Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2025

Canada's Auto Industry

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Chair, I always appreciate the interventions of my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. I am a bit bewildered by the strong focus on the electric vehicle sector because the evidence we have is this is a growing sector and, in fact, it is increasing the manufacturing footprint in southern Ontario.

Which of the investments and which of the projects going toward our electric vehicle future is she opposed to?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, we do not have time in the night to say why we are opposed to this. I appreciate electric vehicles. I hope to own one one day, but I do not want to be forced to have one if it does not meet the needs and the budget of my family. I also do not want the auto sector being put out of business because it is being forced to make something no one is buying, and that if it makes what people want to buy, it is going to have to pay a $20,000-compliance credit that is going to go to enrich companies like Tesla. I have nothing against Tesla, which is a great company, but I would rather that money stay in Canada.

I can go at length, if the Chair will let me, about some of the logistical problems. I did ask the member earlier about the plan to meet the logistical needs of this electric vehicle mandate. Again, we need well over 373,000 new charging ports in 10 years, which means 98 a day to the cost of over $100 billion. That is nowhere in the budget. The government is not even committing to that. It is unrealistic.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague says that she might like to have an electric car one day. That is a little shocking because the Conservatives' policies in the House over the past two, three or four years smack of the oil lobby. The Conservatives wanted to eliminate just about every possible subsidy that was being given for innovation in the energy transition and for innovation in SMEs to improve the efficiency of electric cars. The credit for purchasing electric vehicles has been eliminated. The 2035 target is becoming less and less realistic because they killed this ecosystem that was good for Quebec.

Does my colleague still want to buy an electric car?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, I do not think anyone on the Conservative side is opposed to electric vehicles. Again, we are opposed to being forced to buy something that may not work for our families. We very much, as the member has outlined quite clearly, to give him credit, have been the enthusiastic and most passionate supporters in this House of our oil and gas sector.

I do not see how those two things do not go together. One of them in particular has ensured we have an incredible quality of life in Canada. In fact, I will note that for the gas sector, if only we could export more of our liquefied natural gas to countries that use coal and other means that have far more emissions, it would be amazing to help lower world emissions with Canadian gas. I do not know why the member does not support that. We can really help meet world emissions reduction targets with Canadian gas. I am very proud of the tax revenue it provides, including to Quebec, for our hospitals, our schools and our infrastructure. I think we all should be proud of oil and gas. I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I just do not want to be forced to buy one.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is such an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler, thousands of whom work at the largest car plant in Canada, the Toyota factory in Hespeler.

We, on this side of the House, have explained time and again how this electric vehicle mandate directly hurts workers right now and how it ends up being a cash transfer to Tesla, which does not make cars in Canada. It is a cash transfer from Canadian auto workers to an American auto firm. Every time we bring it up, the Liberals on the other side say they are looking at it and working on it.

The member is more experienced in politics than I am. Can she explain why the Liberals cannot just end it today?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, I am not experienced enough to be able to answer that because I just cannot figure it out. The auto sector is asking, please, for the love of God, to give up this EV mandate and to stop forcing it to make something no one will buy that is going to cost the industry billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs, if not 100,000 jobs, as some estimates show.

I do not know why the Liberals are not letting this go. It does not make sense. I appreciate seeing an organic increase of use in electric vehicles. I will just close with this in my remaining minute: The energy use required to power an entire light-duty fleet in Canada is enormous. When we talk about being forced to buy electric vehicles, we also have to talk about the lack of energy infrastructure investments in this budget.

If the Liberals really meant it, there would be multi-billion dollar investments for energy in order to fuel the energy pull millions of electric vehicles are going to need. Again, we are talking about 23.6 million light-duty vehicles on the road today. If each one of them required a plug-in every night, that is 27 kilowatt hours per car per year. We are talking about 64 terawatt hours of energy, new energy that is going to be needed, which is really equivalent to 6.4 million Canadian homes or the electricity consumption of the entire province of Alberta. No one is telling us how that is going to happen. It is unrealistic.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I rise tonight to speak about an industry that is at the cornerstone of Canada's manufacturing power. Canada's auto industry is not just an economic engine; it is the economic heartbeat of provinces like Ontario and Quebec, pumping roughly $14 billion into our GDP and keeping more than 120,000 families in the middle class. Every job in an assembly plant supports nine or more in the wider economy. There are over 600,000 direct and indirect jobs that depend on this sector, and most of the vehicles we build here in this country are exported to the United States. When the auto sector stumbles, entire communities in Ontario and Quebec feel it right away.

Right now, as we sit here today, as we speak, those communities are under real strain. Workers in Ingersoll, Oshawa, Brampton and Sainte-Thérèse are living with layoff notices or the fear of one. At CAMI in Ingersoll, about 500 jobs have been lost. In Oshawa, hundreds of workers in the plant along with the supply chain are affected. In Brampton, roughly 3,000 Stellantis workers and thousands of supplier jobs are at risk. In Sainte-Thérèse, more than 700 workers at PACCAR now face layoffs.

Just so we are clear what the stakes are, President Trump has been very clear: He wants investment and jobs pulled out of Canada and moved south. The Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win and deliver us a trade deal by July 21. He said the Liberals needed to form government because only they could protect this country. That deadline now has come and gone, and we have no agreement. Instead of a deal, we have more and more uncertainty. Here in December, the results of the Liberal Prime Minister's action are companies like Stellantis choosing to invest billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs in the United States, despite being given billions of dollars by the Liberal government.

Recently at industry committee, we had three emergency meetings on the auto sector. The message from industry partners has been clear: The Liberal EV mandate is making a bad situation much worse. For instance, Huw Williams from the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association told us the EV mandate makes Canada “less competitive”, a less competitive place and a place that is harder to attract investment to. He also said this mandate is a “pending disaster”.

How about Brian Kingston of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association? He told the committee that a pause on the EV mandate has not brought any certainty and that repealing it is the one simple action the government could do today to provide immediate relief to the auto sector. How about Flavio Volpe from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association? He stated the EV mandate is “unachievable, unworkable and not based in reality”.

If that is not bad enough, get this: The government's own analysis admits this mandate will disproportionately affect people of low income and people in rural areas because they face higher vehicle costs and higher electricity prices. Despite all of this, Liberal members at committee defended the EV mandate. For businesses to make capital investment and properly budget, we know they need certainty. A temporary pause to this EV mandate does not deliver the certainty investors, manufacturers and workers need. If EV targets are not met, the mandate could cost the auto sector upwards of $3 billion by 2030. If the mandate sits on the books, Canada remains an unpredictable and risky place to build vehicles.

I should also mention that, just today, President Trump announced he will roll back the fuel efficiency standard for vehicles, which could further risk jobs and investment flowing south of the border. It has never been more urgent to get rid of the industrial carbon tax. Conservatives believe there is a better path. First, repeal the EV mandate so we can stop handicapping our industry and our dealers. Second, as long as the American tariffs remain in place, make Canadian-built vehicles HST free so buying a car made in Canada comes with a clear price advantage and reason for companies to keep production here. Third, eliminate the industrial carbon tax. Fourth, make sure any future subsidies for large auto investments come with real, enforceable job guarantees so workers and taxpayers are protected if companies move work elsewhere.

This debate is about more than policy details; it is about the Stellantis worker in Brampton who rises before dawn to assemble the vehicles that deliver us our prosperity; it is about the intricate supply chains connected to the auto plants in Oshawa. We stand on the side of auto workers in the House, for their families and for our communities at large.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge gave a number of examples of the current pressures on a number of current plants and companies in Canada, and every example seemed to be about the trade dispute we are in with the Americans.

Would the member not agree with me that in fact it is the unjustified and unjustifiable tariffs that are the cause of the current situation we are in, and that we all need to be aligned on that fight?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving me an opportunity to point out that yes, while tariffs have been the catalyst, for the last 10 years we have dealt with serious structural problems in our economic environment and a structural issue around regulation. Our country is so overly regulated that we are actually approaching the point of miracle in this country.

We have a tax framework issue that makes our businesses completely uncompetitive. We have an industrial carbon tax, which is adding costs. We have a crazy EV mandate, which everyone in the auto industry admits needs to be repealed immediately so we can breathe life into the sector.

Therefore, while the tariffs are a major issue, there are concrete actions the Liberal government could take today to benefit the auto sector. It is just choosing not to, and honestly, at this point, I really do not understand why.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, my comments will stray somewhat from what my colleague was talking about.

He and I probably disagree on the issue of electric batteries. I see the electrification of transportation as the future of the industry.

How does he explain the fact that 90% of federal funds were invested in Ontario, while Quebec was left with crumbs?

Quebec has always been at the forefront in this area, while the Ontario government abolished incentives a long time ago.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, what we have seen with the Stellantis deal, where billions of dollars were laid out in both subsidies and direct investment to advance EV battery plants, and what we are seeing in the industry with respect to the number of individuals, consumers, who actually want to purchase these products, is that the demand is not there.

Not only are we shelling out money for things that do not make sense and that hamper competitiveness in the industry, for a product that people do not seem to want to the degree the Liberal government thinks they should; we are also handing out contracts and dollars to companies without, as it appears today, any sort of jobs guarantees to protect Canadian workers. I would say that, in the future, if we are going to make any deals to support auto companies, this should be done with job protections for Canadian workers.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Chair, in 2023, I was a simple Canadian citizen, a physician from Kitchener, Ontario, and I was really concerned that the government signed a $15-billion contract on my behalf, and on behalf of all Canadians, with Stellantis, without showing us that contract. I know that my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge is a successful businessman in the steel industry. We now see, as it was disclosed at the industry committee, that the industry minister did not even read the contract, much less show it to the Canadian public.

Reflecting on his extensive business experience, could the member explain what on earth could justify that?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was alarmed to learn that the minister apparently had not read the contract, because we heard at committee that she kept saying, “Read the contract; it is in the contract”. Which clause is that? It was always some clause in some contract we had not seen. Now we are learning not only that has she not read but also that apparently the legal team may not have read it. With respect to my hon. colleague's question, I will say that I really cannot understand why, with such a significant number of tax dollars at play, such a significant amount of public money allocated to the contract, they could not be bothered to take a look at it.

There seems to be a theme. We also noticed it in the steel industry, which, as my colleague referenced, was part of my former life. There was $400 million committed to Algoma Steel, but it seems there are no jobs guarantees, because a thousand workers were laid off. What I believe we are seeing is a trend of the Liberal government's not wanting to review contracts before they hand out public dollars.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

This debate is about one of the most emblematic industries for Canada and Ottawa. That does not mean that this industry is not fragile, but it is certainly something that Canada's elite are constantly obsessed with, to the point of forgetting all other industries.

They are nowhere to be found when it comes to fighting for softwood lumber. They are nowhere to be found when it comes to fighting for the aerospace sector. There is no strategy or anything whatsoever for that. The auto sector would probably not matter so much to the elite in Ottawa if it were located in Quebec.

Let me give some historical background. The auto pact was signed in 1965. At the time, the industry supported some free trade, on the condition that 10% of production could remain on Canadian soil. Before that, manufacturers were forced to have plants in both countries, meaning in the U.S. and in Canada. Afterwards, since the 10% could have been threatened, members will recall that Ontario was vehemently opposed to free trade, while Quebec supported it when this debate came up during Brian Mulroney's re-election. That election was a referendum on free trade, and Quebec sovereigntists were strongly in favour. Back then, Jacques Parizeau used to say that if he were Ontarian, he would have opposed free trade because it was not in the interests of Ontario, but as a Quebecker, he supported it because it was in the interests of Quebec.

I would like to provide some facts and figures. The government has subsidized the auto industry at every turn in recent years. In 2023, it gave Volkswagen financial support for an EV battery manufacturing plant. The amount is estimated at $13.2 billion in production subsidies. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate was $18 billion, which is higher than what was announced.

Also in 2023, the federal government and the Ontario government announced production subsidies for the Stellantis battery manufacturing plant, up to an overall cap of $15 billion. This would bring the total amount of production subsidies for Stellantis and Volkswagen to $28.2 billion by the end of 2032. The subsidies were so high that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in 2023 that it would take 20 years for the government to break even. This is in addition to the $3 billion pumped into Chrysler's operations and the nearly $11 billion for General Motors during the 2008 and 2009 financial crisis. The loans given out during the crisis were subsequently written off for the most part. I should note, however, that when GM came knocking on the government's door for help with modernizing its plant in Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, Ottawa did not lift a finger. The plant closed in 2022, and that was the end of the auto assembly sector in Quebec.

For the past 18 years, the auto industry has been underpinned by a strategy developed jointly by Ottawa and the Ontario government, whereas there is still no aerospace strategy, as I mentioned.

In March of this year, the government rushed to announce $2 billion in support for the auto industry before the U.S. tariffs even came into effect, whereas Quebec's forestry industry, which represents a similar number of jobs, was left hanging for a very long time.

Even for the battery industry, Ontario comes out ahead. There were two possible strategies for developing the battery sector: leverage the enormous comparative advantage afforded by the critical minerals under our feet to develop a strategy for processing our resources into batteries; or compete with the Americans on their own turf by subsidizing the modernization of the auto industry. In 2022, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology recommended that the government adopt a strategy to support resource processing. Ottawa, however, went with the subsidy strategy.

In Ontario, the Ford government went ahead and did what the Trump administration did not even dare to do in its first term, and that was to eliminate the incentives. The Ford government went further than almost any other government in removing EV incentives. However, that did not prevent Ontario from pocketing more than 90% of the money, while Quebec was left with scraps. Quebec projects were largely abandoned by Ottawa, leaving them weakened and undermining the battery industry.

I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, my time is up.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Chair, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe. I would like to ask him if he agrees that, in the future, electrification of the auto industry will contribute to the growth of and gains for Quebec's economy.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, that is absolutely the case. Unfortunately, Ottawa put an end to sales quotas and purchase support measures. Of course, the future lies in the development of the electric auto industry, but it must be done the right way. The battery sector, including processing of critical minerals, would have been the best way forward. That is what should have been done, rather than subsidizing exclusively Ontario industries, because that has been a flop, as we have seen.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, obviously, because I come to the House as the member for Essex, something very near and dear to my heart is the auto manufacturers.

Quebec specifically has an EV mandate that requires 85% EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2035, though I did come to understand this afternoon that Quebec has now dropped that to 90% by 2035. However, the percentage of electric vehicles actually sold in Quebec is only 17.3%, so it is quite a way to go in a short five years.

At a time when the auto industry is under enormous pressure from tariffs, would my hon. colleague agree with me that Quebec and the Liberal government have gone too far and are putting the mandate into place far too quickly to make it affordable—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, I certainly would not say that the Quebec government has gone too far. However, I would say that Ottawa went too far in putting the brakes on electrification. I gave some examples, such as the rollbacks in terms of incentives.

My colleague tells us that he is representing his riding. I am fortunate to represent a riding that includes a city in Quebec with the largest number of green licence plates per 1,000 drivers: Saint‑Hyacinthe. This is also the city that broke the Guinness record for the largest gathering of electric cars a few years ago. I participated in that event in 2021. It is also the city with the largest electric vehicle expo in Quebec, aside from Montreal. I respect the fact that my colleague represents the interests of his constituents. I represent the interests of my constituents.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He was perfectly on point, as usual. He has a good understanding and a good grasp of his files. I am hearing that we are moving forward, that we are moving backward, that we are moving too fast and that we are not moving fast enough. However, there is one thing I know for sure.

The electric vehicle industry has a significant presence in my riding. There was Lion Electric, which manufactured buses and was told by the former Liberal government to produce lots of electric buses, because everyone would want them and they would sell really well. The company bought equipment and increased production, but in the end, the zero emission transit fund never applied to that company and its school buses.

As a result, production slowed and then slowed some more. The company shut down and then reopened. The new Liberal government had said it was going to focus on this, but it recently announced that it was cutting subsidies and that the idea of complete electrification by 2030 was over. The government is taking one step forward, one step back.

I would like to ask my colleague this: How much does it cost to keep taking one step forward and one step back? In addition to the companies that are being forced to shut down, how much are the government's spending choices costing the people of Quebec and Canada?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is costing us dearly. It is costing us a lot to have a government that only cares about Ontario and that backs down on transportation electrification. I think my colleague can speak to that even better than I can. He gave some compelling examples. The government tells a company to go ahead, and then they abandon it.

It also costs us when a supposedly brilliant negotiator gets elected at the national level and charms everyone by saying that he is the one to negotiate with the Trump administration. After his negotiations with the Trump administration, he managed to get 25% tariffs imposed on trucks manufactured here, even though they were initially exempt. Well done.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues who requested this take-note debate and by saying that I warned them. When we had a debate on Stellantis and the big subsidies, I was the industry critic. We had done studies.

I also previously urged the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to take an interest in the development of strategic critical minerals in order to gain a national perspective on this issue. What happened? Canada tried to outbid the Americans. Canada wanted to play hardball and show that it could put up more money to attract investors. Three years later, what is happening? That money may have been lost.

Everyone in Quebec was supposed to be happy, because investments in Northvolt had been promised. Obviously, the federal government did not invest a single penny in that, which was perhaps a good thing. However, Ontario was promised investments in Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. We are talking about nearly $30 billion that was announced to move Quebec's automotive industry, all its innovation, and its small and medium-sized businesses to Ontario. This is theft committed with our money, and it is outrageous.

The strategy that I advocated for then, and still advocate for now, would have been the best. It involved processing a resource close to its extraction site. Take my region, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, for example. My riding is home to the only operating lithium mine. Why not process the lithium near the mine? That would create value added. Cathodes could be produced, since the Horne smelter in Abitibi-Témiscamingue produces sulphuric acid on an industrial scale. That is where the chemical process would take place. We could make anodes. I am talking about the operation of electric batteries. Obviously, several stages are involved, like the crushing and chemical stages. Then comes cell production. Different places in Quebec could be involved in producing the greenest battery in the world.

I had the opportunity to travel to Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States with the former minister of industry, now the Minister of Finance. What did he use to say? He used to say that Canada deserves more attention, because it has the greenest products in the world. However, unless we develop these products, and unless the government provides the funds needed for this kind of processing, these are empty words.

How can we ensure that a product has significant added value? There must be an assurance that labour laws were respected and no child labour was used during production. On that point, I would like to commend the leadership of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who is introducing a very interesting bill in this regard. The production process must also comply with Quebec's laws, which include some of toughest environmental standards in the world. Institutional knowledge must also be respected, such as that of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, which studies the environment and mining. It has done wonders for new technologies.

I am proposing creating a product in the mine, processing it and completing the various stages. This would reduce transportation and create the greenest product in the world, which would end up in a cell. That way, we would not need to outbid other countries to attract factory projects, because companies would be fighting to set up shop near the production site so they could sell this cell. They would be selling a value-added product that respects workers, respects the environment, and is the greenest in the world. The industry is clamouring for this type of product. The traceability of the minerals and the production of this battery would be obvious if we invested in local processing. What did Canada do? It did not do any of that. It tried to outbid the Americans. A few years later, it has lost those investments, and that is embarrassing.

What is also embarrassing is the battle being waged by the Conservatives, who have been persistent in trying to kill the auto industry for several years. It is no secret; they are likely influenced by their big oil industry donors. They killed the investment ecosystem for electric vehicles and related SMEs. In fact, there was money for all of that.

The sustainable development technology Canada program was not perfect. There were certainly governance issues, which we all acknowledge today. To its credit, however, it was supposed to invest in SMEs. Then its funding was frozen, leading to a fight that even paralyzed Parliament for a long time. This meant that the people who had patents and innovation projects went silent. What did we see in the last budget? There was absolutely nothing in it for Quebec's industry when it comes to innovation in the electrification of transportation.

I would not say they have blood on their hands, but they certainly have oil flowing through their veins. They killed an emerging part of Quebec's economy, and the government was complicit in that. I will hold that against them for a long time.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, first and foremost, I am the co-chair of the Conservative auto caucus, so I do understand a thing or two about auto. I also come from Essex, which is right next door to the busiest international border crossing in the world, where a part for one vehicle can go back and forth across the border seven to nine times before it is actually produced. To my understanding, there is no more automotive assembly in Quebec.

When there is only 17.3% of electric vehicles that are being sold in Quebec right now, and I am hearing it time and time again from the global auto manufacturers and Canadian auto manufacturers, the dealers are incredibly scared.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that perhaps we need to scale that back and look at this a little bit further down the road?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Essex for his comments and his concern for the industry. However, my response to him is that we actually do have a choice right now. Do we want to manufacture cars with parts that make dozens of trips back and forth to the United States? It ultimately costs a a lot, with the taxes, surcharges and so on.

Would it not be better to develop a product with a secure and sustainable supply? That would have allowed the industry to use batteries produced in Quebec and Canada, which are traceable and known to meet the highest environmental and labour standards. That would have had a lasting economic impact. We missed that opportunity because the Conservatives diverted the funding sources. The government stopped investing.

Do I think the 2035 target will be met? Probably not, given that the government stopped investing in innovation. The Conservatives are complicit in that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would not have wanted to leave my colleague without one last question like this: What does he think of all the money that has been poured into an industry that seems to be an obsession, while so many other sectors that are equivalent in terms of the number of jobs are completely ignored because their only misfortune is that they are in Quebec?