Mr. Speaker, we just cannot run the 2026 auto sector with a 1965 rule book, unless the plan is to drive Canada straight into the past. The members opposite are saying we need a plan. On February 5, the new government presented a plan in consultation with all of the industry associations and workers. It was received with universal acclaim.
This is not the first time the Conservatives have come together with a hodgepodge number of different sentences that may or may not make sense. On February 12, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot had a CPC opposition motion with an opposition strategy. At the industry committee, twice now, we have had studies on the auto industry.
This is important because auto workers and the industry need us to really be thinking these things through, but we have a robust plan, and this opposition motion is just not it. This ill-conceived proposal is centred on a new, tariff-free auto pact that is modelled after a 1965 version. The plan is so old, it predates seat belts and the Canadian vehicle safety standard, and only major North American automakers dominated the production at the time. Now they make up less than 30% of domestic production, and they are the only ones endorsing this proposal.
The reality today is that we have a globalized multi-manufacturer environment that operates very differently. The reality is that this motion does not take into account the entire ecosystem of parts or critical minerals or dealerships and what that means. This is also a proposal that arrives late and looks backwards. The plan is not just out of date; it did not show up in time.
Our strategy, released February 5, provides $3 billion in strategic response to help our fabulous automakers weather these unjustified illegal tariffs. There is $1 billion for regional tariff relief. I know of businesses in Guelph, parts manufacturers, that have needed this to help keep their shop floors busy and to position for the future. The federal government's plan supports workers, which is something that is completely absent from the proposal of the members opposite.
This proposal, so-called, waits for Washington instead of Canada to lead. A real strategy leads. This proposal waits for permission and is looking backwards. It is like waiting by the phone for an unreliable boyfriend to call, and I think that we should be making other plans.
Of course we want zero tariffs. That is hardly a novel idea. Do we want to preserve a highly integrated auto sector that has benefited both Canada and the U.S.? Absolutely, that is the goal. We can have contingency plans and a forward-looking strategy that looks at global trends such as electrification.
Our auto sector cannot depend on the political stripe of our neighbours. That is not smart and it is not sustainable in every sense of the word. The workers have rejected this proposal, and they have been ignored.
I am going to read for the House remarks made by John D'Agnolo, Unifor Local 200 president and auto council chair: “The problem is that he [being the Leader of the Opposition] went ahead and did not consult with Unifor, and it was very, very frustrating to see the things that he put in place knowing we would be in big trouble”. He also said, “He didn’t recognize engines. There’s a prime example. He didn’t recognize imports. He didn’t recognize exports of parts that we make, which is discouraging.” He continued, “He didn’t recognize the fact that the one-for-one would mean they wouldn’t need to put a product in Brampton. They wouldn’t need to build a product in Ingersoll, and they wouldn’t need a third shift at Stellantis.” He went on to say, “What it looks like is he reflected from 1965...and he tried to put details in there.... Today, the industry is totally different.” He then said, “That was because they didn’t consult with us, the people that are working on this every day. So, we [are] frustrated with that.”
I am frustrated with that too. We have been hearing the Conservatives talk down the auto sector and talk about this decade of decline for the last couple of hours, but we have the best auto workers in the world. The proof is that in April 2024, Honda announced a $15-billion investment in an EV plant in Alliston, and they are ready to go. We know that Toyota Cambridge is the most awarded plant for quality in the world. Guess what. They had record sales in 2025.
I do not know where opposition members are getting their information, but they are talking down an important sector when it needs our support. It needs stability, and it needs unity.
The Conservatives are not offering a realistic path to two million vehicles per year. Where did that number even come from? They offer no plans for supporting that new production, and they have no legal or operational explanation for their tariff-free models or how they would magically get there, when they have zero experience negotiating something like that in a context like this.
The opposition members have no vision for batteries, critical minerals or the future of assembly. They ignore everything that actually builds the vehicles today. We are looking at battery supply chains, critical minerals and EV platforms. The Conservatives have no plan for autonomous systems or next-generation manufacturing. They are ignoring global shifts in EV and moderate emissions standards.
Globally, 20% of all vehicles are EVs. The market is actually leading here. If we look at the United States, 20% of all luxury vehicles that are sold are EVs. Why is this? It is because the technology is great. People love them. The adoption will then take place and that technology is going to move to lower-priced vehicles. Like most trends, we will see adoption.
Since the House resumed in September, the Conservatives have asked for a take-note debate on the auto sector, brought two motions to the industry committee and now proposed this sad plan. What is consistent throughout all of these proposals is the lack of consultation, for one, and their attack on EVs. It is not surprising, because in March, the Leader of the Opposition appeared on a podcast, where he described the policy of net zero as a “pretext.” He said, “It's all B.S.” He called it a “net-zero fraud” that takes “away the opportunities of the people who actually do the work.” The narrative is pretty clear.
A cursory understanding of science and what is happening in the world would tell members otherwise on climate change and EVs. I worked for 10 years for an insurance company. Global reinsurers believe in climate change. They are hardly the woke left. They see the frequency and severity, and they know we need to act.
The opposition members hate EVs so much that they would sacrifice the future of the automotive industry. Would they shut down the battery plant in Windsor that is employing 1,100 workers, just as it starts to mass produce, or Canada's largest EV battery facility in St. Thomas, which is expected to have 3,000 jobs? Looking at Toyota's sales results for February, electrified sales represented 55.9% of overall sales. Why is this? It is because consumers like the convenience of being able to charge at home. It is also a lot less expensive, and it is a great ride.
If we look back at Toyota's record sales in 2025, electrified vehicles continued to lead the way for Toyota Canada in 2025, representing a 5.4% year-over-year increase and 49.7% of all 2025 sales. It is where the market is going, undeniably.
It is not just on these passenger vehicles. When we look at what is happening in the United States, Tesla opened its first publicly accessible Megacharger station for customers of the Tesla Semi. There has been massive infrastructure spending because the future is electric. Increasingly, heavy mining vehicles are electrified with regenerative braking for when they are going back down into the mine.
This Conservative plan risks blocking the future growth of the EV sector. It actively gets in the way. Unifor warns us that the CPC proposal could prevent future growth. It does not address competitive pressures from the U.S. or the EU and has no long-term, and certainly not an integrated, electrification strategy.
Let us be kind. The members opposite have never negotiated anything close to this, so how could they know? What they are proposing risks weakening Canada's position in CUSMA negotiations, and the GST proposal could be seen as a non-tariff barrier. The CPC plans to end EV subsidies and rejects the electrification incentives. It undercuts Canada and the fastest-growing segment of global auto manufacturing.
Why would the House adopt a half-baked plan when Global Automakers of Canada, Unifor and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, which all endorsed the government's plan a month ago, were not even consulted?
The Conservatives' plan ignores the best auto workers in the world. They have no plan to support the industry, and they are neglecting the industry's future. Canada's new government has a plan. It is thorough and forward-looking. That is what I am going to support.
