Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“If I had been making this speech about security and safety maybe 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been thinking about road safety. However, today I am talking about national security. We need to be very aware that today's cars are equipped with computers and surveillance cameras. We are not necessarily talking about spies, but some people might take advantage of that. The technology could be used by bad actors. We need to develop a security plan and a technology plan. [ English ] In the last few hours, what we have seen in this room are members of the Liberal Party talking about the virtue of the electric car. They think they are the best in the world to address this in Canada. However, the government is a world-class failure in EVs.”
“This is the Conservative way to help people: no more taxation and no more programs. Cancelling the GST is the way to address the issue. [ Translation ] We also want to bring production home and set much more effective targets, including adjusting our way of doing things within North American standards with a dollar-for-dollar approach. We also want to ensure that this applies to the manufacturing of both cars and car parts to which Canadians contribute. We want to improve security and technology, together with our partners. It is important to understand that Canada's auto industry is closely linked to our neighbours to the south and it is not all going to change overnight. We also need to take action on security and safety matters.”
“On July 21, we celebrated the anniversary of the first moon landing, but that is where the celebrations ended because, since the new Prime Minister has been in office, tariffs have cost the Canadian auto industry $2 billion. That is why it is time for a responsible and realistic plan based on a vision for the future. Our plan seeks to make it easier to build and buy vehicles by removing the GST on all Canadian-made vehicles. That is a win-win proposal. In politics, we sometimes say that we need to kill two birds with one stone. A policy will enable us to do that. By eliminating the GST on new vehicles, we will be helping both buyers and industry workers. [ English ] It is a one-two punch to the guys who want to buy and the guys who work in the auto industry.”
“Let us remember that the Liberals got elected by saying that they were going to keep their elbows up when it came to relations with the United States, but what ended up happening? The Prime Minister went to the White House twice. (1250) [ English ] What we are seeing is the House of Commons going from elbows up to thumbs-up. Twice we have seen the Prime Minister , very happy, with his brand new friend, the President of the United States. What was supposed to be elbows up has finished as thumbs-up, and Canadians are paying the price right now. Let me remind the House what happened. A year ago, the Prime Minister said he would fix this situation by July 21. [ Translation ] That is not at all what happened.”
“This year does not look good, with a decline of 7.8% so far. Most notably, there was a 55% drop in exports, which are a major driver of wealth in our country. Furthermore, jobs are being lost. This industry employed 37,000 workers in 2015, but now it employs only 23,000. The GM plants in Ingersoll and Oshawa closed down, as did the Stellantis plant in Brampton. Earlier, I also mentioned how 475 people were laid off at the Paccar plant in Sainte‑Thérèse. The situation has not improved at all since the current Prime Minister and his government were elected. In fact, it has gotten worse. Who would have thought? There are people doing a worse job of managing the economy than Justin Trudeau, and Canadians are the ones paying the price.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore . As we begin this debate on the auto industry, my thoughts are with the 475 Paccar workers in Sainte-Thérèse who have lost their jobs over the past few months. That is 475 men and women and 475 families who have been directly affected by the collapse of Canada's auto industry over the past few years. Unfortunately, the Liberal decade saw Canada's auto industry decline dramatically. Let us remember that Canada produced 2.3 million vehicles in 2016, but last year, it produced only 1.2 million. That is more than one million fewer vehicles being built here in Canada, and this has ripple effects from coast to coast to coast, and especially in Quebec for auto parts production.”
“In May, two senior ministers stated that the subsidies would be reinstated. In fact, they were reinstated a year later. Does the member agree—”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I would like to thank him and congratulate him on his remarks. My colleague spoke about the true nature of Quebec. I would nevertheless like to remind him that, over the past year, the province consumed 20 billion litres of oil, which represents an increase of 2.1%. However, that is not the point I wanted to raise. Has my colleague, who drives an electric car like me, noticed that last year was the worst year for the EV industry worldwide? Canada had the worst record, with a drop of over 40% in EV sales. That is because this government kept taking the wrong measures and offered no predictability. On January 13, 2025, overnight, they cut financial supports without warning anyone in advance, which destabilized the industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to blame the United States. The reality is that Liberal bureaucracy and Liberal taxation are 100% in the hands of this government. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister got elected by saying that the tariffs would be lifted by July 21, that it would be over, but they are still here. We are a long way from elbows up. It is more like thumbs down from the White House. That is the reality. Worse yet, youth unemployment is at 14%. Young people are struggling with affordability when it comes to groceries and housing, but now they are also struggling to get work. Does the government realize that these youth policies are not working?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, numbers do not lie, and the employment figures this morning are especially dismal. We learned that 108,000 Canadians lost their jobs in February. The fact is, 108,000 women, men and heads of households are now looking for work. In the private sector, 73,000 jobs were lost in February. This proves that after 10 years of Liberal governance, the Liberals' policies are not working. When will the government start taking effective action?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been in office for a year, but the minister who just answered that question has been here for 10 years. For 10 years, he and his fellow ministers have snubbed Canadian oil. We are now paying the price. All Canadians are paying the price. There is also food inflation. Sadly, Canada, a major G7 country, has the worst food inflation at 7.3%. What is the result? Families in Saint‑Georges, in Beauce, will go buy groceries 50 kilometres away in Jackman, where they are 7.3% less expensive. Why do Canadians have to pay more at the grocery store?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources promised here in the House that Canada would do its part to help release oil reserves in order to stabilize the market. That is a good idea, but we have a bit of a problem: We do not have a strategic oil reserve, in part because for 10 years the fine people facing me right now have shown contempt for Canadian oil. Our party is proposing a strategic reserve of energy and minerals. Today, the Conservative leader wrote to the Prime Minister calling for such an initiative to go ahead. Will the Prime Minister say yes to this creation of wealth and thus create an essential lever in this uncertain world?”
“Madam Chair, absolutely, when diplomacy is done well, it works. It is no coincidence that Canada invented the concept of peacekeepers. However, we cannot rewrite history. We can write it, though. For 47 years, this tyrannical regime has been imposing its abhorrent dictatorship on a nation that does not deserve it. It is time to take action; there are clearly countries that feel directly threatened by its nuclear program. Also, here in Canada, there are citizens who are threatened by hundreds of people scattered across the country who are controlled by the Tehran regime and want to impose their law here.”
“Madam Chair, in Quebec and across Canada, people are wondering where the Prime Minister is. Where is the Prime Minister in this debate? Where is the Prime Minister in this arena that we call the House of Commons? Davos is all well and good. Travelling around the planet is all well and good. Visiting with the leaders of parties and countries is all well and good. This, however, is the reality. The reason he is the Prime Minister of Canada today is because millions of Canadians exercised their right to vote and wanted this Prime Minister to take action for Canada in Canada. He is not even here in the House of Commons.”
“Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for always asking relevant questions. I was talking about Irwin Cotler earlier. I know that my colleague knows him well, that Mr. Cotler knows him too, that my colleague has a lot of respect for him and that Mr. Cotler has a lot of respect for him too. Mr. Cotler is currently being targeted by the tyrannical regime of the ayatollahs and by the regime in Tehran. I was careful not to say “by Iran”, because it is really the regime in Tehran and the regime of the ayatollahs. As I said, there is nothing nice about war. What we want is for this terrorist regime to be wiped out and replaced by honest people who will serve their nation and their people. That is what the Iranian people are demanding, and that is what they are entitled to. Unfortunately, that was taken away from them 47 years ago.”
“The crimes, murders and atrocities it has been perpetrating for 47 years are completely unworthy of a civilized society, especially one as rich and as inspiring as the Iranian nation. That is why we support the military initiative while, of course, hoping for an end to hostilities.”
“Initially, the Prime Minister expressed full support for the action taken by Israel and the United States. The next day, he said that he reluctantly supported it, but that he was not giving carte blanche. First flip-flop, second flip-flop, third flip-flop. He then called for de-escalation. Finally, he raised the possibility of military involvement. That is four flip-flops in a short period of time for such a serious situation. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, with all due respect to the office he holds, there can be no denying that he was unclear. In times of war, it is essential to be clear. I urge the Prime Minister to pull himself together. We support the initiatives of both Israel and the United States, because we believe that the Ayatollah regime must indeed come to an end.”
“They orchestrated the attacks of October 7, 2023, and, yes, they are a daily threat here in Canada. Our intelligence service informs us that there are hundreds, even up to 700 people, in our country currently acting under the orders of the Iranian regime. We can talk about this with the great Irwin Cotler, who fortunately was not targeted, but who was targeted by the Iranian regime. As strange as it may sound, the one good thing in times of war is that political partisanship is set aside, although maybe not entirely. Just because partisanship lessens does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the actions of our government, and I mean our government as Canadians. Canadians have noticed that, since this event, the Prime Minister has had a varied attitude, to say the least and to put it politely.”
“This was one of the most illustrious pages in Canada's diplomatic history. For 47 years, a repressive, tyrannical, theocratic dictatorship has held sway in this country. That dictatorship is the main source of terror in Iran, in the Middle East and across the world, even here in Canada. I will come back to that a little later. My colleagues also mentioned that the country really does present a nuclear threat. They mentioned that, unfortunately, these people could indeed be prepared to build nuclear weapons, that they have massacred their own people for not sharing the views of the Ayatollah regime, that they shot down a civilian aircraft carrying 55 Canadian citizens and some 30 permanent residents, Canadians who were targeted by the Iranian regime.”
“When I say “great nation”, I want to call attention to the words of my colleague from Calgary Heritage , who mentioned just a few minutes ago that Iranians do indeed represent a great, millennia-old nation that has played a major role in our lives today and whose achievements benefit us to this day. We support the Iranian people, who have been struggling for 47 years with the dangers of living under the regime of the ayatollahs in Tehran. I can never talk about this people without remembering that, for 47 years, they have suffered under the yoke and terrifying violence of the Ayatollah regime. That has been going on since 1979. Keep in mind that we Canadians, in late 1979, 1980, helped Americans escape Tehran when the Ayatollah regime let terrorists enter the U.S. embassy.”
“Madam Chair, we have come together this evening to talk about the war currently in progress in the Middle East. My late father was a Second World War veteran. He was decorated with the Legion of Honour and wounded twice on the battlefield. He always told me that nothing was uglier in life than war. As a small child, I asked my mother, if war is so ugly, why did Dad go? My mother told me that my father fought during the war so that I would not have to. My reason for bringing this up is that, as we speak, millions of people from this great nation are experiencing the insecurity of war.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his remarks. They are always well thought out and well explained, with truly inspiring language, although sometimes I do not entirely agree or I really disagree with the leader of the Bloc Québécois. The leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that, unfortunately, for some, Davos is not the House of Commons and the House of Commons is not Davos. Everyone makes their own choices. However, my question is this. He mentioned that the head of the government has, in fact, changed his mind on a number of occasions. What is the member's impression of how this might affect international relations with our European allies, our American allies and our Asian allies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Thomas Gerbet, the Radio-Canada journalist who made the situation public because the mayor of Laval had already spoken to the revenue minister who did nothing. The Minister of National Revenue should have followed the Government of Quebec's example. In 2016, a Quebec finance minister said, “For our government, this is a matter of fairness to the people of Laval who were the primary victims in this case”. Has the Minister of Finance consulted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry , who made the decision in 2016 without being prompted by a Radio-Canada news story?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2016 in Laval, former mayor Vaillancourt was found guilty of stealing $7 million from the people of Laval. All that money was returned and is back in Laval. Guess what? This Liberal government is now asking the City of Laval to write a cheque for $1 million. Who is it for? It is for Mr. Vaillancourt. That is appalling. Not only were the people of Laval robbed once, but they are being robbed a second time by this government. Today is Monday. Can the Minister of Finance, who also happens to be the revenue minister, tell the people of Laval that the government made a mistake and that they do not have to pay?”
“Mr. Speaker, these are 85,000 people, 85,000 seniors, who are among the most vulnerable in our society. These are people who live off their old age pension, and the minister knows it. Unfortunately, that minister said that the program is a success, and 85,000 people are still waiting. He said that it was just a few cases, but it is 85,000 people that are hurting. Why is the minister being so arrogant?”
“Mr. Speaker, any time the Liberal government touches a major IT system, it is a disaster. Let me remind the House what happened with ArriveCAN. It was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $59.5 million. Now, with Cúram, the cost has ballooned from $1.6 billion to $6.6 billion. That is $5 billion more, and $5 billion down the drain. That is what the Liberals do. Why are the Liberals incapable of managing spending properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his first election and his first year as a member of Parliament. He is a great role model and an example to follow. I am particularly impressed by his work, but also by his passion for health, as we heard in his speech. I am in good health and can confirm that I look into all of his suggestions. My colleague talked about hundreds of thousands of people whose files are pending. Can he tell us how things are going in his riding, not necessarily in terms of just asylum seekers, but also in terms of immigration files? Is the federal government doing a good job of processing the files of people who want to live in Canada and whom we should warmly welcome? Ultimately, we still need to have the means to welcome them.”
“When the agreement between the United States and Canada was finalized, it took the Liberal Prime Minister almost a year to make it public. Like me, the member is from Quebec, and for almost a year, the Quebec government had to bear all the social costs of this immigration, which—”
“Mr. Speaker, since my colleague stopped on his own, I will give him the opportunity to continue in a few moments. Like me, the member for Bourassa is a member from Quebec. As he knows, a few years ago, what became known as Roxham Road turned into a ordeal overnight. First, it is an ordeal for immigrants, but it is also an ordeal for those around the world who followed the rules and then learned that it was possible to circumvent the rules by arriving via a small road called Roxham Road. The Canadian government posted a huge sign telling people that it was illegal to cross there. After that, it was changed to “irregular”. Okay, they changed the wording. What I want to know from the member for Bourassa is what happened next.”
“Mr. Speaker, this issue concerns 85,000 seniors in Canada who are currently having trouble with what is essentially their one and only source of income. That is the problem. This situation is affecting 85,000 people. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport said that there were only a few cases, but the number is 85,000. He said, “It is a success story”, but there are 85,000 cases. This is Liberal arrogance at its ugliest. Now the Prime Minister just said earlier, “end of story”. Can the Prime Minister, who is a very honourable man, stand up and admit that he made a mistake?”
“Since my colleague talked about Roxham Road, can he tell us what he thinks of former prime minister Justin Trudeau waiting nearly a year following the agreement signed by Canada with the President of the United States before announcing that changes would be made? For an entire year, the province of Quebec had to pay for Mr. Trudeau's silence on Roxham Road. Is my colleague proud of Justin Trudeau, his former leader ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague and he knows that very well. First, he is an example of an immigration success story, just like my parents. Second, for me, he is a hero of government finances in Quebec because he was the last minister to balance the budget. I hope he draws inspiration from his experiences when it comes to doing what needs to be done at the federal level. The member talked about Roxham Road. He is well aware that anyone crossing at Roxham Road would see a sign stating that doing so was illegal, but then that was changed to “irregular”. It is the same thing, just using different words.”
“Let us talk about responsibility. Would my colleague agree that when immigration is managed irresponsibly, as it has been for the past 10 years, it creates problems, and that the primary victims of this type of irresponsible immigration are the immigrants themselves?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking my colleague for her remarks, particularly when she recalled the unfortunate incident when she was accused of racism. I remember the situation very well. I could not believe what I was hearing, especially regarding the hon. member and our friend Alain Therrien. Such things must be avoided as much as possible. I still remember that we were asking the government about Islamophobia just two years ago. We questioned the appropriateness of the government's appointment and the authority given to that individual. The government called us intolerant. Well, just a few days ago, the current Prime Minister discontinued that person's position. That is why everything in the world is relative. It is important to ensure that this is done properly and responsibly.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was, as always, very interesting and well researched. The issues are quite obvious for Quebec. It is clear that 40% of asylum seekers have come to Quebec, even though we represent only 22% of the population. Quebec is overburdened. In addition, in Quebec it can take 40 months before a case is processed, as my colleague so aptly mentioned. However, elsewhere, like in Germany or France, they do a much better job of it. My colleague talked about the role of the federal government. Over the past 10 years, how has the Liberal policy led us to the situation we are facing now, where we are stuck with the problem, and why is it that Quebeckers are most directly affected by this policy? I must add that we consider this policy to show a complete lack of respect for immigrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that these people have been in government for 10 years and the public has spent 10 years being disappointed in the government's action or inaction on housing. What is coming down the pike does not look any better. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation predicts an 18% decline in housing starts. It is time to grab the bull by the horns. It is essential to come up with something positive for the public. Why not adopt our proposal to abolish the GST on new construction? This will have a direct impact on Canadian buyers.”
“Mr. Speaker, one little-known aspect of the housing crisis is that it is having a direct impact on the birth rate. An article published today in La Presse clearly documents the unfortunate situation of couples who are putting off having kids until they can purchase a home. Louis-Philippe Beaulieu explained the situation clearly, saying he did not want his kids to have any less than he himself had received. That is exactly what the Canadian dream is all about, but unfortunately, it was shattered 10 years ago when this Liberal government came to power. Why will the government not adopt our proposal to eliminate the GST on new construction?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously it is wrong to have the mandate. If we oblige people to buy something, we will force problems with the industry. I am living proof that we can run electric cars without subsidies and without obligation, because I picked up a used car. When one buys a used car, it is half the price, and it is a good occasion right now to pick one up for half the price, with no obligation and no subsidies. That is the way to address it correctly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a scout, I am also always prepared. Fifty years ago, I was a founding cub of the 112th Château‑d'Eau scout group and my father was the first Bagheera. I am very proud of that. I must admit that the beginning of the member's intervention surprised me a little, but it is very important. Our proposal is twofold. First, the government must remove the GST, but it must also use its existing authority to reduce the amount of tax withheld on severance payments issued to workers at various companies that are directly affected, including the Paccar plant in Sainte-Thérèse, as the member from Quebec is well aware.”
“Mr. Speaker, electric cars are undoubtedly part of the future of the automotive world. I am living proof of that. However, the government does not need to subsidize EV purchases, since people are able to buy them without subsidies. I am a living example of this. My car has 120,000 kilometres on it, and I have been driving it for two and a half years. As the member is well aware, I live in Quebec City. I drive 450 kilometres each way every week and it works fine. I just have to stop for a while, about 15 minutes. At 61, I have to stop for a little while anyway because I cannot drive for five hours straight. We do not need subsidies. The government is taking $2.3 billion of taxpayers' money and choosing the winners and losers. That is the wrong approach. We should be getting rid of the GST.”
“Amendment I would like to move this favourable amendment: That the motion be amended by adding the following: “, the GM facility in Oshawa, the Stellantis facility in Brampton, the Paccar facility in Sainte-Thérèse, and all other severance packages for Canadian workers in the auto sector.”.”
“That is why we are suggesting an approach that directly helps car buyers, workers and the industry. How would it work? Removing the GST on new cars manufactured here in Canada would kill three birds with one stone. Eliminating the GST on new Canadian vehicles would help buyers, workers and the industry. It is a win-win-win situation. What is more, it does not cost taxpayers anything. We are not going to take $2.3 billion out of workers' pockets to choose the winners. Anyone who wants to buy a car will be encouraged to buy a Canadian car to help the industry and also to help us as Canadians.”
“Two and a half years ago, I assessed the situation, assessed my needs and decided that an electric vehicle would work for me. Electric cars may not work for everyone, but they fit my needs. I bought a used electric car. There was no subsidy. However, it cost half the price of a new vehicle. Incidentally, when an electric car works well, it works really well. Problems are rare once it has been properly broken in. There are some very good deals to be had right now when it comes to used electric vehicles. As I said, I bought a used electric car, without subsidies, without obligations, and it was my personal choice. I decided it was the right thing to do. I have driven 120,000 kilometres in that car and have not had any problems. It is possible to go electric without subsidies. When the government gets involved, there are more problems.”
“It is hardly surprising that EV sales are struggling. I know that those people over there are making it up as they go, meddling in things that are none of their business and picking winners and losers. They convince the supposed winners that subsidies are finally coming back, but then they do not come back, and then they finally do. That totally distorts the market, which is exactly what happened. Going back to Antoine Joubert, he wrote that it was a surreal solution that ended up destabilizing the industry by creating a highly artificial market. This was another of the government's blunders, although it could care less about the impact on the industry or on dealers. People do not need subsidies to choose electric cars. I am the living proof of that, or maybe I should say the driving proof.”
“The subsidies were suddenly cut on January 13, and then on June 12, two experienced ministers from this government advised people to wait, saying that it would happen, that they should not be discouraged and that the subsidies would be reinstated. We asked when this would happen and the Liberals told us that they would look into it, that it would happen. Nothing happened in June, July, August, September, October or November. People who wanted to buy a car and who were told on June 12 to wait for the subsidies to be reinstated waited six months for nothing. Then, the budget was tabled on November 4. Everyone expected the subsidies to return. What happened? Nothing. As a result, all those who were waiting for the subsidy were left out in the cold. Then what happened? Last week, the government changed its mind and brought back the subsidy.”
“As we all saw, it did not necessarily help consumers, and it turned into quite a boondoggle for the industry. As soon as the government decides to pick winners and losers, well, that distorts the market, which causes unfortunate effects. Members may recall that, last year, when January started, buyers were entitled to a $5,000 subsidy. All of a sudden, on January 13, with no warning and with no mitigation measures, poof, the $5,000 subsidy was cut, just like that. People who were planning to buy a car, who had done their math and had gone to their dealership were suddenly told that the subsidy no longer existed. That is what I call the Liberals' half-baked way of doing things. (1640) Later, on June 12, the government confirmed that the subsidies would be reinstated.”
““Please don't try to convince us that taxpayers are getting their money back”, Antoine Joubert wrote. Yesterday, Philippe Léger wrote in the newspaper Le Journal de Montréal that these subsidies are essentially meant for certain classes of Canadians who do not need such assistance. In addition, he said, it is well known that, with demand rising, manufacturers will be incentivized to raise their prices. In short, it is a bad idea masquerading as a good idea, but it is not the right approach to help the industry. First, let us discuss the government's funny business regarding the subsidy. The government proudly said that it was going to help people buy EVs. It said that the subsidies would be targeted and that they would help the industry.”
“The money is collected from workers and distributed by the government, which chooses the winners and losers. This is not the right approach, especially since it can have serious adverse effects. I would like to point out that the idea of subsidies has been widely criticized. Auto expert Antoine Joubert wrote that there have indeed been government subsidies, but that they have had an adverse effect. According to Mr. Joubert, these are “fake rebates”, because in three months' time, we will see that the real cost of the car has not changed. He said that the problem is the message the public is getting, the implication that buyers will receive a $5,000 gift, when that money is going directly into the pockets of the automaker, not the citizens or the buyers.”
“The approach developed by the government involves subsidies: $2.3 billion in subsidies to buy EVs, most, if not the vast majority, of which are not manufactured in Canada. We believe that this is the wrong approach. First, a subsidy is money that is taken from workers' pockets. I am tempted to say that the money is taken from taxes, particularly the GST, but I cannot say that. For those listening to us right now, every penny they pay in GST is used solely to pay the interest on the debt. Incidentally, that debt has doubled since the Liberals formed government, and it is accompanied by a deficit of about $80 billion, the likes of which we have never seen. That is since the current Prime Minister took office. Subsidies do not fall from the sky.”
“Things have not improved since the new Prime Minister took office. The auto industry has lost 5,000 jobs. That is not something to celebrate. It is very serious. Businesses have literally shut down. At Paccar on Montreal's north shore, 725 people did not get their contracts renewed. They lost their jobs. Of course, that has had a major impact on the very powerful sector in Ontario, but also across Canada. We know that hundreds of companies in Quebec work hand in hand with the automotive industry and are directly affected by the problems the industry has been facing for more than 10 years, particularly the decline in automotive production in Canada. Now the government has introduced a strategy to supposedly help the industry.”