WHY GM COULD COME BACK. CORCORAN,

It is no coincidence that General Motors pulled the plug on Oshawa and other car plants this week. The announcement comes in the middle of the auto giant’s pedal-to-the-metal campaign to get North American governments to throw money and mandates at electric vehicles. I’d give 50-50 odds that Oshawa will eventually be back in operation in some capacity as part of a subsidized effort to reshape the North American auto industry and turn it green.

By announcing the plant closures now, thereby creating national furor on both sides of the border, GM has established the perfect political climate for negotiating a new rash of subsidies and favourable laws to support its strategic plan. Notice that GM Canada has been somewhat coy about whether the Oshawa plant’s “unallocated” status post-2019 could be re-allocated to aspects of the company’s electricvehicle objectives. When asked about Canada’s role in GM’S electric future, a GM Canada official told CBC Radio Tuesday, “I would love to see that investment coming to Canada.”

Someone else who would love that, too, is Jerry Dias, head of the Unifor autoworkers union, whose aggressive denouncing of General Motors suggests he also has a sense that there could be another future for the Oshawa plant. “Unifor does not accept the closure of the plant as a foregone conclusion,” said Dias, who was slated to meet privately with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to discuss the closure.

Not coincidentally, the Trudeau government has been brooding over a federal electric-vehicle strategy for months, and is expected to announce proposals soon.

In the United States, President Donald Trump said Monday that GM “better damn well open a new plant there (in Ohio) very quickly.” Sounds like a negotiator who might in the end be willing to take another look at U.S. emissions standards and possibly adopt some of GM’S policies in exchange for a new green-vehicle plant or two.

GM’S big greening effort was launched last month by CEO Mary Barra with an appeal to the Trump administration and Congress to install new federal electric and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) policies. In a forcefully worded op-ed in USA Today last month, Barra framed the plan in nationalist terms. GM’S proposed National Zero Emission Vehicle program, she said, “will conserve energy and reduce emissions, while encouraging American innovation and preserve our industrial strength.”

In GM’S model of green capitalism, a lot of government help will be needed. Barra proposed “infrastructure investments” to accelerate accessible, convenient charging stations for electric cars and “federal incentives” for U.S. consumers to buy the vehicles. She warned against ending incentives too early. “Allowing these effective incentives to expire, as currently scheduled, will stifle growth.” In addition, she called for “regulatory incentives to support U.S. battery suppliers.”

GM is calling for the same support from Ottawa. The day Bara’s op-ed appeared in the U.S., a GM Canada official was telling Automotive News Canada that GM Canada supports Barra’s ZEV initiative. “We think it is in Canada’s interest to stay aligned with one common U.S. federal program because that enables Canada to gain the benefit of technological investments and economies of scale,” the GM Canada spokeswoman said.

Ottawa’s ZEV strategy had been expected to land before the end of the year and industry officials say they have no reason to think it won’t, although the GM campaign and layoffs might impact the timing and content. The Trudeau government has tended to lean heavily green, a tendency confirmed last week when, as part of his fiscal update, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the creation of an Advisory Council on Climate Action to provide “expert advice” on how Canada can reduce pollution in the transportation and building sector. One of the council’s “experts” will be Steven Guilbeault, co-founder of the Quebec activist organization Équiterre and a major supporter of banning internal-combustion engines and establishing ZEV standards.

Whatever Zev-policy shifts are planned, they won’t come cheap. A new paper co-authored by Jonn Axsen of Simon Fraser University warns, for example, that setting a mandate for electric cars to comprise 30-per-cent of passenger vehicle sales by 2030 will require direct subsidies of up to $10,000 for every vehicle over the next 13 years, or a total current-dollar cost of up to $50 billion. Axsen cautions, however, that the research is preliminary and “more research needs to be done to better understand the potential impacts of a ZEV mandate” on the Canadian market.

Is Canada ready to go where GM is leading? Other automakers might have other ideas. Larry Hutchinson, CEO of Toyota Canada, said earlier this year that “there is no ‘one-sizefits-all’ approach to meeting Canadian drivers’ needs, so public policy focusing solely on the sale of zero-emission vehicles may miss the real target of overall greenhouse gas reduction.” There are many auto technologies, and consumers should have a choice of charging and fuel technologies, he said.

Barra’s green-subsidy objectives now dominate the U.S. auto giant’s corporate website. Never mind earnings, return on investment, products and layoffs — because, GM says, “It’s Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles.” Somewhat bizarrely, the iconic American carmaker (Remember “what’s good for GM is good for America”?) has taken to discrediting its own leading contribution to American cultural and economic history: a short video on its website declares that “A century ago, the automobile changed lives forever. With new freedom came crashes, environmental impact and congestion.” Nothing good, then.

Now, says GM, we can end the car crashes and congestion and all the other allegedly bad things that came with the rise of the automobile. All it will require is governments once again giving American automakers whatever they demand. It might be expensive, but a whole new world of handouts just might convince GM to save Oshawa.