Debates of March 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Tariff-free Auto Pact

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe there are some K-car drivers still here.

The kind of strategy the opposition is talking about is one that frankly needs the heritage licence plate on it, because that is kind of the strategy being proposed here.

This focus on emissions reduction in a smart way, working with partners, that makes vehicles better is a key part of our plan and a key part of our progress. In every era of automotive production around the world, governments are working with business and working with the technologies that are available, or that could be available, to make cars cleaner, safer, more reliable and cheaper. This is what this strategy will do.

Speaking of making vehicles more available, it is a key part of our strategy that we have reintroduced electric vehicle rebates, something that was advocated strongly by this caucus, especially by the member for Guelph, who is the chair of our auto caucus, as well as members of our climate caucus and indeed all members on this side of the House, who made a very strong advocacy to bring these rebates back.

I am very pleased to report, and people can go to the Transport Canada website now, that the program for electric vehicle rebates will be launching on March 31 for eligible vehicles that are bought or leased on any date after February 16. This is an exciting time for Canadians to access the vehicles they want to buy, where they just need a bit of a bridge in financing to make them more available. These vehicles have not just long-term benefits to Canadians, but short-term benefits to Canadians.

I gassed up this weekend, and we know that because of the war in the Middle East, there has been a spike in gas prices. My RAV4 used to cost me about $47 to fill up. Over the weekend, it was over $60. I know from my constituents and from the constituents of members on both sides of the House that they are feeling anxiety around this moment in the war. They are feeling anxieties in lots of ways, including for the people who are suffering in that war, but here at home, it has a real effect on gas prices. A smart electric vehicle rebate policy, one that highlights and elevates the rebate this year so that it is available when people are thinking about these issues, is an especially important part of our policy.

The policy and our new strategy also celebrate workers. We are working hard with workers and with union leaders, as I have mentioned before, to make sure that where there is a threat that investments are being pulled out by some North American automakers, we are being very aggressive in making sure we are standing with workers to say that those investments we are committed to must return. We are also creating a new work-sharing grant, creating a new workforce alliance and providing employment assistance and re-skilling supports for up to 66,000 workers with a $570-million investment.

Finally, our strategy, and some of my colleagues have already referred to this, is about defending our trade interests. Canadians chose, in April, this party and people on this side of the House to defend Canada's trade interests in Washington, D.C. Yes, there are elements in this motion that we applaud. In fact, we are working daily with the administration and on this side of the House to make sure that we get the very best deal for Canada.

The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, obviously the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others are engaged regularly on the set of questions around this. It is a testament to the engagement we are doing that we have been able to get to this point where the tariffs have not unduly hurt us. In fact, Canada, overall, has the best tariff arrangement of any country in the wold, and we are going to continue to defend that. We are going to continue to defend those CUSMA exemptions. We are also going to push back, so if a company is not building enough here, we will make sure it is not able to sell as much here. That is a key part of our strategy through our remission framework.

It would be helpful, of course, if that perspective on getting the best deal for Canada was shared by every member of the caucus on the other side. If I understand the motion correctly, it calls for a trade deal to be done similar to the Canada-U.S. auto pact. I do not know if the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North brought the auto pact with him when he went to Washington, D.C., but I think it is very unfortunate that the sole representative of the Conservative caucus who went to Washington, D.C., was talking down Canada after his engagements. I think that weakened our trade position rather than strengthened it. I look forward to hearing how the Conservative caucus is going to repair that damaging interaction.

There are a few parts of the motion about Chinese tariffs and access to the Chinese market. I have not heard the other side yet refer to the real, substantive gains that were made in that arrangement for canola farmers and producers in western Canada. I know that when I went to Saskatchewan and Alberta in the past weeks, I heard with great acclaim how appreciative they were that we had some very focused arrangement with China that allowed the unleashing of the canola trade, which had been restricted. Let us just remember that this is a very focused reopening of access to the Canadian marketplace for Chinese EVs that harkens back to what we had a few years before the specific conflict we had with them. We are just reopening back to that era.

When we were in that era, I did not hear Conservatives being especially concerned that we were having a limited number of Chinese EVs in the country at that time. Any future Chinese EV enlargement will be subject to the kinds of investments that we are saying we need to look for. Again, we have a five-part strategy that focuses on investment, on workers, on sustainability, on consumer incentives like the EV rebate and on a strong trade arrangement.

Our auto strategy is coherent, and it is complete. It depends on Canadian workers, a history of investment and a need to adapt to the new era. An auto strategy that harkens back to an era that is 60 years gone, in which our main partner is not interested anymore, is not destined to succeed. For that reason, I will be opposing this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask a question, because I do not think I want to hear the answer. Quite frankly, if I am going to comment, I would say that I have been fortunate. Honda has been in my riding for many years, before this redistribution, and I have worked with them for many years. I can tell members about the frustrations that Honda has had with the Liberal government. “This is a new Liberal government”, we hear time and time again. It is the same government. When I am hearing comments about battery cars and EV cars, they are missing the whole idea behind this: We need to sell something that people want to purchase.

A lot of those companies, quite frankly, have been doing great work on their GHGs, and they are concerned that they have a government, once again, that wants to dictate what kind of technology they need to use to get to those numbers. There is extreme frustration.

The other part of it that I want to mention is that a lot of them that are not tier one or tier two parts suppliers have no foreign investment anymore, because it is the same government proposing the same issues. Quite frankly, it is killing our automotive industry.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians want the Civic, they want the RAV4 and they want some of the cars that are coming out of the plants that we think we can attract. I think Canadians want the vehicles that are being made here, and they want to be part of the electric future, which does not mean just the vehicles, but all the connected technologies, software and parts that are made in Canada.

When we take a look at the bigger picture, yes, we have some of the vehicles, and yes, we are building more and more of the technologies that are connected to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His argument in favour of transportation electrification and electric vehicles was certainly music to my ears. I could not agree more. However, over the past year, the sector has experienced a significant funding shortfall. The government unilaterally ended the EV funding program, and that caused a drop in demand.

What does my colleague think about the fact that his government's actions slowed the transportation electrification market and caused major supply chain disruptions in Quebec and the industry as a whole, which is facing significant challenges as a result?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and here is my answer. We have reinstated the incentives and we have created a new electrification strategy. In these changing times, what with the war in the Middle East, I think that our existing policies and the incentives that will be announced next week will be well received by Quebeckers and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is before the House today is a rather myopic look at a few things that could happen in the auto sector, whereas the Liberal government's plan is comprehensive. I wonder if my colleague would talk about how the government's automobile strategy looks at the full supply chain and what the benefits are for Canada, looking at things from critical minerals to the dealership.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, this plan is pro-dealership, including through the EV rebates. We have a critical minerals strategy, not only for domestic but for export. We have a software and a parts industry, including in the hon. member's riding, and she has been such a champion of those sectors and emerging sectors that are more tied to this space. I know she has an interest in artificial intelligence, and we have had a standing committee study on this. There are a variety of technologies being produced or being invented in Canada that can reach into this new era of electrification, a new era of safety and affordability.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, for most Canadians, my hon. colleague's speech fell flat because it does not actually respond to the problems that we are hearing about. The Liberals are so intent that their answer is the only right answer that they refuse to listen to any other options. Their answer keeps coming back to the fact that our answer is an answer from the past, but the reality is that we have had the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa say that this is a common-sense solution.

The reality is that what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade has absolutely destroyed our auto industry and has hurt people because they cannot afford things. They cannot afford to buy groceries. They cannot afford to put gas in their vehicles, and they sure cannot afford to buy new vehicles. Does the member opposite believe that we need to do everything in our power to bring affordability back and bring things back to Canada, yes or no?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. We do need to have a focus on affordability and bringing jobs back to Canada. That is why these investments and the strategy, which responds to the moment and the situation that was created in the last year, not 10 years ago but in the last year, are the right strategy for Canada.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

Times of crisis are known to bring about rapid change and opportunities for growth. We saw this during the first oil shock in 1973, which led to the rise of more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as the Japanese cars that are still on the roads today. In 1979, the second oil shock left Chrysler and American Motors bankrupt. We are probably going through something similar today. I think that the world is realizing that dependence on oil and instability go hand in hand, and something is going to come out of that.

Does my colleague not think that our comparative advantage lies in processing the resources and critical minerals that we have here?

Should the government's main objective not be to develop this sector and expertise in this area, and then enter into various partnerships, especially with Europe?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. He clearly demonstrated the possibilities. We have made commitments on this, but there is still a lot more work to be done. That is one of the reasons why the ministers and the Prime Minister have been travelling to Europe and other countries to forge partnerships with respect to critical minerals. Yes, we need to invest more in processing these minerals to manufacture products used in automobiles.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, in his speech, talked about affordability and gave the real-world example of filling up his car just a week ago and how much that cost has increased. We have seen the price of a barrel of oil go up to almost $120.

Given that Canada has what some describe as the least fuel-efficient fleet in the entire world, we are seeing that cost right now. As part of the motion from the Conservative Party, the Conservatives are talking about making sure that we align our tailpipe standards with those of the U.S. Looking at this right now, in B.C., the average price of gas is over two dollars a litre, and that is costing people over $18 to drive 100 kilometres. If we had the European standard, it would be below $10 for that same run, and if people were driving an EV, it would be two dollars.

I was hoping the member could speak to why we should maybe not go down the route of aligning our tailpipe standards with those of the U.S.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a long-time advocate for the kinds of policies that get results for the climate and affordability, and I want to share my appreciation for that.

He has laid out some very good specific numbers that show what is possible with the right kinds of investment in the right kinds of vehicles. The flip side is that if we go back to a 60-year-old policy and abandon 50 years of auto emissions standards, it is a complete reversal. It embraces a far right idea.

Yes, my colleague is right that we have to work together to provide those opportunities to Canadians so that, overall, our marketplace provides vehicles that are safer, more reliable and more affordable, and that reduce our emissions profile.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the member opposite on the statement he made that this has only happened in the past year in our auto industry, when in the past decade, we have gone from the production of two million cars down to 1.2 million.

My question is, why are you continuing with a plan that is trying to mitigate production losses, instead of supporting our Conservative plan, which would double production with a tariff-free pact with the United States?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind members to speak through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 15 seconds or less.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a pro-investment plan with which we intend to attract more auto investment to Canada, and it is the one defending our trade interests every day south of the border.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend from Repentigny.

Today's debate makes me think of Back to the Future, a movie that was popular when I was a kid. The characters used a car to go back to the 1960s. A few years later, Hollywood came out with Back to the Future Part II. The movie was no good, but at least they thought of using a car to propel themselves into the future. That is not the case in Ottawa. Here, the Conservatives keep wanting to bring us back into the past. Their car has just one gear: reverse.

The motion essentially proposes three things. The Conservatives want to put an end to the transportation electrification initiative, scrap the rules that require manufacturers to make electric vehicles available and eliminate the measures that encourage consumers to choose electric vehicles. By the way, in 2025, 43% of the zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada were purchased by Quebeckers. I am not sure why the Conservatives want to punish Quebeckers with their motion today, but that is the way it is.

In addition, 22% of new vehicles sold in Quebec in the last quarter were electric. That is a good thing. Every litre of gas put into a car is money that leaves Quebec. That money is transferred directly from Quebec to Canada, particularly to the west. Conversely, every kilowatt of electricity put into a vehicle is money that stays in Quebec, creates jobs in Quebec and funds Quebec's own government, schools and hospitals. This is not only an environmental issue; it is an economic issue. If only for that reason, the Bloc Québécois would be justified in opposing the Conservative motion. This motion goes against the interests of Quebec.

However, that is not all. The Conservatives also want Canada to import Donald Trump's policies on pollution and climate change. Their way of resisting Donald Trump is to imitate him, to quietly turn Canada into the 51st state. As I was saying, their car is in reverse.

That is not all. They want to set our trade relations back to 1965. This seems like a good time for a little history lesson. Ontario's auto industry developed in the early days of the automobile in the 1920s and 1930s. My colleagues may recall that the United States introduced very high tariffs after the crash of 1929 under the controversial Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

The rest of the world, including Canada, adopted reciprocal tariffs. Since American cars were subject to high tariffs, American industries began assembling cars in Canada for the Canadian market. That is how Ontario's auto industry developed. However, it was not very efficient. Automakers had to do everything twice. The same model would be assembled in two plants: one in Canada and one in the United States. Cars were more expensive and fewer models were available. Such was the price of protectionism. That is why the auto industry demanded an end to this system.

In the late 1940s, automakers began calling for free trade and an end to tariffs, but Canada refused, fearing it would lose its industry. That brings us to 1965, the year referred to in today's motion. Under the auto pact, Canada agreed to lift its tariffs, but on condition that tariffs would only be abolished for companies that maintained a Canadian production level comparable to our share of the North American market, around 10%. The auto industry operated under this protectionism-lite, known as managed trade, for 23 years, until the 1988 Canada‑United States Free Trade Agreement.

It sparked a rather heated debate at the time. Ontario was opposed to free trade, which it saw as a threat to the auto pact. Turning down a free trade deal with the United States was the 1980s version of “elbows up”. On the other side, Quebec, led by Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry and the steelworker union, supported free trade. For us, it was a way of gaining access to the world, rather than being locked up inside Canada. We know what happened next. The agreement was signed. It later became the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which then became the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

Today, the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario is half of what it was back then. It is important to remember that, in 1965, Quebec was mainly exporting raw materials. Our leading manufacturing industry was textiles and clothing. That meant low wages, occupational illnesses and a third-world economy. As for the idea that today's motion will help make Canada great again, things were not so great in Quebec.

I want to emphasize that today's motion is ill advised when it comes to trade. The Conservatives are eating out of Donald Trump's hand. Under CUSMA, the three North American countries must sit down together on July 1, but that is all it provides for. If the three countries agree to change the agreement, then it could be changed. If they do not agree, then it will remain as is. That is the current situation.

Obviously, if the U.S. Congress decides to vote in favour of withdrawing from the agreement, then it can do so and give six months' notice at any time. Does anyone in the House seriously believe that the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, which require a 60% margin, will vote in favour of that?

In the U.S., treaties are ratified and terminated by elected officials, not the President. Donald Trump does have power over how treaties are implemented, which does give him the ability to create chaos, but he cannot change or terminate treaties. Only Congress can do that, and it has never given any indication that it intends to so. It is quite the opposite, actually.

Now today's motion is playing right into Donald Trump's hands by proposing to replace CUSMA with the auto pact. I have to say that I do not really get this. Does it mean that everything is fine and we do not need to do anything? No, on the contrary.

We are currently in a crisis. It is global, and we are right in the eye of the storm. Then again, crises are periods of accelerated change, and accelerated change can bring opportunities.

The 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries turned off the tap, put an end to the American auto industry's monopoly over the continent. The three-ton gas guzzlers that got five miles per gallon became obsolete. Japanese cars arrived en masse and were here to stay. There was another oil crisis in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution and the bankruptcies of Chrysler and American Motors Corporation. We are seeing something similar today. The world is realizing that dependence on oil goes hand in hand with instability, and this realization will certainly have lasting effects.

Yesterday, I was reading an article by historian Nils Gilman in Foreign Policy magazine. He said that the new Cold War would be different from the previous one, which pitted capitalism against communism. The two competing models today are the petrostates and the electrostates. They have two different development models, two different types of infrastructure, and two different supply chains.

Donald Trump's United States is a caricature of a petrostate, anxious to make the age of oil last as long as possible. The same could be said for Canada. When Canada says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is referring to oil and gas, but that is a pointless choice. Oil is a non‑renewable resource and climate change is real, whether or not people are willing to admit it. Then there are the electrostates, which are shedding their dependence on oil and switching to less unstable and more sustainable economic development. Europe has chosen this model, but there is one problem: That leaves it dependent on China, which currently controls the entire supply chain for that new economy.

That is where Quebec comes in. The new clean economy is really our strength. We do not have oil; we have renewable energy. We have everything we need to become one of the main links in the electrostates' new supply chain. That is where our future lies.

My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who was the Bloc Québécois industry critic before me, understood that. His region sits on rich deposits of critical minerals. When the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertook a study of batteries and the modernization of the auto industry, it became clear that there were two opposing models.

The first one involves subsidizing the auto industry to help it modernize. That is what Ottawa did when it spent over $30 billion, more than 90% of which went to Ontario for projects where Canada had no real comparative advantage, except in winning a subsidy race with the United States. The results are clear today. However, there was another option. It would have been possible to support the development of an entirely new market: the processing of an existing resource. In this area, we have a comparative advantage. In fact, we have a unique asset: the resource itself. It is an asset that would have made us indispensable in the new economy, but that was not the choice Ottawa made. Our projects ended up underfunded. Many collapsed. Quebec lost money. Canada and its petro-state policy represent a missed opportunity for Quebec.

Yet the current context gives Quebec the opportunity to take full advantage of its own strengths and to reconnect with its true nature. Quebec is the bridge between America and Europe. We are that bridge through language and culture, as we know, but we are also that bridge economically. While Quebec attracts only 9% of American investments in Canada, it represents 40% of European investments. The trend is the same in trade, even if it is less pronounced. We can move away from the oil-based development model and resolutely choose a sustainable economy. If we commit to it, we can give Europe the ability to abandon the petro-state model without becoming dependent on China. We can be the new economic Eldorado.

Unfortunately, Canada has chosen the petro-state model, which is not our own. When the government talks about being an energy superpower, it is referring to oil and gas. These are two things that Quebec would be wise to get rid of because they are making it poorer. The government is talking about pipelines so expensive that they will only break even if they operate at full capacity for 20 years, locking the next generation into this outdated model.

When the Conservatives ask us to import Donald Trump's policies, they want to lock us into that model and throw away the key. That is not where Quebec's future lies. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the Conservative motion today.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I would like to thank him and congratulate him on his remarks.

My colleague spoke about the true nature of Quebec. I would nevertheless like to remind him that, over the past year, the province consumed 20 billion litres of oil, which represents an increase of 2.1%. However, that is not the point I wanted to raise.

Has my colleague, who drives an electric car like me, noticed that last year was the worst year for the EV industry worldwide? Canada had the worst record, with a drop of over 40% in EV sales. That is because this government kept taking the wrong measures and offered no predictability. On January 13, 2025, overnight, they cut financial supports without warning anyone in advance, which destabilized the industry. In May, two senior ministers stated that the subsidies would be reinstated. In fact, they were reinstated a year later.

Does the member agree—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the MP to give the member for Joliette—Manawan the opportunity to answer the question.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his remarks. I could not agree with him more. The entire transportation electrification industry brings into focus one fundamental principle, which is predictability. While the transition to the electrification of transportation is under way in Europe, China, and everywhere else in the world other than the United States and Canada under this government, we are now seeing our American neighbours move backward. It appears that the Prime Minister and his predecessor are taking a page from Donald Trump's policies by doing less and destabilizing the supply chain, preferring to remain stuck in the past rather than looking to the future, while under this model, Quebec has everything it needs to succeed.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Do members know who applauded our auto strategy? It was Ontario premier Doug Ford and his Conservatives. Listening to the member for Dufferin—Caledon, it is very clear that he does not know what the government's plan is. Our strategy is to see the world as it is today, not as it was in 1965. Our plan is being applauded in that province.

Is my Bloc Québécois colleague aware that the Conservatives are sitting back and continuing to want to drag Canada and Quebec back into the past?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is seize this crisis as an opportunity to modernize by adopting the next-generation economic model adopted by Europe and most of the rest of the world, with the exception of Donald Trump's United States and, unfortunately, our own country under our government's excessively timid measures. We must accelerate transportation electrification. One of the most promising ways forward is to develop the resource and get that manufacturing happening here, not to invest $30 billion in Ontario's auto industry, which does not have that great a comparative advantage, as the results have shown.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years of Liberal governance, the number of vehicles produced has declined from 2.3 million to 1.2 million. Exports have dropped significantly in the past year.

Can the Bloc Québécois member comment on those numbers? Does he know how far the number of cars in Quebec has fallen over the past 10 years and what impact that has had? Can he comment on that?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec no longer has any automobile manufacturing. There was a plant that made Camaros in Laval's north end a few decades ago. When that closed, Jean Chrétien decided to abandon that industry on the pretext that auto manufacturing belonged to Ontario. The Liberal legacy lives on. I recognize that these are very important jobs and that this is a very important industry for Ontario.

I would also remind my colleague that this industry, like all others, is constantly evolving. We are facing crises, so we need to be able to adapt in order to face the future during this crisis and deal with Donald Trump's hostile policies, even though the U.S. will always remain our largest partner. What I am proposing is to accelerate the electrification of transportation, including in the automotive sector. In that regard, our key comparative advantage lies in the resources we have and our ability to process them here.