“If we concede, they’ll continue to walk all over us”: Unifor president Lana Payne on playing hardball with Trump

When it comes to the economic impact of Donald Trump’s trade policy, the auto sector is currently the canary in the coal mine. Following the implementation of 25 per cent tariffs on non CUSMA-compliant automobiles (which took effect April 9) and a matching 25 per cent on auto parts (scheduled for May 3), Ontario’s plants have taken a significant hit. Last week, the Stellantis plant in Windsor announced a temporary halt to production and nearly 6,000 job losses. More recently, the GM CAMI EV plant in Ingersoll paused production. And just today, we heard news that Honda may be looking to move production stateside. “We knew it was coming, we just never expected it would be this crazy,” says Lana Payne, the president of Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union, representing over 315,000 members. Here, she talks tariff whiplash, anxiety around job losses and Trump’s endgame.

Thanks for making time on what must be another busy day. When was the last time you got a decent night’s sleep? Probably January 5. I had some time to relax a bit over the holidays, but we kind of knew this was coming. Trump had been clear in his election platform about implementing tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. So we were preparing internally for this kind of a fight. We organized to make sure we were kept aware of what was happening across our union, across different sectors. Just the threats of the tariffs had an impact. We started to see decisions being made around those threats: delayed investment in manufacturing facilities, cancelling plans for expansion. Just this morning we heard that Honda is looking at how it can increase production in the US, so the question is: What does this mean for their Canadian facilities? Related: “I’d be ashamed to drive a Tesla”—Auto expert Flavio Volpe breaks down why tariffs will bring car manufacturing to a screeching halt

Were you hopeful that Trump’s election bluster would be worse than his bite? I know a lot of people thought that way, but I didn’t. Partly because we experienced difficulty in Trump’s first term with steel and aluminum tariffs, which led to job losses. And even just the threats create a lot of uncertainty, which is a big problem. A lot of the workplaces we represent require constant renewal of investment. In the auto industry, you just can’t stand still producing the same vehicle from one year to the next. You have to upgrade based on new models every couple of years, and that means investment in facilities. There were also those in the camp of “He’s just using this as a negotiating tactic,” and to that I would say, Does it matter? The damage is still done, and the reality is that no country is in a good negotiating position if the first thing you have to do is fend off the concessions that have already been forced on you.

Related: “We have over 100 cases of American wine trapped at the LCBO”—Toronto’s Grape Witches on what it’s like to run a bottle shop during a trade war

It is currently noon on Tuesday, April 15. I feel like I have to timestamp our conversation because the tariff situation is changing every five minutes. Is the chaos part of Trump’s strategy? Yes, and it has been from the beginning. That’s why the changing threats and the series of tariffs have been so multi-layered. First it was Canada and Mexico feeling the effects with the so-called “border tariffs.” Then you throw in the steel and aluminum tariffs, which were applied globally but have an outsized impact on Canada because the US gets about 70 per cent of its aluminum from us. Then the 25 per cent auto tariffs, which are still working their way through the system. And then, coming in May, tariffs on the auto parts themselves. And then you have the reciprocal global tariffs, which came into effect last week, but then Trump had to pull them back because markets were crashing and the rest of the world was saying, If you pick a fight, we will have no choice but to push back.

My head hurts. Exactly. What he wants is to be in a place where he causes so much confusion that it forces corporations to shift investment and jobs to the US because then you don’t have to deal with the confusion.

Just yesterday, Trump indicated that he might pause the planned 25 per cent tariff on auto parts. More uncertainty! Here we go.

Flavio Volpe, head of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, says this may be an indication that Trump is seeing the light. Do you share his optimism? When it comes to Trump, no. But I do think that maybe we are having some success in terms of all of the work happening south of the border to explain the auto industry to people in the White House and why it’s not so simple. This is a heavily integrated North American industry: we build engines in Canada, they go in vehicles in the US and vice versa. We have car parts that bounce back and forth between Canada and the US several times, so you can’t just uproot production and move it all somewhere else. At least not in the short term.

In the long term, that is the worry: you increase capacity in the US and reduce it in Canada. Every time we go to a bargaining table, we are fighting for the next generation of a facility. We can’t take it for granted. We’ve been building vehicles in Canada for 120 years, and the reason for that is because we buy vehicles. If we want to keep auto jobs in Canada, we are going to have to be clear to these automakers: if you want to sell in Canada, you have to build in Canada. That’s how we maintain the footprint that we have and continue to grow it. If you’re an automaker who wants to sell here without building here, you’re going to be penalized.

Put up or shut up? Put up or shut up. That is exactly it.

On Friday, the GM CAMI plant in Ingersoll announced plans to temporarily halt production, including layoffs for 500 workers. They have said this is a response to the weak EV market rather than to tariffs. They want us to believe that, but it’s impossible to untangle these factors. We are looking at forecasts from people who know a lot about the auto industry. They’re saying these tariffs could produce an extra $1.8 billion in costs, and that will have to be borne by somebody. The price of vehicles goes up, which impacts production, which means fewer workers, fewer shifts, fewer assembly plants. I think if you look at the stock market, you’re seeing that this could lead to a recession, potentially a global recession. Related: Meet the man behind the first all-Canadian zero-emissions car

I was wondering how long it would take before we heard the R word. What are you paying close attention to in that respect? It’s going to be very difficult to avoid an economic downturn with the kind of weight that’s on the auto industry right now, when you look at the kinds of decisions companies are making. They’re going to have to make up all that lost value, and that always means workers get screwed. Do we think Apple is not looking to recoup its losses? Or the banks and financial firms? Oil prices are all over the place, and OPEC is predicting a slowdown in demand. We’re in a bad place right now.

Can it be reversed? Absolutely, if Trump were to stop doing what he’s doing, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. The only thing that seems to make an impression on him is rich people who are losing money, whether it’s Elon Musk or whoever else he talks to on a regular basis. You saw what happened with China. Trump has continued to increase tariffs on everything except computers, phones. Why do you think that was?

To stay on the good side of the tech bros? I think so.

Canada responded to Trump’s 25 per cent auto tariffs with reciprocal measures. Was that the right move? I think it was. We pushed back—we didn’t roll over. We had to hold our ground, and we did that. Now we’re still waiting on the details of the remission plan, which is the part where, if you build in Canada, you won’t get the tariffs. That was our recommendation to the government.

That’s the carrot? That is correct. Let’s hope both the carrot and the stick are big enough.

Is there a case to be made for a softer, catch-more-egomaniacal-wannabe-dictators-with-honey kind of approach, particularly as Trump seems to be granting reprieve specifically to the countries that play nice? As someone who bargains for a living, because that is what we do here, I can tell you that the appropriate response to somebody who is demanding concessions and concessions and concessions is not to say, “How can we concede more?" They will continue to walk all over you. Somebody had to play a leading role. Keep in mind that what Canada was dealing with was different from what other countries were: we were being threatened with annexation, the 51st state. I don’t think a softer approach would have helped us. At least with the reciprocal tariffs, we have Americans feeling the pinch right away. If they weren’t, we’d be bleeding investment, with companies saying, “Canada’s not going to do anything, so we’ll just move on.” Related: A Canada–US historian on Donald Trump’s 51st-state threats

Any theories on why Trump has Canada in his crosshairs? Is it all based on some vendetta against Trudeau? I don’t think it has anything to do with Justin Trudeau. I think it is about what he wants from Canada: critical minerals, water, access to our market in a bigger way.

If you had a few minutes with POTUS to set him straight, how would you use them? I think I would appeal to our similarities. His job as president is to protect American workers—I get that. The US imports 3.5 million vehicles every year from companies that have no footprint in their country, so perhaps they need to build assembly plants in the US. It’s the same way in Canada—I would remind him that we have more in common than we don’t.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.