Debates of Nov. 26th, 2018

General Motors Plant Closure

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. “My heart goes out to” is not an answer resolving this situation. It is something that we hear quite regularly around here. The fact is that this will have a cascading effect along our economy and will affect thousands of families, just like it is affecting those families at GM tonight, because those people who supply the boots and the uniforms, the plumbers and the machinists who deal with the equipment on those lines will all be affected by this. Every single one of those people who I see at the Tribute Communities Centre watching those Oshawa Generals games, in some way, shape or form, will be impacted this. Frankly, my concern is that we are going to see more of what we saw today because of the uncompetitiveness in this country, and it needs to be resolved now.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the soon-to-be wed member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, who I congratulate on her engagement.

Any of us who have grown up in and around the Golden Horseshoe know of the presence of the Oshawa plant. As we drive down the 401, we see the smokestacks and the workers filing in. People who have been at the Oshawa GO station to catch a train to Ottawa know of the gravity of the situation. I have been part of organizations that have experienced layoffs, and we know of the devastation of layoffs, not just for the people whose careers and jobs disappear but also their partners, and the teachers, doctors and people in the community. It ripples through a place like Oshawa, Hamilton and small towns that have large employers like this. Tonight, our thoughts, as a government and as Canadians, are with the people of Oshawa, the impacted families, the community at large and the region.

We have heard expressed by the members from southern Ontario tonight that the GM plant does not just impact Oshawa. The supply chain reaches every corner of the province and there are many people tonight, business owners and families in communities far away from Oshawa, who are sharing the nervousness and worry as to what will happen next.

When I listen to the debate, what I am not hearing are views about what happens next. I am not hearing optimism about the extraordinary investment in education and training, the hiring of engineers, the $5.6 billion we have invested in the automotive sector, which has secured plants in Alliston, St. Catharines and Windsor, even in Oshawa, with the innovation centre that was put there by GM. I am not hearing a sense that we can get through this; I am hearing that we have to surrender.

I listen to the other side talk about trying to out-trump Trump, that we should mimic the tax cuts that have added $1 trillion to the U.S. debt. The party that pretends to balance budgets is now pretending to care about deficit financing, but to mimic the Trump tax cuts would be to add $1 trillion in equivalent Canadian debt. That is insane. Even though those tax cuts were put in place by the United States, even though the tariffs were put in place by the United States and even though there is no carbon tax in Indiana or Michigan, those states are losing auto plants tonight, just like Oshawa is. Clearly, this is not being driven by any individual policy that governments on either side of the border has put into place.

If we read the article that the members opposite keep referring to by Dennis DesRosiers, he talks about a massive disruption in the auto industry that is driving change through all parts of the sector. Because the GM plant has been operating at about one-third capacity due to its product line not selling as well as others, GM has made a decision that will have a devastating impact on the community. Unfortunately, it is understandable from a whole series of different perspectives, but it is not the tax cuts of Trump that are going to save or define this issue. What is going to save, define and build a strong future in Oshawa is a rethinking of the technology, the application of that technology in the transportation sector and getting out in front of change, as opposed to being dragged through the process, as we have just seen happen in Oshawa.

When we look at electric vehicles in this country and the investments this government has made in technology and innovation in the auto sector in supporting local economic development, there are some great success stories. I was at the CUTA conference in Toronto just the other day and spoke to three different bus companies, one from Edmonton, one from Winnipeg and one from Quebec, about the close to 260 buses they are supplying to the Toronto Transit Commission in the next year and a half. All three of those manufacturing sectors have substantial orders not just in Toronto and in Canada, but also around the world. In fact, the factory in Edmonton has a massive contract selling buses to China.

We have the opportunity here to rethink the auto industry and the transportation sector and to invest in it, with the principles of a clean, green economy driving some of the vision, a vision that recognizes that engineers are a critical part of driving this industry forward and the investments that have been made, including smart investments in the technology institute in Oshawa, smart investments in Waterloo a generation ago, smart investments in the community college sector that trains the workforce.

We can build a better auto industry if we decide we will fight for the future instead of arguing about the past. The past is that sense of just cutting taxes and not making the investments that are required to generate the new industry.

We are not going to save Oshawa with tax cuts. We are going to save it by rebuilding that plant, by supporting investments in that plant, supporting training for that plant and building a future in that plant, which is about where the auto industry is going.

The side opposite says environmental regulations kill the auto industry. The fastest growing auto sector in the United States right now is the electronic private vehicle market. Guess which state is growing that market? It is California, a state with a carbon tax and strong environmental regulations. In fact, that is what is driving those sales. It is getting factories, startups, investments and auto plants with a future, not just on the horizon but arriving day by day in that part of the world.

It was not tax cuts in California that did it. It was smart investment by the private sector, paired with good, strong government policy, combined with a highly-trained workforce and a forward looking set of government policies, which include putting a price on pollution. That has delivered security.

Indiana and Michigan did not do that. They have been cutting taxes. They have been supporting a president who put in the very same steel tariffs that we are talking about here. GM said today in Reuters, when announcing the cuts in the United States, that the American move to put tariffs on steel and aluminum cost GM $1 billion in the United States. That is the dynamic we are dealing with here.

For the people of Oshawa, let us be very clear. This government, all of Canada, all of the Parliament of Canada are here for them tonight, but more important, we will be here with them next week, next month, next year. We see a future in the plant. We see a future in the city, in the region and in the supply chain. We know the investments we are making in the auto sector are going to drive that change.

Therefore, when we talk about the three bus companies I mentioned, the one in Quebec, the one in Manitoba and the in one Alberta, when we ask their leadership what has made the difference, it was the investment in infrastructure by our government. It has allowed Toronto, for example, to have the youngest bus fleet ever and to lead the country in ordering and delivering electronic buses. That has given those companies the platform not just to provide clean transportation for citizens in our country, but a platform to take on the world. As I said, BYD in Edmonton is selling thousands of buses into China.

That is creating good, strong, sustainable jobs, but, again, it is an investment in technology. It is an investment in education and in training. It is changing EI to ensure the training programs support lifelong learning. It is about investments in the auto sector, but most important, it is about investment in Canadians. It is why we have created 500,000 full-time jobs, 700,000 full-time and part-time jobs, if the member opposite wants clarification. It is why we have one of the fastest growing economies in the G7 and why our government is committed to the plan we put in place since being elected.

We are growing the middle class, working hard to ensure those people who are close to joining it get the support they need to get across that line and ensuring every city in the country, from Oshawa to Ottawa and every city in between gets the support it needs to build an economy into the future that not only talks about their needs but the country's needs.

I am proud of what our government has done, but I know we have hard work to do in Oshawa. I hope to goodness the side opposite joins us in this fight and does not simply trade it away for a few tax cuts.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly, there is a discrepancy between reality and what is actually happening, because the member opposite--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order please. The hon. parliamentary secretary had an opportunity to do his speech. Now he needs the opportunity to hear the question so he is able to answer it. Nothing would make me more happy on my birthday.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has spent a significant amount of money investing in innovation and green technology, yet this GM plant had the opportunity. It said that it is focusing on innovation, green technology and electric cars, yet it chose not to retool the Oshawa plant with that green technology and innovation.

Therefore, for the member opposite to say that his government has provided a jurisdiction that attracts and retains business is overlooking the critical facts around manufacturing in our country. The Oshawa plant is closing, Bombardier has let go 3,000 jobs, the General Electric plant in Peterborough has closed, Procter & Gamble in Brockville has closed, and that is just the beginning. Clearly, there is a pattern that is not limited to GM and is not attracting that retooling and investment. What would the hon. member say to that?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not try to figure out what the difference is between reality and what is happening now. Those are usually one and the same.

When I was in New York this summer at the United Nations high-level meetings on sustainable development goals, GM was there. The plant GM was talking about as its pace-setting plant in terms of environmental performance, the elimination of waste and adding productivity to its product line was the plant in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

When the member opposite lists a half-dozen companies, which we are very concerned about when they close, she also has to understand that there are 500,000 new jobs being created simultaneously, above and beyond those losses. If we look at the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario, it is starting to gather steam exactly where jobs are being lost.

Yes, there is a transition happening in the economy. Technology is extraordinarily disruptive, and there are certainly trade winds that have been difficult to manage over the last year and a half. However, I will put our record of job creation up against the Conservatives' record any single day. Why the member chose to join a party that cannot create jobs and leave one that did I will let her explain to constituents across this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to the next question, I see that on this side, they have started doing what they were doing on that side, so I would ask for a little respect in the House as debate is going on. I know it is getting late, and everyone is just having a grand old time, but it is an important and serious issue. I really appreciate everyone's patience as we get through this.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, happy birthday.

I am really happy that we are having this important debate tonight. Like other people in this House and across Canada, when we heard this news, it was like we were being kicked in the gut. It is absolutely heartbreaking to think that 3,000 people will be losing their jobs. These are well-paying jobs. Their families will be affected. It is not only the losses at this plant. It is the domino effect. All the restaurants and businesses around Oshawa will be impacted. It is devastating for southern Ontario.

Something the NDP has talked about for many years, dating back to 2003, with Jack Layton, is a national strategy for the auto sector. The member for Windsor West tabled a petition in the summer with 9,000 signatures. We have been asking for this strategy for a long time. This is an opportunity for members on all sides of this House to get together and talk about solutions. I am really hoping to hear some proposals from the member opposite.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. I do not think we have framed it as a national strategy as such, but the $5.6 billion in additional investments we have made in that industry constitutes that national strategy. The changes we are making around e-vehicles and the adaptation of the infrastructure program to accommodate that is part of that strategy. When we look at the investment specifically in bus fleets across this country to build and support the industry that delivers those buses in Canada, it is part of an automotive strategy that includes the future and is forward looking. There is a report coming forward to the Minister of Transport to further those aims.

To frame it as a strategy is a fair question. Perhaps it would be more obvious to the industry and more obvious to Canadians that there is a concerted effort on this side of the House to make sure that we build not only the strongest auto industry and auto sector in this country's history but the greenest one, because that is where the future is leading us, and we must help Oshawa get there with the rest of the successful communities right across this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for splitting his time with me.

I want to start by saying how deeply distressing it is to lose jobs in any industry at any time, and we know that families are suffering and individuals are faced with great uncertainty. We have seen job losses in the past in industries or sectors where people suddenly lose their jobs and overnight a government has wanted to respond. Therefore, I want to talk about the things that governments have done in the past that did not work. I want to come to that later.

I want to focus first on the irony of something that we might generally call “disruptive technologies”. It brings us back to thinking about a 2006 documentary, which is ironic as we stand here tonight as the clock ticks toward midnight. There was a 2006 film that was enormously popular, a documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car? It documented efforts back in the mid-1990s by the State of California to pursue zero-emission vehicles, both because of the acute health impacts of smog in the Los Angeles area and the climate crisis, in order to move us away from the dependence on fossil fuels.

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a fascinating story of the development of the EV1, an electric car made available at the behest of government pressure. It was manufactured by General Motors, and the industry fought that electric car. General Motors bought back every EV1 to destroy it. Therefore, Who Killed the Electric Car? ironically dealt with an early effort to convince General Motors that the future lay with electric vehicles. This was pushed back by those in the big three who wanted to continue with the internal combustion engine.

Earlier in debate tonight, it was mentioned, when I put it in a question for one of my friends in the Conservative Party, that the Oshawa closure was anticipated, that more than year ago General Motors said that it would be moving away from the internal combustion engine, wanting to move toward zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicles, and that we did not prepare for that in Canada. We did not start thinking about how we would protect those jobs in Oshawa. The response by my Conservative colleague was to say that consumer choice would rule, that people would buy what they want to buy.

Let us revisit this. In Canada and right now in the year 2018, the move toward electric vehicles is not a result of governments demanding it. If anything, the Trump administration is moving in a different direction. The move to electric vehicles is a result of a disruptive technology that is better than the one we now have. In the face of this, there were electric vehicle rebates put in place by the former government of Paul Martin. They were eliminated at the federal level by the government of Stephen Harper and, to my bafflement, they have not been brought back by the new Liberal government, which still needs to embrace every possible tool in the federal tool kit to have anything that looks like a plan to fight climate change. We have very little that has been done on electric vehicles by the current government federally, but it is true that disruptive technologies do not really need government help. It really helps if disruptive technologies are not obstructed by government efforts to prop up industries that are on their way out.

This is very similar to the problem we are facing in Canada right, where we want to pretend that there is a future for the oil sands. There may be a future for the oil sands, but not in mining bitumen for fuel. The future for the oil sands might be in mining bitumen for petrochemical industries for other products, but the reality is that disruptive technologies happen very fast and if we were not subsidizing fossil fuels as much as we are, we would be seeing much more uptake of renewable energy.

Let me just quickly describe historical examples of a couple of disruptive technologies, so they will resonate. When the automobile, the Model T Ford, came along—ironically again this is an automobile example—the horse and buggy disappeared. There were not organized lobbies in those days for people who made horse whips and buggies and people who drove the horse-drawn carriages. The disruptive technology was simply more attractive and better. There was an industrial revolution to take up the individual car and it took place within a decade.

There is an even earlier example, from the 1850s. In the 1850s, every household was lit by lamps burning whale oil. We were not yet running out of whales, although the damage done by the whaling industry was devastating on specific species. The whale oil industry did not end because of a public movement to stop the killing of whales for oil. After we had discovered coal, the whale oil industry was done in when a Nova Scotian, Gesner, figured out he could adapt that product into kerosene, which burned brighter, was cheaper and was a disruptive technology that ended the whaling industry.

There is an interesting thing about these disruptive technologies, which has been demonstrated by Amory Lovins out of Rocky Mountain Institute, who has written books on this that I recommend to members. He pointed out that the price falls for something before the demand falls. The current drop in oil prices has a lot to do with the fact that we are moving away from fossil fuels.

The larger context needs to be remembered when we look at these things. Amory Lovins actually has a classic photograph of the Easter parade in Manhattan, with a caption like “Can you see the car?”, and there is one Model T Ford somewhere in the background. Then 10 years later, he asks, “Can you spot the horse and buggy?”, because at that point, the streets are clogged with cars.

When we look at this, we have to recognize that General Motors is now making a decision, because the future is moving and General Motors does not want to be left behind. The future is moving to electric vehicles. The Canadian government should not want to be left behind. We need to assist individuals in moving to electric vehicles and insist on it. We need EV charging stations to be consistent across the country. I noticed that in the budget update we received last week there is a reference to one section of highway in Canada that is getting electric vehicle chargers.

The Government of Canada has the largest purchasing power of any purchaser in Canada. It should decide not to buy any cars with internal combustion engines and only buy electric vehicles. That drives the marketplace and that gives us a chance to compete. When we look at what is being manufactured in Oshawa, we should make sure those jobs are protected, but not through manufacturing internal combustion engines. Should workers be building windmill components there? Should they be building electric vehicles there?

We need to bear in mind the principle of just transition for workers. I turn to the situations I can remember in which lots of workers lost their jobs all at once in Canada, and to the really poor responses of government.

Certainly one of the worst I can recall involved Hawker Siddeley. Being from Nova Scotia, I remember it clearly, as my friend from Milton would, as she mentioned earlier in debate tonight that she is also from Cape Breton.

When Hawker Siddeley decided to close its steel mill in the late 1960s, the government panicked and decided it could not lose all those jobs and that it would buy the steel mill. I remember Gordon Ritchie telling me once that he had advised Allan MacEachen that it would be cheaper if every year the government had a helicopter hover over the doors of the steel plant to drop a bag with $60,000 for every worker, telling them all to go home for the year. That would save the taxpayers of Canada a lot of money. As I recall, Allan J. MacEachen told Gordon Ritchie, “That is probably true, but this is an election year.”

The result of that foolish decision was the creation of the largest toxic waste site in Canada, which took $400 million to bury. It was never cleaned up.

Another poor example of government response was when we lost our North Atlantic cod fishery, which was destroyed by bad Department of Fisheries and Oceans policies. I could go into that, but simply put, our fishery was destroyed by DFO mismanagement.

The response to the individual fishers was to give them new jobs. The department was going to train them up for something new. What did DFO think of? I remember the slogan, “Trade the fish net for the Internet”. A lot of these fishers, who were decent, hard-working people, had never completed high school. “Trade the fish net for the Internet” became such a cruel joke.

If we are serious about just transition for these workers, we should start figuring out what just transition is going to really look like. We have trained-up people who are some of the best workers in Canada. Can we train them up for other jobs, like the new clean-tech jobs? By the way, we have massive shortages of skilled people in many other sectors. Can they be retrained to work in the mining industry or to build different components right in Oshawa for things we really need?

We must not abandon these workers. We do not protect these workers by destroying their children's futures, just as we did in creating toxic waste in the Sydney tar ponds that killed not only the workers but their children. We do not support these workers by letting their grandchildren die by clinging to fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine. We move into the future.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some wonderful remarks. At one particular point she did refer to the cod fishery, which is an issue dear to my heart.

I remember I was in first year university at Queen's when the moratorium was declared. It was quite a shock to everyone, because Newfoundlanders have such an emotional connection to the fishery and its importance to our economy. Then of course the population dropped by almost 80,000.

The member raised an issue regarding how the retraining worked. The retraining might not have worked for all people in the fishery but it certainly trained a generation of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into industries that did not exist. They went off to other parts of the country and did quite well. Some 80,000 of them went elsewhere and are doing quite well in various fields, including in the Internet, working in Silicon Valley, or Toronto, or Boston, or wherever else their skills may have taken them.

I would like the member to comment on how important it is to make sure that the folks in Oshawa are provided with opportunities in their communities so they can continue to maintain their community roots with the people they have grown up with, which is so important to all of us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can recognize that as a university student the member may have been shocked, but I had been working for years with inshore fishermen who went to the Federal Court to try to reduce the quota so that the jobs would not be lost. They were not shocked. As they always put it, the moratorium was not declared by the Government of Canada. It was declared by National Sea Products and Fishery Products International when they scooped up the last fish and could not find anything because they had taken over the offshore with draggers that destroyed that fishery, with the support of DFO and the government at the time.

I refer to the TAGS program. I will tell my friend from St. John's East that the fisheries retraining process did not help the workers who were on those fishing boats. They were devastated. Thirty thousand jobs were lost overnight. While a new generation left Newfoundland to find jobs elsewhere, Newfoundland has an economy now that is swimming in red ink because of the idiotic decision to build Muskrat Falls. The jobs did not come back to the small communities.

If the current government comes up with a program to help the workers, it should make it community-based, not individual. That TAGS program, which wasted a lot of money, should have gone to groups of workers organized through their union, to create new opportunities. They will come up with better ideas than the federal government will.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the exchange between the Green Party leader and my friend the Liberal MP for St. John's East interesting. The one place he omitted where most Newfoundlanders went after the moratorium is Fort McMurray, so much so that Newfoundland politicians go there because a lot of people went to work there to provide for their families.

What is disappointing for me at this late hour is my colleague from Trinity Spadina and the leader of the Green Party are using this as an opportunity to talk about a future they would like to see. They are not living in reality.

The reality is a lot of Newfoundlanders are working in our resource sector. A lot of families are driving their minivans. We do not have a dream world scenario right now where the internal combustion engine is obsolete. The member might like that but it is not the reality. The reality is that in the U.S. market, people are buying trucks, not sedans.

We have to work with our domestic industry. Right now we are not competitive. We can build more efficient cars but we have to be competitive in terms of the marketplace here.

Does the member not recognize that we have to come up with policies that recognize consumer trends, consumption and the fact that we are burning fossil fuels today? It is little solace to families talking in the present about a future that does not exist.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague from Durham, if the world was not moving to electric vehicles, General Motors would not be closing the plant to say it is now moving to no longer make internal combustion engines. That is a business decision made in Detroit.

I want the workers in Oshawa and all the supply chain that is impacted by this devastating decision to know that we are capable of shifting gears and producing vehicles which, by the way, are not only important because that is where the market is shifting, that is where disruptive technologies are shifting, but that is where we must shift.

The Conservative Party must take account of the science that says if we do not hold to 1.5°C, we will lose human civilization. That matters to every single person in this place and the Conservative Party had better get some science tutorials.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am truly glad to rise today to speak to this very sad situation. Talking about cars is a joy, but it is unspeakably sad to learn, as we did today, that 3,000 Ontario workers will be losing their jobs. It is appalling.

I said it is a joy because cars are one of humanity's guilty pleasures. I am 55 years old; I was born in 1963. When I was younger, I dreamed of owning a Duster with big tires and side pipes. That was my dream for years. I have been driving a Prius for the past 17 years, and it may not be terribly exciting, but it is the right thing to do. The problem with the Prius is that it is imported, so it does not really support Canadian industry. The Oshawa plant that will be closing its doors has been open since 1930, if memory serves. People have been making cars in that part of the country for a long time.

Which vehicles are made there today? They make the Chevrolet Impala, a small police car. I have had one as a rental car on occasion, and it is pretty nice to drive. Surprisingly, it is relatively good on gas. When the speedometer was showing 110 or 115 kilometres an hour—yes, I drive 15 kilometres over the speed limit—the car used 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres, if I remember correctly. That is pretty good, but that is not the current market trend, as my Conservative colleague said. People want big cars and SUVs. It is too bad, since we need to think about the environment right now, but that is the market trend.

The GM plant manufactures the Impala, the Cadillac XTS and the Equinox. Anyone, including the Prime Minister, can see that those models are on their last legs. Those old models are not very trendy. The Chevrolet Equinox probably still sells well, but it is definitely not the car of the future. Everybody knows that everything is built on platforms. I do not know the name of the platform used to manufacture the Impala and the Cadillac XTS, but it is a platform that has reached the end of its life cycle.

My colleague from Durham talked about the Chevrolet Volt. That car was manufactured in a plant in the United States that also shut down. I do not think that the closure of the American plant is an indication that hybrid vehicles have no future. The reality is that the Chevrolet Volt is built on the Chevrolet Cruze platform. The Chevrolet Volt is a hybrid of the Chevrolet Cruze. It is not the plug-in hybrid technology that is being abandoned, but the look of the Volt. Anyone who knows a little about cars will notice the similarities between the two, particularly with regard to the way the cabin is built. Only the look of the Volt is changing. The car will eventually be back in a different form. Obviously, that is what is intended because it was a great commercial success.

When I bought my first Prius in 2001, everyone laughed at me, even Jacques Duval. Today, he is a great supporter of the Tesla, but at the time, he said that these cars were ridiculous and that they were not going anywhere. Toyota gambled on hybrid vehicles and won. That is why we are proud to know that some Toyota hybrids are built here in Canada. Hybrid cars popularized the idea of driving a vehicle powered by something other than a combustion engine.

The Chevrolet Volt is a commercial success. Quebeckers love that car. The Chevrolet dealership in Rawdon is the top dealership in North America. It is no doubt the General Motors dealership that sells the most cars like the Volt, the Sonic, or perhaps the Sprint, and the Bolt, both by volume and per capita. It gets the lion's share. Many Ontarians buy from that dealership because Quebec offers a lot of incentives for purchasing an electric vehicle. The Volt is a major seller, and I find that reassuring. In my opinion, that model will come back on another platform.

Canada's auto manufacturers always end up with the short end of the stick. Having spoken to workers' groups and representatives of Canadian manufacturers, I can see that companies are fond of describing themselves as international players. They do not want to say that their made-in-Canada cars are better than the others. They do not want to get into regionalization. As members can imagine, this would not be beneficial for them. At the very least, they do not see it as a positive.

We have to do this, at least as much as our trade agreements allow us to. We should be proud of what is manufactured here. We should be promoting the vehicles manufactured by our workers.

Earlier I said that a long time ago, in 2003, Jack Layton pushed for a plan, a vision, to renew Canada's automotive sector.

I understand that Canadian auto workers look down on Japanese vehicles or other vehicles that come from elsewhere. Unfortunately, up until now, the electric vehicle movement was essentially limited to imports.

Our relationship with the auto industry in general is not one of equals. It is the epitome of cynicism. If I look at the notes we had on GM, it would seem that bailing out companies is inevitable. Two days later, the boss gives himself a bonus before closing up shop. In this case, the government gave GM a $14-billion tax break just last week.

In the meantime, we cannot be so self-centred as to ignore reality. GM is facing challenges. According to the numbers I saw and the consultations I have held, the company is very profitable. It is in the process of downsizing. We see it quite often. These companies are posting profits, but in this case it was not enough, because 2,500 jobs are being cut in Oshawa. It is cynical. It is even more so when we consider that it was just given a lovely $14-billion gift. The company got financial assistance when it needed it, and now it is closing its doors.

That said, what I want to focus on is the pride we should take in what we make. In Canada, we manufacture vehicles that may seem a bit outdated, a bit last-generation. However, not many people know that we also make cars like the Toyota Corolla, a top seller with broad appeal. Normally, the plant should not have to close. Of course, the Cruze is a whole different story, because the platform needs to change.

In Canada, we manufacture the Toyota Corolla, the Toyota RAV4, the Lexus RX 350 and the Lexus RX 450H, which is the hybrid model. We also manufacture the RAV4 hybrid. Not many people know that.

Once the car is in the dealer showroom, is there anything preventing us from saying that the car was built in Canada or that it is a modern, environmentally friendly car? I would think that would be a plus, yet nothing is ever said about that.

The last time I went to California, I drove through strawberry country and saw signs saying “America's best strawberries”. Americans are always tooting their own horn. In Canada, we never brag about what we do. I think that is a bit of a shame.

Toyota manufactures its cars here because we have good workers who do an excellent job of assembling cars and who know how to do it. They know very well that they are going to sell those cars to their neighbours, and they want them to be made right. We can be proud of our workers. Unfortunately, I do not know why we are so embarrassed about this.

I want to point out that there are a lot of RAV4 hybrids in the government's fleet. This is a good thing, and I am proud of it.

In addition to those three GM vehicles, we also make the Ford Flex, which, I must admit, will soon be discontinued. This model was quite unique, but it is clearly not a car of the future. The Ford Edge and its equivalent at Lincoln, the MKT, are interesting vehicles, but as far as I know, they will soon be discontinued. We have been making these cars for quite a while, so this is a bit worrisome.

As a politician in Ottawa, I do not find it reassuring to know that we make the Ford Flex, the Lincoln MKT and the Ford Edge. These are old models. We also make the Ford GT, an extremely prestigious car with a short run, but I still think it is worth pointing out that skilled Canadians hands manufactured such a prestigious vehicle.

Before I talk about Chrysler, I need to talk about Honda, which manufactures the popular Civic. Something tells me that this model is not going anywhere. I would be shocked if there were problems at that plant. We also manufacture the Honda CR-V, a much larger, but extremely popular, model. I have no concerns about this plant either, although I cannot say the same about Ford's.

Next, I wanted to talk about Chrysler, for I am not at all reassured, given that in Brampton, a suburb of Toronto, the price of a bungalow keeps going up, not to mention all the rumours going around. I am pretty sure that neither management nor the union would disagree with me on this: the Brampton plant just completely renovated its paint facility. I think tens of million of dollars were invested in it.

That is where the Chrysler 300, the Challenger and the infamous and aptly named Demon are manufactured. I think the Demon has 700 horsepower under the hood, which is about the same as eight Honda Civic engines. It is a beast. These are limited editions, and they can be very exciting and quite beautiful. However, they are relics of transportation prehistory on our planet, since they are powered by engines that produce an appalling level of pollution.

The Dodge Charger, Dodge Challenger and Chrysler 300 are three very nice cars that many young men might find exciting, but honestly, we have to admit that their future does not look bright.

Now we come to the model that interests me the most. Yes, I am interested in the Dodge Caravan, but I especially like the Chrysler Pacifica. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned the movie Who Killed the Electric Car. I went to the Windsor and Detroit area and had the chance to see the sites that are interesting to people who are into cars.

First, I saw the first versions of the Pacifica, which is delivered with a rechargeable hybrid engine. It is a regular car for a regular family. I agree that it could be less expensive, and could be better supported, but it is equipped with a rechargeable hybrid system.

That means it is not unreasonable to think that a family living in a Toronto suburb with a Pacifica Hybrid could leave their house, drop off the children at day care and school, go to work, park the car, not plug in, all without using a drop of gas. Then when they go to visit grandma in Muskoka, the engine will start. At the end of the day, the family will fill up the gas tank once every two months. That is not bad as far as I am concerned. It is progress.

Has anyone really ever heard of this vehicle, though? It would appear that even the government has never heard of it, because I have been keeping an eye on it for two years now. There were two vehicles here in front of Parliament for the Canada 150 celebrations. This year, another official vehicle was used for the Canada Day celebrations and it ran on gas. What a bad idea.

There was no shortage of tourists that could have been shown those vehicles and who would have thought to themselves, “It's probably built in Windsor and it's all electric”. People can tell when a car is electric because they do not hear it pull up. It runs clean without exhaust emissions. We will not talk about it though. It is far too great of a Canadian success to actually talk about.

I visit Windsor to see that plant and that truck. People who like cars and who visit Windsor also go across the way to Detroit, Motor City, while they are there. Detroit is home to the headquarters of GM and the big towers that are right across from Windsor. Detroit is also home to the famous plant where the Ford F-150 is built.

I was therefore pleased to learn, even though this still surprises me, that the Ford F-150 is the best-selling vehicle in North America. It outsells the Honda Civic and other brands of pickup trucks.

There is a reason for that, however. A lot of people need a pickup truck, and that is fine. I have a few doubts about my neighbour in Longueuil who has a really big pickup and, as far as I know, does not have to tow a trailer full of tools, a fifth-wheel trailer, or anything like that. Does he really need a truck like that to go to Jean Coutu? I have my doubts. It seems to me that it may not be a very good choice, but overall it is top selling vehicle.

I was delighted to see it at the plant and to see a plant like that one. I have not visited plants in Canada, but I can say that the Ford F-150 plant in Rouge River is a marvel of automation. The employees there work in a lab-like setting with gloves and little mitts. It is a model factory very much inspired by the man who invented the assembly line, Mr. Ford himself. I visited that place, and I was overjoyed to see that the gas tank is made in my riding, in Boucherville, by Spectra Premium Industries.

Obviously, this will have a huge impact on jobs and the economy. Anyway, I took a little detour to go see the Henry Ford Museum of American Innovation. While there, I saw GM's famous EV1, the electric car that debuted in the 1990s through Saturn. That model was destroyed, put out of commission by the oil industry. That was such a shame, and I have never really forgiven GM for making something so wonderful and then selling out to the oil lobby.

Today, in 2018, the Chrysler Pacifica hybrid is a vehicle that is well suited to the needs of Canadian families. Unfortunately, there is no sense of pride, no Canada-wide incentives, for this vehicle. We also do not have a vision for what we could do to improve Canada's automotive sector.

Unfortunately, the dealers that have these cars do not promote them. They do not want to sell them and would rather sell the regular Caravan minivan, which carries a profit margin of $1,200. The Pacifica does not have such incentives, and the margin is just $200 or $300. They would rather not convince a customer to buy a $50,000 van to earn just $300.

What this means is that I am worried for the Pacifica Hybrid, a vehicle than can be plugged in and that is manufactured in Windsor. This is the most futuristic vehicle ever manufactured in Canada, and I think that if we do not do something, we will lose it. We need to wake up, have some vision and be proud.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his speech this evening. My father started his career at General Motors in Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec. He moved to Oshawa after a few years, where he lived for 30 years.

The member spoke for a few minutes about electric vehicles, like the Prius or Tesla. However, these cars account for just 1% of the market.

Does the member have any ideas now for the workers in Oshawa?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for asking his question in French.

Second, I am touched to know that his father worked in Sainte-Thérèse. Back in the day, Sainte-Thérèse is where they made the four-door Pontiac LeMans, that run-of-the-mill car everyone's mother-in-law drove. It was fine. Eventually, however, front-wheel drive took over and rear-wheel-drive cars fell out of fashion.

What happened next? The Sainte-Thérèse plant manufactured the last of those prehistoric vehicles: the Firebird, the Trans Am and the Camaro. We ended up with a mediocre factory. We always wind up with scraps, leftovers, auto manufacturing flotsam and jetsam. Can we make the next vehicle? Can we invest in a facility that will last 10 years instead of producing cars that will no longer be made a year and a half from now?

The member mentioned electric vehicles. What can we do for the people of Oshawa? When Bombardier announced it would be cutting 2,500 jobs, Montreal's aerospace sector banded together and took action. Can we work together to find places for these people? An entire city is traumatized by this turn of events. Can we stop quarrelling amongst ourselves and work together to find a way to put pressure on GM to retool the factory for the cars of tomorrow, not some old diesel dinosaur?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your service to us tonight on your birthday. I think there could be nicer places to spend your birthday, but thank you for doing what you are doing.

I thank the hon. member for all the car references. I am thinking of Ste-Thérèse. I visited that plant many times. They made the F-body Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird. They made the Chevrolet Vega back in the seventies.

Quebec has always been progressive in terms of climate change. The cars on the road are Jetta diesels. They are European cars. They are smaller cars, whereas Quebec used to build the bigger cars.

Could the hon. member comment on the incentives from the provincial government toward electric vehicles and how important it is for the provincial government and the federal government to work together on climate change initiatives, such as they have in Quebec? Could the hon. member comment on moving toward the car of the future in Quebec and how it can contribute to the national discussion?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is true that there seems to be an interest in alternative vehicles in Quebec. In fact, Quebec has the highest number of electric vehicles per capita in Canada, and I am very proud to say so.

The biggest market in Quebec is the south shore, and more specifically Longueuil. That is why I formed a coalition in Longueuil with my provincial and federal colleagues. We are six elected officials who fight to raise the profile of transport electrification.

No one knows this, but a company called Avestor, which is owned by Hydro-Québec, was building a battery. It was eventually sold, at an astronomical price, to the Bolloré Group, a French company that created a vehicle based on that battery. If I remember correctly, it was designed by Pininfarina, a great car designer, which created a small, four-door car with that battery, which can now be found in 4,600 electric cars in Paris's car sharing program.

Unfortunately, this program is winding down. As in the case of BIXI, there were problems and operating deficits. That said, at the time, it was the biggest test fleet of electric vehicles ever seen. We have every reason to be proud of our prototypes. The battery must have had some great qualities to have spawned such a tremendous project, but ultimately, they moved on to the next generation. The Minister of Science said that he had supported Blue Solutions in the development of its next generation of batteries.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague clearly knows a lot about cars, something that I do not. More importantly, his speech talked about the promotion of pride, which is to buy Canadian. I think that is what he is talking about. British Columbia used to have an aquaculture program promoted by the former minister of agriculture, Corky Evans. He talked about it all the time and it was everywhere, in all of the shops. I think that is what the member is talking about, discussing promoting Canadian-made products.

Talking about the future of cars, in British Columbia, Premier John Horgan just made an announcement, saying that B.C. will move to zero emissions for cars by 2040. That is an ambitious goal, one that I think we can all look to across the country. To that end, can the member comment on what role the federal government can play in working with the provinces and industry to move into the future with new vehicles and, at the same time, ensure that those vehicles are built here and technology is developed in Canada to support our workers?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for being here. We are having an emergency debate about the closure of the GM plant in Oshawa. My colleague just flew in from Vancouver about an hour and a half ago, and she is here. I congratulate her, and I think that all the workers at the Oshawa plant will thank her.

We are talking about electric vehicles. Electra Meccanica is a Vancouver company that builds great three-wheeled electric vehicles for the commuter market. Their vehicles are used by DHL, an express courier service. Many of these yellow vehicles are on the streets. Electra Meccanica also makes a convertible model, the Tofino, which will be fully electric. These cars are manufactured in Vancouver. We know that there is an interest in the environment and best practices in that region.

I have here the brief submitted by Electric Mobility Canada, which made five recommendations to the federal government. This organization was heavily involved in the consultations requested by the Minister of Transport. However, nothing has happened yet, unfortunately. It is really deplorable because delays on current issues like transport electrification can lead to our automotive industry being perceived as a dinosaur with no vision for the future.

I would like to point out that Toyota manufactures a RAV4 that is completely electric, but it is only sold in California. No one has ever seen it here.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is certainly a very serious subject that we are speaking about in the House of Commons tonight. In the context of all the pain being felt by the workers, who have obviously heard the bleak news in the last 24 hours regarding General Motors, one of the things that stunned me when I was first elected as a member of Parliament was learning that Innovation, Science and Economic Development had invested $20 million in the car of tomorrow program out of Kitchener. When asked how many jobs it would create, even spinoff jobs, the answer was zero.

Given the number of jobs that will be lost, could the member speak on that specific investment and how to put measurements in place to ensure that the dollars we do spend on the auto sector actually bring a return for the Canadian auto worker?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Tonight is about the workers losing their jobs. We want to take emergency measures, such as convincing GM to give rebates or 0% interest on the Equinox and sell the Impala at a lower price. These are last-ditch efforts.

Ideally, we would build a car of the future in Oshawa. Why does the plant not build the next Volt? It is no longer being built in Detroit, and we want it here. We want to build the new Volt here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member he will have only a few minutes to speak. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to take the floor this evening at this hour to share a few thoughts before we wrap up this emergency debate.

It may seem like a late hour for us, but I know that there are many families tonight in Oshawa, in Durham region and across Ontario who are having late nights themselves, because they are worried. They are worried about what is next, about what their jobs may entail or if they are going to have jobs. Each employee is connected. They have families and they have loved ones. They are soccer coaches, Sunday school teachers, volunteers and members of service clubs. They are all part of our community and today their lives were shaken. They were changed and now they do not know what is next.

This decision came out of the blue. We did not see it coming. We have to ask why. What caused this decision to be made and why was it that GM decided that in Canada this plant in particular was not the one it wanted to keep open, it was not the one it should be keeping open? We know that the innovation, technology and workforce is there to produce those vehicles and do that manufacturing. This affects not just the region but all of us across Canada, whether it is parts manufacturers in my riding of Perth—Wellington or others across the country.

I know that my time is up, but I did want to be on the record tonight to say how important it is for us as the opposition and Canadians to voice our support for the people of Oshawa, Durham and across Canada.