I'm satisfied with that.

I'm looking to members.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion has now been amended.

I'm going to resume the speaking order on the motion as amended. The floor goes to Mr. Guglielmin, followed by Madam Kirkland.

Madam O'Rourke, did you still want to speak to this? Okay.

Mr. Guglielmin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank my colleague Ms. Dancho, our shadow minister for industry, for her leadership on this file and for introducing this very important emergency motion.

The PBO estimated that government support for EV investments in Canada totalled up to $52.5 billion between 2020 and 2024, yet, despite the vast sums of public money that have been shelled out, Stellantis has announced that it's going to move production of the Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois, potentially putting 3,000 jobs at risk. This is despite taxpayers having already invested over $1 billion in capital and having committed another $15 billion in subsidies for their EV battery plant.

We're seeing a bit of a trend here. We're studying capital flight and productivity at this committee. We've lost hundreds of billions of dollars of capital to the Americans. Here, we see Stellantis creating 5,000 new jobs across Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. GM is pumping $4 billion into U.S. facilities in Michigan, Kansas and Tennessee as it moves to boost production of gas-powered vehicles, given a slowing electric vehicle demand climate.

We have a pattern of lost jobs here in Canada despite that with possibly 3,000 here at Stellantis, another 300 from GM Oshawa, 500 at GM CAMI and another 1,200 at risk. We've heard of 300 at an auto plant in Quebec. Frankly, it's unacceptable. It's a betrayal of Canadian workers, taxpayers and communities.

I remind everyone on this committee that, as we are well aware, these aren't just numbers; these are families and livelihoods. They're good-paying Canadian jobs that benefit local economies. We have a duty to promote accountability and transparency. Canadians deserve that. They deserve to know that public funds that are committed lead to real enforceable commitments. Just imagine that you're one of these workers who gets a robocall saying that your job is no longer available. These are the people we're fighting for today at this committee.

That's why I support this motion. I support that we undertake this motion through a study to defend the interests of Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Guglielmin.

Ms. Kirkland, welcome to the committee. Congratulations on your recent election.

The floor is yours.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, again, to Ms. Dancho and the committee for inviting me to come to speak today.

I appreciate your comments, Ms. O'Rourke. In terms of being from an auto town, I am also on the Conservative auto caucus, hearing from these folks. There is a concern about EVs, but that will be a conversation for another day.

My riding is Oshawa, which is GM headquarters, but I don't want to be a voice for the auto workers just in Oshawa. I want to be a voice for auto workers across Canada. Right now, they're feeling abandoned, quite frankly. When I speak to them—and I speak to them on a daily basis, to the union presidents—I hear that they are worried that their jobs are on the chopping block, that they're up for grabs, in pursuit of other things. That's their biggest concern.

I feel like it's nothing short of an emergency, so I'm grateful that the committee seems to be willing to take on this very important study. I hope that it will be unanimous. I think that it should be, and if it's not, that will be concerning to me and to the entire auto sector.

I just want to briefly talk about the human cost. In 2022, the previous industry minister—who's now the finance minister—promised, on GM Canada, that a $2-billion investment meant “that Canada's auto sector is here for the long term.” He also promised 2,600 new jobs with a third shift at GM Oshawa. That has now been cut. We now know that those promises have been broken, and GM Oshawa has announced that they are cutting the third shift, eliminating more than 750 first-line jobs. However, we know that this means probably three times more in the supply chain by moving production to the United States.

I didn't speak to the amendment, simply for the sake of time and the sake of collaboration, but this is taxpayers' money that we're talking about, money that was spent on this investment, which is now essentially creating auto jobs in the U.S. instead of in Canada.

The auto sector feels like they're going through some psychological whiplash. It's a bit of a trauma to be going up and down on this roller coaster. They have grand promises given to them, only to be ripped away months later—and now, of course, in Brampton, which is why we're here today.

What affects Brampton affects Oshawa, Ingersoll and Windsor, and it affects them all because auto workers are very loyal to each other. There's a lot of solidarity among auto workers. I know that the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa has written a letter to the national president, expressing hope that they will fight for the jobs in Brampton, just like they did for the jobs in Oshawa, which did see some comeback, thankfully.

In Brampton, with regard to the auto workers and, as was mentioned already, the robocall, it is just disgraceful the way they heard about this. They're already worried, and we're not that far away from Christmas. There couldn't possibly be a worse time for that to happen.

I'll wrap up by saying thank you for allowing me to visit your committee and speak on behalf of auto workers in my community and across Canada. It is also my hope that this will be unanimous today and that this study will happen. I'll be watching it very closely.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kirkland.

Madam O'Rourke, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair Carr.

I think there are a lot of areas where we agree. We agree that Canada has the best auto workers in the world, and that is why so many of the contracts, so many of the lines and so many of the projects came here in the first place. We agree that these auto workers need their government to stand up for them.

I believe that we're going to do that. I'm hoping that we do that together, because we know that the driving force in these current challenges is American tariffs. It's not the quality of our workforce, and it's not the types of vehicles that we produce. It's these American tariffs.

I want the auto workers to know that there are supports from government, that this government is fighting for them and that we are investing in the future success of the sector.

I am hoping that in this conversation we certainly hold Stellantis accountable and ensure that it lives up to its promises. Those promises were made by the automakers, and they must uphold them. We're going to work together, I hope, with the Province of Ontario, with our government and with Unifor to fight for those auto workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Madam O'Rourke.

Colleagues, I think we've had a good and thoughtful discussion. Members have had the opportunity to put into the public record how they feel about this. I'll call the question, although I think we have unanimity on this.

All those in favour of the motion as amended...?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, before we break, we need to have a brief conversation about scheduling. In anticipation of this, I asked the clerk to do her best to have us start on Monday, with the first meeting occurring then, the second meeting occurring Tuesday and the third meeting occurring the following Monday. This would simply displace our current trajectory of the productivity and DIS studies and move them back with the proportioned date.

The issue is that it always depends on the witnesses and their availability. We need to be a bit flexible.

In the event...and I will communicate openly and transparently with the representatives from each party, but it doesn't afford much time for the clerk to get witnesses. While we're together, I just wanted to quickly say that we will do our best.

Madam Dancho, Monsieur Ste-Marie and Mr. Bardeesy, we will have to make a determination, potentially—if there's only one witness, for example—on whether we hold off and have our regularly scheduled meeting on Monday or if we hold that first meeting but are now turning it into more than three meetings, most likely, because we will still have a significant number of witnesses to make available.

My suggestion is that we ask the clerk and analysts to do their very best to get us a critical mass for Monday and we begin this study. We should have enough people by Wednesday and the following Monday, but if we don't, then I'll work with the party representatives. That's my suggestion.

On that point, Madam Dancho, go ahead, followed by Mr. Falk.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know that we have a very hard-working team and that Madam Clerk, who does an excellent job, will do everything she can to get the witnesses. I am comfortable that if that absolutely cannot happen on Monday, then it happens as soon as it can happen and we have an understanding as a committee.

One issue I would state is that if the minister is not able to come in the next two weeks, counting from today, that would be quite disappointing. We've had senior ministers come to multiple other committees. This is the fifth motion we've all agreed to in order to invite Minister Joly, and she has yet to attend. I believe we're in week five or six since Parliament resumed. I want to ensure that she's aware that we have the expectation that she is to come imminently. Frankly, the Conservatives don't want to hear excuses as to how busy she is. Her colleagues are also very busy. We expect her to come and be held accountable for what's happening in the auto sector.

I just want to make it clear, through you to the minister, Mr. Chair, that we would very much appreciate it if she could make time to answer our questions in short order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Madam Dancho, I hear you on that. The minister will have become aware of the invitation as soon as the motion was passed, so that message will have been delivered. As you know, I cannot compel, and neither can the committee, a minister to appear, but obviously she and the other minister who is implicated in the invitation will have received the notice that it is the will of the committee to have them be here to speak to this.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make two points. The motions says, “no fewer than three meetings”. If it requires more meetings, I think it would be the will of the committee that we want a fulsome study on this and we want to make sure the witnesses have adequate time.

My second point—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Falk, perhaps I can interrupt you while we're on that first point. The will of the committee would have to be established at that point in time. We can't predetermine that the will of the committee is more than three meetings. Otherwise, we would have amended “three meetings” to more.

But I hear what you're saying. Should the committee feel as though more than three meetings are necessary, we would have to reconvene to determine that more than that is necessary. That would be a future discussion.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, that could be done with the executive and Madam Clerk, the requirement of no fewer than three meetings, if you determine that in three meetings we can't get all the witnesses here.

The other point I want to make is, let's not overpopulate the witness list for each committee meeting so that we have an adequate opportunity to ask all the witnesses the questions we feel we need to ask them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Your point is taken, Mr. Falk. I will certainly do my best to find a reasonable balance between the two pre-existing studies that we have, a third study that we've now added, a fourth study that we have in the queue and a pile of witnesses we want to hear from. We will treat this newly added study with a degree of urgency by virtue of how it has come to be. I will work alongside the clerk to make sure that we find a balance.

If the will of the committee following the established mandatory three meetings is to have more, I will call the question or a member of the committee is welcome to broach that when the time comes.

I think we're clear on that. Ms. Kirkland, do you have something you'd like to add?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, if I may.

I normally sit on another committee, but I am appalled to hear that the minister accountable to this committee has yet to appear and that now, only because we have an imminent emergency, she might show up and it might not be right away. I think that says a lot to Canadians, and if Canadians deserve answers, they deserve the answer that she's here.

I also note that the former minister of industry, now the finance minister, who is also being called, should also be appearing before this committee very much at the beginning.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You're certainly entitled to share that view, Ms. Kirkland.

In fairness to the ministers, they are working. At least the ministers on this case are. I believe we're just looking to establish a date from a previous invitation. As far as this particular study is concerned, we just passed the motion, so let's give the minister and her office a bit of time to look at that.

We've passed a motion and we have very important business ahead of us. I want to commend all of you on a very respectful, productive and collaborative dialogue. I think we've advanced a couple of important things. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.

I want to thank the analysts, the clerks and the translators.

Thank you for your continued support.

With that, colleagues, I'm going to move to adjourn.