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.