Debates of June 17th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered Vehicles

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

First, once again, today's debate shows that Quebec clearly has a much greener and transition-centred vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, that will save us billions of dollars in public health costs and investments in insurance and infrastructure that are affected by climate change events.

Now, in Canada, we have Electric Mobility Canada, an organization that, over time, has really increased its expertise and credibility. In fact, we see that it is not the electric vehicle availability standard that will destroy jobs in the Canadian auto sector, but, rather, the lack of technological development over time. At the moment, we do not produce electric vehicles in Canada.

Instead of investing in oil companies, would it not make more sense to direct those funds into helping manufacturers develop electric vehicles?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will trust the estimates by the Canadian Journal of Economics over those of the company that the member cited with respect to economic loss. The fact of the matter is this. There is an old expression, “putting the cart before the horse”, and this is what is happening here. We do not have a plan for the electric generation. We do not have a plan for transmission of electricity. We do not have a plan for local electricity transmission. We do not have a plan for charging networks.

When we do not have any of that stuff, which is required for a mandate, how can we proceed with the mandates? That is the problem. There has been no thinking, no thought done by the government on how to implement the mandates. The only result of this would be increased suffering for Canadians, who are already suffering as a result of the economic policies of the Liberal government for the last 10 years.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate. The member was actually out in Saskatchewan last summer, and we met with Evraz steelworkers, pipefitters, building trades workers and refinery workers. Not once did EV mandates come up in any of our conversations. He was able to see our province, with its vast, beautiful, long distances. There are not a lot of charging stations and availability to charge EV vehicles.

My one question is this: Who does the member think has asked for the EV mandate? I wonder whom the Liberals have talked to who has actually asked for the policy to come forward.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish they had talked to someone. I would say that we had a great trip out there. We met with the great unionized steelworkers and others who build this country from coast to coast. I do not think the Liberals talked to anyone, because when we look at the facts that I have pointed out repeatedly, we see that they do not have a plan. They need a plan for the fundamental aspects of making a zero-emission vehicle for Canadians to actually be able to drive and charge, and they have no plan for that. As I say, this is 100% Liberal ideology over reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak about the issue, which is very important to the residents of Vancouver Quadra and to the residents of the Musqueam first nation, where I come from, at the mouth of the Fraser River near the Salish Sea, whose habitat is no doubt being affected by climate change.

I rise in the House today to respond to the motion before us, which calls on the government to abandon our commitment to the zero-emission vehicle supply chain, which is essential to the future of Canada's automotive sector.

The motion repeats discredited talking points about costs, and it tries to paint Canadians into a false corner between affordability and ambition. It tries to scare away Canadians from common-sense, data-driven climate policy. It references a price tag that has no basis in reality, a number that does not come from any independent policy source or the manufacturing sector. It seemingly is found originating only from a certain member who used to sit in the House, which is how I know that the motion is not put forth in good faith for all Canadians.

Let me be very clear from the outset: The regulation would not ban vehicles that use gasoline in 2035. In fact hybrid vehicles, of which there are many types, would count towards the targets, which is an important point to make clear right off the top. The motion is not based on facts.

The truth is that the electric vehicle availability standard is about ensuring that a variety of affordable electric vehicles would be available for Canadians to purchase. This would give them choices when it comes to driving cleaner, more affordable vehicles backed by a growing made-in-Canada supply chain. It is about expanding choice and creating jobs, something that members on the other side seem to have abandoned in their efforts to oppose any policy designed to fight climate change.

The reality is that Canadians sent a message during the last election, rejecting the type of rhetoric that the Conservatives are putting forward. Clearly that has not sunk in yet, because Conservatives continue to import American-style rhetoric opposing zero-emission vehicles. They continue to attack policies that fight climate change, instead of focusing on a united, unified Canadian approach to fighting American tariffs, the tariffs that are the real and present danger to Canada's automotive sector.

Let us set the record straight: The motion makes the claim that the government would be banning gas-powered vehicles, which is simply false. The electric vehicle availability standard would not ban vehicles from using gasoline; it would phase in targets for the availability of zero-emission vehicles with flexibilities that include plug-in hybrids. These are the kinds of actions on climate change that Canadians want. They want more options and want options made here in Canada, which is exactly what they asked for when they gave us the mandate to lead.

The Conservatives also claimed that prices for vehicles would rise, even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself found that the policy would actually lower the relative cost of ZEVs by 22% by 2035, compared to what they would cost if we did nothing at all. It would shift the burden away from the consumer and ensure that manufacturers are bringing affordable, zero-emission vehicles to the market, which would be a benefit to Canadian consumers, and it is backed by data, not by ideology and not by fear.

Let us also remember that hybrid vehicles would count towards compliance, and for families looking for affordable, practical solutions, these vehicles are part of the bridge to a cleaner future. The regulation is designed to adjust over time, giving manufacturers and buyers the runway they need in order to succeed.

Light-duty EV sales continue to grow in Canada. We know that demand for ZEVs is rising. That is not a political talking point; that is just a market reality. EVs are getting better and better, with longer ranges, faster charging and lower costs. The question now is not whether people will drive ZEVs but whether those vehicles will be made in Canada or not.

While Conservatives campaign against the very technologies that are reshaping the global auto industry, Liberals are working to bring the production home. Since 2020, Canada has secured over $34 billion in investment in the battery and automotive supply chain, and that is not where we are stopping. In our platform, we committed to moving forward with six major investment tax credits, including the clean-technology manufacturing ITC and the electric vehicle supply chain ITC. These are tools to attract investment, protect Canadian workers and ensure that our communities benefit from the jobs of the future.

We want Canada to build the cars of tomorrow, not just watch others do it. We do not want to force Canadians to buy electric vehicles. We want to be able to compete with major international companies that are already manufacturing the kinds of EVs Canadians want. We want to ensure that we are saving our manufacturing industry when the United States administration is trying to attack it. The single biggest threat to Canada's auto sector is American tariffs, not electric vehicles.

The Government of Canada is working closely with Canada's auto sector and provinces such as Ontario and my home province of British Columbia to ensure that our auto sector remains competitive. The truth is that this is not a path Canada is walking alone. More than 40% of the U.S. auto market, the European Union, the United Kingdom and China are all on the same path, but here is the difference: Canada's EV policy is much more flexible. We allow hybrid credits, and we offer credit banking. We are also working closely with the provinces and with industry.

In 2024, the International Energy Agency reported that the global sale of electric cars rose by over 25%, surpassing 17 million units and accounting for one-fifth of all car sales, in line with the IEA's projections for 2024.

The new federal government is particularly focused on protecting the jobs of auto workers and growing Canada's economy to be the strongest in the G7. This means supporting innovation. Investments in the electric vehicle supply chain are particularly important when it comes to making Canada the fastest-growing economy in the G7. This is a made-in-Canada approach that balances ambition with pragmatism.

I know that many Canadians are rightly concerned about the cost of living. That is why we have taken steps to support affordability through our broader ZEV strategy. We have committed to consumer incentives, which have already helped take the adoption of ZEVs from 3% in 2019 to over 15% in 2024. During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to reintroducing a purchase incentive worth up to $5,000 for zero-emission vehicles, which supports Canadian workers and strengthens our domestic supply chains. Coupled with provincial rebates, such as the rebates offered in my home province of B.C., EVs have become even more affordable for the average Canadian.

At the same time, we are helping Canadians power their vehicles where they live and work. Over 44,000 public chargers have already been built across Canada, with 33,900 more expected, thanks to compliance credits and clean fuel regulations. We have invested over $1.1 billion through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the ZEV infrastructure program to expand Canada's EV charging network. We are largely seeing charging infrastructure keep pace with the number of EVs being purchased in Canada, and we are closing the gap in the number of chargers that we will need in the years to come.

Let me be clear. The electric vehicle availability standard is only one part of our broader strategy. We are working across the entire ZEV value chain. That means critical minerals, battery manufacturing, vehicle assembly and recycling, driving private investments and protecting workers with smart industrial policy. It is not about one regulation; it is about a vision for Canada's economy.

We have an opportunity to become a world leader in a manufacturing sector that is rapidly growing. Every stage of creating ZEVs can be built right here at home by Canadians and for Canadians. Private sector partners and other levels of government also have important roles to play when achieving this goal. We are not banning vehicles that use gasoline. We are responding to the market. We are responding to Canadians.

Canada has recognized the importance of building a complete end-to-end EV battery supply chain. Transformative investments are creating well-paying jobs and bringing prosperity to communities throughout Canada. A commitment to sustainable investment in the EV battery supply chain in Canada is part of the transition to long-term sustainability for the planet. Let us not forget that EVs and ZEVs are not some small market products. It is no longer just Tesla or nothing. We have many more major auto sector companies that are not only building these vehicles but also investing in Canada to have this EV supply chain right here.

Canada is uniquely placed to be at the head of the pack. This is about climate leadership. This is about the future. This is about my children, my grandchildren, everybody's children, everybody's grandchildren. The regulations will contribute to Canada's climate change goals by preventing an estimated 362 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

That cumulative impact is real, measurable progress toward our international obligations. Transportation emissions have declined to levels not seen in decades, demonstrating that we can grow our economy while also fighting climate change. Canada has some of the most diverse and important natural habitats and wildlife in the world. It is our duty to conserve and protect it for today, for tomorrow and for seven generations ahead.

One might think the Conservative Party would be more interested in doing that, but let us be honest about what we are debating today. The Conservative Party is using fear and misinformation to try to score political points, but while they shout about choice, they offer no plan for emissions, no plan for jobs, no plan for trade, no plan to protect manufacturing and no plan to help Canadians afford the future. On the other hand, the government is working with auto manufacturers, with unions, with provinces like Ontario, B.C. and Quebec and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to build a modern, clean economy that works for everyone.

Canadians deserve better than this motion. Our children and our grandchildren deserve better than political theatre. They deserve a Parliament that looks to the future, not to the past. That is why I oppose this motion and stand for the Canada that builds the cars of tomorrow, supports the workers of today and ensures cleaner air and lower costs for future generations.

When I was elected by my constituents in Vancouver Quadra, I promised them I would fight for the future, for the climate, for our children and for what they believe in, and today I am happy to do that. My constituents are deeply passionate about protecting our environment, and I am honoured to be here to speak on their behalf as their representative in the House, the first-ever representative of the Musqueam first nation to represent Vancouver Quadra. I will continue to use my voice for my constituents and stand on the right side of history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague across the way on his maiden speech. There is a lot to unpack in it.

There are a lot of questions with regard to this legislation. Notwithstanding the government's plans for the 26 million or 27 million vehicles on the roads as we speak, here is the question I have for my colleague across the way. When he was running to represent his constituents, did he tell them, with regard to the net-zero mandate, that their government would mandate that they could not purchase gas vehicles and had to purchase electric vehicles?

If Liberals are so proud of this, why did they not run on it in their platform?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hearken back to when I was in grades 6 and 7. My grade 6 and 7 teacher, Valerie Jerome, sister of Harry Jerome, was the person who first introduced me to what is happening with our climate. Moving forward, I always said that I would take a strong stand.

I walked door to door, ensuring that I listened to my constituents, who said that the environment is the one key issue they want me to drive home. I will continue to do that. That is why I stand by this policy, and that is why I stand on this side: to fight climate change and to fight for my children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Conservatives called for a 100% surtax on electric vehicles manufactured in China, and a few months later, the Liberal government imposed that surtax.

Of course, we share the Conservatives' concern about the cost of electric vehicles. I would like to know the government's position on this. According to an Abacus poll released yesterday, 53% of Canadians would prefer for the import surtax that is being imposed on Chinese vehicles at the request of U.S. to be lower to make electric vehicles more affordable.

What is the Liberal government’s position on this?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we want to make sure we make affordability a key component of this. That is why we are going to drive record investment into the EV industry and make sure we build them at home by Canadians and for Canadians, so we can ensure they become much more affordable more quickly.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for honouring the mandate that his constituents sent him to do. I want the member to talk about how during the campaign the Conservatives talked about anything but the tariffs imposed on the automotive sector. Maybe the member can talk about how on this side of the House we care about jobs in the southwestern Ontario corridor and every single area of the automotive sector that is affected. Conservatives talk about giving choice to Canadians and allowing Canadians to have consumer choice, but why are they not letting Canadians pick the EV sector as well?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I walked door to door in Vancouver Quadra, a riding that is very clued into the environment, and as I went to my children's high school and talked to them, people told me that the number one thing that drives their anxiety for the future is climate change and what they are going to inherit. We want to ensure that we leave them with a planet where there is cleaner air and where they can go on the water to fish and do what they want. These are the things I committed to for my constituents.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today's opposition motion is about affordability and accountability. Windsor auto workers and suppliers are worried, as these mandates are going to impact their jobs. What specific and time-bound commitments is the government going to make to safeguard legacy auto jobs in Windsor and ensure that no worker is left behind?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we want to make sure that we work with the industries. That is what we are doing, working with industry and the workers to ensure we move forward with an educated approach to this. We will not leave any worker behind. We are going to work for the workers, and that is what we will continue to do on this side of the House.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are a diversity of views and perspectives within this chamber. We know there is no bad seat in this chamber, and it is always an honour and privilege to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo.

Something that the parliamentary secretary mentioned was in regard to the approach of the official opposition members and the fact that they are not recognizing the importance of growing our economy, growing opportunity. Electric vehicles are one of those opportunities. I come from southwestern Ontario. The automotive sector is a really important part of our economy and the jobs and the well-being of communities. What is interesting is that the official opposition chooses to attack electric vehicles rather than challenge the U.S. tariffs being imposed on Canada.

I would like to hear from the member why the Conservatives refuse to accept that climate change is real. Why is it that they always attack the government and Canadian jobs rather than actually looking at where the issues are?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest threat to our economy right now is the American tariffs, not electric vehicles. We want to ensure that we grow our economy but also protect the environment for future generations. We need to do that with different approaches. There is not one panacea that is going to do that. We have to take different approaches, and this is just one, to ensure that my children, my grandchildren and seven generations ahead will inherit an earth that is better than it is today.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion, but I would still like to ask him about something else related to this motion.

Fewer electric vehicles are currently being sold than in the past. This is specifically due to the sabotage by his government, which, in a completely unexpected and unannounced manner, decided to cut subsidies for electric vehicles. People do not know whether the subsidy will come back or not. The government was reelected, but has yet to make any commitments regarding the return of these subsidies, which is creating a great deal of uncertainty in the market.

I would like to know when the government will put an end to this uncertainty so that sales will pick up again.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, our platform stated that we were looking to reintroduce the $5,000 incentive for those purchases. We look forward to electric vehicle sales continuing to rise in the near future.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member across the way talks about working with the auto sector and the industry. I met with some industry reps yesterday, and they hate these vehicle mandates. They have to be fully electric by 2026, and we are at 7.5% now.

What kind of draconian laws is the government prepared to bring in so it can meet those targets?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we are looking forward to continuing to work with the auto sector and continuing to work with workers to ensure that we bring them along, so we can ensure that we protect those jobs, protect the future and protect our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member talked a bit about how the Conservatives are trying to give this false impression that there will be no gas-powered vehicles 10 years from now and how it does a disservice to the public as a whole when we get Conservatives continually trying to give misinformation on what is fairly sound government policy.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the negative side of the Conservative Party giving misinformation?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hearken back to about a month ago, when I was on social media and I would see a number of my friends and family posting things that were clearly deepfakes. They had the same sort of negative rhetoric and were believing what the other side was saying. I had to call them to assure them that these things were not true.

Liberals are moving forward to ensure that we have a greener economy, but we are not outright banning gas-powered vehicles.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny.

To put it mildly, the honeymoon between the Conservatives and the Liberals was short-lived. The new couple, united by Bill C-5, is breaking up this morning over electric vehicles. It seems the Liberals may not be willing to buy into all kinds of nonsense when it comes to the energy transition and carbon pricing. Perhaps they are not prepared to go as far as the Conservatives.

I have participated in many Conservative opposition days, particularly with regard to the carbon tax. What are they repeating today with this motion? What are they repeating in this new Parliament? One thing is very clear to me: Today’s motion, once again, shows that the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with Quebec's reality. Not only is the party out of touch, but the Conservative members from Quebec do not have the influence they need within their caucus to make progress on the issues facing the Quebec nation. We saw that this week.

As members know, we had an opposition day on the $800 million that was stolen from Quebeckers and reimbursed to the rest of Canadians for carbon tax payments they never made. What was my Conservative Party colleagues' reaction? They proposed an amendment to the effect that the $800 million could be repaid, if Quebec agreed to end its carbon exchange. The Conservative Party wanted to tell the Government of Quebec how to take action on carbon pricing.

Let us recall the psychodrama that we experienced in the last Parliament when the Conservatives were shouting about how we were the "Liberal Bloc" and about how we were supporting the infamous carbon tax, a tax that did not apply to Quebec. Now, lo and behold, the Conservatives have seen the light and have understood that this much-talked-about carbon tax did not apply to Quebec.

Let us get back to the issue of electric vehicles. I think the key question here is, who has the most to gain from the electrification of transportation and who has the most to lose? The Conservative motion picks a side. It sides with Alberta and the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to lose in the electrification of transportation are in Alberta, the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to gain are in Quebec.

What about Quebec? For the past 30 years, there has been an energy transition. I will come back to the issue of setting up a battery industry. Hydro-Québec has developed a unique expertise that could help us become North America's battery producers. What else could be said about Quebec? Quebec sits atop vast reserves of critical minerals. It has clean electricity that is accessible to everyone at a very low cost. No one pays as competitive a price for electricity as we do in Quebec. It is a favourable geographic location that could allow us to become part of the battery industry. It is a vibrant industrial ecosystem with a low carbon footprint. Consider the forestry sector. The forest is a carbon sink that allows us to sequester carbon when we use wood. Consider Quebec aluminum, which is tied to the hydroelectric sector. It is thanks to Quebec's clean electricity that we can produce aluminum and that the Americans depend on us and our aluminum smelters. Quebec has all these significant advantages that are steering us toward a major transformation and the electrification of transportation, yet my Conservative colleagues from Quebec prefer to side with Alberta.

In many areas, the battery industry that is crucial to electric vehicles in Quebec is booming. Unlike what they are doing out west, Quebec does not invest in carbon capture or storage strategies. Quebec's investments are in this battery industry. The Quebec minister has repeatedly said that his government is in talks with about a hundred companies to develop such projects.

To illustrate the pertinence of my arguments, the two main projects that are likely to develop and create an economic boom in my region of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean are related to the battery sector. I am talking about the phosphate industry, with First Phosphate and Arianne Phosphate. Those are two major projects.

Unfortunately, we never hear the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord talk about that. During the election campaign, he preferred to talk about GNL Québec, a project that was rejected by the Government of Quebec and that had no future for us. We never heard him say that it was possible to develop a phosphate sector. We have to put all our eggs in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member for Jonquière. There seems to be a phone near the desk that is interfering with the interpreters' work. It would have to be moved.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the interpreters.

I was saying that, with today's motion, what the Conservatives are proposing is to hold Quebec back from its transition to a low-carbon economy and have our investments go to waste. It is simple: The Manichaean view would be that the Conservatives want us in an oil and gas stranglehold. We saw that in the previous Parliament, and they are doing it again. The Conservatives constantly defend oil and gas tooth and nail. Quebec should remain dependent on oil and gas instead of developing its own clean electricity infrastructures. That would make absolutely no sense. That is what I do not understand.

Why should we electrify transportation? Oil sands development is the industry with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Transportation is another major emitter. The electrification of transportation will reduce the consumption of fuel, along with our GHG emissions. If anyone does not believe that, they do not believe in climate change.

Even worse, it is an essential economic driver in Quebec. I myself have an electric vehicle. Some people would have us believe that electric vehicles are nothing but trouble. That is nonsense. I live in the Saguenay, precisely 665 kilometres from Parliament. I can get here with my car. I have to stop for 20 minutes to charge it at a rapid charging station, then I can continue on my way. Typically, stopping for 20 minutes during a six-and-a-half-hour drive is not a luxury, so there is no reason, with today's new technologies, not to drive a electric vehicle. What the Conservatives want, however, is to keep people dependent on oil and gas.

I see this motion as an extension of what we have seen in the past. Former Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a master at coming up with populist ideas that make no sense. Today the Conservatives are attacking electric vehicles. They are using the slogan of Quebec's Conservative Party: “My car, my choice”. It seems to be a matter of identity for the Conservatives.

I understand that we can have polarizing debates. Some people are pro-life, others are pro-choice. They are pro-gas, so they disagree with those who are pro-electricity. I do not understand how a serious party can introduce a motion like this.

However, what is most important is that today the Conservatives are trying to defend the oil and gas industry. They are on-side with the government on Bill C‑5 to defend the oil and gas industry tooth and nail. Ultimately, the Conservative Party's rhetoric is similar to the Bloc Québécois's rhetoric: if it is good for Quebec, if it does not harm Quebec, we support it. In their case, if it is good for the oil and gas industry, if it does not harm the oil and gas sector, they support it. Otherwise, they oppose it. This motion is just one example of that.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, everything about this motion seeks to divide people into winners and losers. I would ask the member to explain how the electrification of transportation could have a very positive impact in his riding.