Leona Alleslev

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

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

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is a very important question because the government has indicated to the Canadian people that it is focused on investing in innovation and technology, in particular, in the auto sector, yet when GM openly stated that it is going for green vehicles and electric and technologically advanced vehicles, it did not choose this jurisdiction. Clearly there is a disconnect between the investments that the government is making in those innovative technologies and the actual result of our economy and our manufacturing industry being able to pick up on that and utilize that technology.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility in this nation to understand what the competitive landscape is, what other jurisdictions are doing, and to set the foundation to ensure that we attract and retain foreign investment, which we have lost recently. We need to establish a tax structure that is attractive rather than negative. We need to ensure most importantly that we are not a national security threat because the economy and security go together. We want to attract business and ensure that we have the backs of our allies because they do not see us as a national security threat.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, that is a very disconcerting position for the member to take.

Ultimately we need to focus on the jobs within Canada. Simply because some companies are making investments in Canada, and one could ask whether it is because the government has found some way of buying those jobs through an innovation fund, it is not about the jobs that are being created. It is about the significant number of jobs that are being lost despite the investments the government has made and what the government plans to do to set the very fundamental foundation of tax reform, competitiveness and national security tariffs to ensure we have more jobs in this country.

[General Motors Plant Closure, November 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

Tonight's debate is very serious. This is much more than a conversation about a plant closure. This is about employees. It is about families. It is about a community, and it is even broader than that. It is about suppliers and ultimately it is about workers across this country who are rightly saying that if this can happen to a solid industry like the auto industry that has existed as a foundation of the Canadian economy since 1908, and governments over time have dedicated time and attention to this industry, then clearly it can happen to any industry in Canada.

Therefore, I know I speak for all Canadians when I say that our hearts go out to all of those families who are sitting at home discussing tonight how they will build a future after these potential job losses; to the pensioners who have retired from GM who are concerned that perhaps their fate might be similar to the fate of pensioners of other companies like Sears who have left this country, which they might not be protected from and wondering how they will endure in their retirement; and to suppliers, who are wondering what GM's plant closure is going to do to them in their industry. For all of those affected, directly or indirectly, by today's announcement, I say that the game is not up yet, we have work to do and, yes, we must hold the government to account for the role it has played and will play in addressing the issue and positioning for success in the future.

To arrive at solutions, a way forward, we must critically assess the situation that we are in and the role of governments in contributing to the circumstances that we currently find ourselves in, and the solutions that they may arrive at. The current government has said that GM is laying off lots of people south of the border and that this is not about Canada, but a business decision that GM is making, and that Canada really has no part to play in these restructuring announcements, because it is just business as usual and these are decisions that businesses make.

I can say that I was employed in a multinational global corporation at IBM and at Bombardier, and to say that Canada has no role in the decisions that GM has made is to be incredibly naive and uninformed. Global corporations make decisions on a daily basis about which jurisdictions they are going to invest in. They make these decisions internally within their corporations in almost as competitive a way as externally with other organizations. These corporations are looking at the terms and conditions within a nation to decide whether they are going to continue to invest in that nation. Therefore, yes, the terms and conditions or the foundations of the economic structure of Canada have a significant impact on whether GM will decide to put future business here in Canada or future business in the U.S. or in Europe or somewhere else. Therefore, to say that the current government's actions have absolutely no impact, again, is to be uninformed.

Last week, the finance minister said that everything is fantastic with the Canadian economy, that things are moving in the direction we need them to go and that Canada is in a sound economic and competitive position. I will say that GM's decision today is the ultimate vote of non-confidence in the Canadian economy.

Let us understand why that is. What are the factors that perhaps contributed to the decision GM made?

First of all, we are looking at this new negotiated USMCA agreement. In this agreement, yes, we avoided auto tariffs, but we did not really. We were able to avoid auto tariffs under a certain point. What that means is that for the first time ever, the growth potential of Canada's auto industry sector has been capped. An auto industry invests a significant amount of money in its operations. Why would it invest significant money in the future business of a corporation if it knew, before it even got out of the gate, that the maximum amount it can ever achieve is capped? It would say that it is going to another jurisdiction where, if it made that same investment, it would not be capped. It would do so because it is not going to risk having its growth constrained by having to pay tariffs. That is the first thing.

The second thing is our tax structure. When it campaigned in 2015, that government said that it was going to fundamentally change and reform the tax structure, because it understood the competitive implications of a tax structure attracting and retaining global corporations in Canada. However, that is not what it did. Our tax structure has now put us in a position where we are not an attractive jurisdiction relative to our peers and other competitors. That is the second thing.

First is the cap in the USMCA; second is our tax structure. The third is the national security tariffs. We heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly tell us that anyone considering us as a national security threat is clearly delusional. No one in their right mind would look at Canada as being a national security threat, yet the Americans imposed national security tariffs, which have had a punishing effect on our steel and aluminum industry, jeopardizing the competitiveness of our industry. That has also affected the auto industry.

These are the foundational elements that the industry is looking at when it is making that decision, whether or not to invest here. This is not limited to the auto industry. This expands far beyond the auto industry. This is merely the beginning of what is a frightening trend. Bombardier Aerospace announced that it is laying off 3,000 personnel. That is significant. That is just one example in a very long list of manufacturing companies in this country that, as a result of the actions of the government, are no longer viewing Canada as a competitive jurisdiction.

Do not be fooled. The actions of the government matter. The actions of the government determine whether or not the basic foundations and elements of the competitive nature of this country attract and retain manufacturing industries here.

Where does that leave us? The government has not set out the critical conditions necessary to ensure Canada's competitiveness. That is why we are seeing these manufacturing jobs and foreign investment leave. We, on this side of the House, are not about 10-second soundbites. We are not about throwing money at something without any outcomes and measurable connections to those investments. We understand that the foundational elements of the economy must be restructured, so that not only can we keep the auto industry here and help it to choose this jurisdiction as an opportunity for electric vehicles in the future and to retool our plants, but also encourage all manufacturing in Canada to ensure that Canada remains competitive and can move forward not only for the next 10 years but also the next 20, 50 and 100 years.

[Ethics, November 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, documents submitted in the Vice-Admiral Norman case are revealing discrepancies of deep concern. In October, the President of the Treasury Board stood in the House and claimed he was just doing his job when he politically interfered in the supply ship contract. However, in 2016, in an interview with the RCMP, the minister said that was not his role.

Which is it? Is the President of the Treasury Board misleading the RCMP or Canadians?

[Justice, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is not answering the question. The Prime Minister has appointed three of his former cabinet ministers to high-level positions. All others are either still in cabinet or in this House. If one of those individuals has unlawfully released cabinet confidence information and is implicated in a court case, Canadians deserve to know. What is the name of the current or former cabinet minister who is implicated in an ongoing court case?

[Justice, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if any current or former cabinet ministers had unlawfully released cabinet confidence information. He answered that he could not discuss an ongoing court case, confirming that a minister of his cabinet was implicated in an ongoing court case.

What is the name of the current or former cabinet minister who is implicated in an ongoing court case?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was not commenting on an ongoing case. I was asking a very important question of the Prime Minister.

Canadians need to know that the secrets of the nation are protected at the highest levels and that the Prime Minister will react swiftly and appropriately when Canada's security has been compromised.

Did a current or former cabinet minister unlawfully release cabinet confidence information?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must have confidence in the security of the nation. To earn that confidence, the government must reassure Canadians that the highest authorities in the country, ministers of cabinet, protect the information with which they are entrusted, and Canadians need to know when that trust has been breached.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that no members of the current or previous cabinet have unlawfully released cabinet confidence information?