Debates of March 24th, 2026

Oral Questions

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the member for Calgary Midnapore's question, just recently, she screamed “shut up” at another member across the aisle. I have to say it is disheartening. I know we get excited and there is heckling that goes on, but to use such unparliamentary language, especially when asking a question, seems really disrespectful in this place.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I did not hear it. I saw some commotion, but I did not hear it. Members can understand why. There is a lot of heckling going on and a lot of provocation. I would urge all members to tone that down, because it can produce reactions.

Again, I did not hear what transpired.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I will note that the member from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas is repeatedly saying odious, disrespectful things to members on this side.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when you fail to intervene, we have to stand up for ourselves. I would appreciate it if you would bring that member to order when he is acting the way he does on a repetitive, daily basis.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

At this end, it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said way back in the corner, but I will concur that the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas is disruptive in question period. I will not argue with the member on that. I did not hear what was being said. I keep my ears open and I endeavour to react to such disturbances. They are coming from both sides, but I take the member's point about the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

The hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for you to review some of the exchanges that have taken place during question period today. As per the Standing Orders, you will recognize that unparliamentary language, when it becomes personal, is not welcome in this chamber.

I can understand it when we are referring to legislation and to policies, but when we are referring to hon. members with certain terminology, which I am not going to repeat, I think that really should receive a ruling. There was a line of questioning today going after certain ministers, labelling them with certain adjectives and adverbs that are just not suitable or appropriate as per the Standing Orders.

I would just ask that you rewatch the excellent question period that we just had and let us know if it was suitable or not.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I do not need to rewatch it, because I heard some of those adjectives. I will ponder on what the member is saying.

Yes, we have a duty to uphold a minimum level of decorum. Sometimes, certain adjectives, as I have said before, really contain a provocation, which creates a reaction. That is unparliamentary, because anything that creates disruption is unparliamentary, regardless of whether a word is on a list in the big book or not.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Tariff-Free Auto Pact

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in my place today to participate in the debate on our opposition motion, which calls on the federal government to support the Conservative plan to double automotive production through a tariff-free auto pact. This bold new policy offers a fresh take on a similar policy, embodied by the old auto pact rules that resulted in Canada's auto manufacturing growing from 700,000 units a year to three million by 1999.

This Conservative plan makes our goal clear. We seek to double auto production to two million vehicles a year, which are the same levels we had before the Liberal government took office 10 years ago. The viewers at home heard that right. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, auto production in Canada has been halved. In 2016, Canada built 2.3 million vehicles. Last year, that auto production was only 1.2 million. In only one year since the Prime Minister took office, Canada has lost 7.8% of its auto production. As output falls, jobs vanish.

In 2015, Canada's passenger vehicle and light truck assembly plants employed 32,700 people. By 2024, that number had dropped to 23,732. In the last year alone, since the Prime Minister took office, Canadians have watched in utter disbelief as 5,000 great-paying auto jobs disappeared and moved to the United States.

Under the federal Liberal government, Canada's auto industry has been in decline for 10 years and it is slipping away, with potentially irreparable damage being done to Canada's economy if no immediate federal action is taken.

We are seeing this decline in the Niagara region as the local GM powertrain facility in St. Catharines faces great uncertainty because it produces only one line of engines in a facility that is almost two million square feet in size. I am GM proud. I drive a GM vehicle, whose very engine was made in St. Catharines by Canadian GM workers. GM has been in business in St. Catharines since 1929. That is close to 100 years. I also worked at our local GM plant as a student during my university years. At that time, GM in St. Catharines had three plants, employing close to 10,000 workers with great-paying jobs.

Today, our local GM footprint has been reduced to just one plant and a much smaller workforce of Unifor Local 199 members. There are roughly 450 active workers at the plant, with 200 laid off. As a Niagara area MP and as the member of Parliament for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, I have a responsibility to represent the current and former GM workers who reside in the communities in my riding.

Last April, the Prime Minister ran a campaign promising an elbows-up approach to Canada-U.S. trade relations. He promised to protect the auto sector. He committed to tabling a plan that would persuade the Americans to remove tariffs on Canadian goods. He promised to get tariffs removed by July 21, 2025, but this was all an illusion, as 246 days after July 21, 2025, American tariffs remain and Canada's auto manufacturers have been forced to pay Donald Trump close to $2 billion. One year since the Liberals' election promises were made, they have been broken, while Canadian auto production continues its decline and Canadian auto job losses are piling up.

Rather than doing what he said he was going to do, the Liberal Prime Minister has decided to accept that American tariffs are permanent and he has declared a deep rupture with our largest trading partner, neighbour and ally. Worse, he has introduced a new EV policy and rebate that use Canadian tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of foreign-made automobiles. He is also allowing the import of 49,000 Chinese EV spy cars into this country after declaring a new world order with countries like China, the nation he said was our biggest security threat during the last federal election.

Canadian auto workers deserve stronger federal leadership. The last thing they want is imported Chinese EVs taking their jobs away even faster, or the federal government doubling down on a fantasy EV industry that does not exist without the demand, affordability or sufficient charging infrastructure in place. That is why our Conservative leader is stepping up to take initiative and demonstrate leadership.

While the Liberals have decided to accept that American tariffs are permanent and declare a deep rupture with our largest trading partner, Conservatives are proposing policy ideas to make it easier to build and buy Canadian by:

...removing the GST on all Canadian-made vehicles, ending counterproductive Liberal EV mandates and [subsidies], and harmonizing tailpipe emissions reductions with our North American partners;

...bringing home production...by implementing a rule where for every car produced in Canada, the same manufacturer would get to sell a car in Canada, duty-free, from a CUSMA partner, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, similar to the 1965 Canada-US Auto Pact; [and]

...protecting North American supply chains by maintaining the minimum 75% North American content and existing CUSMA rules on origin....

Conservatives believe it is possible to get a North American free trade agreement for the auto sector. The Liberals have given up and think that somehow, when it has never happened before, European and Asian EV sales will materialize and make up for the decline that will happen because of the U.S. tariffs. What the Liberal government is proposing is a fallacy. The Liberals' plan includes exporting EVs to Europe. Simply put, more vehicles were stolen in Canada last year, including the the justice minister's vehicle, than were exported to countries in Europe.

We have a plan to get tariff-free access to the United States. It would boost auto production. It is supported by Unifor Local 222, which said, “Finally, a common sense plan” to restore auto production. Why can the Liberal government not get on board with us and support our common-sense proposals?

Our policy approach would restore manufacturing balance for both Canada and the U.S., thus making a duty-free agreement not only possible, but also beneficial for both countries. For Canada, that would mean increased production of 500,000 to 800,000 units to get North American duty-free access. In addition to this, removal of the GST, a 5% pricing cut, adds up to $30,000 new sales a year, which increases demand and production by the same amount. We forecast that the current production will rise from 1.2 million to two million within a decade.

Just today, I met with Unifor representatives who told me that buying Canadian, along with sell here, build here policies, are very important to them. That is what this policy encourages. It is a common-sense plan to protect the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working Ontario auto workers. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association saw the benefit of our policy proposal when it stated, “North American integration has underpinned Canada’s auto industry for over 60 years”. This plan recognizes that reality.

Conservatives will not sit idly by as our proud Canadian auto industry is hollowed out and lost due to Liberal inaction. We are stepping up, demonstrating federal leadership and offering real solutions to save the jobs of our great Canadian auto workers. They deserve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the Conservatives came up with this plan, which I would ultimately argue, is not realistic.

The Liberal plan talks about putting into action literally $3 billion to accelerate investment in Canada's auto manufacturing industry. I have listened to the Conservatives, and I pose this question: Does the Conservative Party of Canada support that initiative? Does it support levelling the field by having countertariffs on auto imports coming from the U.S.A.?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we do not support is the Liberals' failed EV policy, which they are implementing. They fail to realize that 90% of the autos that are produced in this country are shipped to the United States. The success of the auto industry in Canada was based on the regulatory harmony that existed with our largest trading partner and customer for Canadian-made autos, the United States.

The fantasy and the fallacy that the Liberals continue to promote about producing EVs will simply not work. Do members know that, just this year alone, GM had an EV writeoff of $7.6 billion, Honda wrote off $15.7 billion, Ford wrote off $19.5 billion and Stellantis wrote off $27 billion? That is almost $70 billion. The EV policy they are promoting is only going to hurt Canadian auto workers.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his passionate concern about the auto sector. We have seen, at Stellantis in Brampton, 3,000 workers laid off. I would like to ask the member a question about how he thinks our tariff-free auto pact would improve things and bring the jobs that we are waiting for and that our auto sector is waiting for. Also, could he emphasize how Liberal policies have failed the auto sector?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is the notion that Stellantis's failure is partly to be blamed on the government and its failed EV policies. Again, Stellantis has written off $27 billion because of this fallacy of an EV mandate that the Liberals have put in place instead of recognizing that the market should determine what the sales levels in autos should be. Why not go back?

We met with Unifor today, and the members I met with are talking about buy Canadian, and sell here, build here policies, which we need to promote and encourage. That is what our auto pact plan would do. It would say that, if someone wants to sell a vehicle here, they have to build it here, and that would return jobs to Canadian auto workers all throughout southern Ontario.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting for the motion before us today, but I do agree with the hon. member that we need to find ways to ensure that Canadian industries are put first and that we focus on Canada. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has looked at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Of the $80 billion in our pension plan investments, there is no consideration at all for investing in Canada. There is no priority for Canadian investments. In fact, most of those investments go to other countries, particularly the United States.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through our policy on this Canadian auto pact, we are talking about a policy to buy Canadian, sell here and build here. It only makes sense. We want to encourage those who want to produce, such as the big three automakers.

General Motors has been in my community since 1929. They have invested and grown with this community. They have been in this community for almost 100 years. I want to ensure, through the policy we are promoting, that General Motors can be in our community for another 100 years, employing Canadians and providing good-paying jobs.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise today to debate the opposition day motion in relation a really important subject, the Canadian auto industry.

I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

As I was saying, I think it is important that we have this conversation. I welcome it, and the government certainly welcomes it, because we have been deeply focused on what comes next and how we can support the workers, industry and communities that are impacted by the auto sector.

I know a lot of the debate in the chamber today will be about communities in Ontario, southwestern Ontario in particular, and perhaps communities in Quebec, but the auto industry touches all elements of our country. I think about my own communities in Kings—Hants, where Michelin manufactures component parts of vehicles. I believe it employs close to 3,500 workers in Nova Scotia. The supply chain for the auto sector exists all across this country, but it, of course, is heavily concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.

I am going to start by highlighting a few things. I was surprised that the opposition took this amount of time to give, to call them compelling would be too generous but, some thoughts on the auto industry. I will point to elements that I think are not bad public policy, and elements that I think are so unrealistic they are not worth the paper they are written on. It is surprising that it took the Conservatives this long to be able to get to this point. It has been noted in debate, and it was noted in question period, that the Conservatives seemingly did not do much engagement with unionized labour in this country about their vision and how their plan would connect and support workers, or not support workers.

We heard the Minister of Industry during question period talk about how there is deep concern within Unifor and some of the major unionized workforce in the country that the Conservative plan would actually inadvertently impact and hurt workers in what is already a difficult and delicate time. The government is working to be able to address that.

I thought one of the most compelling things the Minister of Industry said in question period was that there is nothing in the opposition day motion, or the proposed plan, about the auto parts sector. Assembly is important and that matters, but as the minister highlighted, Linamar, Magna and Martin are three major auto parts producers in the country. There is no mention in the Conservative strategy about what we are doing to support that element of the supply chain, which also has extremely important jobs.

I do want to take a moment, and if Canadians at home have not necessarily heard from the government already on this, they deserve to hear exactly what the five pillars are, which the government launched well over a month ago now. The government has actually put in place a Canadian auto strategy, recognizing the moment that we are in, recognizing that we have to both protect Canadian jobs and protect and incentivize the industrial build-out. Those would certainly be some areas of principle in which I think we could find agreement with the opposition.

I want to start by saying that the first pillar is exactly that. It is to boost domestic manufacturing. That is somewhat tied to the strategic response fund. It is $3 billion to incentivize and draw investment into the country. There is a number of tax incentives. Also, what the Conservatives have not mentioned today in debate is the remission order. The way in which the government is using the remission order for companies that are continuing to produce in Canada, signalling future investment and continuing the cross-border collaboration that has existed for quite some time, is that the remission order is functioning, in some way, on the principles of what they are talking about vis-à-vis the 1965 auto pact, which not enough people in this debate today have highlighted.

The auto pact was built in an environment where there was no foreign importation of vehicles whatsoever. It was a true closed-loop system. That no longer exists. There are 500,000 foreign-produced vehicles imported into Canada every single year. We can close our eyes and pretend it is 1965. It feels like it was a golden era. We should continue to make the case, and we should continue to work through CUSMA and our North American trading partners, to continue to promote an auto industry that has been mutually beneficial for communities in all three countries, frankly, Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Therefore, yes, in that way we agree, but the idea that we are going to have a tit-for-tat auto policy is probably even against the provisions of the existing trade agreement we are in.

It is a great idea in principle to remove the GST on Canadian-built vehicles. However, we are going to have something to answer for vis-a-vis the conversation right now with the United States around that: about whether this could be seen as reciprocity in terms of some of the measures the U.S. has put in place and whether it could actually exacerbate the problem as we try to make a case to the U.S. administration that the tariffs it has unjustly imposed on the Canadian industry are counterintuitive not only to the benefit of American communities but also to Canadian communities and to the close integration we have enjoyed. There is no level of nuance from the opposition benches about whether removing that GST would even be compliant.

The government of course has said we should boost domestic manufacturing and focus on reworking environmental policy, while at the same time putting incentives to encourage the uptake of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

The hon. member who spoke before me talked about keeping the auto industry in his communities. I know how important that is, but he must recognize that globally right now, EV sales are doubling year over year. There is a massive uptake in countries like Norway, a Scandinavian country with a similar climate to Canada's. Almost 99% of new vehicles are EVs. The global industry is going in this direction, and we have a decision to make about whether or not we are going to get serious about trying to meet that need.

I represent a rural constituency. For my constituents, battery electric vehicles are probably quite unrealistic for many of them in the short term. Plug-in hybrids are a much more reasonable pathway. They make sense because they can lower gas bills. In an environment where we are seeing the fallout from the war in the Middle East right now, that is important. Obviously they have some environmental benefit as well, and they are also convenient for consumers.

This is the direction in which we are going. The government is walking a line through its remission order to say to companies selling and importing cars into Canada that if they choose to import a higher volume than their historical average, they are going to face the remission penalty and the countertariffs that Canada has put in place on the United States.

That is functioning as an incentive to continue production and enhance production where companies are selling brands of vehicles that are doing well in this country. In that North American context, there are principles within the quasi-Conservative plan that are already being met by the remission order, principles that the government has laid out. I have heard nothing from the opposition benches to at least acknowledge that point.

I think it is also interesting that we heard the last member talk about spy cars. The geopolitics of the world are such right now that when I was in the United Kingdom recently, I saw Chinese EVs on the road. When I was in Europe, what did I see? I saw Chinese EVs on the road. I was just in the Caribbean with my wife, and the EVs are there. I guess the hon. member is making the assertion that our allied countries within NATO and within the G7, like London and Europe, are letting spy cars drive around their communities. Is that the assertion the Conservative Party makes?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to taking the member's question. Maybe the hon. member can rise in his place and tell me if he thinks that London, Europe and our other allies have no measures to be able to do it. We actually have a solution. It is QNX in this country. We have an ability to manage this as it relates to the 49,000 EVs from China on the import.

Having been on the front lines of that negotiation, I can say that it is a small, managed amount. It is working to lead to a joint venture investment. Companies are already investing in the member's home province. I guess he should rise and tell us if he believes that a joint venture format with a majority Canadian-owned pathway is bad for the country. We have seen other examples where it has worked. At the end of the day, that is the pathway that we think we can continue to work on within the North American context.

At the same time, we have to be able to look at what other opportunities are available. The member should go have a chat with all his prairie colleagues on the other side, because I guess he is suggesting that we ought to not do anything on agriculture for our farmers in this country. How about the seafood harvesters from Atlantic Canada? Should we just tell them that they ought to not have market access to the largest consumer market in the world? The opposition day motion would say that.

I think the Conservatives from Saskatchewan should have something to say to their colleagues who are suggesting that this would be bad public policy. The Premier of Saskatchewan does not agree, the Premier of Alberta does not agree and farmers across this country do not agree.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do know a bit about the automotive industry. I was part of the automotive industry when it North Americanized. I was in charge of Dow automotive's 58 plants across the globe.

I have heard a lot of criticism from the Liberal benches today about our plan to create automotive job growth here in Canada, but it has been crickets about any plan on their side to create growth. Could they elaborate?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the hon. member's private sector experience before joining this place, and that is an attribute for the House.

There is a pathway to be able to encourage investment in this country. There is a focus on being able to build out electric vehicles in the country to support workers. Again, respectfully, that is something I did not see in the Conservative position. There is nothing about what we are doing to support Canadian workers who are being impacted in this moment in the unjust manner, I hope she would agree, that we are seeing from the U.S. administration.

With all the member's private sector experience, she must be concerned that the GST removal would infuriate and further complicate the North American supply chain. Maybe at some point today she can address that in the House.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today effectively represents federalism as we know it. The Conservatives are showing us their concern for the auto sector and for the oil and gas sector. However, apart from the Bloc Québécois, no one in the House ever takes advantage of an opposition day to talk about economic sectors that Quebec has a stake in. The economic sectors most affected by tariffs right now are aluminum and softwood lumber, both of which are very important to Quebec.

What I am seeing from the Conservatives is an attempt to remove the only incentive of value to Quebec society, namely the EV incentive, to create a one-size-fits-all measure that works for Ontario's auto sector. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the Conservatives' insensitivity to Quebec's economic reality.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of my hon. colleague's comments. However, with all due respect, I disagree with the assertion that, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, no other members are fighting for Quebec. We have 44 Liberal members from Quebec who are always fighting for the interests of the province of Quebec within the federation, every day, every week and every month.

I agree on the importance of the softwood lumber sector. It is very important in Nova Scotia and in my riding. I also recognize the importance of the aluminum sector. We have a strategy and initiatives to help workers in Quebec and across Canada who are affected by U.S. tariffs, and I have full confidence in the work that our colleagues here in the House of Commons are doing regarding issues facing Quebec.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding has a lot of multi-unit residential buildings, and I am wondering if my colleague could talk a bit about how we are looking toward the future and to future-proofing the auto sector by thinking about what we need in terms of moving toward electrification.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague represents a very urban riding in Spadina, in the Toronto area, and I represent a rural constituency. The lived realities for Canadians are going to be different.

The good news is that the government is putting forward $1.5 billion to help support additional charging infrastructure across the country. In my constituency, that is probably going to be more focused on plug-in hybrids and the types of applicability there. For the member's constituents, who may not be driving longer distances to work or around the city, battery electric vehicles are probably going to be the type of vehicle that is going to be the future, that is going to be smart in terms of consumer perspective, and will also be the type of infrastructure that I know she will be advocating for her constituents, to build out the network in her constituency in Toronto.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of Canada's automotive industry and how the government is working to protect the industry and Canadian workers.

Canada's automotive sector has long been and remains a cornerstone of our economy. It has defined communities, strengthened our middle class and anchored Canada as a trusted partner in global manufacturing, while supporting hundreds of thousands of additional jobs across supply chains right across the country, including in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore.

I am proud to represent many hard-working members of Unifor Local 707 from the Ford assembly complex. Safeguarding local economies like mine is exactly why the Government of Canada has reacted quickly in the face of unjustified U.S. tariffs on vehicles.

Moreover, we have demonstrated that we are here to protect Canadian workers. When Stellantis and GM announced that they were moving some of their production to the United States, we immediately took action to hold both companies accountable. The Government of Canada has made clear that these decisions are unacceptable and that Canada expects the company to honour the commitments it made to Canada, Ontario and the union.

However, it appears that the Conservatives could not care less about working with labour unions. Their leader's proposal was developed without input from auto workers, and it lacks a single measure to support auto workers. How can Conservatives claim to protect Canadian workers when they do not even listen to them? Unifor has been clear that the Conservatives' so-called policy would jeopardize long-term stability and the future of the Brampton and Ingersoll assembly plants. Members heard that right. The Conservatives want us to adopt a policy that would discourage manufacturers from allocating new work to these Ontario plants.

Unlike the Conservatives, our government worked hand-in-hand with labour unions, with industry experts and with other levels of government to develop an auto strategy that is focused on the future of our auto industry, not one that is stuck in the past. Canadians were clear last April that we need to work urgently to pursue new trade deals, diversify our economy, protect industry and stand up to unjust and illegal tariffs. To that end, on February 5, 2026, we announced Canada's new automotive strategy to secure domestic manufacturing, support innovation, and position Canada to become a leader in electric vehicle production.

The strategy includes a commitment to allocate $3 billion from the strategic response fund and another $100 million from the regional tariff response initiative to help the industry adapt, grow and diversify. We will also establish a comprehensive trade regime to drive the competitiveness of the auto sector. This will be achieved in part by strengthening Canada's automotive duty remissions framework to more strategically reinforce domestic production and attract new investment.

Some people may know that I am familiar with Ontario's economy. Throughout my career, I have been privileged to meet Ontarians from every corner of the province. I have worked with many proud Windsorites who were champions for Windsor's auto sector, including Ford's engine manufacturing plants. What does Windsor get in exchange for two Conservative MPs? It gets an auto proposal that does not even recognize engine manufacturing. GM workers in Cambridge, Magna workers in Aurora, Honda workers in Alliston and Martinrea workers in Vaughan are all parts manufacturers, all left behind by their Conservative MPs.

I agree with Unifor Local 200's leadership, who said that the Leader of the Opposition did not bother to do his homework.

We all recognize that the automotive sector has been built on nation-to-nation collaboration. I was in D.C. recently, and I heard from both Democrats and Republicans that the North American auto industry succeeds when our integrated supply chains are strong and when we compete globally. Canada has maintained a long and successful history of partnership with the U.S. and Mexico, as well as with Japan, to establish its automotive manufacturing footprint, but these are not conventional times. Canada must seize this generational opportunity to transform our auto sector from one that is reliant on a single trading partner to one that is a global leader in the vehicles of the future.

Recently, Canada has signed new agreements with Japan, Germany and South Korea to bolster auto manufacturing in Canada, including electric vehicles and a battery supply chain, and Canada has what the world wants. From China and the Indo-Pacific to the G7, Canada has entered a new era of global auto partnerships. This means new markets, new business and new jobs for Canadians, all grounded in building our economy and delivering affordable options for Canadian consumers.

Canada is well positioned to attract new investments and diversify export markets by leveraging its free trade agreements, which span 51 countries and provide access to more than 1.5 billion consumers. Priority will be given to attracting new entrants that are leaders in EV manufacturing and connected vehicle technologies to strengthen the sector's resilience. Through the strategic response fund, we are supporting car companies to export more Canadian-made cars to non-U.S. markets like Europe and the Middle East. We are also securing key investments that will drive new opportunities in Canadian auto manufacturing and create new resilient jobs in the auto and battery sector.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, this side of the House does not ignore foreign threats to dismantle Canadian auto manufacturing. During a rupture in the global trading system, Canadians know that nostalgia is not a strategy. While the Leader of the Opposition is banking on wishes and prayers to get Washington to reverse tariffs, we are focused on real action to build a better future to secure and grow the industry that supports 500,000 Canadian jobs.

The actions we take now will have a lasting impact on Canada's auto industry. By safeguarding the industry and incentivizing vehicle manufacturers to build here, we are helping to enhance our productivity and transform Canada's automotive industry to compete and win in a world where the future of autos is electric, connected and globally diversified.

I want to reiterate that the Conservative proposal was developed without input from auto workers, lacks a single measure to support auto workers and would disincentivize new work going to the Brampton and Ingersoll plants. That is not smart policy-making. It is political posturing. Our government will continue to focus on investing in those who invest in Canada and building Canada strong with Canadian auto workers.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I do not take advice from the former finance minister of Ontario. For a decade before his current job, he watched Ontario's auto sector decline, so it has been two decades of decline with this member.

Here is my question to the hon. member: Part of their supposed strategy is exports to non-U.S. destinations. I have seen no evidence from the government that this is a realistic objective. In fact, we export nearly zero, a de minimis number of cars, to non-U.S. and non-Mexican destinations. Where is the evidence that customers around the world are going to wake up and decide to import Canadian cars? I do not see any evidence of that. Does he have anything that he can show us on that?