Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that, last year, when the internationally renowned banker ran for Prime Minister, he said that he would be careful with taxpayers' money. A year later, here are the results: The cost of living is very high, we have the worst food inflation in the G7, there are more taxes, more debt and more charges on the credit card. In short, this great banker is nothing more than a costly Liberal. When will the Prime Minister realize that racking up up countless credit card charges is not going to create wealth for Canadians?”
“[ English ] What was the member's reaction when he noticed that, with the ethics committee, we were talking about someone who crossed the floor?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting speech. He made a lot of historical references. When he talked about the Aquarius song from the 1970s, however, I must confess that I tend to associate Aquarius with the name of the Apollo 13 lunar module from April 1971, which saved the lives of the three astronauts on that mission. [ English ] Let me be more serious about this and talk about ethics. The member raised a lot of issues about ethics. This is very difficult, because we are talking about the new government, which is now a majority because of the people who crossed the floor. [ Translation ] Is the member surprised to see that, when the Liberal Party first appointed new committee members, it appointed a floor crosser to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics?”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows very well that I have a great deal of respect for him because, when he was a member of the provincial government, he ran a zero deficit. However, he is currently a member of a government that has run up a $67‑billion deficit. The problem is that these Liberals have launched all kinds of programs over the past 10 years, all with zero results. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks. Is the parliamentary secretary proud of how poorly his colleagues are handling things, considering how well he managed Quebec's affairs?”
“Madam Speaker, there is nothing more important than having enough to eat. After 10 years of Liberal governance, the situation here in Canada is terrible. One in three Canadians has to borrow money to put food on the table. Some 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks every month. What is really heartbreaking is that one in three children has to go to a food bank. That does not make any sense. Now, the Prime Minister has just tabled a $67‑billion deficit. Will he admit that he is yet another costly Liberal and that Canadians are now paying the price for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, 600,000 Quebeckers are being forced to make ends meet on the guaranteed income supplement. That is one in three seniors, and 600,000 people is more than the entire population of Quebec City. I am going to address Quebec's seniors directly and ask them whether, over the past year, their situation has improved when they go grocery shopping. Unfortunately, the answer is no. For the past year, Canada has had the worst food inflation of any G7 country. It has been the worst for the past year, ever since this Prime Minister was elected. That is the result of a Liberal government.”
“Since we are talking about elections and anniversaries, I would like to hear her thoughts on the importance of respecting the will of Canadians as expressed at the polls without taking floor crossers into account.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, I listened carefully to what my Green Party colleague had to say. Unlike the Bloc Québécois member, who refers to her as a member from British Columbia, I refer to her as a member of the Green Party. That is simpler and members know right away who I am talking about. It is like the good old days because the member is now sitting on the same side of the House as the official opposition like she was in 2015. Speaking of elections, I would like to remind the House that, tomorrow, it will be exactly one year since almost all members of the House, except two, were elected. It is rather odd that the government wants to shut down debate on a democratic issue on the eve of the anniversary of the 2025 election. In her case, the member was elected to the House of Commons for a fifth time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague. I completely agreed with everything, or almost everything, she said. In fact, I was in agreement up until the last sentence. Unfortunately, I was left unsatisfied, although I was hanging on to her every word, but still. I think our colleague described the situation very well. Indeed, there is a difference between winning a majority through votes and winning a majority through floor crossers. That is unheard of in our parliamentary history. For this reason, when we are in a new Parliament, and we should call it like it is, the government must ensure that the opposition parties are consulted in a timely manner in order to reach such an agreement. My question for my colleague is this: Why did the government fail to act respectfully in order to show respect to the opposition parties?”
“Mr. Speaker, April is Daffodil Month. For the Canadian Cancer Society, this flower is a symbol of resilience and solidarity. When a person is diagnosed with cancer, it turns their whole world upside down, but they do not have to fight this battle alone. Today, my thoughts are with the families across the country who are battling cancer because, behind each statistic, there are faces, families, friends and colleagues who are courageously facing this disease. My thoughts go out to Lyne Bernatchez, a valued member of the Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk parliamentary team who is currently battling cancer with amazing strength and dignity. The whole team stands with Lyne. Together, let us continue to support research so that, one day, we will finally be able to say that cancer is a thing of the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to tell my colleague that two million Canadians are using food banks every month. It is a proven fact that Canada has the worst food inflation for the fourth month in a row. What is true is that, compared to the past 10 years, beef now costs 69% more, vegetables now cost 57% more and chicken costs 43% more. That is insane. What is completely false is what the Prime Minister said when he said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Is the minister prepared to contradict his Prime Minister, who uttered a falsehood?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is pathetic is seeing the Liberal Prime Minister stand up and say something that could not be further from the truth. On March 25, the Prime Minister said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Where is the Prime Minister when we know that what he said about the past 10 years is really not true? In the past 10 years, rents have doubled. In the past 10 years, what has happened to housing prices? They have gone up 67%. In the past 10 years, the number of people using food banks has doubled. Those are the facts. Why is the Prime Minister saying something completely out of touch with reality when families are struggling?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we are not in favour of creating a new bureaucracy to support first nations. What first nations need is a lot more breathing room and a lot more support to create even more wealth. We want more modern treaties, but to do that, we need real projects and real results.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton's question is right on target. We spend too much money right now, so that is why we cannot invest all the money where we need it. We do not have to hire other people and create another level of bureaucracy. Millions of dollars could be invested in the development of first nations instead of in the development of bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, an honour and a joy to respond in French to this extremely well-articulated question asked in French by my colleague from British Columbia, whom I hold in the highest regard. I really enjoy working with her. We do not think that we need a commissioner. The public servants who currently work for the federal government on first nations affairs can do the work and ensure that modern treaties are properly monitored. However, we need modern treaties. That is why we are asking the government to move forward, create real projects and deliver real results, rather than just giving us rhetoric.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question by the member from Winnipeg is a very interesting one, because, yes, we do support a modern treaty all the way, and we need more of those kinds of treaties. What we are opposing is another level of bureaucracy, with the commissioner. We have all the people in the government getting involved in that right now, and we are sure they can do the job they want the commissioner to do without having to create a new position. Let me remind members that in the 1960s, the Liberal Party, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was on the side that wanted to cancel the Indian Act and the Indian reserve system. Finally, the government backtracked and did not do that. Jean Chrétien, a former prime minister who was the Indian affairs minister at the time, which is how the minister was identified, gave 500—”
“Indeed, we can and must work together closely for the prosperity of our country and for the prosperity of first nations. That can and must be done through modern treaties. Let us continue to do things right and, above all, let us empower first nations to achieve their full potential in terms of their heritage and the economy.”
“Yes, we need to do more to develop as partners in prosperity with first nations. In closing, I want to remind members that I am very proud to represent the people of Wendake. Let us not forget that, historically speaking, the Wendat people have always been traders, even before the arrival of Europeans, but also after. The Wendat people have always made a name for themselves for their entrepreneurial spirit. Today, I am very proud to say that there are 150 businesses operating in Wendake. This nation is also involved with other private partners, like Structure SBL, Immostar, Wendake Construction and the Hôtel-Musée Premières Nations. The Wendat people are a proud people that I am honoured to represent. They are an inspiration to all first nations and all Canadians.”
“It is also clear that this first agreement is being celebrated 50 years on, as this was when the government acknowledged the importance of first nations. It offered $225 million for the following 20 years, but it also gave the people living in that territory the tools they needed to develop their social and educational capacities, as well as their capacity for wealth creation, job creation and economic activity. That is why we now see a much stronger entrepreneurial spirit in many indigenous communities than we have seen in the past. Modern treaties have provided that impetus. As I was saying, 26 treaties have been signed since the James Bay agreement. Five were signed under the Harper government and, unfortunately, none were signed in the following 10 years. I believe we need to sign more treaties.”
“Some people went so far as to say that it was not true that indigenous peoples were going to hold back Quebec's economic development, but that was not the issue at all. It was not a matter of holding back development, but rather of creating wealth together so that everyone could contribute to and benefit from it, while respecting the inherent rights, dating back a century, if not millennia, of the first nations who lived on this land. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed in 1975. According to some records, it was signed on November 11, 1975. Other sources say it was November 15, 1976. In any case, November is a significant month for what we are discussing today. It was the first agreement, the first modern treaty, and others followed.”
“He took the case to court and on November 15—a very important day in Quebec history, and I am not talking about November 15, 1976, but rather November 15, 1973—Judge Malouf of the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of the Cree. He declared that work on James Bay had to stop immediately. For the first time, a judge ruled in a specific case, regarding a specific project and a specific construction site, that first nations must be respected before breaking ground. A week later, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that decision, noting that negotiations between the government and first nations are absolutely essential. It was then that the serious discussions got under way, though not without drawing widespread criticism.”
“During the Liberal Party's April 1971 convention, which took place at the Colisée de Québec, he marked his government's first election victory by launching the project of the century: developing James Bay. The plan was to literally double Quebec's hydroelectric potential with a $5‑billion project. Everything was fine and dandy, full steam ahead and, once again, first nations were not consulted. Nobody talked to them. (1640) That is when a young Cree indigenous leader, Billy Diamond, raised the issue and succeeded in uniting the Cree people from across the territory. He did so with the support and assistance of the Indians of Quebec Association, whose spokesperson at the time was Max Gros-Louis, the Grand Chief of the Wendat, or the Huron, as they were known at the time.”
“In 1958, Hydro‑Québec broke ground on what would become, for all time, an iconic manifestation of Quebeckers' national pride: the Manic-5 generating station. That started in 1958. Of course, Manic-5, Manicouagan, Bersimis and so on were on indigenous land, but, at the time, there was nothing at all, no agreement with first nations. People showed up, they dug, they brought in machinery and they built a dam, thanks very much, good night. Nothing was offered to first nations. It was not until 1965 that Premier Jean Lesage offered compensation to the nation located near Manic-5. He offered compensation in the amount of $150,000, and that was that. That was how things were handled back then. Then, in 1971, Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa came on the scene with his project of the century.”
“There is no need to create a new layer of red tape and administrative burden. For us Conservatives, first nations are partners in prosperity. That is why we must promote modern treaty agreements for first nations, for their development and for the development of Canada as a whole. Let us take a moment to look back on how modern treaties got their start. I believe Quebec truly served as a testing ground for modern treaties. In the 1950s, there was a major expansion of hydroelectric potential in Canada and Quebec. Under the leadership of the government of the time, large dams, such as Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, were built from scratch in 1953 and 1956. Then, in 1956, Hydro‑Québec was tasked with exploiting the hydroelectric potential of two big rivers: Rivière aux Outardes and Rivière Manicouagan.”
“None were signed during the Trudeau era, but there were five during the Harper era. We Conservatives have very serious reservations about creating a commissioner position. I cannot mention that he is behind me, because I am not allowed to say whether members are in the House, but the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix already pointed out very clearly last November, at the start of the debate on the bill, that we have enough bureaucracy in Canada and we do not need to add to it. It is worth noting that over the past 10 years, 100,000 new government employees have been hired. In addition, $20 billion was spent annually on consultations. Why add a further burden to the management of the federal government and relations with first nations when there are already several mechanisms in place to evaluate and monitor treaties?”
“Modern treaties are agreements that have been in place for about 50 years between first nations and government authorities at the provincial and federal levels. I want to reassure everyone, particularly first nations, that we fully support modern treaties. Moreover, when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper led Canada with a majority government, he signed five modern treaties. However, in the 10 years that followed, under a government that claimed there was nothing more important than relations with first nations, not a single modern treaty was concluded. Is this not a crystal-clear demonstration of the fact that Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government talked a good game but failed to deliver on concrete projects? There is no example more obvious than this. Modern treaties are about economic development with first nations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the great privilege of representing the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who put their trust in me for the seventh time almost a year ago. I am very proud to have represented Wendake as part of my riding for 18 years, including my time in provincial politics. I have the privilege of representing the Wendat community in the House of Commons, and I had the privilege of representing them in the National Assembly before that. I am particularly proud because I am rising today to speak to a bill that directly concerns first nations. Later on in my speech, we will see that Max Gros-Louis, the Wendat Grand Chief of the 1960s and 1970s, played a key role in what we are talking about today. We are here to talk about the creation of a commissioner for modern treaties.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, they do not take the cases of honest Canadians seriously. Let us look at an example that is happening right now in Quebec. A Canadian veteran who pays his taxes had to wait years before getting a proper ruling on the issues that he was having with the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA owes him $20,000. When was that ruling given? It was handed down on July 17. Nine months later, this citizen has still not seen a penny of that money. It has been nine months, and the CRA has not been able to issue a cheque in all that time. Is the government aware that it is mistreating honest Canadians while rolling out the red carpet for fraudsters?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are understandably outraged to learn that, after 10 years of Liberal governance, the Canada Revenue Agency is sending $5-million cheques to fraudsters without conducting any checks. They are also outraged at the secretary of state's flippant response when he was questioned about this yesterday. Just yesterday in Washington, the minister, the real Minister of Finance and National Revenue , told CBC that he was going to look into it. I have a very simple but very specific question for the government. How many millions of dollars have been given to fraudsters without any checks being conducted?”
“Mr. Speaker, [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] hockey player. The CRA gave a fraudster $5 million. Those people have been mismanaging the CRA for a decade. As a result, if honest folks make a little $100 or $200 mistake on their income, it is the end of the world and the CRA throws the book at them, yet it gives $5 million to a fraudster. I will not stand for the minister hiding behind the fact that he cannot comment on specific cases. Five million dollars is crazy. I want him to stand up and—”
“Mr. Speaker, we thought we had seen it all with the Liberals in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency, but it turns out that things are worse than we thought. Canadian families are struggling to cope with Liberal food inflation. Meanwhile, CBC reported this morning that the Canada Revenue Agency paid out $5 million to a fraudster who filed a bogus return. It paid out $5 million without checking a thing. This is where we are at after 10 years of Liberals running the Canada Revenue Agency. Can anyone defend the indefensible here?”
“Indeed, there may be some legitimate concerns about signatures on the ballot to avoid long ballots. I would like to hear my colleague talk about her proposals, which could be as helpful as allowing a single person to sign a ballot, which would allow—”
“As everyone knows, the Wendake First Nation is in my riding. I contacted the grand chief and the nation's council at the time to ask them to make a suggestion. They proposed “Akiawenhrahk”, a name I am very proud to bear. It is the name of the Saint-Charles River. We do need to explain the history a bit. It was not easy for many people to say it correctly the first time. I have always managed it on the first try, of course, but a few people have had some difficulty. Just recently, on television, during an interview on LCN, the name came out a bit wrong. That gave me the opportunity to explain why it is pronounced that way. We are making good use of these suggestions from the community, as my colleague so aptly put it, and I invite everyone to do the same. My question is this.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said, this is indeed a very high-level debate we are having today. I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River , who is always very eloquent when it comes to discussing an issue close to his heart, particularly this one. I probably should not say this, because we are not supposed to mention whether someone is in the House or not, but I would also like to thank the minister , who attended all the debates and listened very attentively. Heaven knows he has his hands full as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Transport. Now, I would like to make two comments regarding the names of the ridings before I ask my main question. I completely agree, and I would like to remind everyone of what we did in Louis-Saint-Laurent.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this minister's voting record. Let us not forget that, like many others here, he was elected in 2015 on a promise that the Liberals would implement the Liberal carbon tax, which they presented as the best way to help the environment. After insulting us for nine years, they scrapped the Liberal carbon tax. We applaud them for doing the right thing. They already scrapped one carbon tax so why not scrap the other Liberal fuel taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, the inflation affecting gas prices is hitting all Canadians, including those who fill up their cars and those who buy goods and products that are transported. This means that it is affecting everyone. We cannot control what happens in Iran. However, we can control what happens here, specifically taxation and Liberal taxes on carbon and gas. We are proposing that they be eliminated this year. That would mean an extra $5 billion in taxpayers' pockets rather than government coffers. When will the government deliver on this great proposal?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last two months, 100,000 Canadians lost their jobs. That is the reality. While the government blames everything on Donald Trump, the reality is that this government could be taking direct action. Instead, what the government is doing for industry is increasing the Liberal industrial carbon tax. That is the truth. When investments go down, taxes go up. That makes no sense. It is proof that this Liberal government has not changed at all in 10 years. It is using the same formulas that led to the loss of 100,000 jobs in the past two months.”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians thought they were getting a new Liberal Prime Minister , but he is just like all the other Liberals we have seen over the past 10 years. Our investments are not doing well. Today, the C.D. Howe Institute is reporting that industrial investments are down: investment per worker is down 25%, investment in buildings is down by 32% and investment in machinery is down by 29%. There is one thing that will go up on April 1 and that is the Liberal industrial tax. While industrial investment is declining, the industrial tax is set to increase. Is there a Liberal who can explain to me how that is going to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have bad news for the government, but especially for Canadians: The Liberals' policies are not working. There are 100,000 Canadians—100,000 men and women, 100,000 families—who have lost their jobs. That is the reality after 10 years of Liberal government and after one year of this new Prime Minister . He claims that this is happening all over the world. If the impacts are being felt the world over, why do Canadians, here in Canada, have to deal with the highest food inflation in the G7? That is unacceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister was elected a year ago on a promise that he would build the strongest economy in the G7. Here we are one year later, and things are still not on track. In the first two months of this year alone, 100,000 Canadians lost their job. Ours is the only G7 economy that is shrinking. We have had the highest spike in unemployment in the G7 and we have the worst food inflation in the G7. Do the Prime Minister and his government realize that their policies are not working?”
“Mr. Speaker, since my colleague pointed out what said in French, I will repeat it in English. Yes, I am an electric car user. I bought it two and a half years ago. It was a used car, so it was half the price, with no subsidies and no obligation. It answered my needs and it was okay. It is a free market. This is how it works in the real world for people. However, what we have seen is that the government screwed up everything about the EV market because it shut down the subsidies just—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to say in English that the member is one of my political heroes. I want to inform this House and the people in Canada from coast to coast that this gentlemen balanced the budget in Quebec. That is great. I hope those who are opposing us now will listen, be very careful and get inspiration from the Liberal member. He is on the wrong team, because it is the team of the deficit. [ Translation ] I want to say this to my colleague: He is a man who knows how to do the math and who has a vision for the future. However, what we have seen over the past year is anything but sound policies regarding electric vehicles. The current government has failed to provide any predictability. As a result, last year, we had the worst EV sales on the entire planet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, first and foremost for his passion to fight for Canadian workers in the auto industry. This is a great example that we shall follow each and every time we want to fight for an issue we believe in, as he is doing with auto workers. What we have seen in the last 10 years is that it is only the Liberals who let the car industry crash. In the last year, they did everything to crash the electric vehicle market here in Canada. This is why we have the worst result in the world for EVs. Today the Liberals are trying to explain to us that, no, this is the future, and they are the only ones who can do it. The Conservatives are not opposed to it. No, we are all open to a free market, open to letting the people decide by themselves, and we are also open to helping the future and not helping friends.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that there is a big difference between a subsidy and a tax cut. A tax cut does not cost other taxpayers anything. When the government provides a subsidy, that means taking $2.3 billion of workers' money, which comes out of the pockets of workers who do not earn millions of dollars a year, and giving it away. The government is deciding who gets the money and who does not. It really makes sense to invest if one believes in the future of electric cars. They are part of the future. We are not against that, quite the contrary. I am living proof of that, or I should say, driving proof. However, if the goal is really to help, why not use positive incentives instead of subsidies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question from my true friend and colleague from Kingston, because I am living proof that we can run an electric car on a daily basis without subsidies and without mandates. Yes, Conservatives like their electric cars. What we do not like is subsidies, because subsidies will have some movement inside the market. This is why the Liberals decided to take $2.3 billion of taxpayer money and pick out the winner. If they want to help the electric vehicle industry, maybe they could invest more money into the future instead of picking the winner and the loser.”
“I am living proof—driving proof, if you will—that people can drive electric cars without rebates or mandates. Buying electric vehicles from China still raises major security issues. Why buy vehicles from China when we could open up new markets and source vehicles from Europe? Renault sells electric cars that cost about the same as those from China. The government may want to open its eyes and take a fresh look at how it mishandled electric vehicles last year. The government should also be much more open to the European market before turning to China.”
“Everyone expected there would be something in the budget, but, at the end of the day, there was absolutely nothing. Everyone figured it was over. Let us speak of it no more, thank you, good night. Then, in January, out of the blue, the Liberals announced that they were bringing back the rebates. How wonderful. Everyone was happy. It was like magic. After a whole year of literally leaving everyone in the automotive system without a clue, here come the Liberals like knights in shining armour championing electric cars. These people are not to be trusted when it comes to EVs. Canada's record on EVs under the new Prime Minister is the worst. Now the Liberals want us to look at the future from an EV perspective. EVs are obviously part of the future.”
“On the contrary, it was suddenly announced that the subsidy would be ending in three days and nothing more was said about it. As a result, people who were thinking of buying an EV faced a time crunch, and dealers had no idea how to handle the rush. That was the first problem. Then, in May, two senior ministers, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of the Environment, said not to worry because they would bring back electric vehicle rebates. Is that so? When? One can almost imagine them singing an old folk song about holding out hope for better times ahead and giving the new government time to fix things. The problem is that everyone waited. May, June, July and August passed with no news. September and October passed. Then came November and the budget.”
“There are people who might want to drive an electric car, but who have needs that the technology cannot yet meet. We need to accept that reality. However, when the technology meets a person's needs, they are able to drive an electric car, even without a subsidy. Last year, electric car sales shot through the roof, reaching 20% worldwide, 33% in Europe and 48% in Asia and South America. Electric vehicles sales are on the rise everywhere, except in one place: the Canada of the new Prime Minister 's Liberals. Predictability is important for any industry. The Liberals did everything they could to ruin the EV industry. Think back to January 13, 2025, when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau abruptly announced that the EV subsidy was ending. A lot of people were claiming it, but predictability is vital and there was none.”
“(1255) [ Translation ] First of all, I would like to declare a conflict of interest: I drive an electric car. I have been driving an electric car for two-and-a-half years now. So far, I have travelled 120,000 kilometres between Quebec City and Ottawa and all around my area. Even better, it is a second-hand car. I am proud of that, because there is nothing greener than an electric car except a second-hand electric car. Why did I buy a second-hand car? I did it because there are no subsidies. Yes, it is possible to drive an electric car without a subsidy and without any strings attached. I looked at my needs, and I love this technology. I am a car guy, as those who know me are aware, and I wanted to make choices that, first and foremost, suited my needs. Unfortunately, electric cars do not meet everyone's need.”