Unifor’s Lana Payne on Ford Deal, Trade Turmoil, and the Long Game for Canadian Auto Workers

Lana Payne, National President of Unifor, is cautiously optimistic that the union’s newly ratified three-year agreement with Ford Motor Co. will set a durable precedent as negotiations shift toward General Motors and Stellantis. Speaking exclusively with WardsAuto following the July 19 ratification vote—where 74% of Ford members approved the deal, up sharply from 54% in 2023—Payne framed the agreement not just as a wage and investment win, but as a strategic anchor in an era of profound uncertainty. “It’s a comprehensive deal,” she said. “If someone had said we could achieve all of this three months ago, I wouldn’t have foretold it.” Yet she was quick to temper triumphalism with realism: “We are not in good times or even normal times.”

The Ford contract, effective through September 2029, delivers annual 3% wage increases (cumulatively over 9%) and, critically, binding production and investment commitments. Ford pledged not to close or sell any Canadian facilities during the term and committed $500 million USD to its Essex Engine Plant and $400 million to Oakville Assembly, both in Ontario. These guarantees were hard-won leverage points, made possible by Ford’s imminent product launches and Unifor’s deep institutional knowledge of the automaker’s operations. “They wanted these launches to go smoothly. That’s good for both of us to come out with a win,” Payne explained, crediting her team’s experience and relatively stable labor relations with Ford as key enablers.

But as Unifor turns its attention to GM and Stellantis, the negotiating landscape has grown markedly more volatile. The union’s own bargaining materials warned members that “the ground is shifting in a big way,” citing White House-held trade talks and forecasts of a worsening industrial crisis. Indeed, within days of the Ford ratification, the Trump administration threatened 50% tariffs on many Canadian goods (though vehicles and parts were temporarily exempted). Payne did not mince words: “I don’t sugarcoat these circumstances with our members. Tariffs make everything more difficult.” Automakers have already begun reshaping their Canadian footprints in response, sometimes walking back prior government-backed investment pledges a trend that heightens worker anxiety and complicates long-term planning.

Despite this turbulence, Payne believes collective pressure can still yield results. She argues that the Detroit Three must recognize Canada not as a peripheral cost center, but as a core profit driver: “Canadians buy around 2 million vehicles each year. We are an important part of their profit center.” To sustain market share, she insists, they must invest locally. This logic underpins Unifor’s push for pattern bargaining: using the Ford agreement as a template for technical and economic terms with GM and Stellantis, thereby freeing negotiation bandwidth to address urgent plant-specific concerns. Chief among these are the uncertain futures of GM’s idled EV plant in Ingersoll and Stellantis’ Brampton assembly facility. Both sites remain strategically valuable, Payne noted, offering competitive advantages in North American production logistics and supply chain integration. Her hope is that pattern-setting will create space to negotiate solutions for extended layoffs, retooling pathways, and trade-related contingency issues that dominated discussions with Ford even after the company pivoted Oakville from EV SUVs to Super Duty pickups in 2024.

Beyond the bargaining table, Payne is urging the Canadian federal government to adopt a more proactive industrial policy. She expressed particular concern over Ottawa’s agreement to import 49,000 Chinese-made EVs, arguing it undermines domestic manufacturers who have invested billions and employ tens of thousands. “Let’s stop making it hard for companies that build in North America and want to be here,” she said. Instead, she proposes a preferential treatment framework: automakers with substantial Canadian production footprints should receive regulatory, fiscal, or procurement advantages over exporters who benefit from low tariffs without supporting local jobs or supply chains. This isn’t protectionism for its own sake, she emphasizes, but a recognition that sustainable auto manufacturing requires reciprocal commitment.

Payne’s overarching message to both automakers and policymakers is one of temporal perspective. “These are a moment in time,” she told the Detroit Three. “We as a union must play the long game and they should too.” In an industry buffeted by electrification transitions, trade wars, and demand volatility, short-term cost-cutting risks eroding the very foundations of future competitiveness. The Ford deal demonstrates that mutual interest can still prevail, even when conditions are adverse. But replicating that success with GM and Stellantis will require more than tactical leverage; it demands shared recognition that Canada’s auto sector is not expendable, but essential to corporate profitability, national economic resilience, and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of workers.

As Unifor enters the next phase of negotiations, Payne’s optimism is neither naive nor unconditional. It is grounded in the belief that disciplined solidarity, strategic clarity, and policy alignment can still forge stability in an unstable world. Whether GM and Stellantis choose to meet that vision remains the defining question of Canada’s automotive future.