Well, the media continues to use the term “bailout”, which complicates matters, I would say. I'm not sure what a bailout is, but this isn't one of them, that much I know.
I think what you should say, or what I recommend you say, to your constituents is that really the automotive sector domestically is facing an existential moment, that the impact of that going away would be felt not just in Ontario or in three or four cities in Ontario but across the country in lost economic activity, lost jobs. It would echo throughout the whole country.
That's why the United States made the decision it made, and why it was supported by Democrats and Republicans. They saw it as something that affected the whole economy--not just one sector, not just a couple of businesses, but the whole economy.
So that's the rationale. The rationale is that we wanted to help that industry restructure. It's not business as usual in that industry, and it won't be business as usual. They're going to have to restructure and they're going to have to shed capacity, that's very clear. But at the same time, we can help them get through the short term.
This affected every single carmaker, by the way. That's the other thing to say; this is not just a Detroit three issue. Toyota is down 40%. Honda is down 40%. Nissan just cut 20,000 jobs yesterday. They're down everywhere in the world. The fact of the matter is that for various historical reasons, GM and Chrysler are unable to weather the storm to the same extent as Toyota or Nissan or Honda.
So that's the situation. But we have set in place conditions to protect our investment, to ensure that the restructuring is one that is reasonable, and that Canada takes its place within that restructured industry.