Debates of June 17th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, electric vehicles have significantly lower operating costs than gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. Consumers will save between 40% and 50% on maintenance costs compared to gas-powered vehicles.

That is good news for everyone.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it does not seem that the Liberals are cognizant of how stressed out Canadians, including people in Vancouver, where I live, are with the cost of living. The EV mandates are just something else. They will make cars, both used and new, more expensive.

I wonder whether the member could address that and also the fact that vehicles, as far as pollution control devices and everything go, are so much better than they used to be.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, it should be noted that EV sales in British Columbia have increased by 21% over the past year.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Central Newfoundland.

Canadians are being sold a shiny, Liberal red, electric dream, but under the hood, it is full of empty promises and hidden costs.

The Liberal government's plan to ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035 might sound bold and exciting, but when we look closer, it is really a blueprint for confusion, higher prices and broken supply chains. Canadians did not vote for the electric vehicle mandate; it is being dropped on them like a federal hammer. It is not policy; it is a proclamation. It is a one-size-fits-all order from Ottawa that ignores cost, geography and common sense. Canadians should not be forced to buy electric vehicles, especially when the Liberals have not fixed the infrastructure needed to support them.

The Liberal EV mandate pushes people into expensive new cars without making them affordable. The mandate also fails to consider the everyday Canadians who rely on passenger trucks for their livelihoods: tradespeople, landscapers and other small business owners whose work depends on their vehicles. These workers cannot afford to wait hours to recharge while working on the clock. It ignores the realities that many Canadians face every day when it comes to transportation.

The government announced that automakers will have just 12 years to phase out combustion engine cars, trucks and SUVs. It will set strict annual targets to increase electric vehicle sales, and any automaker that misses these targets will face fines of $20,000 per vehicle. What does that mean for carmakers and Canadians? For carmakers, it means millions of dollars in penalties. We all know who will pay for that in the end: Canadian families and consumers will face higher prices, which they cannot afford.

In effect, this is a $20,000 tax on every new internal combustion engine vehicle. It is no wonder the automakers are speaking out against it. Ford Canada's CEO has warned that without enough charging stations and without addressing affordability, many Canadians will be left behind and will not be able to switch to electric vehicles. Stellantis Canada also points out that government support needs to be in line with what the industry can realistically deliver.

It is one thing to set targets on paper; it is another thing entirely to make those targets achievable on the ground. Too many times, the Liberal government is disconnected from the practical realities of the people it is supposed to serve. This looks like just another example. Right now, about one in every 10 new vehicles registered in Canada is electric. That means the Liberals expect electric vehicle sales to double within just three years and then continue growing quickly after that. They have no credible plan whatsoever to do it, and certainly no plan to pay for it.

We know that vehicle markets are very different across the country. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia meet or exceed the 20% EV sales goal, but many provinces are below 8%, and now both Quebec and B.C. have suspended their subsidies. Canadians should not have to buy vehicles they do not want. According to Statistics Canada, zero-emission vehicles were less than 9% of new vehicle registrations in 2025.

A lack of interest is not the only problem. Charging infrastructure seems to be heavily concentrated in just a few provinces. There are reportedly over 25,500 public charging ports across Canada, but around 85% of those appear to be in only three provinces. Many EV owners report that many of those chargers are often too busy, resulting in long wait times. Worse yet, many are inoperative.

There is so much work to be done, but the government has not done the work to maintain our existing charging infrastructure, much less plan for new, reliable infrastructure. About 80% of electric vehicle charging happens overnight at home, making access to home charging essential for EV ownership, but many Canadians do not have that option. People who live in apartments, condos or rental buildings often face another challenge: Charging stations are unavailable or are even banned by landlords or building regulations. This creates a serious obstacle. How can the Liberal government expect people to switch to an electric vehicle if they cannot easily charge it where they live?

The government also seems to have overlooked another big limitation for the many long-distance commuters. In Cambridge, as in most of the country, we have winter. In places where winter is measured in wind chill and snowbanks, an unreliable battery is not an inconvenience; it is a safety hazard. Ottawa cannot mandate away Canadian weather. In the coldest months, EV driving range can drop by up to 40%. For those people with short commutes, that might be acceptable, but for many others it becomes impractical at its best.

Experts estimate that by 2030, Canada will have to manage over 125,000 tonnes of battery waste. We know that Canada needs a clear and comprehensive plan to recycle electric vehicle batteries, but once again, the Liberal government has failed to put one forward. Worse yet, the mandate will add hidden costs to every Canadian household.

Increased demand for electricity to power all the vehicles will drive up energy prices, and Canada's electricity grid is not ready for the surge. The Canadian Climate Institute says that to meet net-zero emissions by 2050, Canada's electricity generation must double or even triple. This means building new power plants, upgrading transmission lines and spending billions to modernize the grid. That would require a plan and a budget.

Jobs are at risk. Canada's automotive industry employs over 500,000 people in factories, parts manufacturing, dealerships and repair shops. Electric vehicles have fewer parts and require less maintenance, which means fewer jobs for skilled workers and mechanics. Compared to traditional internal combustion vehicles, electric vehicles cost more to buy, which means fewer sales, which means, again, fewer jobs. Without a clear and fair transition plan, thousands of Canadian workers face an uncertain future. Small garages and other businesses that rely on gas vehicles are also at risk.

Meanwhile, Canadian families are already struggling; inflation, higher interest rates and rising housing costs mean they have less money to spend. It is no wonder they do not trust the Liberals' EV mandate, and Canadians are not buying it, literally. A recent Ipsos poll found that 55% of Canadians disagree with the mandate to make all new car sales electric or zero-emission by 2035. Everyday Canadians are opposed to the mandate, and so are the experts. Professor Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph says that the mandate “will have sufficiently large negative consequences”. What might those consequences be? He says that the mandate could “effectively destroy the Canadian auto industry and will cause widespread economic losses elsewhere.” It is incredible.

People understand that the Liberal government is not acting in their best interests or according to common sense. People understand that they cannot afford what the Liberals are selling. Banning new gas-powered cars will make it harder for families to afford a vehicle. As the supply of new gas-powered vehicles dries up, the used car market could become increasingly volatile, with higher prices at first and far fewer affordable options down the road. It seems that the government needs to be reminded that in many parts of this country, including in my riding of Cambridge, and in North Dumfries, cars are a necessity not a luxury. It is not always possible to take transit, as there are still places where transit is inadequate or non-existent.

The Liberal government likes to play a constant game of hide-and-seek, hiding real solutions while seeking headlines. It hides behind flashy announcements but fails to deliver the infrastructure and plans Canadians actually need. It is the same Liberal formula: big talk, no delivery, no pipelines, no housing and no budget, just hide-and-seek with Canadians' hopes and wallets. The mandate is not about helping Canadians; it is about telling them what to do. The Liberal government seems to think it can decide what kind of car people can drive, how much they will pay and where they are supposed to charge it, whether the infrastructure exists or not.

On this side of the House, we believe in something pretty simple: choice. We trust Canadians, not Ottawa, to decide what works for their life. We stand with the drivers, the auto workers, the mechanics and every Canadian who keeps this country running and just wants a vehicle that fits their needs and their budget. The mandate is not a road map; it is a dead end, with higher prices, fewer jobs and fewer choices for the people who can least afford it. It is a bit like selling snow shovels in July: completely out of season and nobody asked for it.

Canadians want real solutions that keep our economy moving, our shelves stocked and their family on the road. When it comes to running a country, common sense works a lot better than a Liberal-issued mandate.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to a number of provinces' exceeding their targets. In my home province of Manitoba, the government is hoping to be able to triple its number. In fact, it has come up with a rebate program that will be expiring in March 2026. It seems to me that there is a lot of buy-in in terms of provincial governments, because we see governments at different levels that are actually encouraging their citizenry to purchase EVs.

Can the member indicate whether she is aware of any provincial government that has come out against the policy?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of hope but no real solutions. What we need to do is focus on listening to the people who are saying they cannot afford to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables. These mandates are going to cost them a lot more in the end.

A study in the Canadian Journal of Economics said this plan will eliminate 38,000 auto sector jobs and cost $138.7 billion, assuming the sector never shuts down. We are going to end up losing a lot more jobs. People are going to have less money. We will have to deal with people in our rural areas who require certain vehicles to get to work, to bring their children to school and to pick up their groceries.

We need a lot more than hope. We need real solutions, and that is why banning the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Does she think that electric vehicles are better for the environment than gas-powered vehicles?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we heard earlier today is that emissions would be reduced by 0.08%. The better way to fight climate change is by bringing more business to Canada and dealing with matters within Canada so we have better and more stricter environmental regulations. Also, if we can take more away from China, we will do much better here in Canada.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cambridge for her well-thought-out and researched speech.

One thing I found really interesting that the member brought up was innovation in the Canadian context. I know she is from an Ontario riding. I am wondering if she could further explain some of the innovation she has seen and why she thinks it is important to give consumers a choice as they inquire about this space, rather than removing any possibility of choice, which is what has been suggested by the Liberals. It leads Canadians to have a harder time when they are making decisions for their families when they have a limited budget.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my riding has a large rural area as well as an urban area, and having a choice is very important. We have a lot of farmers who require trucks to get around. They do not have the proper infrastructure or transit to run their business otherwise. We have a lot of small businesses in our automotive industry. It would shut down a lot of businesses, so it is very important that we keep our gas-powered vehicles going.

We also have a lot of car shows, and a lot of those people cannot convert their vehicles to electric. There is a lot of pride when they are showing these vehicles. They keep them. They could have been their parents' or their grandfather's vehicles. We have to respect that for many reasons. We have to understand that everyone should have the choice to decide what car they wish to drive.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the member representing the newly named riding of Central Newfoundland, formerly known as Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I am truly grateful for those who supported me, put their trust in me and sent me to this place again to bring their thoughts, concerns and worries to this place.

I owe a world of gratitude to all those who helped on my campaign. We had a tremendous campaign, and it meant so much to everybody and even more to me. God bless everybody who was involved. I thank them very much. I will continue to speak out on behalf of the people of the riding of Central Newfoundland while I am in Ottawa, in this chamber or on the fisheries committee.

I rise today to speak to our Conservative opposition day motion calling on the Liberal government to immediately end its mandate to ban gas-powered vehicle sales in Canada. This is supposed to happen by 2035, when all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting, and there are various targets along the way. By 2026, 20% of all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting. By 2030, that figure is supposed to go to 60%. Of course, by 2035, it goes all the way up to 100%.

Consumers are rejecting EVs for various reasons. There is the fact that they lose 40% of their battery life in cold weather. We have lots of cold weather in Canada, and we certainly have it in Newfoundland and Labrador. That stat is based on the Canadian Automobile Association. They did the test. This is not something we are coming up with off the top of our heads. It is scientifically proven that these batteries cannot take the cold.

There is a lack of charging stations. In Newfoundland and Labrador, right now there are only 120 charging stations. Another reason people are choosing to be against electric vehicles is the cost of these vehicles. They cost, on average, $15,000 more than an equivalent gas-powered model.

Where do we stand heading into 2026? The latest data from February and March is that only 6.6% of vehicles that were purchased were EVs. In order to get on target for the 20% mark by the end of 2026, EV sales would have to triple what they were in the last recorded months. This is not going to happen.

What will be the result of this consumer rejection and of this Liberal plan? The Liberals would charge auto manufacturers that fail to meet this target a $20,000 tax per vehicle. I see my colleague from Winnipeg. He is listening intently because he knows this is the case.

Consumers are going to pay the price, and this is exactly what the Prime Minister wants. This is not straying from his mantra. We can go back to 2021, when he wrote a book called Values. I will give a little quote from that book. He said, “A host of other fiscal and regulatory policies can be highly effective in setting out the contours of a net-zero economy, including...regulations to phase out the sale of new internal-combustion vehicles in the next decade”. That is 10 years. That is not a long time.

“Fiscal and regulatory policies” is what the Prime Minister stated in his book. Let us unpack that a bit.

EVs are a failure in Canada. People do not want them, and as a result, Canadians are going to pay the price. They are going to pay the price for Liberal failures.

The government has known for quite some time that this mandate will fail. It has been warned by utility companies that the grid will not stand up to it. Electricity demand will go up by close to 23% by 2035, and the electricity market is governed by supply and demand like every other commodity. With the continued electrification of everything, the price of electricity is going to go up. That will be another inadvertent consequence, with collateral damage to the people of Canada.

To have our grid ready with additional power generation, with an upgraded transmission grid and with more charging stations, the cost is forecast to be $300 billion. This is according to the Liberal government's own research, published last July by Natural Resources Canada. The government knows its zero-emissions EV target will not work.

Building electricity generation and transmission infrastructure takes time. If we are going to expand our grid by 23% just to have enough electricity to power these vehicles, it is going to take decades to build that kind of infrastructure.

What is the Liberal Prime Minister's real goal? It is to tax Canadians. Canadians will pay the price. They will pay for this doomed plan. Who will also pay for it, besides the consumer? According to the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Economics, in the best-case scenario, our auto sector will lose $140 billion by 2035 under these mandates, and the worst-case scenario is that it continues to lose until 2050, at a cost of $1.3 trillion. Can members believe that? It is possible that these EV mandates could cost the automotive industry $1.3 trillion.

Job losses in the sector are projected to be 137,000 jobs. That is not my number. The hit to our GDP would be 4.8% nationally per year, and the demand for autos would drop by 10.5%.

All of this is to drop our emissions in Canada by a mere 6%. It will cost $3,400 per tonne. That is 20 times the original Trudeau carbon tax nominal rate per tonne. There is no need for this. If consumers think electric vehicles are better, they will choose them.

According to the Fraser Institute, “Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all around”. That was the headline out of the Fraser Institute, a very respected organization. It goes on to say, “The latest news of slowing demand for electric vehicles highlight the profound hazards of the federal government’s Soviet-style mandate”. That ums it up. It is a Soviet-style mandate. EV mandates will mean lots of suffering and no freedom.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite underestimates the acceptance rate. In some provinces, well over 20% of new cars being sold are electric. These are provinces like Quebec and British Columbia. I understand Ontario is doing exceptionally well. Manitoba has come out with a program with which they are hoping to triple sales.

Does the member believe that provincial governments and the federal government are doing a good thing in promoting consumer choice by providing subsidies and assistance for electric vehicles?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, if folks in certain regions have more of an acceptance of EVs, if there is more demand, and if they like them more, then they can buy them.

The member spoke about choice. It is their choice, but if they do not work in other regions, and folks do not want to buy them, they should not be forced to buy them and forced into poverty. It is all about choice. This is democracy and capitalism, and I do not know why the Liberals are trying to take those away from Canadians.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals like making big announcements with fanfare. I think of my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge when, in November 2023, there was an announcement of $280 million being put into a battery plant. Where is that right now? Well, the company has basically said that, no, it is backing right out of it, or it is putting it on pause, because it is not seeing the market, the demand.

I wonder if the member could comment on how the Liberals are forcing businesses and consumers to go in a certain direction and how that is just going to add to costs.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think it is just completely wrong for the Liberal federal government to meddle in a free economy by creating mandates like this to force people. Whether they like it or not, everyone is going to pay if this mandate is followed through with because all vehicles will get more expensive.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that new homes have 200 amps or more, but in Newfoundland, what percentage of homes would have less than 200 amps? To have a plug-in installed for an EV, 200 amps or more is required. If the case is that the majority do not have sufficient amperage and transformers around the province, will the member be asking for an “auto-immune system” for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact stats on how many homes have greater than a 200-amp service, but I suspect there are a lot that do not. I really could not make a stab at that, but the cost to upgrade for those who need to go to 200 amps is atrocious. It is another cost. Once consumers are forced down that pathway, it is not just the cost of the vehicle. It is also the cost they will incur at their home residence. It is terrible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the oil and gas industry causes an increase in greenhouse gases.

Does my colleague agree that we need to find a way to transition away from the oil economy to one that is more reliant on renewable energy?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, what I really believe in is moving towards natural gas away from either diesel, coal or any type of heavier fuel. If we want to solve the emissions problem in this world, natural gas is the way to go. The member knows it, and I wish that Quebec would get in on the game and start producing some natural gas.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight to talk about the EV mandate the Liberal government has put forward, which states that 20% of Canadians will have to be driving electric vehicles by 2026, 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. These are not targets. It is going to be a mandate that will force Canadians to drive electric vehicles whether they want to or not.

There is a cost associated with this, because within the mandate it says that the auto manufacturers will have a quota of how many EVs they have to sell. For every one they do not sell, they will be charged a punitive fine of $20,000 per vehicle. We can be sure they are not going to absorb that cost themselves, but will pass it on to the consumers, which will drive up the price of the electric vehicles people are being forced to buy.

I am opposed to this EV mandate on a whole number of grounds, which I will outline.

The first thing I would say is that this mandate is not freedom of choice. I really believe there has been a huge war on our freedoms under the Liberal government over the last 10 years. We know that freedom of expression has been under attack with bills such as Bill C-11, where the government gets to control what social media content is put up, such as videos and the like. We have seen Bill C-63, where it wanted to put people in jail in the future if it thought they might commit a hate crime. Fortunately, that one died on the vine. I hope not to see it again. There have also been attacks on freedom of the press, not just through buying the media by donating huge sums of money to mainstream media, but also with bills such as Bill C-18, which really compromised the ability of Canadians to share news links now on things like Meta and hurt a lot of local smaller media because of it.

Freedom of religion has got to be a concern for every person of faith across this country. It does not matter which faith one talks about, we have seen attacks on people and their places of worship, and a rise in violence against them and vandalism. We have seen our freedoms under attack, and now the Liberals want to add another freedom. They do not want to let people choose what kind of vehicle they want to buy. They want to make them buy an EV.

If somebody wants an EV, I am happy for them to have it. I am all about choice. I do not want one because I live in a really rural part of the riding and there are no charging stations. I have not seen a plan from the government to put any charging stations in place. I can just see myself trundling around the riding and running out of juice with no options. I would have to get towed, and then the next day I would have to get towed, because there is no infrastructure there.

What I would also say is that EVs do not work very well in the cold. If it gets to -40°C, they lose 40% of their efficiency. We have all seen online the experiences of people who have electric vehicles and were trapped in snowstorms. They were very concerned about the fact that they were trapped and did not have enough power to keep the car warm. That is another risk there.

Also, the current technology for lithium batteries is not great in that they catch fire. According to the U.S., 3% of vehicles catch fire. We saw the horrific accident that happened in Toronto recently where the battery caught fire in an electric vehicle, and that shorted out the electricity in the car so the doors could not be opened. Sadly, four people burned to death.

The technology is developing, and the proposed solid-state batteries do not catch fire, so I think better technology is coming, but at this time, with the existing technology, I have concerns. I am sure other Canadians do as well.

When it comes to freedom, I see this as another step through which the government is trying to remove our freedom. What is next after this? Is it going to try to control what we can and cannot eat or what kind of house we buy? Where does the control of the government stop? I have a problem with that.

What are we trying to achieve with the mandate? We talk about how we are trying to address climate change, but the reality is that this mandate will reduce the carbon footprint of Canada, which is now 1.6% of the world's footprint, by 0.08%. If we compare that to those of China and India, which are at about 60% of the world's footprint, it is an insignificant change. It is not going to impact climate change in a real way.

If we really wanted to impact climate change, we would sell Canadian LNG to supplant coal and heavy oil in China and India, and that would reduce their 60% to 15%. That is huge. It would create well-paying jobs here in Canada, and it would help the environment and address climate change.

I just think that the initiative would not make any difference, but it would really hurt Canadians because it would cost us 38,000 jobs and $138.7 billion. That is assuming it does not put the car businesses and the auto manufacturers out of business, which is a real possibility.

The next reason that I do not like the mandate is that there is no plan. The Prime Minister was supposed to be the man with the plan. What do we need to put this mandate in place? We have to have places to plug the things in. We have to have a source of electricity. We have to have the infrastructure in the residential and commercial places where people are in order to make it all go.

With respect to the issue of charging stations, it is being said that we would need 670,000 charging stations across Canada, and we currently have fewer than 150,000. How much would that cost, and how long would that take? The government has not provided any answers. It does not know. That is not a plan.

Also, with respect to the practical details, people living on a suburban block will notice that there are 600-volt transformers. If one person has an electric vehicle, it is no big deal, but if everybody is forced to buy an electric vehicle, there is this little equation in electricity that says voltage is equal to current times resistance, and plugging in cars is resistance. If the resistance is increased with the same voltage, that will reduce the current, and eventually people will not have enough current to turn the lights. This is especially problematic with respect to high-rise apartment buildings, where there could be 20 or 40 floors. If everybody has to plug in, the infrastructure is not there to supply the electricity to them. How much would it cost to get that? Again, there is no plan for that.

Then there would not be enough electricity in the grid. We can see that people recognize that we are going to be increasing our take of electricity. We have brought four million people into Canada, which increases, by about 10%, the usage of electricity. We have emerging businesses, which is a good thing, but it takes electricity. There is a pinch point, and we are going to see brownouts before we can build the capacity in electricity that we need.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, the Ontario government has provided a mandate to build a facility, the Riverside Generating Station. It is going to build a cogen plant, small modular nuclear reactors and alternate energy in conjunction with the indigenous people in my riding. That is fantastic, and it will take a certain number of years to get it in place, but the federal government has no plan for how the rest of the country would get electricity and get it into the grid with the infrastructure. Again, there has not been a lot of thought to that.

How much is all of this going to cost? The government will not even come forward with a budget, and I would like to be helpful, so here we go. This is from the government's own web page and finances.

The government gets about $459 billion in revenue every year. It has to pay $75 billion on the debt, $55 billion for health transfers, $25 billion for social transfers, $20 billion for equalization payments, $5 billion for territorial transfers, and $259 billion for the cost of running the government. That gives the government $20 billion before it starts doing any other projects. However, the government announced $77 billion during the election, and then after the election, with the estimates, it announced $486 billion. Now we are talking about possibly $543 billion in deficit before we even talk about building more charging stations, building the electrical infrastructure and building the infrastructure in apartment buildings and neighbourhoods to take it on. This would absolutely bankrupt Canadians and drive the affordability crisis even further into the ground. We need to check what we are doing here.

There is also no solution for the roads. EVs are heavier than regular cars. They do more damage to the roads. Today, the system is that people pay a gas tax and that gas tax is sent back to the municipalities to build roads. In rural communities, it is very difficult, with the number of people the communities have and the amount of gas tax they get back, to maintain the roads.

Now the roads are going to be in even worse condition. How will we address that? I am sure there is another tax coming, because if it is not spending with the Liberals, it is taxing. That is why people call them tax-and-spend Liberals. Those are some concerns.

The other concern I would highlight is my concern about the whole cradle-to-grave of the lithium batteries. The amount of energy that it takes to mine, process and turn them into batteries is actually net destructive to the planet. Then, at the end of life, there is currently no idea of how we are going to dispose of these things, so we may be creating another contamination issue that, again, will cost money to fix. That is not part of the plan, because there is no plan. These are all concerns that I have when it comes to why I do not think these EV mandates need to happen.

I think a much better way to go would be to introduce targets. The automotive industry has said that it will work towards that. The technology, as I said, is developing and I think people are willing to do something, but we are not going to fix the fact that Canada is cold. The solid-state batteries do run better at cold temperatures, so we will see. It is not commercially proven yet, so we do not know.

If people have a desire to do it, my question again is, why are we trying to do it? Are we really going to get this kind of reduction in our footprint? No, we are not. We should be building LNG facilities and shipping it to China and India. That is the bigger success for Canadians. It would also help pay down the huge $2-trillion deficit that we have racked up and that we will keep racking up, as far as I can see. Those are things that would be of great concern to every Canadian, and I am sure that when it comes to the mandates, we are going to continue to see them.

We know that the previous minister of the environment, the radical environmentalist who is like a convicted felon, is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. I can say that this is certainly not my definition of Canadian identity and culture. He has said so many ridiculous things, starting with saying that he is not going to build any more roads. Do members remember that? Now there is this EV mandate, which is an ideological thing, but it is not practically something that we are able to afford to do. I really think there needs to be some reflection on the Liberal benches to say, “We do not have a plan. Let us at least cost the plan, figure out how much it is going to cost to build all this stuff or at least figure out the timing.”

The Liberals have already set the time in the mandate: 20% by 2026. We are only at 7.5% right now. How are we going to incentivize people to buy EVs? The government invested $55 billion of taxpayers' money trying to build battery plants, EV facilities and the downstream supply chain, so they were trying to pick winners and losers. What have we seen from that money that was spent? Most of them have gone bust, and those that have not, like Stellantis, have announced they are going to move their production to the U.S.

The government has already put out a huge amount of money without getting anything for it. I think Canadians are right to be concerned that we will not be able to meet this mandate. The automotive manufacturers are raising the flag; many of them have already shut down their facilities because of lack of demand. There are a lot of Canadians, as I said, including myself, who will not buy them.

I do not see any evidence of a plan of how we are going to essentially triple in one year, by 2026, the uptake in electric vehicles. There is nothing, not even a marketing campaign that I can see, that would drive any kind of behaviour like that. The incentive program is out of money, and people are not going to pay the additional cost.

All of these reasons, from freedom to cost, the lack of a plan, the cradle-to-grave and the fact that we are not going to achieve anything, are good reasons why I cannot support an EV mandate, and I will continue to stand against it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:30 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending June 23, 2025, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the division stands deferred until later this day.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $253,537,041, under Department of Canadian Heritage—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, be concurred in.