Debates of March 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Tariff-free Auto Pact

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois does not support the Conservative Party's motion. In fact, by moving yet another motion on the auto sector, the Conservatives are unfortunately confusing the interests of Ontarians with the interests of Quebeckers. They are also protecting the interests of Canadian auto manufacturers, which are lagging behind internationally compared to electric vehicle manufacturers. Once again, they are protecting the interests of oil companies.

What the Conservatives are doing is trying to bring Canada in line with Donald Trump's policies. The Conservatives are proposing an alignment with U.S. positions, including positions on tariffs that target Chinese vehicles, emissions standards and rules of origin, before trade agreement negotiations even begin.

Obviously, we are skeptical about the Conservative proposal to resurrect the 1965 Auto Pact. This pact was not free trade. It was a managed trade agreement essentially designed to protect Ontario's auto industry. Quebec was never afforded such protection. Rejecting the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in favour of a measure like this would essentially mean reverting to a model that systematically favoured Ontario at Quebec's expense.

The second part of the motion asks several things of the government, including ending the EV subsidy and removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles. Removing the GST on vehicles in the current context would be terribly counterproductive. With regard to his tariffs, Donald Trump has largely spared the sectors that are currently covered by CUSMA. If Ottawa begins to tax foreign vehicles through the GST and other means, but not vehicles produced here, Donald Trump will inevitably interpret that as a tariff on American vehicles. In short, while the Conservatives want to favour local production, this measure will very certainly have the opposite effect and will provide Donald Trump with the perfect pretext to impose new tariffs, or even to repudiate CUSMA and tax the entire Canadian economy, including the Quebec economy.

Regarding EV subsidies, this is yet another proposal by the Conservatives to oppose the reinstatement of subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles. This measure has proven effective in stimulating the EV market since it was introduced in 2019 here in Canada. We are talking about new subsidies that have been implemented after a one-year suspension that led to a major decline in electric vehicle sales. This decline was the result of the government suspending these subsidies overnight. Yes, we need a short-term subsidy. What is interesting, however, is that this subsidy is capped for vehicles with a price tag under $50,000.

Obviously, Quebeckers have everything to gain, because Quebec is where the most electric vehicles are sold in the country. When we look at the impact of subsidies, we see that a subsidy of $1,000 leads to roughly a 10% increase in electric vehicle sales, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. The International Energy Agency has confirmed that the global EV market is booming despite economic uncertainties caused, among other things, by U.S. tariffs. In 2025, 25% of new light-duty vehicles sold worldwide were electric. There is even talk of two out of five vehicles by the end of the decade, if not more. Currently, China is continuing its conquest of this market, which is literally growing everywhere on the planet except here in Canada.

Let us take a look at China. People always say that China needs to step up its efforts. Right now, it is leading the transition to electric vehicles, including with very competitive tariffs, high-performance vehicles and more affordable models. As we speak, 50% of new vehicles sold in China are electric, and that figure is likely to rise to 80% by 2030, if not sooner.

Therefore, the Conservatives are mistaken. EV subsidies must not be eliminated, but the supply side needs to be addressed as well. That is what Canada had with the electric vehicle availability standard, which the government abolished. However, a number of studies suggest that relying solely on purchase incentives is not the best way to boost sales. More is required. What happened with the EV availability standard is another step backward by the government, which a year ago had a far more ambitious standard than what has been proposed.

We do not know how what was proposed in January will translate into regulations. The government has once again lowered the bar, and it is far from certain that it will meet even this new low bar. Whereas it previously aimed for 100% of new light-duty vehicles sold by 2035 to be electric, it is now aiming for only 75%, and the regulations are still not in place. It is reasonable to believe that the reason Ontario manufacturers and Doug Ford are applauding the government's backtracking is that it is moving backward and risks retreating even further.

The purpose of targeted subsidies is to make vehicles more affordable from the get-go. Right now they are still needed to close the remaining gap between electric vehicles and other vehicles, while the development of charging infrastructure boosts market confidence and consumer confidence while fostering this future-oriented economy that needs to be developed.

There are other key measures that concern us at this time. One of our concerns is the fact that electric vehicles manufactured in Europe do not have access to the Canadian market because the safety standards are not recognized as being equivalent. Our point is that if we want to diversify the market, then we need to facilitate access to these high-performance, lower-cost vehicles, which are currently being blocked by absolutely useless government measures. Mexico, for example, allows these vehicles into the country, but Canada does not, even though they are the same vehicles. If we were to let these vehicles into the country, it would help to bring down the cost and give people access to a wider variety of models, including smaller models that are virtually non-existent in Canada. The same goes for Chinese vehicles. However, there are issues related to the production of Chinese vehicles. It is important to be vigilant, particularly regarding espionage, forced labour and Chinese interference in Canada.

As for Canada, there has been a drop of nearly 50% in EV sales across the country. We are, I believe, the only country where sales have fallen, dropping from 18% to 9% of total vehicle sales last year. In Norway, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries in particular, Europe in general and in China, electric vehicle sales account for over 50% of new vehicles sold. We are lagging behind here in Canada. The Conservatives are essentially proposing we slow that pace even further in order to protect the Canadian automotive industry, which has failed to adapt to the new global reality of climate change and the performance and efficiency of EVs. That is why they want to block new vehicles from entering the market and do not want to force manufacturers to produce more vehicles. Clearly, the industry is completely behind the times and is in cahoots with the oil companies, which have every interest in ensuring that more oil is sold. Obviously, the electrification of transport threatens oil company profits.

When the Conservatives propose ending EV mandates and rebates, they are also proposing to align vehicle emission reductions with those of our North American partner, the United States. In other words, they are asking for permission to pollute without limit, like Donald Trump's United States. President Trump announced the repeal of vehicle efficiency standards that extended over time the driving range of vehicles per gallon of gas. Under the current administration's plan, that amounts to 34.5 miles per gallon, compared to 50.4 miles per gallon under the Biden administration.

Obviously, this standard has an impact on production lines. If it is removed, manufacturers will no longer be forced to produce higher-efficiency vehicles, including electric vehicles. In the United States, this measure is estimated to save $23 billion in gas costs. These gas costs go straight into people's pockets. If manufacturers are under no obligation, we know they will not comply. We know that vehicles will use more gas and cost more. We know that households will have fewer options when it comes to small, fuel-efficient vehicles and electric vehicles.

Unfortunately, once again, our Conservative friends are essentially suggesting that we go back to the Stone Age. They want to go backward at a time when the entire world is moving forward with the electrification of transportation and is taking the fight against climate change seriously. Obviously, we believe that aligning ourselves with the Trump administration is completely unacceptable. The government has already backed down on the electrification of transportation and related measures. What it should do is improve its auto strategy by setting more ambitious targets and taking action to ensure that we have more EVs from regions like Europe, not by doing less, as the Conservatives are proposing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, going over the Conservative motion, one cannot help but conclude that the Conservatives do not take into consideration the whole concept of electric vehicles, whether they are hybrids or purely electric. It is really unfortunate that the official opposition is failing to recognize an important aspect of the industry.

I am wondering if my friend from the Bloc can provide his thoughts on this, given that the Province of Quebec, in the past, has provided EV incentives, as have the Province of Manitoba and the Province of B.C.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in our view, the Conservatives' proposal is utterly backward. Quebec is a leader in transportation electrification, and it needs the federal government's support. That means implementing ambitious measures, but the government's latest auto strategy is not ambitious, unfortunately. In terms of targets, it is not enough.

There is also absolutely nothing in it about medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, even though those types of vehicles must be electrified. There is also no new money for charging stations outside of big cities, for the small charging station projects we need to ensure that charging is available everywhere.

Yes, the Conservatives are backward, but we also need the Liberals to be much more ambitious. We need them to stop listening to automakers and the Ontario auto industry lobby, which are dragging us down. They also need to stop listening to the oil industry lobby, with which the government is deeply complicit.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Sainte‑Thérèse was once home to an auto manufacturing facility, and even though Quebec no longer manufactures cars, it remains a very important industry in that province. Parts and engines are still manufactured there, for example. Thousands of workers are employed in that industry.

Can the Bloc Québécois comment on the impact that the Liberal's policy is having on Quebec and on this staggering decline of more than a million cars? Although vehicles are not fully assembled in Quebec, this does have an impact on parts manufacturing.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are currently 130,000 jobs in the electric mobility sector in this country and many of those jobs are in Quebec. That number is expected to triple by 2035. Quebec does not manufacture gas-powered vehicles. It manufactures electric buses, light-duty electric trucks, heavy-duty electric trucks, trains and streetcars. Quebec can do that and is interested in developing the components, batteries, charging station systems and the electrical system.

That is where the jobs of the future are and that is where the government should be investing. Canada will not move forward by waiving environmental measures or eliminating them, as the Conservatives want to do. The federal government is currently dragging Quebec down when we could be world leaders. Obstacles are being put in our way. The federal government is making investments that exacerbate the problem, when it should be supporting the solutions that exist in Quebec, which require investments.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I opened the newspaper last week, I was surprised to see that Ontario premier Doug Ford, a Conservative, had the audacity to ask Quebec to abandon its electric vehicle sales targets. Today, the Conservatives have put forward a motion that seeks to do pretty much the same thing. It uses different words, but the message is the same: There will be no more support for the transportation electrification sector.

It seems that both Conservative parties, the federal party and the Ontario party, are joining forces with some sanctimonious people who want to undermine this movement in Quebec. What does my colleague, the Bloc Québécois environment critic, think about that?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has everything to gain from quickly moving away from oil and gas. Over $10 billion per year is leaving Quebec on oil purchases alone. Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Conservatives, oil companies and auto manufacturers are all working against electrification. We hope that this government will stand up and propose measures to help Quebec break free of oil and gas, rather than continuing to help oil companies make profits.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to our Conservative motion to protect and grow Canada's auto sector. I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

As the member of Parliament for New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, I have the honour of representing the workers at the four million square foot Honda Canada manufacturing facility in Alliston, Ontario, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. The 4,200 workers at Honda Canada build vehicles for Canadians from all walks of life, including the 2026 Canadian car of the year, the Honda Civic. They are highly skilled, experienced and among the best in the world at what they do.

Each year, they produce more than 400,000 vehicles. They source over $3 billion in parts from Canadian suppliers, supporting roughly 30,000 spinoff jobs across the country. They also give back to their community, supporting charities and local initiatives that make all Canadians' lives better. However, despite all their hard work, they are being let down by a Liberal government that has allowed the production and investment to decline, employment opportunities to disappear and uncertainty to take hold in this pivotal industry.

Since the Liberals first formed government, automotive production in Canada has steadily declined, falling from 2.3 million vehicles in 2016 to 1.2 million vehicles last year. That decline has continued. In the first month of 2026, exports of passenger cars and light trucks have fallen by a whopping 32.5%.

Canadian workers are bearing the impacts. Over the past decade, employment in the production of passenger vehicles and light truck assembly has fallen by thousands. Entire communities have experienced layoffs in major facilities, which has had effects extending beyond the plant floor to suppliers and small businesses that support them.

Investment decisions in the auto sector are increasingly being made outside Canada. Major manufacturers are committing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs in other countries, shaping the future of the industry beyond our borders.

When he was first appointed, the Prime Minister promised to protect auto jobs, but in his first year, there have been job losses in the auto sector every month. He said he would move at speeds Canadians had never seen before, but no one expected that meant accelerating job losses.

The Liberal approach to the automotive sector is not really a strategy at all. It is the managed decline of an industry that has been struggling for some time. There is a lot at stake, and there are a lot of issues. For one, it assumes we can shift to producing more electric vehicles and make up for lost access to the U.S. market by selling to Europe, but that does not reflect how the market works. Right now, fewer than 2% of vehicles we export go to Europe, and Europe is putting rules in place to favour vehicles that are built there.

At the same time, U.S. tariffs are adding significant costs for Canadian manufacturers, and the government's credit system does not come close to covering these costs. The result is a plan that leaves our auto sector facing more pressure and more uncertainty, without a clear path forward. Our country needs a plan that will protect our auto jobs here at home and build leverage to achieve tariff-free trade with the United States.

No one has a monopoly on a good idea. As His Majesty's loyal opposition, the Conservatives are promising real solutions in this motion that the government needs to adopt urgently. We need to make it easier for Canadians to buy the vehicles that are built here. Removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles would help close the gap between what we produce and what Canadians can afford, unlike the Liberal plan, which would send incentives abroad rather than supporting domestic production right here at home.

We also need to tie market access directly to production. Under the Conservative plan, manufacturers who build vehicles in Canada would earn the ability to sell vehicles here duty-free from our North American partners. This creates a clear and immediate incentive to invest in Canadian facilities, Canadian workers and Canadian supply chains. It reflects the reality that this is a continental industry and ensures that Canada remains a central part of it.

The plan would also reinforce the North American supply chain by making more parts and having more work done right here in North America. This would support jobs across the broader economy, including Canadian parts manufacturers, local suppliers and thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that depend on the sector.

I have met with many of those suppliers over the past year. One of them told me a different story of how difficult the Liberal government has made it for them to navigate the red tape around tariffs, remissions, and import and export rules. They are being squeezed from both sides: pressured abroad by Trump and burdened at home by the government. Our plan addresses this so they can focus on production, hiring workers and growing their operations.

Another significant issue with the Liberals' auto strategy is their continued obsession with electric vehicles. Following their disastrous EV mandate that they have finally backed down on, the new version of the mandate is an EV rebate that will give taxpayer money to the wealthy for electric cars that everyday Canadians do not want and cannot afford. It does not support the production of the clean and fuel-efficient vehicles already being produced right here in Canada, including those at Honda.

Instead, our plan would align our emission rules with those of the United States so manufacturers can build for one North American market instead of two separate systems. That lowers costs and supports continued production in Canada, including of hybrids.

We are living through a period of real economic uncertainty. Global conflicts and strained international relationships are putting pressure our economy, but the Liberals' approach to the auto sector is adding to that uncertainty. Their policies leave Canadian manufacturers guessing, and when companies are left guessing, they hold back investment. However, the uncertainty the Liberals are piling on is felt not just in the boardrooms. It is also felt on the plant floors by the workers who do not know if their jobs are secure, and it is felt across entire communities as well, by the people who rely on auto plants to support their family and keep their local economy going.

The motion is about restoring stability to a sector that supports hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is about giving manufacturers the confidence to build here, invest here and hire here. Conservatives have a plan that reflects how the auto industry actually works, a plan that would support production in Canada, strengthen our place in North America and give workers and families a clearer path forward. The workers I represent at Honda in Alliston, and workers across the country, have proven their ability to compete and succeed every single day. It is time for the Liberal government to support them by voting for our motion.

The Conservative plan would rebuild our industrial base, restore confidence here at home and ensure that Canada remains strong, self-reliant and secure in the world.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives are basing their entire plan on a 1965-era world and environment that we lived in. Back then, there were three major manufacturers of automobiles in the United States and Canada: Ford, Chrysler and GM. Today there are dozens. In 1965, pretty much all production was done in the U.S. and Canada, and it was heavily labour-intensive. Today many sell but do not manufacture in Canada, and the manufacturing is a lot more automated.

In addition to that, the supply chains were heavily regional between the United States and Canada. Today they are much more globalized, and the supply chains are working throughout the entire world.

How can the member stand and suggest that this plan would work in today's context?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the number one thing I was hearing was uncertainty, and uncertainty is a job killer and an investment killer.

Let us take the EV mandate, for example. The government spent years talking about the EV mandate, not to mention the 10 years they talked to Canadians selling the carbon tax, but we will just forget about all that. Back to the EV mandate, this presented uncertainty in the industry. Now, the Liberals are saying that they are going to cancel the EV mandate, which is still on the books and has not been repealed. It is still the law of the day and companies are still dealing with it, and now we do not even know what the tailpipe emissions are going to be for companies. They are still struggling with uncertainty.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before the redistribution, Honda was part of my riding. I am very happy that the member who represents them now is seeing what is going on in our community. I know how important Honda is. I have many employees in my riding who work there. They do great community work and a lot of charitable work.

Could the member for New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury update us on what the folks are saying and why they need the plan that has been presented by the Conservatives?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Simcoe—Grey for representing the great people of New Tecumseth all those years.

I want to follow up on uncertainty. This is the problem with the government, and we hear it from many parts manufacturers and feeder plants, including Honda, that I go to. Companies need certainty to invest. They need to know the rules of the game, and right now no one knows the rules of the game. It was the Prime Minister who promised, in the election, to get a deal with Donald Trump by July. I did not say it; he did. I would like the government to understand that, as the official opposition, our job is to make the government the best it can be.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are correct in saying that the Liberals do not have a plan to reduce American tariffs, but what they are proposing is not a plan either. It is unconditional alignment with Donald Trump's positions. It is a pre-emptive surrender.

How much would it cost to have all these tax exemptions for Canadian vehicles and not for foreign ones?

Is it possible that Mr. Trump might interpret this as a tariff on American vehicles and that this would have the opposite effect?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I missed the first part of my colleague's question.

The number one thing that I would like to talk about is uncertainty. What most Canadians asked me when I was in the riding last week was, what is the update on the CUSMA negotiations? What is the update on the deal with the United States? This is one of the most secretive deals. We get no updates from the government. What is the government's plan?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not with an abstract theory but with a testimony, the testimony of men and women who rise before dawn, who punch in, who build, who weld, who assemble and who simply ask only this of their country and its leaders: Stand with them as they stand for their nation.

I speak for the good people of Windsor, Oshawa, Kitchener, Oakville, Ingersoll, Simcoe—Grey, Brampton and New Tecumseth, for all the workers who hold the beating heart of Canada's auto industry in their hands. I speak for communities where a factory is not just a workplace but the spine of the local economy, the anchor of family life and the promise that if we work hard, we can get ahead.

Let us begin with the simple truth. We are told often and with great confidence that this is a new government, but most Canadians are not so easily persuaded. They remember that it is the same Liberal government that has been in power since 2015. The story we are about to tell is a story about the government written over that decade. During this decade, Canadians remember being told the budget will balance itself. They remember a very casual approach to deficits, as though fundamentals and fiscal anchors no longer mattered. Even when concerns were raised, too often the response was, who cares? Workers in Windsor care. Families balancing bills care. Seniors trying to keep body and soul together care. Young Canadians wondering if they will have a future in this country care.

Let us look at the facts for a moment. In 2015, we had roughly 1.5 million manufacturing jobs. Today, after nearly a decade, we have about 1.56 million. This is an increase of roughly 60,000 jobs, which is simply 4% more. Over that same period, Canada's population grew by four million to five million. That is a 10% to 12% increase. We added millions more to our country, but barely added enough jobs in the sector that builds our economy. That is not growth. That is simply more people competing for the same opportunities.

Let us turn to the auto sector, because Windsor does not just participate in this industry; it defines it. In 2016, Canada produced over two million vehicles a year. Today, that number is about 1.2 million, which is a decline of about 35%. Since 2019 alone, production has dropped by about 33%. Meanwhile, the United States is holding steady compared to its prepandemic levels, but Mexico is moving ahead, and Canada, as we know, is falling behind.

The simple truth is that when production falls, jobs follow. Tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. Assembly lines are disappearing and part suppliers are under immense pressure. This is not just decline. It is instability and uncertainty. It is workers wondering if they have a job next week, families wondering if the next paycheque is secure and parents wondering if their kids will have to leave the city, province or country to find opportunities.

We have an economy growing at around 1%. In aeronautical terms, it is an economy operating at stall speed, certainly not at the unprecedented speeds promised by the Prime Minister. Countries do not drift into prosperity. They decide it, and we are choosing to go the other way.

There is a deeper concern, one that Canadians increasingly feel, even if it is not always said out loud. It is that the government has lost its way. It does not seem to know what it wants to do. It is pulled in different directions by competing ideas, competing ideologies and competing factions within the party. It seems to have put up a tariff wall of its own against anyone trying to invest here or build in this country.

Instead of de-risking our manufacturing and trade systems, instead of protecting them from shocks, we have added more uncertainty through unpredictable policy, making it harder, not easier, for businesses to plan, invest and grow. The result is no clarity and no direction, but plenty of hesitation. It is a government caught between choices and increasingly frozen into inaction. What we see from it is announcements, press conferences and repackaged ideas, but people are asking where the results are. As we well know, we cannot run an economy on announcements alone. We cannot build an industry on uncertainty. We cannot de-risk a fragile manufacturing base while piling on regulations that choke competition and slow down investment. We certainly cannot lead a country if we are unsure of our own direction.

Sadly, it is the Canadian worker, the Canadian family and the Canadian entrepreneur who are paying the price. People in the manufacturing sector are telling the government the same story. They see policies introduced and then reversed. They see mandates announced and then withdrawn. They see regulations layered on top of regulations without regard for competitiveness. They see barriers within our own country, where free trade between provinces is still a dream rather than a reality. They see labour unable to move freely to where the jobs are, and they ask how they can compete globally when they cannot even compete internally. In their own words, these businesses face gale-force winds of uncertainty and are being blinded by the word salad being spewed by our friends opposite.

When businesses are driving blind, they slow down, they delay investment or they go somewhere else where the conditions are calmer and more predictable or consistent. That is exactly what we are seeing. Even the infrastructure that is meant to support this industry, the very arteries of trade, are delayed. The Gordie Howe International Bridge, so critical to Windsor and our national supply chain, is still not open. We do not know when it will open, and at a time when we should be accelerating trade, we are still waiting.

What is required? It is not reinvention nor slogans, but a return to basics. That is exactly what the proposal from His Majesty's loyal opposition represents. It begins with an idea so simple, so grounded, that it resonates beyond politics. If we want to sell cars in Canada, we should be building cars in Canada. It is a modern auto pact, not a nostalgic hearkening to a bygone era, and it is practical and modern in its application. Simply put, if companies build here, they get to sell here duty-free. If they invest in this country, they see a return on their investment.

We would tie local production to local market access. We would reward work done here in this country. We would remove GST on Canadian-made vehicles and support Canadian auto workers directly. We would align regulations with the United States and remove barriers that drive investment away. We would secure access to the U.S. market and compete where it matters most, and we would focus on building the infrastructure, the connectivity and the internal trade corridors that would actually grow GDP, not just talk about it.

Here is a reality check: Our integrated supply chains are with our North American neighbours, not European or Asian neighbours. The question we have to answer is not whether we engage, but whether we do so strategically.

There will always be debate and there will always be concern, but we must measure any approach against facts. The current path delivered a 35% drop in production, a decade of stagnation and an economy at snail speed. At some point, we must move beyond defending the status quo and start changing it. The simple truth is that if we make it easier to build somewhere else, companies will build somewhere else. If we make it harder to build in Canada, investment will leave Canada. That is not ideology; that is reality. If we ignore this simple reality, we will lose more jobs, we will lose capacity and we will lose skills. Once the skills and talent are gone, they will not come back.

This is not about left or right. It is about whether Canada still believes in building things, whether we still believe in our workers, in our industry and in creating opportunities for a better future, or whether we accept a timid future, a future of steady decline dressed up as progress. If we continue on this path, we already know where it leads. It leads to more stagnation, more uncertainty, more loss and eventually more despair. In other words, it is managed decline leading to a permanent loss.

The people of Windsor and across southwestern Ontario and Quebec are not asking for perfection. They are asking for leadership. Let us give it to them. Let us stand up for production. Let us stand for workers in Canada. Let us stand for Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to spend a little more time being careful about the words that he uses. When he writes a speech, he should be reflecting on what he is actually proposing. In the beginning of his speech, he talked about how the government is repackaging ideas, but then he literally went on to talk about how the Conservatives' entire plan is a repackaging of a 1965-era auto pact. By the way, that entire auto pact was hinged and grounded on the principle that the United States of America was interested in international trade. The United States of America is now taking a protectionist approach, which does not support international trade. It is not interested in trading with anybody. It put tariffs on everybody.

Why does this member think that this plan is suddenly going to reverse all that?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic question.

I still speak with people who used to work when the auto pact was in place. My uncle worked at the Ford Motor Company for nearly 40 years. My other uncle worked at Chrysler for nearly 35 years. They know what that plan was, and they still harken back to it and say, “We wish we had the auto pact.” We talk to people in Windsor—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, can I answer?

The sad truth is that our production capacity has declined significantly. The U.S. is manufacturing 10 million vehicles, meanwhile consuming 13 million. We are producing one million and consuming two million, and Mexico is leading. We need to do better.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given all the plant closures, not only those that have happened but those to come, the massive layoffs and the anxiety and hardship that go along with that, all the Liberals have to say is, “Well, let them do something else. Let them manufacture defence vehicles.”

Even if we could find the companies, even if we could re-skill the workers and retool the plants, I would like to ask the member from Windsor, how realistic is it to have these workers and plants just do something else?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, folks in Windsor have already started diversifying, and they started diversifying over 10 years ago. However, the uncertainty that the last year and a half has brought is something that is unprecedented. They were looking to the government for some solutions, because the Liberals promised them. They said, “We will have a deal by July 21. Don't you worry. We will have the best deal.” Meanwhile, we have no deal.

We have plants that are being courted from Michigan and Ohio, and they are on the verge of leaving because they cannot sustain themselves in this environment. We are chasing away investment, and we are chasing away workers, because we have not done enough for them. In fact, we have not done anything for them, sadly. We have people who want to build plants here, but they are complaining about the regulations and policies that are choking them out of being competitive. Nobody wants to come to a non-competitive place.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it puzzles me that the member from Windsor would not be celebrating that federal government investments in the NextStar plant mean 1,100 jobs in his riding. The people at Stellantis are excited to add a third shift.

The people are looking to government to support them in this difficult period with a challenging trading partner. I am hearing a lot of “throwing up our hands” on the other side of the House, but the proof is that these investments have worked in the past.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is simple. Canada's auto sector has declined over 30% in production, while manufacturing jobs have barely grown, despite millions more in this country. That tells us that the current approach is not working.

What we are proposing is grounded in common sense. If people want to sell cars in Canada, they should be building them here. By tying market access to production, reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure and strengthening North American integration, we can de-risk the sector, attract investment and protect jobs.

Right now, businesses are facing uncertainty, tariffs and mixed signals. That is why investment is hesitating. The plan restores clarity, competitiveness and confidence in our folks.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from southwestern Ontario, the member for Guelph.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House and to defend workers, to defend the people who sent us to this House, especially and particularly workers from our neck of the woods in southwestern Ontario. For so long, southwestern Ontario has been known to be the heart of Canada's auto sector. Cities like London, Windsor, Ingersoll and St. Thomas are deeply tied to the manufacturing sector. This recognition comes because of the workers. World-class workers in our region have given us a spot on the map to be able to be a competing industry in Canada but also in the world. It is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to this motion. This debate touches the realities of what Canadians face every single day.

I want to begin by saying something in very simple words. When one builds a plan for workers without talking to workers, it is just not a plan. Let us just put it out there. It is not a plan. There is no plan without the people who have to participate in that plan. The need for good and well-paying jobs in the auto sector is there. Unifor, which is Canada's largest private sector union, representing more than 40,000 auto workers across assembly, parts manufacturing and dealerships, was not consulted before the Conservatives' grand plan. We are happy to see that they are finally working on a plan. We are happy to see them join the conversation, which has been taken up not just by workers but by families across this country, particularly in southwestern Ontario, for the last year or so. They are just joining the conversation now, and it is never too late to defend workers in Canada. It is never too late to defend families in Canada, so we are very happy to see this conversation going. However, they have not consulted workers.

How do we know? John D’Agnolo, chair of Unifor's national auto council and president of Unifor Local 200 in Windsor, said it plainly: “What was most frustrating is the fact that you think you [would] go to the experts that have to deal with it every day and sit down with our leader who’s been involved.” That is his quote, not my quote. I want this House to hear that again. The experts who are dealing with this every single day, the workers who live this reality in Windsor, Ingersoll, Brampton and Oshawa, were not in the room when this plan was built. They were not consulted. There was no conversation. There was no phone call. When they responded and raised their concerns publicly and professionally, the response from the opposition was to amplify one local leader who agreed about the Conservatives' plan and to be quiet about the rest of the people, who were calling on them to consult. As I said, this confirms that this plan is not for the workers, as it purports to be.

I represent London West. Ingersoll is in my backyard. I know what happened at CAMI Assembly. I know what it means for 1,200 workers. They showed up for a job that was supposed to be Canada's electric vehicle future and found that the plant was closing. I have spoken to some of the leaders there. I have spoken to the workers and the families that are impacted. I will not stand here and let a plan that workers themselves have raised serious concerns about go unchallenged.

Let me tell this House exactly what Unifor said. The Unifor national president, Lana Payne, wrote directly to the Conservative leader. She said, “We are encouraged by your effort, but skeptical that this plan can restart idled Canadian facilities. In fact, we fear it may prevent potential future growth—which I do not believe is your intent.” That is her quote, that it would not “restart” but “prevent...future growth”. That is the union that has been fighting for the workers in Brampton. That is the union that has stood with the workers in Ingersoll. That is Unifor telling the opposition members that their plan, designed to save the auto sector, could not make things work for the very plants that need saving the most. Madame Payne was also clear that plans for the auto sector must be rigorous, well researched and defensible, and that the ideas must be rooted in the experiences of auto workers and formulated with auto workers and their families in mind, and this was not it.

On the central one-for-one production-to-sales ratio at the heart of the Conservative plan, the chair of Unifor's national auto council said directly, “That means we don’t need Brampton, and we don’t need Ingersoll because we don’t sell enough of those vehicles to get one for one”. That is just simply wrong, saying that we do not need Brampton and we do not need Ingersoll. This is not what we are saying, and this is not a plan that anyone should get behind.

The union that represents the workers in Brampton is Unifor. Unifor National President Payne also addressed the mathematics directly behind this plan, calling the claim that the plan will restore Canadian auto production to two million vehicles per year just “mathematically incorrect” and noting that the auto industry today is global, with dozens of automakers building and selling cars in Canada who have no local production presence at all. The 1965 auto pact worked because four North American automakers dominated both production and sales on this continent. That world does not exist anymore. We cannot take 1965 and paste it onto 2026 and call it a strategy.

I want to be fair. Unifor acknowledged that the threat to Canada's auto sector “warrants government attention, regardless of political affiliation”, and it was encouraged to see the opposition engage on this issue. As I said when I started my speech, we are glad to see the Conservatives join the conversation that Canadians have been having for over a year. I share that. The opposition is finally talking about the auto sector in substantive terms, and that conversation really matters for all of our workers, for all Canadians. However, the workers who know this industry best have looked at what was proposed and said that the ideas were not rooted in their experience. They were not formulated with auto workers in mind. They were not rigorous enough to restart what needs to be restarted, and that also matters. Not to play for any partisan points here, but as a matter of basic respect for the people who sent us to this House to represent them every day, we are supposed to adopt policies that work for them, and this plan is simply not it.

Let me tell this House what our government is doing. Our approach actually looks like this. The difference between the Conservative approach and the government's approach is not just policy and talking points. It is a process. It is a process that we built with the workers. It is a process that we have announced and have consulted on across different regions and sectors. This government has been at the table with unions like Unifor, with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, with plant chairs, with mayors and with economic development leaders across southwestern Ontario, not after announcing a plan but before building the plan, and then getting to the place of announcing it.

I know what that looks like. I have been part of some conversations as well. Two weeks ago, I convened a closed-door meeting with the economic development leaders from across southwestern Ontario, alongside FedDev Ontario. The auto sector was part of that conversation. The questions those leaders asked, the barriers they named and the priorities they raised are things that have been taken back to Ottawa to work on with our colleagues who are tasked to do this work, like the Minister of Industry and many other colleagues who have been talking about the specific impact on our workers. That is what consultation looks like.

When GM and Stellantis failed to meet their production commitments in Canada, our government decided to cut GM's tariff remission quota by 24% and Stellantis' by 50%. This is the government that is telling automakers plainly that access to Canadian markets comes with obligations to Canadian workers. They do not get to take and not give back to our workers. That is consultation. That is keeping our workers in mind.

The Canada-Ontario workforce tariff response announced this month is a joint federal-provincial initiative that directly supports workers through retraining, upskilling and work-sharing programs for sectors impacted by the tariffs. The workers at CAMI in Ingersoll, the workers across the supply chain who lost shifts or jobs because of a trade war that was not started by us and is unwarranted, those workers are at the centre of what our government is building. They are not an afterthought. They are not just people to whom we are going to announce what we are doing. We are working directly with them, consulting with them to come up with a plan that responds to the very challenging needs that our workers have and that Canadian families are facing.

I want to talk about Ingersoll one more time, because every time this debate happens about production ratios, tariff framework and CUSMA leverage, I think about the specific human reality of what this region is living through. The workers who built Canada's first full-scale electric vehicle-manufacturing plant in Ingersoll believed they were building the future of this country's industrial base. They had—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid the time for debate has expired. The hon. member will have time to take it up again during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.