GM plant closure is cynical move
Re: “Politicians promise help for GM workers, but stress saving Oshawa plant is hopeless,” Nov. 27.
Despite written guarantees to its union (Unifor) and the government of Canada that it would not be closing any automotive plants in Ontario, General Motors has cynically moved to close its Oshawa plant. This in the face of the fact that this has been a money-making plant and rates highest in quality and productivity in North America. Need we be reminded that the government of Canada bailed out GM to the tune of millions of dollars as recently as 2008/2009?
This “corporate restructuring” can only be regarded as an obvious downside of the kind of unbridled capitalism that the world now finds itself in the grips of. GM’s callous disregard for the affected workers and all of Oshawa reflects much of what troubles society in general — greed.
If the type of vehicles that GM is currently building in Oshawa are becoming less popular, it is incumbent that its representatives sit down with the union leadership and various levels of government to find an efficient, fair way to transition this plant to the types of vehicles that are trending more popular, as opposed to having these enterprises in Mexico, as I suspect will otherwise be the case.
Dan Rowe
Sidney
Energy workers ignored amid ‘crisis’
Re: “Politicians promise help for GM workers, but stress saving Oshawa plant is hopeless,” Nov. 27.
The closure of the General Motors Oshawa assembly plant and the loss of nearly 3,000 jobs is a national crisis worthy of a special debate in the House of Commons on Monday night.
Imagine, almost 3,000 jobs lost in southern Ontario! Perhaps the effects will be felt across the land and 14 million people in Ontario face economic ruin.
The GM closure is certainly of far greater significance than the more than 100,000 workers in the energy field who are unemployed in Alberta or the billions lost monthly because of massively discounted oil sales for want of any access to markets.
Perish any thought of cynicism on my part when I note that there are more seats in Parliament from the Greater Toronto Area and surrounding locales than in all of Western Canada and, after all, what are 34 seats from Alberta in any case?
James P. Crowley
North Saanich
GM closure a chance for bold initiative
Re: “Politicians promise help for GM workers, but stress saving Oshawa plant is hopeless,” Nov. 27.
Memo to the prime minister: This is an opportunity for bold initiative.
Seize the plant as compensation for taxpayer money granted to General Motors 10 years ago.
Initiate a co-operative with the employees of the plant. Back them up with federal money, if needed, for the startup.
Hire Frank Stronach to oversee operations.
Design and build an electric car to be sold throughout the country. Put Canada at the front of the electric-car industry worldwide.
Robert Pellow
Parksville
Another case of failed corporate welfare
Re: “Politicians promise help for GM workers, but stress saving Oshawa plant is hopeless,” Nov. 27.
Well, here we go again. Let’s shovel mounds of government money to corporations on the verge of bankruptcy without any protection or benefit for taxpayers. It happened with Bombardier and now General Motors.
Governments are quick to bail out companies that are too big to fail, but there are no guarantees that all of those loans will be paid back in full. Why don’t bailout agreements include provisions whereby taxpayers get shares in the companies, so when they make money, we get a piece of the action?
GM’s stock value jumped five per cent after it announced the closure of its Oshawa plant. It’s interesting to note that Ford says it’s not planning to close any plants and it didn’t accept any bailout in 2009. Let’s see what happens with Chrysler, another bailout recipient. We likely won’t see the last of failed corporate welfare.
David Kirkham
Metchosin
Norway can afford more than B.C. can
Re: “Move more boldly on electric vehicles,” letter, Nov. 24.
The writer urges us to be bolder than the goal set by Premier John Horgan to require all new cars sold in B.C. to be zero emission by 2040. He then muses if Norway can reach this goal by 2025, after incentives for more than 15 years, why not B.C. by 2030-35.
While this is a laudable goal, I do not think it is economically prudent for B.C. to achieve.
Norway, from its share of North Sea oil and natural gas revenues since the early 1970s, achieved a sovereign wealth fund of $913 billion US, or $182,000 US per capita.
Using some of this fund’s earnings, Norway has been able to provide the purchasers of all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles with the following incentives: no VAT on purchase or leasing (25 per cent), no annual tax, no road tax, and free vehicle registration, ferry tolls and municipal parking. This is huge, and is costing Norway $500 million to $800 million a year in lost revenue.
As B.C. has no sovereign wealth fund, it begs the question: How can it achieve the 2030-55 target? It would involve cutting existing services, borrowing billions of dollars or a combination thereof.
Ironically, Norway produces 1.6 million barrels of oil per day and exports 1.2 million, making it the fifth-largest oil-exporting country. So while it is cutting its carbon emissions domestically, it is exporting massive amounts to other countries.
Gary Hackman
Parksville
