I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Chairman. It's just based on the testimony we heard yesterday from Mr. Nantais from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, and I think it's also going to help some of the people around the table.
Also, in today's Globe and Mail, we have where Mr. Flaherty has decided to change his mind, just in case anybody hasn't spoken to him. I'm just going to quote two items in the newspaper article. One item is what Mr. Nantais said yesterday. It reads:
At a time when facilities are being closed in many regions of the world because of global overcapacity--including some in Canada--capital is no longer fixed and can be moved globally and every dollar on the bottom line is being counted.
If we keep that in mind, we can go on and see what Mr. Flaherty is now saying, subsequent to yesterday's testimony by Mr. Nantais. The item reads:
Mr. Flaherty suggested, however, that the fuel-efficiency cut-off point for the subsidy could be revised in the future.
“That can change over time,” Mr. Flaherty said.
If Mr. Flaherty feels that way, I think we should just put off clause 44, vote against it, and when he's ready, reintroduce it.
This is an olive branch, as they say. I see Mr. Dykstra and some of the other members looking at me, but it's going to help the people from Ontario more than it's going to help people from Quebec.