Debates of Feb. 12th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Automotive Strategy

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. I think the Conservatives nitpick what they want to talk about. I talked about St. Thomas and the investments we made in St. Thomas even prior to today. I invite the member opposite to actually chat with one of his colleagues, Mayor Preston, who has said that he “hasn’t stopped smiling” since we made these investments in his community.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for York—Durham, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole, Indigenous Affairs.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would simply like to say that, as a member of Parliament, as the member for Bourassa, and above all as a father, I am deeply affected by the events that occurred in Tumbler Ridge on Tuesday evening. I would like to express my sincere solidarity. I would also like to express my deepest sympathies to the victims, their loved ones, their families and the community of British Columbia. During this difficult time, all of us here are united by compassion, respect and the desire to support one another.

I rise today to speak to a matter of strategic importance to our economy and to hundreds of thousands of families. It concerns the future of the Canadian auto industry. This industry supports more than 500,000 jobs in Canada and is one of the pillars of our manufacturing base.

It has shaped our prosperity for more than a century and continues to structure entire communities.

The facts are clear. Unfortunately, this sector is undergoing major changes. Since 2016, auto manufacturing in Canada has decreased from about 2.3 million vehicles to about 1.2 million vehicles in 2025. Moreover, over 5,000 jobs have unfortunately been lost in this industry over the last few years. We must respond to this reality seriously and with determination.

Today, more than 90% of vehicles assembled in Canada and close to 60% of auto parts are exported to the United States. This dependence makes our industry powerful, but it also makes it vulnerable.

Our automotive strategy is based on clear principles: Produce more in Canada, innovate in Canada and protect Canadian jobs.

That is why the automotive strategy is based on a simple principle: Produce more here in Canada, innovate here in Canada and protect our workers.

That is why we are mobilizing major investments, including $3 billion from the strategic response fund and up to $100 million from the regional tariff response initiative to help the auto industry adapt, modernize and diversify.

We are also supporting the energy transition with clear, achievable and quantitative targets. We want to achieve a goal of 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% EV sales by 2040. To support domestic demand, we are implementing a $2.3‑billion, five-year program to make EVs more affordable through incentives of up to $5,000 for EVs and $2,500 for plug-in hybrids. We are also investing $1.5 billion to develop the national EV charging network in order to remove a significant barrier restricting EV adoption.

These measures have a clear objective: to produce the vehicles of tomorrow here in Canada. Earlier, I was talking about limitations mainly having to do with travelling very long distances. I myself have an electric vehicle. This is one of the things our government wants to work on to achieve these clear objectives. The goal is to produce the vehicles of tomorrow right here in Canada, but also to be able to actually use them in our country, which is extremely big.

At the heart of this strategy are people. There are workers. We are investing $570 million to support employment, training and retraining. This could reach up to 66,000 workers across the country. We have already approved more than 1,350 work-sharing agreements, which have prevented more than 18,500 layoffs. Enhanced employment insurance measures will allow more than 190,000 workers to receive extended support, including up to 20 additional weeks for long-tenured workers. These measures are not theoretical. They protect real jobs. They are being applied in real factories and in the very real communities that each and every one of us here represents.

Now let us talk about the transition to electric vehicles. This is not just an environmental issue. It is also a transition to a new economic trajectory. Electric vehicles cost up to 50% less to maintain and up to 10 times less to power than gas vehicles. Adopting EVs creates jobs, attracts investment and strengthens our global competitiveness.

Canada has major strengths in its critical minerals, expertise in artificial intelligence, clean energy and a skilled workforce.

We also have access to 51 countries and more than 1.5 billion consumers through our trade agreements. The challenge is clear: If we want to remain an automotive nation, we must invest. Our strategy aims to strengthen domestic production, attract investment and protect workers while positioning Canada as a global leader in the transportation of tomorrow.

I will conclude with this. The true economic strength of a country like ours is measured not only by its exports, but also by its ability to create quality jobs right here in our country and to prepare for the future of our workers, our families, our regions and our communities.

That is what we are doing. We are building a modern industry, strengthening our industrial sovereignty and preparing the Canadian economy, and we are doing it with workers.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussion is a good thing.

However, my question is one I have posed to a number of Liberal members. We know 99% of the cars that will be subsidized as a result of this program will be built outside of Canada.

When will it grow to at least 2%, if not 5% or 10%?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant, but his analysis is, to put it simply, flawed, if not false.

In fact, as I said earlier, our goal is to have jobs right here in Canada, in our communities, and to be able to export. Our goal is not just to export our products, but also to keep and preserve our jobs.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did pick up on a desire to make greenhouse gases less and less noticeable.

I actually met with the President of the Treasury Board this morning, and we talked about regulatory sandboxes, among other things. I am very concerned. I am very concerned because, on this opposition day, it is clear that economic pressure from the fossil fuel lobby has resulted in an opposition motion aimed at tearing down what is being built.

Is my colleague aware that, if there is pressure in the interest of economic prosperity, the new measures in the budget will make it possible to change course and potentially not meet the targets?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know whether I am aware of climate and environmental issues and whether our government is also aware them. The answer is obviously yes.

Now, to answer the part of the question where my colleague talked about, or rather made inferences about economic ambitions, the answer is once again yes. However, our economic ambitions and development also come with a certain responsibility. This is a responsible development that will protect workers and aim to truly electrify transportation. Quebec will also benefit from it, since everyone in Quebec who charges their car will be using electricity from Hydro-Québec, a Crown corporation. We are both economically ambitious and very environmentally responsible.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments, and I am very impressed by the fact that Quebec is a leader in Canada when it comes to embracing EVs.

I was wondering whether my colleague could tell me about charging stations.

What role do they play in reaching these target numbers?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say that charging stations play a role in many ways.

First, everyone knows that Quebec covers a very large area, so for EV users, the more charging stations there are, the better. Second, it is important to note that Quebec has exceptional expertise in designing, developing and installing these charging stations. Once again, Quebec is not only a leader in manufacturing cars and batteries, but also in developing these stations, and other workers will benefit from this.

In closing, the more charging stations there are, the more people will be encouraged to buy EVs and the more they will enjoy driving them. As a result, the number of vehicles running solely on gasoline will decrease, which will obviously help us meet our targets.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we spent $52 billion trying to force an EV transition. Production targets are failing, 5,000 workers have been laid off, and now the government wants another $2.3 billion in subsidies, even though most of its past rebates went to foreign-built vehicles.

Is this about helping Canadian workers or saving face after a failed policy experiment?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short and very simple. Had members listened carefully without trying to obstruct anything, they would know that the plan I outlined is based on investment in manufacturing, innovation and workforce support, support for workers. The primary goal is to revive our auto sector in a very sustainable way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people in the great riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

This is my first opportunity to rise in the House of Commons following the tragic and devastating news coming out of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. Like many people in the House, I have to say that as a father it is hard to even imagine the pain and the suffering that these families are going through. As we all know, there are no words we could say that would truly offer comfort. However, I would like to say the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge are thinking of these families. Our love is with them. We stand with them, and our prayers will be with them.

It is an honour to rise today to speak about the auto industry. Canada has been building automobiles for over a century. From Windsor to Oshawa, from Brampton to Sainte-Thérèse, there are generations of skilled workers who have worked in the auto industry. We have tradespeople, engineers and plant workers. These people have been the heartbeat of Canada's great automotive sector, one of the greatest automotive sectors in the history of the world. Our automotive industry really does represent the best of Canadian innovation and manufacturing prowess. It is home to some 600,000 indirect and direct jobs, and it has a GDP of $16 billion.

Before coming to Parliament, I spent my career in the steel industry, in the steel service centre business, which is nestled right in the automotive supply chain. I have had the opportunity to work with many great people, those who work on the factory floors and those in the offices that support these workers. These people represent the best of what it means to be Canadian. These people do not work for fortune or for fame. They strap on their boots every single day to go to work to ensure that their children have a better life than they did. They work to ensure our country is better off than it was before. These are the very people who represent the ideals of Canadian identity.

It is unfortunate that we often think just about the numbers and the statistics, the GDP and the job numbers. The numbers represent these people, and they truly represent what it means to be Canadian: that work, that discipline, that ethic.

Unfortunately, our auto industry and the industry associated with it has been in decline for many years. I witnessed this first-hand in my time working in this industry. I remember when I first started in the steel business, I was at a conference and someone asked a major auto parts supply manufacturer why their company no longer invested in Canada. The response was that other countries roll out the red carpet, but Canada seems to want to roll out the red tape.

It is no surprise that over the past 10 years we have witnessed a sharp decline in the number of automobiles manufactured in our country. It is an almost 50% decline, from 2.3 million vehicles to roughly 1.2 million vehicles. Some of this obviously has to do with the natural process of globalization, but most of it has been the result of some major structural issues facing our economy. These issues have led to a negative business environment so astounding it is actually approaching the point of miracle. We now have some 320,000 different federal regulations, with over 105,000 regulations on the manufacturing sector alone.

At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we heard over and over again from people in the automotive sector when we had our emergency study that some of the major barriers to the prosperity of the industry are the regulatory environment and some of the tax framework issues that are preventing capital from being spent on capital projects in this country and driving capital outflows to places like the U.S. and Mexico. This is where we start to see the divergence between capital outflow and FDI into Canada.

All of this was long before the unjustified tariffs that have been put in place by U.S. President Trump. These tariffs, as I have said many times in the House during debates on the auto sector and at committee, are certainly the catalyst in the industry, but they do not explain the decades' worth of decline in this sector.

It is very understandable why Canadians find tariffs not only intellectually reprehensible but morally repugnant, because many of us, if not all of us, looked at the U.S. not only as an economic partner but as a cultural partnership. Many of us have family connections in the United States. It is almost as if a family member has stabbed us in the back. The ties between the U.S. and Canada run deep.

We have also heard the U.S. President take aim at our auto sector, saying that he wants to relocate the Canadian auto industry back to the United States. That attack does not just threaten jobs and GDP; it is an attack on what it means to be Canadian. It is an attack on the hard-working person who straps on their boots every day.

These attacks, although vicious, have provided us with an opportunity, because as a mature country, Canada must begin to think for itself. It is no secret that for decades at this point, we have outsourced our economy and security to the United States. While we cannot control what it does, we can certainly fix what we do here at home.

Earlier this month, the government unveiled its new auto strategy, within which it finally repealed the EV mandate, which we welcome and have been arguing for. Of course, that target was always unrealistic. We heard that time and again from industry leaders and experts. It is nice that it has listened to the Conservatives and removed this policy.

That said, I am worried it is trying to back-door it through an excessive regulatory framework and I certainly have questions around it. For instance, 80% to 90% of the vehicles we manufacture are exported, and 90% to 92% of those exports are directly targeted at the U.S. What will the costs associated with these regulatory measures be? How will that hamper or bolster competitiveness? Are the Americans adopting this standard, because as we know, we have a lot of cross-border interactions in the supply chain. Certainly, we cannot have one without the other.

The centrepiece for the government's auto strategy is this new five-year, $2.3-billion EV affordability program, offering $5,000 in rebates for vehicles under $50,000 for which Canada has a free trade agreement. The difficulty for me on this is that the vast majority of EVs sold in Canada are not actually built in Canada. We currently assemble one fully electric vehicle that qualifies under the new rules, the Dodge Charger EV in Windsor. Meanwhile, the long list of eligible vehicles for this initiative are from foreign countries.

This is where I question if this strategy was actually fully thought-out, because Canadian taxpayers will be subsidizing electric vehicles that are made in the United States while the U.S. is threatening our auto industry and displacing our workers. At the same time, the American President has said he wants to attack one of the industries that really represents the identity of what it means to be Canadian. We have already lost 5,000 jobs in this sector. What I cannot understand is why we are rewarding the Americans for this. It makes no sense. My colleague, the shadow minister for industry, asked the Minister of Industry this exact question at committee and she had no answer.

We know that less than 5% of the vehicles built in Canada will qualify for this program. That means the majority of the $2.3 billion will flow to foreign manufacturers. What kind of message does this send to workers? What kind of message does this send to the auto workers in Brampton who are supposed to build the Jeep Compass? How do we explain this to the 1,200 former employees in Ingersoll who are now seeing more than half of their lump-sum severance taken away in tax? Under section 153 of the Income Tax Act, the minister has the regulatory authority to reduce withholding rates so that workers can access more of this money.

We hope the government will support us in our approach to build here, so we can—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked what message we are sending to auto workers, because we know we have the best auto workers in the country. That message is hope, and we delivered that message with the auto strategy. I believe we were in his riding, at Martinrea International in Woodbridge, when we made the announcement, because it is about auto parts as well. For vehicles assembled in the United States, because we are so integrated, auto parts go back and forth. A vehicle may have parts made in the member's very own riding that will come to be assembled in the United States.

Is the member discounting the value of supporting all of our workers who make those auto parts, which are some of the best auto parts made by the best auto workers the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great news that a small portion of the EVs that are actually sold have parts that are manufactured in Canada. However, does the member know what would further increase the parts made in Canada? It is if the Liberal government would take our plan and remove the GST from new car purchases. That would signal to the industry and to consumers that we are serious about getting the industry moving. It would increase sales, and even more parts would be manufactured at facilities like the great manufacturer of auto parts in my riding. Hopefully, the Liberals will collaborate with us and remove the taxes on vehicles.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand what our Conservative colleagues are trying to accomplish.

The government backed down on consumer carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑5 to suspend environmental laws and build pipelines. It added more money for oil and gas subsidies in the last budget. There was a pipeline project for a million barrels a day and an additional 300,000 barrels a day for Trans Mountain. The greenhouse gas emissions cap for the oil and gas sector was scrapped. Now the Conservatives are attacking transportation electrification.

Does my colleague realize that the government has done almost everything the oil industry wanted? What are his ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector? Does he think climate change does not exist?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we support our oil and gas sector in this country. We know that because our country is currently under threat from an American trade war, and our number one resource and number one driver of the economy is our natural resources.

We have among the strictest environmental regulations in the entire world, and we make some of the cleanest products here in Canada. This is something we should be proud of. This is something we should stand up for and promote. We should be focused not only on exporting oil and gas to the world but on building cars here in Canada, protecting auto jobs here in Canada and creating the business environment and regulatory environment for businesses to manufacture products and export them to the world.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced last week, as part of their so-called auto strategy, that they are providing $2.3 billion of taxpayer money in rebates for Canadians to purchase EVs. The problem is that this rebate is available for foreign-made EVs, and a vast majority of EVs purchased in Canada are produced elsewhere. Effectively, this taxpayer-funded Liberal rebate will now subsidize American EV producers, including those that chose to relocate to the U.S. from Canada because of American tariffs. This is a slap in the face for Canadian auto workers who are facing layoffs, and it is an insult to call this an auto strategy.

Should Canadians be outraged that the Liberals are sending billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to the U.S. auto sector, while tens of thousands of Canadian auto workers are being laid off because the Liberal Prime Minister failed to get a deal with the U.S.?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I find it very perplexing that at a time when we are under an unprecedented attack on our auto industry from the American President through tariffing one of our key sectors, the plan for our auto strategy encompasses within it this idea that we are going to subsidize vehicles that are mostly made in the United States. It absolutely makes no sense. What does that say to the hard-working men and women in our auto sector who have been laid off and face increasing uncertainty. We have 5,000 jobs that have been lost and many more are on the chopping block. When will the Liberals take our plan to get the GST off all cars?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate to clearly demonstrate that we need to take positive action to help the Canadian industry, which is currently in a critical situation. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. It is important to take the right approach, but we know that the government has adopted an approach that, in our opinion, is not the right one for the Canadian auto industry.

I would remind members that, over the past 10 years, auto production in Canada has decreased by nearly half. In 2016, when the Liberals came to power, 2.3 million cars were being made in Canada. After 10 years of the Liberals being at the helm, there are now 1.2 million cars being made here. Since the Liberals came to power, the Canadian auto industry's output has decreased by about half. 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. 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. 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. “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. 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.

Later, on June 12, the government confirmed that the subsidies would be reinstated. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I greatly admire him and he knows it. I have an observation to make. Some people might associate the words “unreliable”, “troublesome” or “lack of infrastructure” with EVs today. However, that is actually how the gas-powered car was described in the early 20th century. It was said to be unreliable. It was said that there was no infrastructure and that it would never replace horses. Still, people believed in it, and look where that led us. EVs are now at the same stage of development. They need infrastructure and investment to succeed to the same extent that the gas-powered car did. I want to know whether my colleague is looking to the future or to the past.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

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. We should be leaving more money in people's pockets to help them. Get rid of the GST on the purchase of Canadian cars—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to allow for some more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by taking a moment to recognize scouting week, which runs from February 16 to 22 this year. The scouting movement is an educational path for young people that is based on volunteerism and is open to all, as conceived by its founder, Baden-Powell. Scouting is the largest youth movement in the world, and the francophone scouting movement brings together more than 10,000 young people across the country, supported by more than 3,700 dedicated volunteers. I was a cub scout myself as a kid growing up in the Gaspé region. I remember the inclusive and constructive values that were promoted, including community involvement, teamwork and learning. I have fond memories of camping in the forest in the dead of winter. I am happy to know that Baden-Powell's work continues to this day, and I am pleased to highlight the scouting movement today. Congratulations to the scouts of Quebec and to the volunteers, and, as the motto says, “be prepared”.

Now, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why move this amendment at this stage of the debate on the motion?