Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2025

Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the parliamentary secretary for that clarification. I did consult with the Table in anticipation that the parliamentary secretary may raise this matter. When the parliamentary secretary tabled the Order Paper questions, he took it upon himself on behalf of the ministry, so those answers were considered accurate when they were presented to the House. Therefore, the matter is considered closed. It will not be referred to committee. That matter is closed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Conservation Donations

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Canada's ecological gifts program and provide information that may help members in their debate on Motion No. 15.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. I would also like to recognize that the lands and waters across Canada are the homelands and traditional territories of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

I know first-hand that indigenous peoples have cared for these environments for thousands of years, and their knowledge and leadership remain essential today to conservation efforts. I remember growing up on the mouth of the Fraser River, which was my backyard and my playground, playing in the waters and fishing for salmon. I continue to do that today, but not in the way that my ancestors have done for thousands and thousands of years.

Over the years, as we welcomed many, many people to our shores, we did realize that all Canadians care deeply about nature. We depend on healthy ecosystems for clean air, clean water, stable climates, food stability and countless cultural and recreational benefits.

However, nature is coming under increased pressure. Climate change, habitat loss, pollution and landscape fragmentation are driving a decline in biodiversity in Canada and around the world. This reality highlights the need for urgent, coordinated action to stop and reverse nature loss.

The ecological gifts program is one of the tools that help Canada work toward that goal. It supports the voluntary long-term conservation of ecologically sensitive private land, complementing conservation efforts by federal, provincial, territorial, indigenous and community partners.

The program also allows Canadians who own ecologically sensitive lands to donate all or part of those lands to an eligible recipient. Eligible recipients include federal, provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, and environmental charities approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada. Once a donation is made, the recipient becomes responsible for protecting the biodiversity and environmental values of those lands. This helps ensure that important ecosystems remain intact for future generations.

The program is delivered by Environment and Climate Change Canada and supports many partners. This collaborative approach has contributed to the program's steady growth since it was created. Over the past 30 years, more than 2,000 ecological gifts have been made in this country. Together, they account for more than 261,000 hectares of habitat, an area larger than Prince Edward Island, and have an estimated total value of more than $1.4 billion.

The donated lands must be certified as ecologically sensitive by the Minister of Environment. Many of these lands help protect species at risk, wetlands, grasslands, coastal areas, forests and other ecosystems that are disappearing or under threat. These donations reflect a wide range of motivations and local circumstances. Some landowners are individuals with a strong conservation ethic. Others are farmers, ranchers or corporate owners who want to safeguard the natural value of their land over the long term.

Although most donors participate because of their commitment to conservation, the Income Tax Act provides specific incentives to encourage donations of ecologically sensitive land. These incentives help reduce financial barriers and support landowner participation. Key tax features of the program include the following. Corporate donors may deduct the full amount of their gift from their taxable income. Individual donors receive a non-refundable tax credit for the eligible amount of the donation. The capital gain on an ecological gift is reduced to zero, which is significant because for most other charitable gifts, 50% of the capital gain is taxable. Donors may carry forward any unused portion of their donation for up to 10 years. There is no limit on how much ecological gift value can be claimed in a year.

A reduction in federal tax payable will also reduce provincial tax. When federal assistance and provincial assistance are combined, the overall rate of tax support for ecological gifts can be substantial, often as high as 80%, depending on the province. This level of support reflects the public benefits that come from conserving ecologically sensitive land.

The law sets clear criteria for who may receive ecological gifts. Eligible recipients include provincial, federal and territorial governments, municipalities, municipal or public bodies performing a function of government, and environmental charities that have been approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Municipalities and charities must also be approved on a gift-by-gift basis to ensure that they have the capacity to protect the land's ecological value over the long term. If they wish later to dispose of the land or change its use, they must obtain written authorization from the Minister of Environment. Unauthorized dispositions or changes in use trigger a tax penalty equal to 50% of the property's fair market value at the time of the disposition or change in use.

Since its creation in 1995, the ecological gifts program has been strengthened many times to improve clarity, fairness and conservation outcomes. When the program began, ecological gifts were exempted from the usual income limit rules, and strict safeguards were introduced so that donated lands could not be sold or used differently without federal approval.

In 1997, Parliament improved how partial interests, such as conservation covenants, easements and servitudes, are valued so as to accurately reflect the amount of the donation. Further refinements followed in 2000. These included a reduced capital gains inclusion rate and a requirement that the Minister of Environment determine the fair market value of each gift, with donors given the right to appeal. In 2006, ecological gifts became fully exempt from capital gains tax, and in 2014, the carry-forward period for claiming donations was extended from five to 10 years. In 2017, donations of personal servitudes in Quebec of at least 100 years became eligible as ecological gifts. These updates reflect Parliament's long-standing commitment to protecting ecologically sensitive lands through clear rules and strong accountability.

Environment and Climate Change Canada recently completed an evaluation of the program covering the years 2018-19 to 2023-24. In its evaluation, ECCC looked at program design, delivery, efficiency and alignment with government priorities. The findings were positive. They showed that the program's design remained sound, that the valuation process for ecological gifts was rigorous and protected public resources, and that performance targets were consistently met.

The ecological gifts program delivers strong value for money. In fact, the total value of lands protected was more than four times greater than the financial cost to the federal government.

The evaluation also identified challenges. Donors and recipients reported that aspects of the program can be complex and sometimes slow. In addition, indigenous communities and organizations looking to become ecological gift recipients face unique barriers.

Based on the evaluation, ECCC made two recommendations: Review and improve program delivery to increase timeliness, predictability and transparency; and develop communication materials and guidance to support indigenous communities and organizations interested in receiving ecological gifts. Environment and Climate Change Canada is following these recommendations and has developed a five-point management action plan, with implementation expected in 2026 and 2027.

The ecological gifts program is a long-standing, well-established conservation tool that encourages voluntary protection of ecologically sensitive private land. It balances strong environmental safeguards with clear tax rules and accountability measures. It has helped protect significant habitats across this country, and it continues to evolve to better meet the needs of donors, communities and conservation partners.

Motion No. 15 raises issues related to charitable tax treatment. It also encourages the government to consider approaches that further support conservation, for instance by examining parity between ecological gifts and other types of donations to conservation charities. While Motion No. 15 would be non-binding, it aligns with the broader national objective of protecting biodiversity and meeting Canada's commitments under the global biodiversity framework. This includes conserving 30% of lands and waters by 2030.

I hope that this information assists members as they continue this important debate, and I thank the House for the opportunity to provide these remarks today.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the House. It happens to be my assistant Gelila's birthday, so I think all members would join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

As we talk about Motion No. 15, which is not legislation, as I will note later, and which deals with environmental issues, I want to comment briefly on the so-called MOU signed between the Government of Alberta and the federal government and what people are increasingly calling Schrödinger's pipeline.

Members will be familiar with the reference to Schrödinger's cat, the thought experiment that if a cat is in a box and subject to certain events or conditions, we can think of the cat as both existing and not existing at the same time. I think this is, in a way, a model for the Prime Minister when it comes to pipeline politics. He wants to deliver Schrödinger's pipeline, a pipeline that does not exist to some voters, maybe in British Columbia, or members of his British Columbia caucus, and that does exist to other voters in other regions.

Notwithstanding the good intentions and the best efforts of the Government of Alberta, we are still very much dealing with Schrödinger's pipeline: that is, with a process that, by design, has built-in veto points. We continue to have a government that is, I think, fundamentally dishonest about these issues, in terms of not offering the clear process that it very much could offer: that is, committing to approve national infrastructure projects that are in the jurisdiction of the national government.

I look forward to a time when we have a Conservative government in office and we are not merely talking about thought experiments for pipelines that might both exist and not exist at the same time, but we can actually have a real pipeline that is helping to deliver the economic development and the job opportunities that our country so desperately needs.

On Motion No. 15, this is a private member's motion put forward by a member of the government. Members know that there is a process here where there is a random draw. That random draw determines which members, and in what order, can put forward private members' bills or motions. That draw is very important for members. All of us work hard to get elected. It is quite a thing, as soon as we get here, to, as a result of random chance, be able to move forward a bill or not.

I have been unlucky for the previous few Parliaments. I have not had a chance to bring forward a bill to debate. I did a little better in this Parliament, so I will have an opportunity soon to table a bill. I will not tell members what it is yet, but I know that the member for Winnipeg North has already committed to voting for it.

Members have a choice of what they can do with their time slot. This member obviously did very well in the random draw. He has an opportunity to put forward a bill or a motion. He put forward a motion regarding the donation of ecological properties. The motion is, I think, in many respects, ambiguous. It does not call on the government to necessarily make specific changes. The nature of a motion does not require those changes. It asks the government to recognize the importance of an existing tax credit, to recognize the importance of granting a tax credit equivalent to monetary donations for the donation of land, and to consider amending the Income Tax Act to ensure tax fairness among different types of conservation donations.

This is fairly vague. It is non-binding, and it does not require the Government of Canada to do anything. Respectfully, I think that if the member has convictions regarding a particular issue, he could have at least put forward a motion that more precisely directs the government to take certain action. He could have put forward a bill that would effect the change he wants to see occur. He has chosen not to do that.

It is sort of curious to me, why these particular choices were made. Why would a member choose to put forward a vague motion? I think maybe it has a political audience. It is designed to signal that there is a certain practice that they consider praiseworthy, so they want to associate themselves with that practice, show general approval for that practice and associate themselves with the good feelings associated with that practice, but it is a missed opportunity, when we could actually change the law. An elected member of Parliament who does well in the draw has the power to actually change the law with what they put forward.

However, to be fair to the hon. member, I suspect that in many cases in the government caucus, the way this happens is that a member comes forward, and I have no proof of this, to cabinet and says, “Here is something I want to do”. Cabinet says, “We do not actually want to do that, but we want to make it look like we are sympathetic to people who think we should do that, so instead of actually making the change you want to make, we think you should just put forward a motion that presents these good feelings.”

Just as I spoke earlier about Schrödinger's pipeline that both exists and does not exist at the same time, Motion No. 15 sort of brings us Schrödinger's Income Tax Act changes; that is, they can be shown to exist in the sense of concern and interest expressed through the motion, but the change has not actually been made. I just note the obvious. If the government actually wanted to do this, it could have done it in the budget.

We just had a budget tabled. If the government was serious about the policy in Motion No. 15, if they actually wanted to do this and if the member had persuaded his own Liberal colleagues and those who sit in cabinet, then the policy of the government would already have been established and we would have seen the measures moving forward. They chose not to do that and to instead use this motion to signal an interest in something without actually doing it.

More fundamentally, the ambiguity around the measure is important to note, because as it stands right now, the ecological gifts program, generally speaking, provides equal treatment of land donations and cash donations. However, there are certain adjustments or modifications that are being made to reflect some of the costs that are associated with an in-kind donation, costs such as appraisal and legal fees. As such, there is an equal treatment subject to certain limitations or modifications that take into consideration the reality of the costs associated with that transaction.

Is the goal of the member to say that a person who donates in kind as opposed to cash should actually get a more generous credit for that donation, or is his goal equalization, with an argument that the current system is in some way not equal? Those actual, specific, important policy questions would not be resolved, because this is not legislation. The hard work of legislating would require answering those questions, but putting forward a motion does not.

Again, with great respect for the member, I do not think this is a problem unique to him or unique to any specific individual in the government. It is a problem across the government, which is a focus not on results but on sending signals. It is the continuation of a Trudeau-esque approach to politics, which is posturing out of concern or affinity for some set of ideas or affiliation with some group that wants some objective, but with no substance and no action in the direction that is described.

I can say that this is demonstrative of a mentality. The member could have put forward a bill, but he chose not to. I will leave it there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Jonquière has only two minutes for his speech.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not very generous, but it will be enough.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on his motion. When it comes to the environment and protecting biodiversity, every little bit counts. It is essential.

However, I only have two minutes to point out the irony of the situation. Last week, the former environment minister stepped down. This minister, who I believe had a key cabinet role, quit for environmental reasons. While it is true that every little bit counts when it comes to the environment, last week, the government unfortunately demonstrated that it did not have the courage to uphold regulations, ones that I already think are flawed, in order to leave a somewhat cleaner and healthier environment for future generations. Now that is saying something.

I worked on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on the issue of capping greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of actually capping emissions, the government is using carbon capture and storage strategies to try to reduce the footprint of a sector that could have produced more. This half-measure did not achieve consensus, and many environmental groups said that it was insufficient.

Well, last week, the government completely scrapped this measure, to put it mildly. We are dealing with a government that is prepared to stoop to new lows for the oil and gas sector while being unwilling to implement robust measures to protect the environment, at a time when other economic sectors with a much lower carbon footprint than the oil and gas sector are being shut out. Last week, the government announced that it was ready to turn on the taps for the oil sector. We know that there will be no pipeline, but billions of dollars will still be invested in tax credits for carbon capture and storage. It is shameful.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 3, John Nater in the chair)

Canada's Auto Industry

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how the proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, December 2, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

moved:

That this committee take note of Canada's auto industry.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time.

Let me start off by indicating just how important the automotive industry is not only to the province of Ontario but to all of Canada. No matter what region of the country one lives in, it has, if not a direct impact, an indirect impact. I recognize that, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible for this particular file very much care about what is happening in the industry and in the lives of families that are affected by the types of things we are seeing take place in the automobile industry in Canada. Let there be no doubt about that.

I am hoping that in the take-note debate, we will hear some positive thoughts and recommendations and that it will be more than just slamming the government or being overly political. Let us hear the generation of ideas.

Let me set the framework. The automotive industry plays a significant role in the overall exports of our manufacturing industry. The heart of that is in the province of Ontario, but, as I said, it affects so many people throughout the country. I go back to the days when I was in opposition and would talk about the auto pact agreement that Lester B. Pearson brought in and the positive impact of that agreement, which had a willing partner to the south that had a sense of fairness and wanted to advance an industry in the best interests of both Canada and the United States. That is what the auto pact was all about.

The auto pact allowed for Canada and the U.S. to excel in the automobile industry, and the big three were very big. When we look at the automotive industry today, we find that in order to make a car, different parts go back and forth and often get assembled in one country or the other. The auto pact industry is more than just the assembly of a vehicle. It is the building of motors, the provision of parts and the export of parts and, ultimately, even the vehicles themselves.

Canada has benefited immensely, as the United States has, with regard to sharing the responsibility for that industry. It is really important, when we talk about the employees and their families throughout this evening, that we recognize that there is indeed a trade war going on today. That is the reality. No one can just click their heels and say what is going to happen or wave a wand to make the problem go away. It does not work that way.

I believe the Prime Minister and the government need to be patient and persistent. We need to get the best deal we can for Canadians. If that means we have to hold off for a while, then we should. We should not be capitulating. We should recognize that this industry is too important to our nation and we have to take the necessary time to ensure there will be a strong and healthy future for this industry. That is so very important because it is an industry that has done so well over the decades. Not only can it continue to do well but it can grow in the future in terms of the EV market. We see the quality of workmanship every day, whether it is on the assembly line or building the necessary parts to go into the assembly lines. We have world-class workers and families depending on this Parliament to do the best we can. We need to start co-operating more and playing up the importance of the industry.

I would challenge each and every member of the House, no matter what political party they are from, to step up to the plate and talk about the good within the industry.

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

Mr. Chair, the member mentioned waving a magic wand. There is no easy solution to this trade war, but the government could wave a magic wand, in a sense, and throw the EV mandate into the dustbin of history.

We have heard loud and clear at committee from the auto sector that the ZEV, the zero-emission vehicle mandate, or the EV mandate, as we have been calling it, from the Liberals, is extremely detrimental to the auto sector and will cost upward of perhaps 100,000 auto jobs. It will cost the auto sector about $3 billion in compliance credits that will go to Tesla and companies like Tesla. They are pleading with the government to please throw out this mandate, because it is hurting their prospects of success in Canada.

Is the member prepared to do so, for the auto sector?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I think it is important to recognize that the Prime Minister has, in fact, been working with the industry on this file, and it has been put off, from my understanding. To what degree? I could not provide the details.

However, what I do know is that we have a government and a Prime Minister, in particular, who very much understand the issue. The Prime Minister also understands how important it is to get this thing right, because we owe it to the workers, to the families and to all of Canada to ensure that we do whatever we can to protect this industry and make sure it continues to grow into the future.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, while we intend to secure a deal with the United States, it has to be the right deal. It has to be a good deal.

In the interim, would my colleague please tell us a little about what measures are in the budget to take action right now to support the industry and its workers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, given the nature of the area the member represents, I know that she is very passionate about the industry, in particular the workers and their families. That is why, within the automotive industry and steel industry, the government has looked for ways to support workers through financial assistance, along with ways to support industry so that it can continue on during these challenging times.

We do not want to lose jobs. We want to do whatever we can to protect jobs and ensure that there are proper supports for workers and families.

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

Mr. Chair, again, on the EV mandates, last year in Canada only 14% of the two million vehicles bought new in Canada were EVs. That actually saw a drop of 43% year-over-year this past September, so I would like to ask the member about the logistics of hitting his targets. From what we understand, in order to hit just the government's 2027 target of 23% required EV sales for new vehicles, EV sales would need to rise over 250% within just 13 months from now.

Ultimately, out of all the cars that Canada's auto manufacturing plants make, 95% of the vehicles built in Canada today would not be able to be sold under the Liberal EV mandate.

I am drawing attention to this question: How are they planning to ensure the survival of our auto sector when people are not buying EVs anywhere close to what the Liberals are demanding with their EV mandate? I would like to hear from the member on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has already provided comments with regard to the EV mandate. Whether it is the federal government or provincial governments, we have seen very keen interest in terms of how we could advance both, yet also protect the industry. The Prime Minister himself has been very clear, indicating that we are in fact going to delay certain areas, and EVs are one of those areas.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the interventions from my colleague from Winnipeg North, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul and my colleague from Guelph.

I want to pick up on where my colleague from Winnipeg North left off in terms of what has sustained and made this sector resilient over so many years.

We are all probably aware of the general ballpark of the current state of the sector. In 2024, we produced, as a country, about 1.3 million light-duty vehicles, of which about 1.1 million vehicles were exported to the U.S., and we know that there is a specific interest for my colleague from Joliette—Manawan in the heavy vehicle sector as well, which is an important sector, in particular in Quebec. That manufacturing and the related sectors that are involved result in approximately 125,000 direct jobs, 80% of which are located in Ontario, comprising approximately 8% of manufacturing GDP and 0.7% of overall GDP.

Those are the overall numbers, but in each of those jobs there is a family that is sustained or helped to be sustained. There are also downstream benefits from that within communities all across the country, in particular in southern Ontario. As well, I will reference the fact that the EV future we are experiencing and growing has an even broader distribution of jobs across Canada, which is something we should appreciate as we look to the future success of this sector.

On the history of this sector, we have been building cars in some way in Canada for over 100 years. It is really a history of adaptation and change, responding to either economic pressures or policy pressures, but constantly building the industrial base, the talent base and the innovation that purchasers of vehicles expect, that the market expects and that Canada and Canadians have been able to deliver.

There have been different eras, as my colleague mentioned. There was the key role of the auto pact and how that really set the pace for the kind of trading relationship we have in this country with the United States, allowing us to manufacture and sell into the American market while also having a good market here that was growing at a time of great prosperity for our country. In the 1980s, we had some perceived trade threats from east Asia, but we responded and were able to attract Asian investment in the form of Japanese automakers from Honda and Toyota.

There were the free trade negotiations and the NAFTA agreement, and the pretty significant recession that was experienced at that time, yet workers continued to adapt and investment continued to flow in. It was also in that period that the Canadian Auto Workers split away from the United Auto Workers, creating a proud Canadian-based union that became a founding partner of Unifor.

The global auto parts footprint, so much of which is based in Canada, was founded by people who in many cases were immigrants, tool and die makers, and people coming to this country from a variety of places in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. They were building these global champions that not only served the Canadian auto sector and created jobs in Canada but also exported jobs and investment around the world and brought those benefits, those returns and that profit back to Canada.

We then had the era that began in the early 2000s. I was associated with a government that was a key participant when there were concerns about whether the auto footprint in Ontario could be sustained. It was not just Canada or the Ontario government but governments around the world that started to play an important role in partnering with companies and unions to attract new investment. We have been in that era for quite some time now.

It has been recalled in this House a few times that the era of the financial crisis of 2007-08 created a real rupture and a need for governments to go in, in an urgent fashion. We have already expressed our concern on this side of the House about how delayed the government of the day was in participating in that. Luckily, in the end, those investments were made, and we were able to sustain, retain and continue to grow some of those plants, jobs and sectors.

We are now in this new era, where there is perhaps the most existential trade challenge to the sector, yet we continue to grow and we continue to invest. That model of partnering is paying off. It is paying off with the NextStar plant in Windsor. It is paying off with the gigafactory in St. Thomas, a town that used to have a Ford manufacturing facility and now has a promise of not one but two major new manufacturing facilities to support the electric vehicle future.

To conclude, with sustained commitment, with policy alignment, and with real dedication and attention to the workers, to the quality, to the innovation and to the need to anchor this manufacturing footprint in Canada, this industry can stay very strong.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the historical context of this important trade discussion we are having in the House of Commons concerning the impact on the auto sector.

I want to ask the member a logistical question about the implementation of the government's electric vehicle mandate. By 2030, it wants 100% of new vehicle sales to be electric vehicles. From what we know, Canada currently has about 37,000 public charging ports, but in order to accommodate that EV mandate by 2030, we need 373,000 new chargers, which means we have to build 98 per day for the next 10 years straight. Each one costs approximately $300,000, or more if it is in rural and northern regions.

We are talking about 98 per day for 10 years straight at a $112-billion price tag. I was not familiar if that was anywhere in the budget or had been discussed.

Can the member enlighten us on that?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, as my colleague knows, there is currently a pause on the availability standard for next year, and I know the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature is working hard on that with her colleagues.

I think one of the important things to note is what the direction of investment is and what the direction of sales and consumer interest in this sector are. In fact, electric vehicle sales are up 50% since 2023. That is a pretty significant growth at a time when several governments have been withdrawing some of their subsidies for the purchase of such vehicles.

I think the other thing to note, and I think it may be embedded a bit in my colleague's question, is that this is a tremendously exciting opportunity for investment in the very things that the member is citing as impediments. We know there is a lot of private sector investment in some of these things that she is looking for, and I think we can expect to see a lot more of that.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, for his remarks. I particularly appreciated his sensitivity toward workers affected by a conflict that seems to have been created entirely by the government. The government could have resolved this conflict with the United States with a snap of its fingers. Furthermore, for the past 10 years, the Liberals have directed virtually all investment in the Canadian economy towards oil and Ontario's automotive industry.

Now we find ourselves in a crisis that continues to drag on. Is my colleague embarrassed by his Prime Minister's lack of action to resolve this crisis and address the impact it is having on workers?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, in our opinion, it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement. I think that workers, unions and union members agree.

We are working every day to get the best possible agreement for this sector, which is so important. We are not going to sacrifice jobs by signing just any old agreement.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, is intimately familiar with a number of measures put in place in budget 2025 to help automakers and parts manufacturers innovate and support their workers.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell the House more about that.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Guelph, who is the head of the auto caucus, knows from where she sits how much innovation and expertise come in to the sector out of Guelph.

That is the kind of thing in which we want and are continuing to invest in this budget, whether it is some of the investments in research, innovation and talent or in the trade corridors, so that the manufacturers of autos or auto parts have other markets they can reach out to. Obviously, there are some key supports for workers in the budget.

The broader context, I think, of this budget is one that stresses affordability and the next generation of economic growth. There is a whole set of policies that undergird and support this with really strong trade infrastructure. I think it is one of the main reasons we on this side are so excited about the budget.

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

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time.

Canada has an incredible history in the auto sector. For over 100 years, we have been building world-class automobiles. We have had generations of families working in the auto sector. In fact, it has built incredible communities of longevity like Windsor, Brampton, Ingersoll, Oshawa, Sainte-Thérèse and many others in Quebec and Ontario. It has gotten to the point where it produces over $14 billion worth of GDP. It is incredible what the auto sector provides for the Canadian economy and for opportunities. Over 600,000 Canadians work in direct and indirect jobs from the auto sector.

We produce about 1.3 million vehicles annually. Well over a million vehicles are built by Canadian hands in Canada. We export 70% to 90% of them, most notably to the United States. Access, of course, to the American market is critical to the lifeblood of the Canadian auto sector. It is very reciprocal. We know some cars go back and forth about nine times before they are fully completed. It is a very important relationship that really adds to our proud history of production in this sector in Canada that Conservatives are very proud to support.

Unfortunately, we know, under the Trump administration 2.0, there has been some tougher enforcement, we could say, around some of the trade rules and tariff measures between the two countries, so much so that it is costing the Canadian economy dearly. It is costing us hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in several towns and cities that are protecting and producing these cars for Canada and for world consumption.

Again, Trump 2.0 came in. He tightened a lot of these rules, and that is having such an impact that week after week, we are seeing layoffs and shift reductions. These are not just numbers. These are people. These are entire communities that are built on an ecosystem of the auto sector. We are talking about mechanics and car dealerships. The whole universe that works around this is being shaken to its core because of the ongoing trade war.

It is important to know that we have been hearing about this from Mr. Trump for nearly a year. It is coming up on a year since he was sworn in; I believe it is January. Of course, the new Liberal leader and Prime Minister will be coming up on his one-year anniversary in a few months as well.

We have been battling this trade war for quite some time. Time is ticking by, job loss after job loss, yet we have not seen the results we were promised by the Liberals in the last election. They ran on the fact that they felt they were the best to take on Mr. Trump, that they would be elbows up and that they would get a good deal for Canada, yet we have seen no such trade deal.

In fact, something that is deeply concerning to me as the industry critic is that I have not heard a whisper that there is an auto sector deal on the horizon. The Liberals are not talking to the public and they are not telling us in committee that they are even close to getting an auto sector deal. I think that is very concerning and it should give no confidence to anyone that they are going to be able to deliver. Otherwise, they would be talking about progress that they are making; they are not.

For the foreseeable future, arguably, it would seem that we are going to be in this situation. We are just starting to see the job losses and the impacts on our communities. I am very concerned about where we are going to be a year from now if we are not delivered a deal that we were promised as Canadians.

I think it begs the question, what can we do? What is within our sovereign control, within our own domestic economy that we can control? Obviously, we cannot control the U.S. President. That seems clear. At least the Prime Minister cannot and he cannot deliver a deal. We have to look at what we can control.

At committee, we have heard loud and clear, from every part of the auto sector, that one of the top things we can give them is some relief by throwing, into the dustbins of history, the electric vehicle mandate from the Liberal government. The damage that it will do to the Canadian economy, to the auto sector, is extensive. We are predicting 100,000 job losses and up to $3 billion being drained from the Canadian auto sector to companies like Tesla to reach compliance credits.

It is really just an insurmountable barrier in the sense that the Liberals want 100% of new vehicle sales by 2030 to be electric, when right now we are looking at only 14%. This fails to acknowledge all the diverse needs of the Canadian economy, whether it is rural or urban needs, or whether someone needs a work truck. None of this is recognizing the limitations of the electric vehicle sector and it is not helping the auto sector. We have heard this loud and clear.

If we, as Conservatives, were in charge right now, one of the first things we would do to give the auto sector some relief is end the electric vehicle mandate. I hope the government hears our pleas today and follows through on that.