House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Automotive Strategy Members debate Canada's auto strategy amidst job losses and declining vehicle production. Conservatives advocate for scrapping foreign EV subsidies, removing GST on Canadian-made vehicles, and tax relief for laid-off auto workers, citing the government's plan as subsidizing foreign-made EVs. Liberals defend their strategy, emphasizing investment, electrification, and worker support to adapt to global shifts, noting an integrated North American auto industry. Bloc Québécois supports EV subsidies but criticizes the government for weakening climate targets while subsidizing the oil and gas industry. 46300 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act Second reading of Bill S-211. The bill seeks to establish a national framework on sports betting advertising, addressing concerns from constituents about the abundance of advertisements and their harmful impact, particularly on young people. Members debate the need for a unified approach given varied provincial regulations, like Ontario's open market, and the rise of problem gambling, while the Bloc Québécois raises concerns about federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. 8600 words, 1 hour.
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (C) for the financial year ending March 31, 2026, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
Supplementary Estimates (C), 2025-26Routine Proceedings
Brampton—Chinguacousy Park Ontario
Liberal
Shafqat Ali LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2025-26.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Ways and Means Motion No. 8, notice of which was tabled on January 28, 2026, be deemed concurred in on division, and a bill based thereon standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, entitled “An Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, be deemed to have been read a first time.
Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
(On the Order: Government Orders:)
January 28, 2026—The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations—Consideration of a ways and means motion to introduce an Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
(Motion agreed to)
(Bill C-21. On the Order: Government Orders:)
January 28, 2026—The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations—Bill entitled “An Act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.
(Bill introduced and read the first time)
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 14.1 of the Lobbying Act.
Access to information, privacy and ethicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. They have raised this concern with me in person as well as in this petition. They call the attention of the House to the ongoing joint ecological, social and economic crises, sometimes referred to as a “polycrisis”, and they ask that the Government of Canada extend leadership in that area to recognize how many system boundaries are being exceeded. In other words, the ecological ability of the caring capacity of the planet for human activity is being exceeded through massive human consumption, industrial symptoms and, particularly, the climate crisis.
They call on the government to provide national leadership on environment and sustainability, education, and the importance of leaning on indigenous knowledge and wisdom. They call on the House and ask the government to support educators, communicators and community leaders, who are trying to raise awareness and action for a sustainable future.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from residents of Canada about Bill C-9, a bill that would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts and to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs with a punishment of up to two years in prison.
Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be protected, so the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9, protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into faith.
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Speaker, the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix are once again calling on the Liberal government to work with our fishers in preparation for the upcoming fishing season in the St. Lawrence River. The river's striped bass population is out of control. This species is a highly efficient predator that is placing significant stress on other species, many of which are already fragile and very important to our region's economy.
What the fishers are asking for is simple. They want their needs to to be taken into account and they want to be consulted during the process. They are also calling for federal authorities to come to the area to see the extent of the damage for themselves and for the government to reopen recreational fishing in a strictly controlled manner using quotas, as is already permitted at the mouth of the St. Lawrence.
Fishing season is just around the corner. It is high time for the government to listen to the people, listen to fishers and take constructive action on their behalf.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today from Canadians and Vancouver Islanders who are deeply concerned about ghost gear, which is abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear. It is among the deadliest sources of plastic pollution.
These petitioners note that ghost gear kills fish; impacts wild Pacific salmon, marine mammals, seabirds and turtles; damages habitats; creates microplastics; and even hazards navigation and active harvesters, hurting coastal economies. They point out the dedicated funding for retrieval, prevention, repair and recycling works creates skilled jobs in partnership with indigenous communities, small businesses, fishers, harbour authorities and recyclers, especially in rural and remote regions.
The petitioners are calling for the reinstatement and expansion of the permanent and multi-year ghost gear fund, which was cut by the Liberal government.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
moved:
That, given that,
(i) over 5,000 auto sector jobs have been lost since the Prime Minister came to office,
(ii) the number of cars produced in Canada since 2016 has fallen by half, from 2.3 million in 2016 to 1.2 million in 2025,
(iii) the Prime Minister has introduced an auto strategy that subsidizes electric vehicles made in foreign countries,
(iv) the Prime Minister’s plan now requires Canadian workers to pay taxes that subsidize foreign-made vehicles they can't afford,
the House call on the government to fix their auto strategy by:
(a) scrapping the subsidies for foreign-made electric vehicles entering Canada that forces Canadian workers to subsidize $50,000 new cars;
(b) removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles; and
(c) using their existing authority to reduce the amount of tax withheld on severance payments issued to workers at the GM CAMI facility in Ingersoll.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I hereby divide each of the future Conservative caucus slots into two.
Before I get started on our important opposition day motion, I ask members to allow me to put a few words on the record concerning Tumbler Ridge and the devastating tragedy that happened just two days ago in that beautiful, peaceful community in British Columbia. I know all of our hearts are breaking for the families impacted by this. What has happened there is a parent's worst nightmare. I wanted to extend my condolences on behalf of Kildonan—St. Paul and Winnipeg to that community. We grieve with them. May God be with them all at the darkest of times.
Members of Parliament are sent to Ottawa to represent their communities, to represent Canadians, and the official opposition is tasked with the responsibility of holding the government accountable for its promises and actions. Shadow ministers have the additional responsibility of holding ministers and the decisions in their departments accountable.
Last week, the Minister of Industry, along with the Prime Minister, announced what they have told Canadians is their strategy for what is transpiring in our auto sector. It is very serious what is happening in our auto sector, and I will go through a few of the issues I have with the announcement and with the approach.
This is very serious. There are 5,000 families already out of work as a result of the Trump tariffs and the impact they are having on the Canadian auto sector. In 5,000 families, one of the income earners has lost their job. This is in addition to tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost, along with other offshoot jobs from the auto sector and other manufacturing sectors.
This comes after a decade of decline in our auto sector. Members may recall that in 2016, 2.3 million cars were manufactured in Canada. Less than 10 years later, that number is down to 1.2 million. In a decade, our output in the auto sector, the cars we are manufacturing, has declined almost by half, and now we are being hit with 5,000 job losses in just the first year of the Trump trade war and its impact on our auto sector in Canada.
The Liberal government has been in power for the last decade. How has it approached this? Just a few years ago, and I believe it was in 2022, the government, in partnership with Ontario, announced the largest subsidies in Canadian history for electric vehicles. It was not for gas-powered vehicles, where we were seeing the decline in manufacturing and the hits that were starting over the last decade, and it was not for where it is experiencing the most losses today. Just a few years ago, $52 billion in subsidies were announced for the manufacture of an electric vehicle supply chain for electric vehicle batteries and electric vehicles themselves.
Unfortunately, in recent months, the wheels have been coming off the bus on a lot of those commitments. For example, the keystone of that $52-billion commitment was the NextStar Energy manufacturing plant in Windsor, which was supposed to make electric vehicle batteries for Stellantis, one of the major car auto manufacturers in Canada. Just recently, Stellantis announced that it would be selling off its 49% stake in that to LG Energy, so now it may be making some car batteries, but it will also be making battery cells. It is no longer going to be the keystone of electric vehicle battery production that it was supposed to be when these massive commitments from the taxpayer were made.
If we look further, there are additional losses in this sector. For example, last month GM, which was also subsidized by these subsidies, announced a $6-billion writedown on its EV operations, warning it may post additional EV-related losses later this year. Meanwhile, of course, the Quebec government is attempting to recover nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars from the Northvolt facility there from a Swedish EV manufacturer that has gone bankrupt.
Also, Ford announced a $19.5-billion writedown on EV production lines after years of trying and failing to make electric vehicles profitable in the North American market. In fact, Ford's chief executive said, “It didn't make sense to keep plowing billions into products that we knew would not make money”.
That is in line with what Stellantis just recently said: “The charges announced today largely reflect the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition that distanced us from many car buyers’ real-world needs, means and desires.” Really, he was citing customer preference as the struggles in the electric vehicle market, so it is struggling. What was promised to Canadians, with the largest subsidies in Canadian history, has the companies severely struggling.
The companies have said that despite these massive commitments from the taxpayer, organized by the Liberal government and the Ontario government, this is simply not profitable. It is really unbelievable given, for example, that the NorthStar battery plant was a 100% subsidy for those batteries, and still the car company said it was not good for its bottom line and that it was bailing out.
What that speaks to is that this does not seem to be working in the North American market. There are a number of reasons. Electric vehicles are popular elsewhere, but they do not face, for example, the same weather Canada faces; we are a very cold country. We are also the second-largest country on earth. People travel long, long distances. To get from one city to another, people would have to charge their car multiple times, especially in winter. There are some serious problems with electric vehicles. As well, affordability is a big issue; they are quite expensive vehicles.
Last week, the Liberal government tried to do something about that, which I am now going to go into. It announced an EV subsidy of $2.3 billion for Canadians to purchase electric vehicles, so billions more are being poured into the electric vehicle sector from the Liberal government. Despite all of the losses, failures and delays, it is continuing to double down on this.
It is a front-loaded program. The minister has explicitly said that the purpose of this is to make it most generous in the first year of the five years it will be available. Her rationale was that the government wants to encourage people to quickly, and in a great volume, buy electric vehicles. It is fine if that is its policy, but our auto sector is struggling and losing thousands of jobs in this tariff war. One could think, “Great, people can buy electric vehicles manufactured in Canada,” except that we only make one electric vehicle, the Dodge Charger, which is an electric vehicle muscle car, in essence. Though it may be a great car, I am not sure if it is the first choice for many families. Still, I am sure it is a very good car, and I am glad Canadians make it. However, that limits the opportunity for Canadians to support Canadian jobs with this over-$2-billion, taxpayer-funded subsidy that is subsidized by working Canadians. The auto sector workers themselves are now subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles.
Where are Canadians going to buy electric vehicles from? It will be from foreign countries. The last time the Liberals had a similar subsidy, 99% of it went to foreign auto sectors because Canada is not manufacturing the electric vehicles, so people are choosing to buy foreign ones. That is fine; Canadians can buy whatever car they want. If they want an electric vehicle, good for them. That is great. They can buy all kinds of cars. The problem is that if we are going to spend taxpayer dollars, the very dollars taken from the workers in the auto sector losing their jobs, should that money not be focused on the Canadian auto sector?
Why is the Liberal government sending money to subsidize the auto sectors of foreign countries? Again, we are talking about quite generous supports, $5,000 in the first year. Again, this is going to be front loaded, so the biggest sales are likely to be made this year, according to what the minister has said.
That leads me to my last point. We are seeing 5,000 job losses from the Trump administration's actions. The tariffs the U.S. is putting on the Canadian auto sector are costing us thousands of jobs, and many more to come are unfortunately likely. Now the Liberal government has introduced an electric vehicle subsidy, and electric vehicles made in the United States are eligible for this subsidy. The tax dollars of Canadian taxpayers, including the workers in the auto sector, are going to go to subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles manufactured in the United States. Why on earth are Canadian tax dollars and the hard-earned dollars from the auto sector workers themselves going to benefit the American auto sector?
For us, it is unconscionable. What we would do is introduce a tax cut: the federal sales tax off of all new cars made in Canada. That is what we would introduce so that the auto market in Canada is supported and there are more sales generated across the board in Canada. That is what Conservatives are proposing. It is a more fair approach, and it supports the Canadian hands that make Canadian-made cars, not the American electric vehicle sector. We should not be supporting that.
It is unconscionable that the tax dollars of auto workers losing their jobs are going to subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles made in Trump's America.
Opposition Motion—Automotive StrategyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario
Liberal
Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and I look forward to participating in the debate shortly.
The text of the motion says, “the House call on the government to fix their auto strategy by”, and then lists three items. What is not listed in the three items that the opposition is saying need to be fixed is the increased tailpipe emissions standard that we are proposing in our auto strategy.
Does my colleague and her side support that tailpipe emissions standard?
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the member on the industry committee, and I am glad he brought this up because this is an interesting thing. The Liberal government positioned its announcement last week as an end to its EV mandates as well, which Conservatives, of course, have been leading the charge against, given the impossible-to-meet standards previously of 100% electric new vehicle sales in Canada by 2035. We heard loud and clear from the auto sector that that would literally decimate the auto sector.
However, if we look closely at the Liberals' announcement, they have now lowered that to 75%. It is still a decimating number. They expect only electric vehicle sales of about 75% in Canada with these standards. This means the standard for those tailpipe emissions reductions is going to be so stringent that it is going to force the auto sector to do this. Our concern is that this is basically the EV mandate by another name.
I can go on to my next response. I have a lot to say about this. In fact, I could do a 10-minute—
Opposition Motion—Automotive StrategyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, one of the Conservatives' main arguments in their motion today is that the government is subsidizing vehicles made in foreign countries. I believe the Conservatives are referring mainly to the United States.
We know that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry in Canada, and 80% of this industry is owned by American interests, so if we follow the Conservatives' logic, then we should be putting an immediate stop to these subsidies. Does my colleague agree with me?
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I do wonder if the member's constituents are comfortable with their tax dollars going to benefit the electric vehicle sector in Trump's America. I would say likely not. I know there is a big disagreement in the House about supporting Canada's oil and gas sector, which of course supports a lot of money coming to all provinces, including Quebec, from the GDP generated from the oil and gas sector. Conservatives are very grateful that we have this natural resource that has brought so much wealth and opportunity to Canada. Again, our auto sector as well brings a lot of wealth, over $16 billion annually, and 600,000 direct and indirect jobs. Our tax dollars should be focused on supporting this sector, not the American EV market.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we hear Conservatives talk about how Canada is too big and the transition is too bold, but we can look to Norway, where it is cold, where they travel long distances, and they have had huge success, so geography should not be an excuse. What we need is the Conservatives to support a Canadian auto strategy that protects workers, supports tackling climate change and builds vehicles here at home.
Why are they not getting on board? We know workers support actually building, and these investments are critical to the auto industry.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I find the question from the NDP quite perplexing. Is he suggesting we should not be supporting our auto workers in the gas-powered sector of our economy? The vast majority of auto workers in this country, well over 100,000, are directly employed by gas-powered cars. Despite $52 billion in taxpayer commitments from the Liberal and Ontario governments, the EV sector is failing in this country. Writedowns are in the billions from companies saying that despite all the generous subsidies from the taxpayer on behalf of the Liberal government, the wheels are falling off the bus. I find it odd that the member is not standing up for the gas-powered auto workers in this country and instead only perhaps for one plant that is building electric vehicles. I find it odd that the NDP would take that position.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Madam Speaker, here is an interesting fact. In the last 20 years, 80% of the vehicles Canadians bought were manufactured in Canada. There is no reason we cannot return to that. I see that the Conservatives have planned to cut taxes on vehicles and invest here.
Does the member agree we should also be making more vehicles here in Canada?
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, yes, I would like to see the auto sector here return to its former glory of 10 years ago, when we were producing 2.3 million cars. This is what our auto sector workers need. They are not going to get it from the Liberal subsidies.