Debates of Nov. 26th, 2018

General Motors Plant Closure

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has a great deal of experience with regard to the Oshawa community and the people who live there.

One of the things that has been troubling me a great deal is the fact that in 2009, the Canadian auto sector was in difficulty because of the recession, and at that point in time, the Government of Canada loaned $10.85 billion to that industry. Certainly General Motors was a recipient. What troubles me is that it seems the requirement that General Motors provide jobs and stay in the community only lasted until 2016. It would seem to me that the $10.85 billion should have been the basis of a requirement for something far more secure than just that short time.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for London—Fanshawe certainly knows the heritage of the old GM Defense company in London as well.

The issue of 2009 brings up a great question. There was going to be insolvency affecting not only hundreds of thousands of jobs but all the retirees. I remind my friend from Hamilton Mountain that he can still vote for Bill C-405, which came out of concerns from General Motors' pensioners about less flexibility. They were worried that all pensioners would be left out.

We do not have insolvency here. I spoke to Mark Cameron, who was in the Prime Minister's Office at the time. The requirement to produce 16% was the result of the negotiation. At the time of the bailout, 16% was how much was being produced in Canada. As part of Canadian participation and the Province of Ontario, GM maintained that. That was the longest time period for vehicle cycles, going out several, that could be agreed to, and I would remind the member that it was done on an urgent basis to prevent a massive failure.

I think Parliament has acted before to address the shock from the great global recession. Now is a time to address the signal being sent that our manufacturing environment in Ontario has some underlying competitiveness issues. The mini-budget released a few days ago by the finance minister is not enough to address some of the concerns that have been there since payroll tax increases and others. Let us use this debate tonight to come up with a plan to address some of these underlying competitiveness issues.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, our government is deeply disappointed by GM's announcement regarding its global restructuring, which will affect its plant in Oshawa.

This decision will affect not only their operations and their workers here in Canada, but also in the U.S. and around the world. This is terrible news for the women and men whose jobs will be affected, for their families, and for the community.

I want to thank my colleague from Durham for his remarks. I am looking forward to the opportunity to highlight some of the key aspects he raised. I also want to acknowledge the member for Whitby, who spoke so eloquently about the impact this is having on her constituency, for the great advocacy work she has done to promote the automotive sector.

As mentioned, today is a very sad day, disappointing, to say the least, and devastating for the community of Oshawa and the workers and their families. Our government understands that this is a very difficult time for the region and the workers but also for the suppliers and so many people who are indirectly impacted by this news. The company officials highlighted that this was a decision that was not specifically targeted at Oshawa. They indicated that this was part of their global restructuring initiative. However, from our perspective, this is not a good day for Oshawa. This is not a good day for our auto workers.

I have a personal connection to this particular sector. I started my career in the automotive sector. My first co-op job was with the Ford Motor Company of Canada. I really started to understand how important this sector was in terms of the impact it had on the community. I was very fortunate that after my placement at Ford Motor Company, I was offered a full-time job in Oakville, very near to where I now live and where I represent Mississauga—Malton. I had the opportunity to meet with the dealers and see the outreach work they did to promote a sense of community by supporting the local soccer club or swim team or by helping out through volunteering or providing donations. That is an example of the impact the automotive sector has, not only because of the manufacturing or the sales and marketing aspects but because of the dealerships that are on the front line with consumers.

We are very fortunate in Canada. We have a very strong and vibrant automotive sector, a very strong and robust dealership sector. We have over two million vehicles produced on an annual basis, and that really speaks to a vibrant automotive sector. I saw that as a student when I was in Windsor. I did my MBA there, and I recall looking at the Ambassador Bridge and the number of trucks that would cross that bridge with car parts. On average, we have been told, car parts cross that bridge seven or eight times. That speaks to the integrated supply chain and the impact the automotive sector had in Windsor and Detroit and the surrounding region. This is a sector that is very important to me.

Now as the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Malton, I deal with many suppliers who provide logistical support and parts support to the major auto makers, particularly to the auto manufacturing facilities at Ford in Oakville but also to those in Oshawa, Cambridge and other parts of Ontario.

I have heard directly from my constituents and from Canadians how devastated they were to hear this news when some of it started to break last night and when it was officially confirmed by General Motors today. I want to very quickly highlight that all is not doom and gloom. What happened today is of course a major setback for the community of Oshawa, but it is a resilient community, and I am confident that we will talk about a path forward momentarily.

Overall, the automotive sector in Canada employs 500,000 people. Both directly and indirectly, 500,000 Canadians are connected to the automotive sector. It contributes a significant amount to our national economy, $18 billion. It has an impact not only in Ontario or in the southwestern region or in the area I represent. It has an impact across the country. This is a significantly important sector to our economy.

As well, there are suppliers that support this sector, some 700 unique suppliers that really create a value proposition for the automotive sector. It is not only that we have a world-class workforce and an incredible supply chain, but it is also important to note that we have some of the best academic institutions supporting the work they do.

Just a few months ago, at the end of August, along with my colleague from Whitby and the Prime Minister, I was very fortunate to make an announcement at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology of a $9.5-million investment in the Automotive Centre of Excellence. That confirms how important we see UOIT as being, because of the work it does with GM and within that local community. We clearly understand how important academic institutions are. It is why we increased funding for grants and contributions in the last budget by $4 billion so that our academic institutions could have some of the world-class research that can really support this very important sector as well.

While some people wonder if the automotive sector is one that represents the past, it is important to note that it is not. This sector is so innovative and has so much technology associated with it. I remember going to the Detroit Auto Show, and it was not all about horse power. Vendors were talking about software power. It is incredible the amount of technology that is vehicles now, and we want to be part of that future and that technology.

We are very fortunate in Canada. We produce one car every 13 seconds. Think about that. We have eight plants, notwithstanding the announcement today, and we have an incredibly strong footprint as well. We also export to the U.S. and other key markets. In 2017, our export numbers were $86.5 billion. As a trading nation, we recognize that we build these vehicles not only for domestic purchases, but also to make sure that the vehicles produced here in Canada, which are of the best quality, are very competitive and are sold abroad. Significant business is done with the United States as well.

I have highlighted that we have some of the best-quality plants. I have visited many of these facilities and seen first-hand the numerous J.D. Power awards these facilities have received because of their quality workmanship. This fundamentally speaks to the fact that our number one asset, our value proposition, that distinguishes Canada and why companies invest here and why GM has such a long and proud history here in Canada is our people. It is because of our workforce. It is because of the skills the people have, their commitment to their craft, their dedication to make sure they understand and have the latest knowledge of what goes into a vehicle to make sure that we have the best quality standards globally.

This is what this discussion is about today. I want to give some context about the automotive sector, because it is really important to know that this sector is doing reasonably well, all things considered. When we formed government in 2015, we recognized that we inherited a program called the automotive innovation fund, AIF. There are tons of acronyms in government. For many people viewing this, as well as my grandmother, who was telling me she was listening to this debate, the automotive innovation fund was introduced by the previous government. However, the terms and conditions were such that the automotive sector was not using this fund. It sounded good, was very targeted, but it did not necessarily help the automotive sector.

Once we formed government in 2015, we changed the fund's terms and conditions. We looked at how to make sure that the fund actually worked to bring investments into Canada, and because of that, we have seen a great deal of success. Once we changed those terms, it really helped negotiations between unions and management in 2016. Because of this fund, and the new larger fund we ultimately created called the strategic innovation fund, which again helped the automotive sector, we were able to secure through direct partnerships—that means people who use this fund—$4.1 billion worth of investments in the automotive sector.

There are some skeptics out there who are asking if companies want to invest in Canada. We have a clear track record since we formed government of putting forward policies and programs for significant investments in the automotive sectors. Overall, $5.6 billion worth of additional investments were made in the sector in the last three years. This speaks to the fact that we have an incredible automotive sector in Canada.

I highlighted the reasons why. It is because we have an incredible workforce and an incredibly integrated supply chain. We have some of the best research coming out of our academic institutions that support the latest technology and research being done. This is really important and Canadians need to understand that. Again, today's announcement was devastating. It was very painful to watch, and when the news came out, I heard directly from many of the businesses in my riding and many of my constituents as well.

I also want to highlight that when we changed the terms of the automotive innovation fund and ultimately called it the strategic innovation fund, fundamentally what it boiled down to was more money, more resources to make sure that we compete with other jurisdictions because we are in a global race for some of these mandates. We are competing with other jurisdictions to make sure we attract investment.

Yes, we have very competitive tax rates. Yes, we have among the best workforces. Yes, we have free trade agreements, but ultimately other jurisdictions say that if companies want to invest in their state, in their community, they will provide additional tax breaks or additional support for them to do so. That is why we have a strategic innovation fund. Through this fund we have made significant investments, but let me be more specific.

Toyota, for example, invested significantly, over $1 billion dollars, which helped maintain and create 8,500 jobs, a significant footprint for the Cambridge—Woodstock community. It is very important that this investment was made.

It was the same thing with Honda. We made sure that we invested money from the strategic innovation fund and were able to secure $492 million, which helped secure 4,000 good quality middle-class jobs. These are significant jobs in those communities.

My colleague from Guelph will be speaking in a moment about Linamar. This was a significant investment made in the company of $750 million. Linamar is a Canadian company and a Canadian success story that is expanding its footprint here. It is a major automotive parts supplier. It also secured 9,500 jobs. Many new jobs are also created, in total 1,500 new jobs because of this investment.

This is how the strategic innovation fund is working. It boils down to jobs. It boils down to making sure we get investment, and that is exactly what we have seen in the automotive sector. As mentioned, this fund is important because we are competing with other jurisdictions.

Some would ask why we are investing this money, that it is corporate welfare and are we not cutting cheques? Absolutely not. We are competing with other jurisdictions. How can we turn our back on 500,000 employees? How can we turn our back on a sector that contributes $18 billion? We cannot and we will not.

That is why our Prime Minister has been very clear. We stand with the workers and with the automotive sector. We brought this fund forward so that we could compete with other jurisdictions as well

Today, we also had the opportunity to engage with our provincial counterparts. The Prime Minister spoke with Premier Ford and made it very clear that we are going to be here for the workers. Premier Ford also acknowledges that this is not a political issue where we point fingers. This is not a partisan issue. This is about our coming together. The members for Durham and Hamilton Centre have said this on several occasions. It is a great opportunity to show Canadians that we are all united with one key objective or focus, to make sure that we do everything possible for Canadian automotive manufacturing workers.

We are engaging with the province. We are going to look at all options. We are going to examine what we can do and what it can do and how we can work together to make sure that we protect our employees.

I have also had the opportunity to speak directly to Mayor Henry. It was a difficult conversation, because he talked about his own personal experience and story with the company. As mentioned by the members for Whitby and Durham, everyone is touched by this. GM has been there for over 100 years, so every family has a story to tell directly and indirectly. This is not simply about jobs alone. This has an impact on the local community and we recognize that. My message is very clear to Mayor Henry, who will become the new regional chair in the coming days: How can we work together?

Our government wants to be a partner. We have a track record of demonstrating that partnership. It is not empty rhetoric. We have put policies and programs in place to support the automotive sector. This is not old industrial policy; it is part of our innovation and skills plan. It is about how we move forward.

We have also engaged with the unions. I spoke with Jerry Dias and made it very clear that we are here to support the workers. What can we do? We have a very good working relationship with labour. We want to make sure that we provide every opportunity for our workers to succeed.

This is all hands on deck. This is about our coming together and working for this critical sector. To highlight that, we made some significant announcements in the fall economic statement. The Minister of Finance announced an additional $800 million for the strategic innovation fund. That means more money for this fund to attract more investments. That is a clear indication that we had something that was working, a highlight of those success stories. Going forward, we wanted to send a clear signal to industry that we have their back, and we wanted to send a clear signal to workers that we have their back. We wanted to send a signal that we wanted to see more research and development, more mandates, more jobs, and more investments. That was clearly demonstrated by that additional $800 million investment announced in the fall economic statement.

This is part of our overall plan. This is not a one-off initiative. This is part of our new smart industrial policy called the innovation and skills plan. This plan was officially launched as part of the 2017 budget. My parliamentary secretary knows full well that this plan really paves the path forward for how we are going to compete going forward. One of the key aspects of this plan is investing in people. The way we succeed is not just with innovation but also with skills, by investing in upscaling and re-scaling, and lifelong learning and education. That is how we differentiate ourselves. That is our value proposition. It is our people. It is Canadians. It is our workforce.

That was a key part. We also invested in research and development. Again, I talked about some of the investments, the $9.5 million invested in the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, as an example, a small but a specific example for that region. The member for Whitby was there when we made that announcement.

Of course it is all about seeing growth. We have seen record growth, 3% growth of our GDP last year. We have seen over 500,000 jobs created in the Canadian economy since 2015, when we took office. Those are full-time jobs, I might add. This is really important. We have more to do. That is what was clearly demonstrated in the fall economic statement as well in talking about our plan going forward.

I want to make it very clear that we are not done yet. When I talk about our innovation and skills plan, we have a supercluster for advanced manufacturing. This is an area of strength for us. Manufacturing is a point of pride for us. This is an area where Canada can continue to lead. We know that manufacturing represents significant growth opportunities. That is why, when we put forward this $950 million initiative, led by industry, advanced manufacturing succeeded, and many automakers are part of this supercluster initiative as well.

We have different policies and programs in place to make sure that our economy grows. We believe in the automotive sector. We know it has enormous potential. We want to continue to support this sector as well.

The bottom line is that if there is one number I can leave with the House that really encapsulates what I have been saying and why this debate is so important, why I am so glad that we supported this emergency debate, why I am so glad to see members from all political parties participating in this debate, it is the 500,000 jobs connected to the automotive sector. This is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Our government will continue to fight for good quality, middle-class jobs in the automotive sector.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the minister that it is about jobs. That is why we called for this emergency debate. I agree that Ontario is competitive and that a lot of good things happening, and that we have to send that signal. I appreciate his comments about renaming the auto innovation fund started under the Harper government as the strategic innovation fund.

I do not really want to talk about funds. We have steel and aluminum tariffs, and we have retaliatory tariffs, now raising costs in the supply chain. There are payroll taxes, the carbon tax, the Gordie Howe bridge, industrial power rates, and wage pressures. Are any of these factors issues that factored into GM's decision?

The Hill Times had a story on the minister being the most lobbied minister in the government. As I said, that is normal, but it did say, “General Motors of Canada Co. is by far the most common lobbyist of [the minister].”

Were any of those issues raised? I want to have a serious discussion on how we can come up with a plan together. Have these issues, steel tariffs, NAFTA, payroll taxes, the Gordie Howe bridge, and transportation challenges, been addressed by GM Canada in those meetings with the minister? Is he prepared to put forward a plan that we can get behind to eliminate some of those issues before November 2019?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Durham for his question. Ultimately, he is asking the right question, which is how do we compete going forward, how do we succeed going forward, and how do we create opportunities for Canadians.

He talked about the automotive innovation fund. Sadly, the previous government had that program in place, but the terms and conditions were such that no automotive company used it in a meaningful way. Therefore, it sounded good on paper, but it was not a true incentive to bring in investments. We changed those terms and conditions, which allowed both management and the union to understand that the government wanted to be a meaningful partner. That really helped in the negotiations. Ultimately, we used that fund to bring in the investment that I highlighted, the $4.1 billion worth of investment.

With respect to steel and aluminum tariffs, as the member opposite raised, this speaks to why these are unjust, unfair tariffs. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has led the charge to push back against the United States on this issue, saying this is unacceptable. We are not a security threat or concern. Ultimately, this is not good for Canada, but it is not good for the United States and our integrated supply chain, and we will continue to work to eliminate these tariffs.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks, and I am encouraged by the attitude that we will work collectively. However, I am a bit concerned about some naïveté that I am hearing. The minister talks about the strategic innovation fund and how it is working and how successful they are as a government in terms of investing in new technology and innovation. It sounds wonderful, but the truth is that General Motors is leaving. There must be some problems. There must be some issues in that regard. I would like to know what kinds of discussions the minister has had with the company and with the union, and what leverage he has applied to make sure that General Motors does not abandon the community of Oshawa, leaving its workers in the lurch.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is really the most important issue we discussed today. It really is about the workers. I highlighted that in my remarks, and colleagues opposite have raised that issue. It really is, today, about the employees in Oshawa and making sure we are there to support them. We have been very clear that this news is disappointing. We are devastated by the impact this will have on Oshawa and the surrounding region as well.

What is the plan forward? We want to work with our provincial counterparts. We want to work with the municipal government. We have been very clear about protecting the automotive sector. That was a clear point in our discussions on NAFTA. If President Trump says he wants to use section 232 to undermine the automotive sector, we shielded the automotive sector from any of these tariffs going forward. I wanted to quickly highlight that point as well from the question asked before.

These are the measures we have taken, and not only GM, but all the automotive companies know full well that our government is a meaningful partner when it comes to supporting the automotive sector, and we will continue to support the sector for years to come.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his remarks, as well as his leadership on this issue and on the innovation file generally.

We have heard a number of people in the House, including the member for Durham, talk about the future of the auto industry and where we ought to be going, so I would like to ask the minister to elaborate on where we are going, for example, on the car of the future and automated clean, green technology with respect to cars. I know he has more to say about it, and I would like to hear him.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have said before, the automotive sector does not represent old industrial policies. It represents a bright future going forward. It is a key part of our government's innovation and skills plan. It is about how do we build the vehicle of tomorrow and at the same time protect good quality jobs, and making sure they transition to these new opportunities. Therefore, we are coming forward with a zero emission vehicle strategy. We are investing significantly in 5G technology to help with autonomous and connected vehicles. We have supported companies with software technology that is being used in the new vehicles that are being produced.

We have also supported up-to-date, flexible manufacturing facilities as part of the strategic innovation fund to make sure we have the production capacity, industry 4.0. The bottom line is, we are investing in skills and technology to make sure we build the car of the future.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give a little context to the discussion here today.

I was happy to point out to the minister that Toyota Motor Manufacturing is in Oxford County, as is a General Motors plant and a Hino Motors truck plant. We probably have somewhere in the area of 15,000 employees in the secondary industry of suppliers.

However, it is more important, as we go forward, to talk about going forward as opposed to where we have been in the past. What would the minister suggest we do collectively to work together to support all of those industries in the future, and how do we get together to do that? I am convinced that it is not necessarily what we have done in the past, if that has worked, but now we need to move on.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his passion and commitment to this very important sector.

We have been very clear. Our path forward when it comes to the automotive sector is to talk about the bright future of the sector and what it represents in terms of opportunities to Canadians, particularly youth. We want to highlight all the changes that are occurring in the technology associated with these vehicles.

We want to play a leadership role when it comes to these new emerging technologies, such as the lightweighting of vehicles, the software that is used, connected vehicles, autonomous vehicles, or any of these types of advancements or changes that are occurring. We want to make sure that Canada plays a leadership role. It is why we put forward this innovation and skills plan, and why we will make sure that the automotive sector benefits from it. It is about making sure that we highlight this as a sector that is going to succeed going forward. It is a forward-looking sector that is doing great work and creating tens of thousands of jobs in the process.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but I did take offence when he said it is not all doom and gloom. It is very hard to say it is not doom and gloom to the workers who got the announcement that they are going to be losing their jobs.

However, in saying that, I understand he is talking about the future of the business. Therefore, I would ask him what we are doing about the situation today. Will he support and organize a federal all-party committee to join in with a provincial all-party committee, along with the unions, the company and the mayor of Oshawa for a meeting as soon as possible so that the people can see that all the people in the House are working together to try to resolve this issue?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was highlighting the fact that, overall, the sector is headed in the right direction. Make no mistake, what has happened today is devastating. Make no mistake that what the families are going through is unimaginable. This is serious stuff. These are workers and communities that are impacted. I do not want to minimize that nor have I minimized that.

However, I highlighted that we want to build a strong and robust automotive sector, and we are more than willing to work with other political parties, unions and auto manufacturers. We have an open-door policy, because we believe in this sector and we believe that it creates good-quality, middle-class jobs.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the announcement this morning of the GM closure came as a surprise to everyone and obviously it is devastating news. It is devastating news for our economy, for the community and for all the workers, their families and the pensioners who will be affected. The effects of this closure will be huge. The economic and human effects will be felt far and wide beyond just Oshawa and the GM facilities. Up to 30,000 people who work in jobs dependent on the auto sector could be affected. That is 30,000 families that will experience the incredible hardship a closure like this produces.

I am relieved that we are having this debate tonight. I am also very heartened by the fact that the three major parties in the House all agreed on the need to have this discussion and have it as soon as possible.

I have spoken today with colleagues from both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, and have suggested to them that we need to focus on what we can do to help the workers now in moving forward. Of course we will talk about the politics of the situation, how we arrived at this point and who is to blame, but to me that is a secondary issue. We must first do all that we can to help.

In my view, plan A should be an attempt to keep the plant going. The government must immediately examine ways of keeping the operations going and keeping the workers employed. The Liberal government must explore options to encourage GM to reverse its decision, including targeted investment that would ensure our workers can continue to build the vehicles Canadians need now and in the future. These options must be examined immediately.

Plan B would be to find new investors. Is there anyone out there willing to invest in a way that maintains employment levels? Could the workers be involved in some sort of investment strategy? There are more questions that need to be examined and answered as soon as possible.

Plan C would be the development of a proper and adequate process of adjustment for the workers and the community. Such a process must ensure that workers are treated with dignity and that proper support systems are put in place. Surely, we have learned that asking workers to rely on EI when their workplace closes is not an adequate response.

Everyone in Canada knows that the retraining programs offered to workers in this situation are not even close to being a real solution. It is a joke really to think the majority of these workers are going to be trained for a job that is going to provide anything near the wages and benefits that they are relying on now.

What about older workers? It is very unlikely they could even be given the new skills that would make another company want to take them on, especially at the wage level they now earn.

Those close to retirement will end up losing significant value from their pensions. The loss of health care benefits will be devastating for older workers who have worked their whole lives in physically demanding jobs and count on those benefits for the medicine and therapy that they need.

This is not an easy situation for the workers, their families or the pensioners, and often the effects go beyond what may be obvious on the surface, the loss of income and benefits.

I have lived through this situation before and have seen the effects first-hand. When I was employed at Stelco and was president of my local union, the company announced that it was closing. That was at Canada Works in 1984 in Hamilton where we had what is called a screw manufacturing plant. When the company announced that closure, I had never seen such devastating results. Some people took their lives. Some people lost their marriages. Some people turned to addiction. It was incredibly unbelievable what happened.

This situation has to be addressed and it has to be addressed as soon as possible, because many people as of today are taking their anger out on the company. They do not know what they are going to do in the future. They are mad. They are asking all of us for help. We have to show them that help and we have to show them support, otherwise different things may happen. Right now, they will be going into a toxic work environment. We must show that we are there for them.

The union and the company are going to be talking but they need more support than that. The union and the workers need every level of government possible to go forward, to show that we are all united in helping them out.

Make no mistake, the effects of this closure will be severe and difficult. That is why we needed to have this debate tonight and why we must act immediately to help the workers, their families and the community.

Both GM and the Premier of Ontario may be saying the ship has sailed, but we do not accept this is a done deal. There is more we can do and we must act and we must do it immediately.

Our thoughts go out to the workers, pensioners, families and communities affected by this decision. Thousands of good-paying Canadian jobs will be lost. This will leave the families and communities reeling from the impact.

As I said, it is the communities, workers and families. It is just a ripple effect of what happens. We really do not see the devastation across the country unless we experience it. That is what these workers are going through today. The support systems they need will not just be on training issues, but they need the jobs to be trained for. With the government previously saying that people must get used to only precarious, part-time and contract-type jobs, it is not a very good sign to say that people will be trained. For what? That is the problem we are having.

It is vital for the government, for all us to encourage GM to keep the plant open or find a new investor. It could be a competitor. All that stuff is there. The building is there. All we have to do is do it right and we can do it for everybody.

I will do everything in my power to help those affected by this devastating news. I trust all my colleagues in the House will do the same.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for not only his good words and strong support for the workers, families and communities that are struggling with today's news, but also his contribution when it comes to issues of labour relations and for standing up for important issues that relate to the rights of workers.

The question I have for him is a bit more complex than some of the comments he made. It centres around the centre for excellence, the new research facility that General Motors has opened in Oshawa and the thousand new jobs for engineers in pursuit of the next generation of vehicles. Hopefully, those vehicles will not only be built in Canada, but will be built in Oshawa.

I am curious. We know that one of the things that attracts that next generation of investment is the tax rate. We have heard today from the NDP about the need to increase corporate taxes. In light of today's news, are they rethinking that strategy as it relates to the automotive industry to encourage investment in Oshawa, to encourage the retooling of that facility to hopefully take advantage of the good research that is being done at the new facility recently opened in Oshawa by GM?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can have all we want for engineering and new development, but when closing the manufacturing company down, I am not sure what all that does except help the future of other plants.

When it comes down to tax giveaways to try to encourage, as the government has said, keeping jobs in Canada, this is living proof that it does not work. I am not sure if all these tax giveaways are all that great. Maybe we should be looking at another method, whatever that method would be, to protect employment standards in Canada and protect the workers in Canada.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member cares about the employees. I see it in his face and hear it in his voice. What concerns me is that this is not just Oshawa. We are talking about Oshawa tonight, but this goes right across Canada. Manufacturing is under attack. Manufacturing over the last three years has complained over and over again about competitiveness, saying it cannot survive in Canada, that it cannot compete.

Could he give us some ideas of things that the NDP would do to create an environment so manufacturing would be competitive?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. I have been saying that since the eighties and nineties when the actual manufacturing base was leaving our country. It was a big issue then and it is a bigger issue now as they are leaving.

We have come up with several ideas to work together and have a strategy together. All we have so far is the Conservatives, when they were in government, saying they were going to do one thing and when the governments change, we have the Liberals saying they are going to do another thing.

We must work together. I think that is what we are all trying to do to ensure we have business in Canada and a future in Canada for our children and grandchildren so they will have jobs to go to.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like him to comment on something very specific. International trade is not a bad thing and trade deals are not a bad thing per se. Once we buy into the argument that it becomes dogma, that it has to be a free market and free trade at all costs, we are seeing the repercussions of that in this instance.

We had the Auto Pact in Canada, which would ensure that cars built here would be bought here. We gave that up on the altar of free trade at all costs. I would like my friend to comment on the future of manufacturing in the auto sector, especially the manufacturing in the absence of an Auto Pact and with the signing of agreements like NAFTA and now the USMCA, and everything else. At some point we need to start think, if we are dealing, what the future of Canada is. Is it manufacturing or services, which is lower productivity and less wages because it is lower unionization density? I would like my friend to comment on the future he sees for Canada.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free trade is one thing, but we never had that. What we are looking for is fair trade. The new USMCA deal and the whole idea of trade is not to make tariffs. Unfortunately, we have tariffs in our steel and aluminum industries that are having devastating effects on our businesses now and in the future. They cannot compete unless they want to lower wages and that is the way of the future on some global companies that want to lower their wages. We need a fair trade agreement that is fair to all countries and not just one.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the devastating reality for the workers, their families and the entire city of Oshawa. It is very clear that this is a failure of the obligation that is owed to the working people of the country.

Last week, the Liberal government gave corporations like General Motors a $14 billion giveaway, because, as the government said, it would guarantee that jobs would remain in Canada. However, today, while GM stakeholders and shareholders got a bump of 7% on their profits, more than 5,000 Canadian families may be affected by these layoffs. This should never happen. We cannot afford billions in tax giveaways to the most profitable companies when those same companies are pulling up stake, leaving people out of work and leaving families devastated.

London, Ontario is an example of this kind of behaviour from corporations. We have lived it for a number of years. We lost Siemens, which provided good jobs, but it is gone. We had Ford at Talbotville and it is gone. Most recent, despite the Conservatives giving Caterpillar $5 million, it left, not because the workers did not produce a world-class product but because it had no commitment to the community. It was profitable and it was doing very well. In fact, the investments and the benefits that it gleaned were because of the quality of the workers in our community. However, when these companies left, people and families were abandoned.

There should be government investment. We hear a great deal about the various investments that have been put in place by the Liberal government and by the Conservative government before it. However, these investments must have strings attached. There can be no open season. There must be requirements and commitments by these companies to stay and to continue to be part of the community. It was the community that made them profitable.

The NDP has been calling for investments that would make Canada a leader in clean energy jobs. It is important to note that successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have dismissed this call for a plan. Today we are reaping the results of that. We are seeing the manifestation of failing to have a plan. Part of that plan is a national auto strategy.

Members will recall that the MPs for Essex, Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh have been very clear in asking for a national auto strategy. In fact, the member for Windsor West tabled a petition, with 9,000 signatures from his community, asking for this plan. If we had a cohesive, well-thought-out strategy, it would attract investment, support research and engineering, support innovation and sustain good jobs.

This lack of a national strategy has cost Canadians some crucial jobs, jobs that would place us in the lead in regard to efforts to create electric hybrid cars and a green economy. It would be the kind of sustainable economy that would alleviate the environmental and climate change crisis we all face. It would be a strategy that would begin by convening an auto summit with provincial, municipal, industry leaders and labour, and labour is constantly forgotten in this scenario, to develop a consensus for that important national automotive strategy.

This is not new. This is something that I first heard from Jack Layton in 2003, when he unveiled the proposal for a program to create 40,000 new sustainable jobs. He talked about the auto industry and how we could become part of that new green non-polluting future. It would go a long way, not just with respect to jobs but in the elimination of greenhouse gases.

The investment would require commitments, as I said, long-term commitments from automakers like GM to continue to support Canadian jobs well into the future. GM is saying that that ship has sailed and there is nothing we can do but accept that this is a done deal. The Liberal government must explore options to encourage GM to reverse this decision, including targeted investment that would ensure these workers can continue to build quality vehicles, the vehicles Canadians need now and in the future, investment that makes demands for commitments from the company.

New Democrats stand with the workers and their families in Oshawa and with workers throughout the country. We will continue to push the Liberal government to implement the needed changes to protect our industries. We have been calling for investments to make Canada a leader in clean energy jobs, and again we are back to a national auto strategy as part of the future. It is also absolutely essential we explore these sectoral investments.

Whatever we do, we must avoid the mistakes of the past. By that, I am referring to 2009 when the Canadian and Ontario governments lent GM $10.85 billion. It was $7.23 billion federally and $3.62 billion provincially. That amounts to $474,000 per GM employee. The governments received stocks. They were able to retain stocks as part of the agreement, but they sold those stocks in 2015. That was a mistake because those shares were leverage. They were part of what we held in keeping General Motors accountable, but they were sold. The result of that sell-off is the public lost $3.5 billion to General Motors due to the bailout. In 2014, the Auditor General found that Industry Canada had no documentation of how GM used more than $528 million of those funds. Imagine that: governments which give away money to corporations but there is no accounting and no accountability. It is not acceptable.

In October, Export Development Canada showed a $1-billion outstanding loan to General Motors Corporation. Apparently, that $1 billion is going to be written off. Just this summer, the member for Windsor West was asking, in light of the Trump auto tariffs, what we were doing to make sure we had a predictable strategy since we are dealing with a very unpredictable U.S. President. Part of that strategy is to address tariffs. Has the Liberal government addressed the issue of the steel and aluminum tariffs? It is quite prepared to sign the USMCA, but has it made it very clear that there will be no signature until those auto tariffs and steel and aluminum tariffs are addressed?

We need a government that will step in and do what it takes to keep these jobs in Canada and in place in Oshawa. We are calling on the Liberal government once again to protect workers, to implement a national auto strategy and to look at the trade deals which have been put in place and make sure we have not given up too much and that we have protected employment, workers and labour in this country.

Two weeks ago, the government bragged about how the USMCA, which it is still planning to sign, would protect the auto sector. Well, apparently it will not. A week ago, the economic update gave $14 billion to corporations like General Motors to guarantee jobs in Canada. Clearly, these giveaways have not worked. They have not achieved what the government said they would.

Therefore, let us get to work. Let us make sure there is a transition, like my colleague suggested, which involves the city, the union, the province and the federal government. Let us make sure that these workers will get their pensions, that GM will live up to all of its pension obligations. Let us make sure that severance is in place. Let us make sure that the company is required to do the environmental remediation of its sites to allow other industries to go in. The company should not get off scot-free. It should be held responsible for what it is doing. It should be held responsible for this behaviour.

We are on the side of those who work in Oshawa, and we are prepared to fight for them.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the member called for a national strategy. Quite clearly, a $5.6-billion investment into the auto sector by this government since taking office is that strategy brought to life. The tens of thousands of jobs supported by that investment, including the 1,000 high-paying jobs in the Oshawa area for the new GM research facility specifically supported so that it can develop the next generation of vehicles, driverless vehicles, emission-free vehicles, is that strategy. It is that forward-looking strategy to get to the next generation of automobiles.

The member opposite suggested that we should not have signed the free trade deal. However, that free trade deal is supported by Unifor, the very union at the heart of today's disappointing news.

Is she really suggesting that there is no $5.6-billion investment? Is she suggesting there is no support for innovative automotive research and investment in GM? Is she also saying that Unifor should be ignored when it says to support the free trade deal?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be fascinated to hear what Unifor has to say today in light of General Motors shutting down its Oshawa plant.

The Liberals talk a good game. They talk about how they have put things in place, but where were the requirements that there be a commitment from the companies involved? If there were commitments in the past, they would not be able to leave without even a how do you do and they are gone. If what the Liberals have put in place is so very good, why has General Motors indicated that it is leaving, and why is it leaving without there being any penalties or anything in terms of compensation?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the underlying themes that I think we can all agree on with respect to this issue is competitiveness. We are seeing steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the United States. In retaliation to those tariffs, we have imposed our own tariffs. In fact, companies that are purchasing steel and aluminum and then reselling it back into the United States, much like the automotive sector, are facing double tariffs, and it really is causing a problem, not just in the automotive sector. For the last couple of weeks, representatives of the steel and aluminum industries have been coming to Parliament Hill to talk about the impacts this is having, such as the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises with upwards of 150 employees.

Would the hon. member not agree that in order to meet this competitiveness challenge, our retaliatory steel and aluminum tariffs would be better removed at this point to allow us to be more competitive, not just nationally but internationally as well?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. These tariffs that have been placed on steel and aluminum are indeed hurting many companies. The retaliatory measures that the current government has put in place have not achieved anything very effective. The government has collected lots of money. It has collected millions and millions of dollars and has paid out very little to the companies it promised it would help, support and make sure that they did not fail or in some cases fold entirely.

In regard to competitiveness, Canadian workers are probably the best in the world. They have skills, work ethics and they believe in doing good work. However, the government has failed to support them. The government needs to put things in place so that we can be competitive across the globe as we deserve to be.