Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue today.
I would like to start by sharing my condolences on behalf of the people of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park with the people of Tumbler Ridge and of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation on the horrific attacks of the last 48 hours. May the light that we all generate in our worlds help them and shine with them in their moments of darkness.
I want to thank my colleagues from Kildonan—St. Paul and Barrie South—Innisfil for their interventions. This issue matters because we are an auto-producing nation; we are a driving nation. Automobile production is fundamental to the economy not only of southern Ontario but across Canada. The automotive experience is something that is fundamental to almost all Canadians.
We are entering the fifth era of auto manufacturing in Canada. The Prime Minister recalled the early days of the auto industry in Canada, a history that began in the 19th century. For most of the 1900s, Canada had its own auto manufacturing plants.
The auto pact really brought in the second era of automobile manufacturing.
The auto pact between Canada and the United States really boosted Canada's automotive economy, especially in southern Ontario. It created thousands of jobs and generated billions of dollars for our economy.
That era was beneficial for our economy. It led to the development of both automotive facilities and the workforce. These workers continue to lead today's automotive sector, and we still depend on that sector, particularly in southern Ontario.
However, the emergence of Japanese manufacturers, along with their methods and ability to manufacture automobiles more efficiently, influenced subsequent government policies, here as elsewhere in North America. It also influenced the public's preferences, as they wanted to buy more Japanese cars.
In the 1980s, the country's leaders and public policy makers, our predecessors, decided to invite Japanese manufacturers to set up operations in Canada, notably in southern Ontario. It was beneficial for us in that it created more jobs and new manufacturing facilities, and it grew our economy. That era also lasted about 20 years.
We then entered the fourth era of the North American auto economy, the era of government subsidies worldwide. This development was accelerated by the 2008 economic crisis, and governments chose to establish closer partnerships with American automakers as well as automakers in Japan and other countries. At the end of the fourth era, governments partnered with automakers to attract investment in the sector.
We are now entering the fifth era of the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada and across North America. This new era is being shaped, as the Prime Minister noted, by a rupture in the free trade system and the world order and the need for middle powers like Canada to find new partners.
We are now in the fifth era of automobile manufacturing in Canada, a time when our old alliances and our old ways of doing things are under tremendous stress, primarily from the trade threat to the south but also because of new technologies, new consumer tastes and the new desires that we have to build the country in a different way. This is an era of opportunity for Canada.
The auto strategy that we have put forward builds on the incredibly strong capital base, technological base and base of both consumers and workers, who are the best workers in the world and I will get to that shortly, to make this transition so that we are no longer solely dependent on one market. It will allow consumers and workers to share equally in that future.
As members probably know, this is a sector that is incredibly contributive to the economy of Canada and, in particular, southern Ontario. In 2025, it contributed approximately $16.8 billion to our GDP and 125,000 direct jobs in the sector through assembly, parts and related jobs, not to mention the related jobs in dealerships or servicing.
The entire economy of transportation that is auto-related in Canada is a very strong one. Of the 1.2 million to 1.3 million vehicles we manufacture now, approximately 90% are currently exported to the United States. The opposition is telling a bit of a story around the manufacturing sector. It seems to be implying that we are selling primarily to Canadians. Obviously, Canadians are buying some vehicles that are manufactured in Canada, but the primary destination for Canadian-made vehicles is currently not Canada; it is elsewhere.
The auto strategy has a really good three-part approach to build up and defend the sector.
First, it really focuses on new investment. It repositions the strategic response fund. We now have a $3-billion auto-dedicated strategic response fund so that Canada's federal government can partner with others that are making those new investments in their plants.
We know new investments in auto manufacturing, like so many other manufacturing investments, do not create the number of jobs that they used to, but that is okay. They create well-paying spinoff jobs that continue to depend on those excellent auto workers who have been working in the sector for decades, and they build on the existing automotive footprint that is already there.
The $3-billion strategic response fund dedicated to the auto sector, which is part of our auto strategy, is a key part of the work that is going to help us usher in this fifth era of automobile production in Canada, but it is also building on a recent track record of investment. The Minister of Industry is in active discussions with a number of companies to attract more investment. I will note that the Conservative motion did not mention some of the recent investments that have been announced in Windsor and St. Thomas. There are recent investments being made right now by Ford in Oakville to retool its plant. There are investments that have allowed Toyota, for instance, in Cambridge and Woodstock to manufacture only RAV4 hybrids, which indicates the evolution of consumer tastes.
New investment is fundamental to economic growth. New investment is what this auto strategy delivers. New investment is the first part of our auto strategy.
The second part of our auto strategy relates to electrification and sustainability. There are a number of elements, and I want to go through them in turn.
First, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul mentioned the electric vehicle availability standard. We have decided, in consultation with the sector, to remove that and go to a tailpipe emission standard. I was disappointed by my colleague's response to my question, because the motion implies that the auto strategy, in their words, does not need to be fixed by abandoning that policy, which is very key to our approach. I think there is quite a fundamental difference.
I continue to be disappointed. I have been in the House now for nine months. I still have not heard an idea for fighting climate change from the other side that finds traction with the other side.
The really important thing about the electrification and sustainability aspects of this policy is that they are intimately connected to that fifth era. I referred to the third era, in which Japanese automakers were bringing the kinds of vehicles that consumers wanted with the kinds of production standards that were not yet known to people in Canada. The policy-makers of that time made a brave choice in embracing that, despite the political fallout, despite the prospect that it might be alienating to some people currently in the sector and despite the fact that it might alienate some sense of national identity, because our national identity around automotive production was so tied to American automaking.
Those choices by those policy-makers decades ago had the benefit of attracting automakers that are now responsible for almost three-quarters of the automotive production in Canada this year. It was those choices to invite new investment and a new way of doing things that have set us up to be at the place where we are now, still manufacturing automobiles by the hundreds of thousands, even despite the tremendous trade threats.
The national electricity strategy, which is under our auto strategy, embraces where people are going. I would note that it involves potential rebates, not for companies, but for consumers. It is the consumers who will be benefiting from these rebates. They will be buying vehicles, often with Canadian-made parts. It also involves rebates to manufacturers, whom we are actively courting, for setting up new manufacturing facilities here in Canada. These are rebates that follow on from a policy that is embraced by such automaking giants as Korea, Japan and Mexico, all of which have EV rebates and manufacture EVs. This is part of the movement where Canadians are going and where the sector is going.
There are two other key parts. I mentioned the tailpipe emissions standard. Right now, the U.S. administration is considering measures that would completely undermine the current tailpipe emissions standard-setting authority that exists in the United States, so there is a major question for Canada. As we look at this next generation of automaking, which is going to be electric, in line with evolving consumer standards and consumer tastes and in line with the climate priorities that we all embrace, where are we going? What kinds of standards do we want? What kinds of environmental standards do we want?
This new auto strategy embraces the use of tailpipe emissions standards, which have been so effective. Canada has, historically, copied the Californian standards, and Californian standards are what helped drive the manufacturing footprint of North America and the world to be more sustainable. We are now saying that tailpipe emissions standards work, they have the effect of reducing our emissions and they have the effect of driving, in a way that is useful and collaborative with the automakers, the kinds of efficiencies and climate change-reducing measures we need.
I was quite disappointed to hear, and it was news to me, that the opposition does not embrace those tailpipe emissions standards in the auto strategy. I welcome what their suggestion would be on that.
I also want to refer to the charging infrastructure that was included in this announcement. There is over $1 billion for that. We know that in rural Canada and in cold-weather places throughout Canada, there is a desire for more charging infrastructure. We know that in cities, like those in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, multi-unit residential buildings that have scarcely available street parking need more electric charging. This strategy will unlock the massive Canadian sector that is ready and primed, including companies like Parkland, which is in the more conventional energy space to embrace the electric future by providing investments that do not, in this case, benefit just southern Ontario, but spread across Canada.
This kind of investment is what consumers are looking for. They are looking for that help to reduce their range anxiety. They are looking for that little prime that helps them decide, “Yes, I want that electric vehicle, which is better for the planet, is great for driving and can get me from to place to place.” They want the reassurance that they can, in fact, get from place to place with a bit of support for charging along the way. This investment and the announcement of a national electricity strategy are key to that.
Again, the fifth era of automobile making in Canada is about the plants and the parts, but it is also about the software. It is about the electricity infrastructure that we need to build from coast to coast, which will actually make Canada's auto sector spread further and create economic benefit, not just in southern Ontario, but across Canada.
That is the second part of the strategy.
The third part of the strategy is an important set of supports for workers. My colleague, the Minister of Jobs and Families, has referred to the important role of EI eligibility for those workers who have been laid off and making sure that it is available quickly. The strategy also includes $570 million for up to 66,000 workers to engage in work sharing. These are the kinds of supports we need if we are all in it together.
Underlying this three-part strategy of investment, electricity sustainability and a focus on the workers, whom I will say a bit more about at the end of my speech, is the trade context. I was a bit disappointed that the motion made no mention of the trade context. We have had hundreds of questions from the official opposition about the auto strategy or related to auto policy, either here or in committee, yet there is almost never a mention of the trade context that has caused us to be in this situation to begin with.
I would invite the opposition members to join us in condemning the illegal and unjustified tariffs in any intervention they make, as I am doing right now, so that we can be unified and press back, as, indeed, automaking areas of the United States are doing against the illegal and unjustified tariffs, to indicate that we are all in this together. If we do that, I think we are more likely to get a trade result that will be better for Canada.
Luckily, we do not need just words. We actually have policies that help reinforce our trade position, including the strengthening of the remission framework in the auto strategy. Basically, if we build it here, we can import more cars here for sale tariff-free. That is the basic sketch of the trade remission strategy. We think it works and it will have the effect of reducing some of the concerns the official opposition has.
In the spirit of cross-partisanship of recent days, I want to refer to a couple of things. I had the privilege of being at the Toyota plant with the rollout of the new RAV4 hybrid 2026 edition in Woodstock. I was joined by my friends from Oxford, Cambridge and Kitchener South—Hespeler. We heard about the plant, the team members and the quality of that plant. It is a plant that has been recognized by JD Power, and by Toyota internally, as being a top-in-the-world plant. It is a company that has never had a layoff in its 40 years of presence in Canada. In that moment, the members I referred to and I were aligned. It was a proud moment for Canada and southern Ontario. It was a sign of what can be done.
It was also a sign of the future of this sector, because, indeed, Toyota has the potential down the road to have an electric vehicle platform made at the Woodstock plant. It is manufacturing only hybrids there, going from solely an internal combustion engine to a hybrid vehicle option now. This has the benefit of going where Canadians are going, where manufacturing is going and where consumers are going.
I have not accompanied my colleagues, but I know the member for Windsor West appreciates the presence of the NextStar plant. I know my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South appreciates the presence of the PowerCo plant and the government investments there. Maybe they cannot say they support these government investments in these jobs, but we know they appreciate the jobs there. We know those communities are benefiting. We know that when the mayor of St. Thomas says no one has seen him stop smiling, it is because he has the sense that the direction we are going toward in attracting investment, building on the workforce we have and embracing the electrification sustainability future that we, the planet and consumers want and need is good for his community.
I invite my colleagues opposite to reflect on the prospect of how these measures will benefit their communities. This strategy, which focuses on investment, electrification sustainability and the workers, is part of a fifth era of automaking in Canada. It is one in which we are still deeply connected to the United States, but we have to grow our interdependence to attract new investments from other countries and spread that investment across Canada. It is one that recognizes that we are connected, but that by taking these measures, we can be more sovereign.
It is a set of bold choices, and I urge the opposition and all Canadians to look at the benefits of this strategy. For those reasons, I will be opposing this motion.
