The Unifor union says it won’t return to collective bargaining with Stellantis NV STLA-N until it has assurances the federal government will refuse to allow the automaker to close and sell its car plant in Brampton, Ont.
The union, which represents 9,000 Stellantis workers in Canada, walked away from the bargaining table on Sept. 11 after the automaker confirmed it has a preliminary agreement to close the Brampton plant and sell it to defence contactor Roshel. The plant closed for retooling in 2023, and Stellantis moved its planned Jeep production to the United States last year after the U.S. imposed 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian-made cars.
The sale of the plant would mean the end of Stellantis employment for 2,200 workers, and, the federal government has said, puts Stellantis in violation of a funding agreement that saw the company receive millions of taxpayer dollars to retool the plant.
Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, said at a news conference on Thursday that labour talks with Stellantis will not resume until the union is confident the federal government will not allow the plant to be closed and sold.
“We need to know what they’re going to do with us to fight for Brampton assembly plant to produce cars there,” Ms. Payne said of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government. “They have made a commitment to Canadians that they’re willing to fight for Brampton. They’re willing to fight for the auto industry. Well, let’s put some real action behind those words.”
The federal government gave Stellantis as much as $529-million for work on plants in Brampton and Windsor, Ont.
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said on Sept. 16 the government wants Stellantis to build cars at the plant and will “put maximum pressure to make that happen. And if they don’t, we’ll get our money back.”
Stellantis weighs selling idled plant in Brampton, Ont., union says
Ms. Payne said that is not good enough.
“We continue to receive assurances from governments that they are willing to do what it takes to save Brampton,” Ms. Payne said. “But that will require action. Payback of funds from a broken contract is not the answer, not unless it keeps the Brampton plant open for the workers and the suppliers who depend on it.”
Unifor on Wednesday made public a four-page letter it sent to Ms. Joly, seeking, among other answers, a guarantee that Stellantis’s sale of the plant would not be seen as a fulfillment of its mandate to explore other uses for the plant.
“We cannot accept that the closure and sale of the Brampton plant is the outcome of a year-long government-led exercise to protect autoworkers and auto capacity in this country,” the letter said.
Ms. Joly’s office and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not immediately respond to e-mailed questions.
Stellantis spokesperson LouAnn Gosselin said Thursday that the potential Roshel sale could support future operations at the site. “However, no transaction has been completed and due diligence remains ongoing,” she said in a statement.
Trevor Longley, chief executive officer of Stellantis Canada, told Brampton employees in an e-mail on Thursday the carmaker has been unable to find a vehicle to manufacture at the plant that made business sense on the long run. The options considered included partnerships with other companies, Mr. Longley said.
“Market and trade conditions have directly impacted the original business case for Brampton,” Mr. Longley said. “The automotive industry continues to face unpredictable trade policies, challenging regulatory requirements and affordability pressures.”
Unifor is trying to reach a three-year collective agreement with Stellantis that matches the contracts approved recently with Ford and General Motors. Those contracts provide raises of 3 per cent a year.
The Brampton plant’s future is central to the talks, as is securing production and employment at the factories in Windsor and Toronto.
The Stellantis collective agreement ends on Saturday, but Ms. Payne said the union has yet to hold a strike vote or apply for federal conciliation, and is weeks away from being in a strike position.
Still, she said, “we are at an impasse. Therefore, strike action remains a real possibility.”
Brampton-based Roshel makes armoured vehicles for military and security industries.
Roman Shimonov, Roshel’s founder, said in a statement he has an “ambitious plan” to turn the Brampton plant into a site for manufacturing light utility vehicles for a federal government defence procurement project, in addition to other markets and products. He said he is ready to hire an unspecified number of laid-off Stellantis workers as early as this year.
“We look forward to successfully concluding our discussions with Stellantis and implementing our plans to bring over 2,000 jobs, as well as new sovereign capabilities, including the production of ballistic steel, to Canada and to this facility,” Mr. Shimonov said.
Ms. Payne said she has not talked to anyone at Roshel, and said the job offer depends on Roshel winning a government contract.
“I’m not that happy with the role Roshel has played here, whether intended or not,” she said. “It has interfered with and brought additional complications to our bargaining with Stellantis. Canada cannot afford to lose its vehicle assembly capacity. And there is no substitute, not for the quality of jobs, not for the pay and benefits, not for the supply chain.”

Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada says that a “deeper relationship” between Canada and Europe will help to protect smaller countries from being encroached upon by great powers.
Carney, in a speech to the European Parliament delivered on Thursday morning, said that “together Canada and the European Union could anchor our ground so as to maintain our values. We can also form a protective canopy for our citizens to thrive.”
This is all about sovereignty. It is about our ability to live the way we want. The freedoms for which we fight every day are at stake. “Sovereignty is dependent on resilience — the capacity to endure shocks.”
Prime Minister Harper called for a “future alliance” between Canada, the European Union and its 27 member countries. Carney is trying to strengthen ties between Canada and Europe in the midst of Canada’s trade dispute with the United States.
In his speech, the prime minister referred to U.S. president Donald Trump’s tactic of using economic integration as leverage. He also suggested that Europe could be a better ally.
We aren’t fair-weather friends. We do not pursue zero-sum deals,” Carney said. We share values for which we’ve always fought and that we will always defend.
In the past year, Canada signed a number of new partnerships with the EU. Canada was the first non European country to join Security Action for Europe, which offers loans of EUR150 billion for defense spending.
Carney suggested that Canada should join Erasmus+, a program of the EU supporting youth, education and sports.
He said: “We need to deepen people-topeople relations, and allow our young people the freedom to work, live, and study wherever they choose on either side.”
Carney delivered his speech after Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission said that Canada could become a “associate” member of the EU in her State of the European Union Address on Wednesday.
Von der Leyen received a standing-ovation for his statement, “I’d like to work together with you to open the door to Canada becoming the first Associate Member of the EU.”
Carney nodded and rose to his feet. He then approached von der Leyen, hugged her, and kissed her. Carney briefly bowed to the chamber, before returning to his chair.
The EU Chief said that the EU and Canada must “urgently” reimagine their partnership. They need to go beyond a simple free-trade agreement.
Carney has said that he is “pleased with the ambition” behind the proposal. However, he prefers to call it “an alliance for the future.”
He said that “Canada and Europe must ensure our autonomy in terms of strategy through a deep level of cooperation across the entire spectrum”
Carney’s team has been downplaying this idea since a Wall Street Journal article last week cited anonymous sources to first suggest it.
Jonathan Wilkinson reiterated this point on Wednesday, following von der Leyen’s address.
There are many different ways people describe this new relationship. Wilkinson, who spoke to reporters after von der Leyen delivered his speech, said: “I think we have to reach a point where we know exactly what we are describing.”
It’s a nomenclature. There are many different ways to describe something.
Carney met with von der Leyen Wednesday, and they discussed areas where the leaders felt that their ties could be strengthened. These sectors include energy, finance, critical minerals, AI and defence.

The Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Investment Summit in Toronto, this week, focused more on fossil fuels projects. From the West Coast Oil Pipeline worth $35 billion to the Ksi Lisims Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal costing $28.5 billion. But there were also a number of climate-related technologies.
The summit’s agreement book was filled with energy storage, upgrades to the grid, nuclear power, and renewables such as wind and solar.
This is a throwback from Carney’s early career, when he was making the business case for climate friendly policies to international financiers. It could also be an indication of what investors are increasingly looking for.
David Pickup is the director of Pembina Institute’s electricity program, a think tank for energy transition.
They hope that bringing in large investors will help to boost the interest for renewables here and bring up billions of dollars. It is not yet clear where the funds will go.
Climate activists criticize summit
The summit was criticized by many prominent figures in the climate change movement even before the event began.
David Suzuki, a journalist and environmentalist who has been active for many years, blasted this summit during an interview on CBC. He said that a financial sector which does not consider the environment to be the source of wealth will fail.
Suzuki said to David Common of CBC that “we have a real crisis at the moment”, referring to Carney’s decision to increase investment in Canada due to the ongoing trade war with the U.S.
The solution, I think, is not to gather these people and tell them, “Look, we’ll continue to destroy the biosphere which supports us if you invest in Canada.”
Investment opportunities are available in dozens of climate-tech and clean energy projects. These include wind and solar farms as well as carbon capture, grid upgrade and energy storage. The question is, what other projects are being pitched?
“The No. “The No. Mark Carney wants to invest in $100 billion worth of oil and gas projects.
Pickup noted that up to 90% of the funding for the newly announced West Coast Oil Pipeline could come from the Alberta and federal governments. The Pembina Institute believes that this is an indication that taxpayers may be at risk with such a high-risk investment. This also indicates that investors in the private sector are less interested in fossil-fuel projects.
Pickup stated that “the trends globally are clear that clean is what people want to invest and, in particular clean is what private investment wants to really bring forward.”
According to the Canadian Climate Institute’s latest report, Canada has fallen more than two decades behind its targets for climate change after Carney’s reversals on climate policy, including the mandates of electric vehicles and consumer carbon taxes. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, Canada will emit 460 million tonnes of carbon in 2050. This is far less than its goal of zero emissions by that date, which was enshrined into law.
Investors consider Canadian renewables
Vittoria bellissimo, the president of the Canadian Renewable Energy Association CanREA says that interest in Canada’s clean energy industry is increasing. In May, her association organized a financial summit that brought together hundreds of investors and developers. Canadian utilities have been busy buying renewable energy to increase electricity production.
She said: “I believe that at the highest level, this summit communicates that Canada is a country that is ready for business. Canadian infrastructure looks appealing and stable as an investment.”
CanREA reports that 25 gigawatts worth of solar, wind, and energy storage capacities are installed in Canada today, which is a 50 percent increase from 2020. This is enough energy to run about 18,000,000 homes. They’re also tracking the 24 additional gigawatts provinces hope to acquire in future.
Bellissimo stated that bringing more investors to Canada will help to increase interest in some of the projects.
Bellissimo noted that investors were taking note of the $200 billion opportunity and that a newly created major projects office was being established to facilitate project approvals.
Pickup explained that this is important, as the federal government’s ambitious plan for electricity aims to increase the nation’s electricity production by 2050 using only clean energy sources. We’re looking at a large amount of money that will need to be invested in our electricity system. The real question that I’m asking is: Does this investment we are bringing today align with our goals?
Pickup cited certain projects in the deal book of the Investment Summit as signs that were positive. He said that investment will not be sufficient; government policies must also lead to future demand and supply of this electricity.
This includes the development of an electric vehicle plan that could lead to a greater use of clean electricity in transportation and accelerating home and building retrofits, which will help Canadians get rid fossil fuels from their homes.
The question is, “Are we really moving toward this future economy Carney and other federal officials talk about?”

In the latest round of the trade war between Trump and Ottawa, President Donald Trump has moved to restrict Canadian firms from selling their goods or services to the U.S. Government.
In a Wednesday memo, President Trump instructed Russell Vought of the White House Office of Management and Budget and U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer, to remove all “Canadian-origin items” in the federal civil contracting system, using “all legal steps”.
The President stated that the action was taken in response to Buy Canadian Programs, which provincial governments had set up in the past year and a half in retaliation for Mr. Trump’s previous tariffs.
In the memo, he stated that “Canada has unfairly imposed barriers for US companies to gain access to the Canadian Government procurement market.”
He instructed both Mr. Vought & Mr. Greer that they should also present American alternatives to Canadian goods to other officials.
Separately he threatened to hit the European Union even harder with tariffs, should it follow through on its proposal to become the first Associate Member in the history of the EU.
Trump said that the suggestion made by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, that Canada might become a member associate of the EU, was “laughable.” If such an event occurred, Trump warned, he would punish the trade bloc.
After disembarking Air Force One from Charlotte, North Carolina ahead of an election rally, he stated that Canada was a bad trade partner. If they did that, and I thought it was hostile, I would impose very high tariffs on them or I’d stop doing business with Europe.
The order by Mr. Trump to exclude Canadian products from U.S. Government procurement systems on Wednesday is a far more significant move than the announcement made on this subject last week.
Explainer: Why is Canada the first Associate Member of the EU?
He said in his previous announcement that he was going to bar Canadian firms from participating in the General Services Administration procurement program. This includes things like office supplies and information technology for federal workers.
The order of Wednesday applies to more government contracts. The order stated that Mr. Vought, and Mr. Greer will work with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (which coordinates government procurement).
The memo does give Mr. Vought, Mr. Greer, some latitude in deciding whether or not to remove the items. It tells them that they should take action “if justified.”
According to USASpending.gov, an analysis of award reports, the U.S. federal government will spend approximately US$2,022 billion in fiscal 2025 on goods and services with Canadian origin.
The Department of Defence committed the largest amount of this total, approximately US$1.7-billion. All other agencies contributed US$270 million.
The dollar values are not the contract value, but the amount the government is actually obligated to pay under the contract. This contract can last for several years.
What is Carney’s plan after the EU summit and investment summit? Ask us your questions
A spokesperson for Dominic LeBlanc (the Minister of Commerce for the United States) said in a press release that the Canadian Government “will examine” President Obama’s most recent measures.
Gabriel Brunet wrote an email to Mr. LeBlanc, the director of communications. “We note that Administration’s most recent update which furthers previously announced procurement limitations.”
Laurence Schor is a Washington-based attorney with Asmar Schor & McKenna PLLC who specializes in procurement law.
It is important to note that the language used in the restriction of goods from Canada is “usually associated with products coming out of countries where labour is tortured or where labour trafficking is prevalent” which raises concerns about its legality.
Schor claimed that Mr. Trump’s new restrictions were meant to be “a slap”, against Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Mark Carney for refusing to back down when faced with the trade war.
Ford Government says that cities cannot deviate away from Buy Ontario regulations
The Canada-U.S. Trade talks abruptly ended in August after Mr. Carney refused a deal he claimed would violate Canada’s sovereignty to negotiate trade deals with other nations and guarantee the destruction of Canada’s auto industry. Carney then responded by imposing tariffs of 50 percent on the $28 billion worth of Canadian imports.
In response to Canada’s retaliatory tariffs, the President banned Canadian motorcycles and alcohol from entering the U.S. and hit more products, such as cheeses and furnishings, with 50 percent tariffs.
Since last year, the two countries are locked in a fierce trade war. Mr. Trump had imposed tariffs specific to certain sectors, such as autos, steel and aluminum, among other products.
In a speech delivered to the European Parliament on Wednesday in Strasbourg, France with Mr. Carney present, Ms. von de Leyen urged Canada to reaffirm its relationship with the EU.
She didn’t specify what associate membership was or how Canada would negotiate it with the EU. Canada and the EU signed a trading agreement 10 years ago. However, 10 countries in the EU including France and Italy have not yet ratified the deal.
Last year, the EU and Mr. Trump signed a trade agreement that was lopsided. In it, Brussels accepted U.S. Tariffs as long as Washington did not raise them.

The anger that so many Canadians feel toward the United States is understandable. Ever since the signing of the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which morphed into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada has bet its future on deepening its economic integration with the United States. Trump, however, has weaponized that integration—more than 70 percent of Canadian exports go to the United States—against Canada. Add in Trump’s talk about making Canada the fifty-first state and his repeated trolling of Carney, and it is easy to see why Canadians have their “elbows up,” as they say in hockey when you need to protect yourself from opposing players.
I have no illusions that U.S.-Canada relations were idyllic before Trump took office. To the contrary, they have often been fraught. For much of the nineteenth century, Canadians feared U.S. conquest as many Americans coveted their northern neighbor. (Carney has explicitly alluded to U.S. efforts to annex Canada in his recent public remarks.) Even after these fears passed, economic tensions persisted. For decades, Washington and Ottawa bickered over fishing rights in the Atlantic. The United States long resisted construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, one of the great engineering accomplishments of the twentieth century, because it threatened the livelihood of U.S. railroads and eastern ports. Economic tensions continued even with NAFTA and USMCA. Just ask anyone in the Office of the United States Trade Representative about Canadian softwood lumber or Canada’s supply-management system for dairy, poultry, and egg production.
1. Canadians are feeling frustration, anger, and trepidation. The real pain point for Canadians is that Trump is rejecting the trend toward deeper integration with the United States that long predates his presidency. As Rohinton noted, this movement had its roots in the 1965 U.S.-Canada Auto Pact, which eliminated tariffs on cars and automotive parts traded between the two countries, and was accelerated by the 1988 free-trade agreement. Trump has demanded that the Canadian airplane manufacturer Bombardier, which buys parts from 2,800 U.S. companies in forty-seven states, move all of its production to the United States if it wants to sell planes here. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has called for forcing automotive manufacturing—one of the most deeply integrated industries and a major source of Canadian jobs—back into the United States. These demands may just be ploys to gain leverage at the bargaining table. But Canadians have to take seriously the possibility that U.S. trade policy is turning predatory. Trump’s trolling and dismissal of Canada’s sovereignty has further inflamed passions. No one likes being belittled.
2. Carney sees no political or strategic alternative to retaliating against the Trump tariffs. Many U.S. trading partners, most notably the European Union and Mexico, have so far declined to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs with counter-tariffs of their own. Carney is taking a major gamble with his eye-for-an-eye policy given Canada’s dependence on the U.S. market for its products. His decision reflects politics and strategy. He campaigned for prime minister pledging to stand up to Trump. Standing pat when polls show that most Canadians want him to go toe to toe with Trump would have been political malpractice. Doing nothing would also have run the risk of weakening Canada’s negotiating hand. As Rohinton put it, Carney needed “to show that there are costs on the other side and that we’re willing to pay a price, but we’re also going to impose one on you.” Why should Trump concede if he does not feel any pain from his decisions?
3. Washington and Ottawa may find an off-ramp from the current trade war, but Canada will continue to reduce its vulnerability to U.S. economic pressure. It remains unclear whether last month’s breakdown in trade talks marked a true impasse or a bit of theater before a deal is struck. In recent days, Trump has turned optimistic about the chances of reaching an agreement, saying it could happen “fairly soon.” But even if a deal is struck, Trump’s history of revisiting agreements he has negotiated, and the possibility that future presidents will follow his lead, mean that Canada will continue looking for ways to diminish its reliance on the U.S. economy. Simply put, when the deals you have with your most important partner are written in pencil, you would be wise to find more partners. That is especially true when you have a historical memory of that partner seeking “to pressure…[you] into dependence and, eventually, annexation,” as Carney has put it. What we are seeing now, Rohinton argued, “is the first few months of that transition” away from the model of economic integration. That trend is likely to leave both Canada and the United States worse off than they otherwise would have been.
Rohinton and I also discussed how Canadians feel about the taunts they hear from Trump and his senior advisors, why the trade talks broke down in August, why neither side has released the terms of the “almost deal,” whether Ontario and Quebec might invoke their “nuclear option” and cut off energy supplies to the United States, and whether the talk in Alberta and Quebec about secession is serious. I encourage you to give the episode a listen.