Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion on this Conservative opposition day. On Tuesday, we also had another Conservative opposition day.
I wanted to mention this because on Tuesday, when I saw the topic of the opposition day, I thought that for the first time, the Conservatives had chosen a topic that had nothing to do with promoting oil or abandoning the fight against climate change. It seems that was too good to last because they are back at it already. Today's motion is pretty much telling us they do not want electric vehicles, and that these vehicles are the worst thing that could happen to our country.
I will confess to my Conservative colleagues right away that I have an electric vehicle. In fact, I have two, because my partner has an electric vehicle as well. If that makes me the devil, then so be it. For me, electric vehicles provide an opportunity to use less gas and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially because as members of parliament, we do a lot of driving in the course of the year. Obviously, I think my choice contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, I do not mean to make those who have made a different choice feel guilty. I do understand that we all have different personal circumstances.
That said, I would like to discuss this motion in more detail. To put it mildly, the motion before us contains a number of half-truths.
Before I go any further, I would like to say I will be sharing my time with the member for Oxford.
The point being made at the beginning of the motion is that over 5,000 jobs have been lost since the Prime Minister came to office. Perhaps we can put that into perspective.
First, there is the implication that the 5,000 jobs lost were lost because of electric vehicles. However, we are fully aware that job losses in Canada's auto sector are due to American tariff policies because Americans want these jobs to move to the U.S. The losses have nothing to do with any policies on the electrification of transportation. Let us be clear about that and not make up stuff.
Second, when it comes to jobs, there is space to reflect and ask ourselves whether the electrification of transportation contributes to job creation and whether there have been such opportunities. In any case, in Quebec, we have expertise in this field. An Ernst & Young report released in 2025 states that Canada's electric vehicle industry has created over 130,000 jobs over the past 10 years. I think 130,000 jobs is a good deal all around.
I think it would be a good idea to support this sector. Over the past year, I have met with many representatives from organizations in the field of transportation electrification. They had serious concerns about the government's Conservative-inspired policies and its backtracking on issues related to the fight against climate change and transportation electrification. They even told me that they were worried about the future of the electrification industry in this country. They saw that the signals the government was sending were dangerous for the industry's long-term prospects in this country. I think we should keep that in mind.
Point (iii) of the Conservative motion before us states that “the Prime Minister has introduced an auto strategy that subsidizes electric vehicles made in foreign countries”. It is important to understand that the policy that has been implemented is not aimed at favouring vehicles manufactured abroad; rather, it is aimed at encouraging manufacturers to sell electric vehicles and subsidizing these vehicles. The policy specifies that only products imported from countries where Canada has a free trade agreement are eligible for the $5,000 subsidy.
I do not understand why the Conservatives are saying that Canada is helping the U.S. This policy seems more like a challenge to the free trade agreement with the U.S. In my opinion, far from being pro-American, this policy actually states that, if we do not reach a free trade agreement, American-made vehicles might no longer be eligible for this subsidy, so the U.S. would have every interest in negotiating.
There is one more treat for Canadian manufacturers. Canadian manufacturers are not even subject to the $50,000 cap on the vehicle value. I feel like I am promoting the program, but I must say that the government does do good things once in a while, though it does not go as far as we would like. In fact, it often tries to have it both ways: following pro-oil policies while doing a little bit for transportation electrification, just enough to keep the sector from starving.
That said, I would like to talk about another point in today's Conservative motion. Point (iv) states that “the Prime Minister's plan now requires Canadian workers to pay taxes that subsidize foreign-made vehicles they can't afford”. According to the conditions for obtaining the $5,000 subsidy, the vehicle must be worth $50,000 or less. Is that more than consumers can afford?
Of course, $50,000 is a substantial amount. However, we see that the average selling price of vehicles in Canada was $63,400 in 2025, so this is below the average price of vehicles. If people are buying vehicles at an average price of $63,000, how can we say that $50,000 is too expensive for the average person? There is something a little contradictory about what the Conservatives are putting forward. I am not saying that everyone can afford to buy a $60,000 or $50,000 car, but it is precisely vehicles that cost less than $50,000 that are eligible for the subsidy. Cars that cost $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000 will be eligible.
With this in mind, we hope that Canada will work to ensure that less expensive vehicles, including those from the EU, will eventually be available here. That is not the case, currently, and it is one of the things we find problematic. Electric vehicles obviously need to be affordable so that ordinary people can afford to buy them. To achieve this, local manufacturers need to be encouraged to produce these vehicles. At this point, there seems to be some resistance, and unfortunately, that seems to be the case with Honda, for one, which has a plant in Canada. Obviously, it is sad to see this manufacturer back down when it would be in its best interest to look to the future, especially since it sells so many Honda Civics. I do not think any other car was as popular in Quebec when I was growing up.
Meanwhile, in Quebec, the electrification market is taking off. Everyone knows that Quebec has a robust market for electrification. Quebeckers love electric cars. Honda would do well to take a greater interest in this market, since electrification is so popular in Quebec.
In point (c) of the motion, the Conservatives state that the government should use its “existing authority to reduce the amount of tax withheld on severance payments issued to workers at the GM CAMI facility in Ingersoll”.
That facility is probably based in Ontario and has experienced significant job losses. What does that mean, once again? It means that the Conservative motion is centred on Ontario's auto industry and on oil interests. It also shows a complete lack of sensitivity toward Quebec businesses in the manufacturing sector, particularly those that have also suffered job losses. Consider, for example, the folks at Paccar in Sainte-Thérèse, where 700 jobs were lost. Why did the Conservatives not include the workers at Paccar in their motion? It is probably because Quebec is the least of their concerns.
What we notice after reading the motion before the House is that it seeks to completely detract from what is coming. Electrification is being framed as some kind of trend that we need to back away from. We are being told that the world has changed and that we are in a different place now. Unfortunately, all too often, it is the the Liberals taking that position. When we talk about people, we mean real people, not just the ones south of the border, in the Trump administration, a temporary United States government. When we look at the numbers worldwide, what do we see? We see that EVs currently account for 20% to 25% of the global market share. In China, the percentage is over 50%. In Norway, it is 88%. That reflects an increase in sales of nearly 20% last year, in 2025.
Electrification has a future; oil, not so much.