Debates of June 17th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that on this side of the House, our government has made and continues to make unprecedented investments in supporting farmers and the agricultural sector. As for his part of the country, we appreciate the work the farmers in his riding do and those riding tractors and other important pieces of equipment who are helping to bring food to the table.

We continue to support those sectors, and we are going to continue to work hard with them to ensure that over the course of time, we do the best we can to ensure they can produce food in the way that is most sustainable for the future.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a period for questions and comments. There will be no questions. I will make a comment. I rarely do that.

I listened to my colleague's speech. It has become clear to me. The Liberals no longer have a moral compass, any ideas, values or principles. They have nothing left. They are prepared to do anything to keep their seat, their big salary and their pension. We saw that today: carbon tax eliminated, no more climate policy, Bill C‑5, disregard for democracy, approving pipelines without assessments. We can add all of that to the list of violations of their purported principles.

Today we are debating a Conservative motion. I disagree with the Conservatives, but at least they are consistent. There is a Conservative motion on zero-emission standards and my Liberal colleague is teaching us a lesson on environmentalism. I wish him all the best in his career and his personal life. I hope that one day he will be able to look himself in the mirror and reflect on the values he wanted to convey in politics because they are hard to identify today.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting comment. As someone who lives in and represents a riding in British Columbia, I can say that we know that climate change is real. We understand the reality of the climate crisis.

For me, the choice was clear in the last election. Canadians, and even Quebeckers, chose the vision that we presented, one where we can build a strong economy for the country while also building to address climate change. For us, the Liberals, it is important to do both.

The Conservatives are only interested in creating an economy by taking a laissez-faire attitude to climate change. We Liberals are here to fight both battles at the same time. We are here to work for Canadians and Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to the potential growth of green jobs in that industry well into the future. This is a major aspect to why it is important that the government not only support current jobs, but look at ways to see the future growth of the industry here in Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this is an opportunity for us to ask where the economy of the future is going today and how we can make sure we are on the leading edge of that as a country and as a series of industries in this country. As the member rightly points out, this is an opportunity for us to create the types of jobs for the future that young people can look to so we can advance the use of science and technology, concepts that may be alien to some folks across the way. Really, for us, it is about ensuring that the foundation is laid for the types of careers and industries that this country can rely on for generations to come.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps selling this EV mandate as a climate utopia, but for workers and suppliers in Windsor facing job losses and rising costs, it looks more like a policy-made dystopia.

How can the government keep calling this a just transition when the reality on the ground tells a very different story?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were the Conservatives, I would be taking a long, hard look in the mirror wondering why union after union in that sector has turned its back on their party. They do not care a damn about workers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I will ask the member to use his language judiciously.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate.

We know that Canada's automotive industry is big. It is one of the strongest parts of our economy and has been for over a century. I know that some people are aware of this, but I am pleased to inform all Canadians watching us that, on December 5, 1893, a Torontonian by the name of Frederick Fetherstonhaugh created a car. It was the second car created in Canada, and it was electric. This proves that our country and our party have absolutely nothing against electric cars. On the contrary, electric cars are part of our history. We need to look at this in a positive way, not a negative way.

That is why we are gathered in the House today to talk about a Conservative Party motion to end the ban on selling gas-powered cars in Canada. We have absolutely nothing against electric cars. We have absolutely nothing against gas-powered cars. We do have something against forcing people to do things.

The main issue today is about the mandate to no longer sell conventional gas cars, instead of letting people decide that themselves.

That is the focus of today's debate.

Let me say at the outset that I am in a conflict of interest. For almost two years now, I have owned a 100% electric car. For almost two years now, I have been travelling back and forth between Quebec City and Ottawa, close to 500 kilometres each time, in an electric car. To be honest, I bought the car used, so without the benefit of a subsidy. A Conservative is a Conservative. I installed a charging station too. It is no fancy charging station. It cost me it $455, and came without a subsidy. It is indeed possible to drive an electric car without one. I am living proof of that, or I should say, driving proof.

I carefully assessed my needs and knew that I needed a certain type of electric car to travel nearly 500 kilometres with only one stop, since there are several fast chargers along my route that allow me to do this. Every type of car has its challenges. There is no magic wand here. Everyone must carefully assess their needs. It is important to consider the ease of using an electric vehicle compared to the ease of using a conventional car. People should be allowed to make their own choice. I knew what to expect. That is the key element of this debate, which my colleague from Oshawa summed up very well when she spoke earlier today. A Liberal member asked the following:

A Liberal asked her why she was opposed to targets, and she said that we are not talking about targets; we are talking about a mandate. We do not disagree with having a target, but a mandate is an obligation. We do not want to live in a country where the government will pick the winners and losers and mandate an issue. People should address their own needs for mobility.

That is why we think it is a shame that the government's approach is pitting one against the other. The government is pitting conventional cars against electric cars. That is not the way to look at it. It should be seen as things that can work for everyone and other things that cannot work for some. Not everyone's daily needs are conducive to having an electric car. It can work in some cases. In others, it may not work. People need to be given the freedom to choose. That is why, when the government imposes things, it is the government that creates the battle, creates the opposition and makes it so that communities are not involved in decisions about the future. When people are forced to do something, it creates sadness in communities, precisely because the government is imposing its choice on them.

Let us not forget that, last January, in an unfortunate improvised move, the government literally sabotaged the subsidy programs for car buyers. The program was cancelled overnight, leaving car dealerships with dozens, if not hundreds, of applications. I personally received calls from dealers asking what had happened with the Canadian government over the weekend. It was sabotage and improvisation, with the Liberal government's stamp.

When we talk about cars, we are talking about industry. Let us not forget that the appeal of electric cars really took off in 2008 when Tesla introduced its famous Roadster. In 2012, the Model S was released, followed a few years later by the Model 3. These were so well received by the public that many people, instead of buying a luxury car, including traditional German brands, chose to buy a Tesla. People found that interesting, even though the charging system was not very well developed.

At that moment, all the other players in the industry decide to go to EVs. Why? Do members think they did that because they wanted to save the planet, or did they want to save their wallets? Obviously, they wanted to save their wallets because they saw that a lot of people were attracted to electric cars.

That is why all the big manufacturers invested massive amounts of money to electrify their cars. Things were evolving normally until came the obligation to stop selling gas-powered cars by 2035.

One after another, companies and manufacturers are saying that we should not get ahead of ourselves, that we need to go one step at a time. Volvo, which committed to stop producing conventional vehicles by 2030, went back on its decision and dropped that obligation. GM Canada and Ford Canada feel that the 2035 target is too strict. We need to listen to the industry while keeping in mind that other players could enter the Canadian EV market and also balance out our trade.

We need to acknowledge that GM Canada and Ford Canada are saying that the 2035 deadline is unreasonable and that Volvo abandoned its goal for 2030. That is the distinction to be made between a target and an obligation. There are many challenges to electric vehicles in terms of production, price, range, access to critical minerals, the number of charging stations currently available and the amount of electricity required to power all these cars.

As we know, Quebec has set the exact same targets. However, there is ongoing debate in the province about whether to uphold the ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035. Polls have been conducted. According to a poll conducted by the firm Synopsis, 54% of people say they disagree. This percentage rises to 59% according to another poll conducted by Pallas Data.

The interim leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Marc Tanguay once said, “It is not just up to the government, in its ivory tower, to set a target and say that everything must change. The government needs to take stock of the market and the public's ability to pay, and assess for itself whether its target is realistic.” The leader of the Quebec Conservative Party started a petition and said, “I am not against electric vehicles. I drive a hybrid vehicle myself.” He added, however, that it was unrealistic and irresponsible to go down that road.

MNA and Liberal transport critic Monsef Derraji said that he thinks that things are moving too fast. He said that setting a realistic goal first requires taking stock of the situation, and that continuing to pursue an unrealistic goal means selling people a bill of goods. He said that a realistic approach is what is needed now. Then there is Quebec environment minister Benoit Charette, who said that the approach has always been to not be dogmatic. If it becomes apparent over the years that the market is not ready, then adjustments will be made.

It is true that Quebec has the most electric cars in Canada. Half of Canada's electric cars are in Quebec. Electric cars account for 25% of the car fleet in Quebec. There is obviously some appetite, although there is some debate about making them mandatory. This led news anchor Pierre‑Olivier Zappa to express his views in a recent column, because he himself bought an electric car. He said that while it was perfect on paper, real life is another story. He talked about problems accessing fast‑charging stations, the impact of winter, insurance costs, and so on. He said that the target was modelled on California, that even American interest in EVs is starting to wane, that the shift was too abrupt, and that there is an urgent need for a realistic shift. That is what we are increasingly hearing.

We support giving people a choice. We are not against electric cars or gas-powered cars. We are in favour of them being able to coexist, not pitting one against the other. We should not insult people who choose one car over another. Let people make their own choices. The market can decide for itself.

As a Conservative, I bought a used electric car with no subsidies. I like it. It is okay; it fits my needs. That is fine. I will never impose it on anybody, but if they want to know, then yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car.

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

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, Norway is virtually leading the world with regard to EVs. I believe it is now at well over 90% and is ultimately hoping to achieve 100%, if it has not already. I am not sure of that, but let there be no doubt that if it was not for government engagement, it never would have been able to achieve that.

Does the member opposite believe that Norway, as a community, did well by having targets and mandates in order to achieve what it achieved? It is leading the world today.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no magic bullet. We have to build everything step by step, with confidence, with experience. This does not fit everybody; it is not a wall-to-wall way to travel and to have mobility. Electric cars are a fit for some people but not a fit for all the people. However, imposing it on the people is the worst way.

The government shall not impose something on the people. The people make their own choices based on what they want, what their daily needs are and what they and their family want to do with their car. Imposing it as a mandate is the worst-case scenario for convincing people to have an electric car.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support freedom of choice, but only when it suits them. When scientists choose climate, they muzzle them. When the public wants public services, they slash funding for those public services. When Quebec wants to choose transportation electrification, particularly through electric vehicles, they oppose it in the name of freedom of choice.

It seems that Conservatives only advocate freedom of choice when it suits them and fits their own ideology. I would like my colleague to explain to me today whether he will respect Quebec's collective choice to begin an energy transition and move toward electric vehicles.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there is a debate going on in Quebec right now on the obligation to no longer sell conventional vehicles as of 2035. I quoted a few politicians who are quite high ranking and who are expressing reservations about this. Their approach is entirely pragmatic, not dogmatic.

I want to say to the member that this morning, his colleague from Jonquière was not at his best. He said that Pierre-Olivier Zappa, who had some trouble with his electric car after owning it for over a year, had grossly exaggerated. Mr. Zappa said that he unfortunately had to give up on his electric car. That was his personal perspective based on his own experience. The Bloc member for Jonquière said it was a gross exaggeration. It is very disappointing.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his excellent speech. I need to come clean. I do not have an electric car, but I do not have a gas-powered car either. I have a hybrid car, and I am a Conservative.

Now, I would like my colleague to talk about the impact on consumers. Apparently this could cost an extra $20,000. Can my colleague talk about the fact that consumers will be on the hook for that? Given the current economic context, I think our friends opposite seem uncaring.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his very relevant question. He cares about the future of the planet, and hybrid transportation matters to him. He has had that kind of car for some time now.

When the government imposes standards or fines or an extra $20,000 tax, will GM or Ford absorb those costs? No, GM, Ford and the rest will make buyers pay.

We are not going to change people's minds by penalizing them. Pulling on a flower will not make it grow any faster. If people want an electric car, they can choose to have one. If it does not meet their needs, they will be able to do something else. If it happens one day, so much the better for them and so much the better for everyone.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place. I will first say that I will be splitting my time with our excellent leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Let me begin by saying this. It is something that may come as a surprise, at least to some of my colleagues across the way. I am not opposed to electric vehicles. If a person wants to buy one, go for it, but what I am opposed to is the Liberal government's mandate that would ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

In a free country, with a free market, the Canadian people should be free to choose what vehicle they drive, among many other things. This is not a radical idea. It is simply called choice. If somebody wants to spend their hard-earned money on an electric vehicle, that is their right. I hope it serves them well. It is their business. It is not the government's business. It should never become the business of the federal government. Unfortunately, under the old and new federal Liberal government, it has become its business.

It is not environmental policy. It is elitism. At the end of the day, Canadians are going to be the ones paying the price for it. The truth is that Canadians are not stupid. They know what kind of vehicle works for them. They shop around for prices and for options. They know what will serve them and their families. They do not need lectures from politicians whose only experience with a vehicle is getting in and out of the back seats of one of those government-issued black cars, like the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who have admitted they do not even own vehicles.

Whether we drive a pickup truck, an SUV, a van or a compact car, Canadians make the choice to buy these products based on their own realities, not based on ideology.

Let us start with the cost of all of this. Has anyone across the way looked at the prices associated with some of these vehicles? Even with the federal rebates, which, let us be honest, were a band-aid solution, EVs are expensive. They are expensive vehicles. When the rebates ran out, sales plummeted.

To purchase an EV, we are talking $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or maybe over $100,000, where they get the further punishment of the Liberals' luxury tax. They are going to be paying even more for these vehicles. Then there is the additional cost, of course, of installing the in-home charging station. It is going to be thousands of dollars, assuming that their home even has the electrical panel and capacity to handle it.

There are a lot of houses out there that are 60 amp or 100 amp. A level 2 EV charger can draw up to 50 amps of power. We add in our air conditioner, our hot water tank, our dishwasher, our lighting, just life, and a lot of electrical panels cannot handle it. Therefore, we would have to upgrade the amperage availability within our homes.

We can talk about the street transformers that we all know from our own homes. Each pole-top transformer typically serves five to 10-ish homes. This is based on traditional electrical loads. When everyone starts having to charge their EVs at night, those transformers may not be able to handle the extra load per home. They will need to be upgraded by the local hydro provider, costing thousands of dollars each. Of course, the entire neighbourhood's circuits may then need thicker wires and upgraded breakers, which, if done in communities across our country, will cost billions of dollars.

Who is going to pay for it all? First of all, it would be everybody who pays an electricity bill; second, it would be taxpayers. Those are the same people, though.

Meanwhile, we have household debt at historic rates. Mortgages are increasing and stretching budgets extremely thin for so many Canadians. Grocery bills are going up every week. After paying $150, we walk out wondering what we are actually going home with and how many days it may last, yet the Liberals think that now is still the time to focus on this, to demand and mandate that EVs be in every garage or outside every house or apartment building right away.

People cannot afford it. It is easy to mandate something like this when we make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but try telling this to the families that I represent, the folks who have already picked up that second job after they thought their first one was good. As a welder, they are making a pretty good salary. They had to pick up a second job just to make ends meet, just to make sure their kids have an opportunity for a little bit of a better life.

We could talk about the infrastructure component or, more importantly, the lack thereof. In rural Canada, there is not a lot of options to charge EVs. Some of our smaller communities do have some and, frankly, they are often empty. We do not have chargers on every street corner. In many parts of my riding, most people are still waiting on reliable cell service. They are not waiting for an electric vehicle charger to be placed up on the gravel road. Even if those chargers existed, what about the electrical capacity required?

In my home province, Manitoba Hydro has already warned that we do not have the generation capacity for any major new projects in our province and, worse, even for existing usage within about five years. Manitoba Hydro is proposing about a billion dollars in new spending to try to prepare for that increased demand over the next decade or two. Here is the punchline, though. It is looking at using two new fuel combustion turbines. We cannot make this up. This is what is happening. The Liberal government is plowing ahead regardless of the generation requirements.

If we are talking about common sense, one of the things the Liberal government has forgotten is the Canadian winter. I am from the Prairies, and I can assure the House that winter is not just a season; it is a test of endurance. We might get March break, but it is a long season. It is endurance when we have -20°C days on a regular basis, -30°C for weeks at a time, and wind chills that blow snow across every single street and road. In these conditions, electric vehicles do not perform the way that they were advertised to, that they were supposed to. The battery range plummets, charging takes longer, running the heater or the defroster drains the power, and suddenly the EV becomes a liability when someone gets stuck in the middle of a gravel road on a dark, windy, storm-filled night.

Forgive me if I am a little skeptical when the government that is unable to introduce a budget tells me it has figured out this whole plan, this infrastructure plan and this EV mandate plan. It cannot even plant trees right. Do members remember the two billion trees the government was supposed to plant? It cannot even do that right, never mind get a network of EV chargers across this country.

I believe in innovation. I believe in technology. I believe in smart environmental policy. However, I also believe in freedom, something the Liberal government seems to have forgotten. I also believe in common sense, something the Liberal government has yet to come close to mastering.

If EVs are the future, which they may be, they should not need government mandates to succeed. They should win on the open market by competing on cost and competing on performance and reliability. That is how innovation works, not through force but through freedom.

The Liberals do not seem to believe in freedom. They believe in control, a command and control economy. This mandate is not about helping the environment. It is about expanding government power over yet more aspects of our lives. To what end, I do not know, but that is all it seems to be. Worst of all, it ignores a simple truth, which is that Canada is a diverse country. It is not a small country. It does not have one climate. It is not one geography. Despite the government's desire, it is not one income bracket either. This is a vast country, a country of gravel roads and busy highways, of farmers and commuters, and of truckers and tradespeople.

Let me say this very clearly. I trust Canadians to make their own decisions. The Liberals seem to think differently. They trust the lobbyists, their friends at the green-tech start-ups who line up for subsidies for programs like this, and the left-wing think tanks, which are full of folks always cooking up ways to make people's lives a little more miserable and expensive.

I trust the farmer in Morris or Rosenort, the electrician in Portage, the nurse in Morton, the trucker in Winkler and the mom in Altona, juggling groceries and rent and trying to put her kids in hockey or music. I will fight to allow them to drive what they think is best for them and their family, not what somebody in downtown Toronto thinks they should drive. This is simply ridiculous. It is unaffordable. It is out of touch. If the Liberals do not listen to me, I think they will hear it loud and clear from Canadians when their choices are taken away. I do not think Canadians are aware that this mandate is about to be pushed down upon them.

Let electrical vehicles rise or fall on their own merit, not what the government says they must do. Let us stop pretending this is about saving the planet, because it is not. It is about activists deciding how we should live our lives, what we should drive, how we should drive and how much privilege we have to have to pay to do so.

I thought the Liberals might have learned their lesson after the carbon tax, but they seem hell-bent on continuing down this path of forcing Canadians to choose between rent, heat, gas, just the cost of living, and their ideology.

Let us stop the madness. Let us stop punishing the hard-working people who make this country run. Let us support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think about the word “freedom”, because every member who has spoken has, I believe, harped on about the word “freedom”. I am trying to think of Pierre Poilievre as the mayor of Edmonton back in the 1920s, with a few of his Conservative caucus friends there, when we had horse-drawn carriages. Can members imagine them yelling, “We want freedom. Allow them to continue with the horse-drawn carriages. Think of the industry that is there. Freedom”? That is what they would argue.

Keeping to the theme of freedom, when we have provinces that have passed a law saying seat belts are the law, would the member opposite oppose mandatory seat belt laws?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that still exists. If someone wants to do that, they still can. That is the beauty of freedom. We do not believe in trying to impose our beliefs on everyone else. That is up to the Liberals, and I hope they learn from Canadians, because that is not what people want. If someone wants to take a cart and buggy down the gravel road I grew up on, they can do so. That is okay, but what the government cannot do is say they have to take a cart and buggy down there. That is freedom, and I will stand up for that every step of the way.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that transportation accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions and that oil development and mining operations generate 30% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Does my colleague believe that climate change is real and that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how would he go about it?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will always stand up for the rights of the people I represent to heat their homes and to get where they are going with a little heat in a vehicle of their own choosing. This member might want to try to distract from the motion we are talking about today, but it is simple. Should the government mandate the end of the distribution and sale of gas-powered vehicles, and should the government control every aspect of our life, including how we get where we are trying to go? It is pretty clear where I stand. That member should get on our side.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask if the member remembers whether the Liberals actually campaigned on net zero or campaigned on mandating to Canadians what type of vehicle they should own or purchase.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the Liberal candidate in my riding openly saying people shall all soon be buying electric vehicles because that is what they must do. I do not recall that coming up. The reality is, again, that if someone wants to buy an electric vehicle, I do not care. I think that is great. I hope it works out well for them. If someone wants to toot around downtown X, that is fine.

The difference here is that the government should not control what we can and cannot buy. We should let the market decide. Maybe someday we will all have them, and maybe we will not. It should not be the government telling us how we get there.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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 Calgary Centre, Finance; the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Finance; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Housing.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of all my constituents in Regina—Qu'Appelle, indeed on behalf of everyone in Saskatchewan and, I dare say, across Canada who would like to continue to have the choice to buy the vehicle that suits their needs at a price they can afford. That is what today's motion is all about. Let me read it for them, because it is important that people watching understand what the government is doing. The motion states:

That, given that the Liberal government is banning the sale of vehicles that will force Canadians to buy electric vehicles, and this mandate will drive up the cost of gas-powered vehicles by $20,000, in order to allow Canadians the choice to purchase any vehicle that meets their needs at a price they can afford, the House call on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-powered vehicles.

I have heard so much nonsense from the government today. The Liberals are dressing this up as providing an opportunity to Canadians to do something, but they are banning an entire category of vehicles that Canadians have demonstrated over the course of the last few years that they enjoy buying and driving. I would ask members to remember the time when they purchased their first vehicle. I imagine that for many Canadians, it is a special moment. I know people who worked hard all summer in their last year of high school. They scrimped and they saved, and as they got back to school on the opening day, they were able to buy that first vehicle, and they were able to pick up their friends and drive them to school. They were able to do that because a used car back then was affordable.

Now, thanks to Liberal inflationary policies and thanks to policies like this ban on gas-powered vehicles, the cost of cars is going through the roof. According to AutoTrader, the average price of a new car is now $67,000, and a used car is now over $38,000. Under the tired 10-year Liberal government, not only has the cost of housing been pushed out of the grasp of hard-working Canadians, but the cost of car ownership is now becoming something that more and more hard-working Canadians simply cannot afford. In fact, the price of a used car is now about the same as a down payment on a new house. That is just astounding.

I was astonished the other day. We are in the market for a new used vehicle. We have another driver in the household this year, and I went online and started looking. I expected I could probably find something for my daughter in that $10,000 to $15,000 range. In my head, I was thinking I may be able to pick up something with a bit less than 100,000 kilometres for $14,000 or $15,000. I found this on Used.ca in Regina: a 2018 Jeep Wrangler with 123,000 kilometres on it. How much do members think that might cost? In my head, thinking back to when I bought my last vehicle, I thought it might be $15,000 or $16,000. It was $28,000, for a seven-year-old car with 120,000 clicks on it.

That is something that never used to happen in this country. There were so many Canadians who used to be able to count on working hard to afford a vehicle. However, the busybody Liberal government, the “Ottawa knows best” group of elites, likes to sit on high and dictate to Canadians what they must do to be the right kind of person. The Liberals are doing that by taking away choice. They all have something in common. They all tend not to have to face the consequence of their decisions. They all have this insane need to boss people around and dictate how they are going to live their lives. They all can afford electric vehicles, but many hard-working Canadians either cannot or simply do not want to.

My colleague from Manitoba was talking about how the free market has evolved to produce the kinds of vehicles that people want to buy. The auto industry is ruthlessly competitive. Millions of dollars are spent by each of the automakers every single year, trying to drill down and find out exactly what it is that consumers want to buy. They go out and offer it to consumers, and if Canadians buy one and not the other, that auto manufacturer has to go back to the drawing board and figure something out. They have to serve the needs of the market.

When the government comes in with its heavy hand and bludgeon and says it is going to take an entire category of vehicles off the table, that is when the government not only distorts the market and drives up costs but also kills jobs.

Let us look at the impacts of the Liberal ban on people's favourite car or truck. It is going to lead to nearly 40,000 jobs lost. That is not from my research; that is from an independent analysis looking at how the cost of these vehicles will lead to job losses. A new report states that because of the Liberals' failure to get a deal on those unjustified U.S. auto tariffs, another 50,000 jobs could be lost. Not only is Canada dealing with the terrible policies of the U.S. government, but the auto sector has to deal with the terrible policies of its own domestic Liberal government. That is a brutal double whammy that is not fair to consumers and auto workers.

There are 128,000 auto workers in Canada. The U.S. has no mandate to ban traditional, conventional gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. This insane policy to dictate to Canadians what kind of vehicle they must buy, what they must drive, will send even more jobs to Donald Trump's economy. I do not know why Liberals keep finding ways to punish Canadian industry and Canadian consumers by driving jobs and investment to the United States. It is a serial part of their DNA. Canadians will not tolerate this ban on their favourite car or truck.

I heard a lot of rhetoric about the need for this to satisfy climate change targets. Let us have a quick peek at exactly what that looks like. This ban, according to the government's own documents, will result in approximately 362 megatonnes' worth of reductions from 2024 to 2050. That is 26 years. On an annual basis, that works out to just shy of 14 megatonnes a year. Now, to put that in perspective, China's greenhouse gas emissions were 15,797 megatonnes in 2024. If we assume that China's emissions stay flat and do not increase at all, Canada's reduction, thanks to this ban on consumers' favourite car, truck or minivan, would represent 0.08%.

We are going to cripple our auto manufacturing sector and deprive Canadians of the ability to buy a car, truck or minivan at a price they can afford, that meets their needs, while China continues to emit more and more every year. We are going to suffer here in Canada. We are going to put up with the lack of choice and lack of ability to suit our needs in the way we see fit, and it will have absolutely no impact on global emissions.

The insult added to injury on that is knowing Canada could have actually helped reduce those global emissions by exporting more of our LNG, our clean and ethical natural resources, to help countries get off coal-fired electrical generation. Not only do we have a government that says no when our allies come looking to buy that clean and ethical energy, but then it turns around and punishes Canadians by taking away their right to choose what kind of vehicle they want to buy.

I would like to close my remarks with a couple of statements.

First of all, I agree with all of my colleagues today who said they fear Canadians do not know this is coming. This is a typical playbook by the members of the radical left. They pick a target that is just far enough away that they will not be around to be held accountable, but it is close enough that it feels like real action is being taken. They slide these things through in bigger packages. That is why Conservatives are highlighting this today, because this ban is already impacting the market. It is already having an effect on driving up costs. It is only going to get worse.

I would like to close with my favourite quote when I think about busybody Liberal government overreach. C.S. Lewis said:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

The government should stop tormenting Canadians and give them back the freedom to buy the car, truck or minivan of their choice.