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 8 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, those are not my words, they are the words of the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself. The Prime Minister promised to cap Liberal spending, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that that is yet another broken Liberal promise. Trudeau's deficits are about to double. Who would have thought? The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that something has got to give and warns that we are on the edge. Seriously, could the Prime Minister stand up and acknowledge that, unfortunately, he is once again leading Canada into massive, unreasonable deficits?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar spent by the Liberal Prime Minister comes straight out of the pockets of Canadians who are watching at home right now. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has described the Liberal deficits as, and I quote, alarming, stupefying, shocking and unsustainable. He said that if the Liberals continue as they are, then it is game over for this country. I am not the one saying that. It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Does the Prime Minister realize that what he is doing right now is putting Canada on the road to disaster?”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to see you in that chair. I commend my colleague from Bourassa on his speech, which I enjoyed. We all understand that cybersecurity is a 21st-century topic that does not just affect Quebec City, Quebec and Canada. The entire planet is subject to cyber-threats. Obviously, this bill presents approaches that are worth considering. However, if we want to keep people safe, we also have to protect their personal information. We believe that the bill should better define what constitutes personal information, since everything hinges on that. We all want to be protected from cyber-attacks, but we also want to be sure that our personal information is not being given out to everyone. Could the member elaborate on that?”
“How does he explain that Canadians are paying more than Americans, when, according to him, everything is going great in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, Akiawenhrahk is the Wendat word for “river”. It represents Wendake and the Wendats who live in Wendake. This river flows through the entire constituency. The Wendats live not only on what was once known as the reserve; they live throughout the Quebec City region, throughout Quebec, throughout Canada and throughout America. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share that. I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I will remember the fact that he lives in the chicken capital. Now I know. My colleague praised what he considers to be the merits of the current government. The reality is that over the past 10 years, under the Liberals, food prices have risen by 40%. However, since the Prime Minister took office six months ago, prices in Canada have risen 50% faster than in the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice should focus his efforts on trying to convince the Minister of Public Safety , because that minister does not think the gun buyback program is working. On the contrary, $750 million has been wasted. The public safety minister said so himself, and yet the Prime Minister is keeping him in his position. How can the Prime Minister put up with a guy who thinks the exact opposite of what he says publicly when, in private, he acknowledges that the program is not working?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal governance, crime in Canada is on the rise. Violent crime is up by more than 55%. Gun crime is up over 130%. Extortion is up over 330%. That is the Liberal record after 10 years. Now the Minister of Public Safety has admitted that the gun buyback program is not working. It has failed. It is a waste of money and is not making Canadians any safer. Why is the Prime Minister keeping someone at the head of public safety who does not believe in this very important program at all?”
“However, in the end, they got rid of it. When did they do that? They got rid of it before they were even re-elected. Most importantly, they did it Trump-style, with an executive order signed in front of applauding ministers, including the former minister of environment . My question is as follows: Is the member listening to Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and commend him for his decades of commitment to the environment. I welcome him to the Chamber. We would have preferred a Conservative MP, of course, but we obviously respect the will of Quebeckers. Before I get to my question, I just want to clarify two things about the carbon tax. We moved a motion during that debate to pay the money directly to Quebeckers. The amendment was not accepted, which is part of the public debate, but we did move it. Also regarding the carbon tax, my colleague said that experts around the world have said that it is the best way to combat climate change. I just want to tell him that he is not alone in saying that, because all the Liberal members spent 10 years saying that it was the best thing since sliced bread for fighting climate change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on getting elected. This is the first time that we have had a chance to engage in the House. I want to thank her. Let us remember that auto sales in Quebec are up 13.7% compared to 8.2% for Canada as a whole. We are very open to collaboration, but we still need to make the right decisions. Prime Minister Trudeau claimed that there was no business case for exporting natural gas. That is not true. The fact is, as the Polish ambassador so embarrassingly pointed out—”
“Another reality is that the Quebec government is now prepared to open the door to natural gas plants and a liquefied natural gas terminal, which is the complete opposite of its position just one year ago. I invite my colleague to listen to Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very relevant question. We are talking about meeting people's needs. As long as people need oil and natural gas, why not produce it in Canada? Nearly half of the oil we buy comes from abroad, specifically from the United States. However, a lot of that oil from the United States is actually from Canada. I know my colleague is very fond of Quebec and Quebeckers, but I also know that, like me, she recognizes that facts are facts, and that oil consumption is not declining in Quebec; it is increasing. That is the state of energy consumption in Quebec. The École des hautes études commerciales has confirmed this. It has also indicated that the F-150 truck has been the top-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016 and that natural gas consumption is also on the rise.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer questions from the member for Winnipeg North. Obviously, the Liberals cannot do worse than what they have done in the last 10 years. The member asked me to be more co-operative. He picks up our bill and picks up our ideas, such as cancelling the carbon tax, but would he pick up my personal idea to have one project, one evaluation? A year ago, I tabled Bill C-375 , and what did the member and all of his colleagues around him do? They refused it. It was never time to be good, but it is now time to be good for the energy sector and to be open to new projects as soon as possible.”
“Transportation is on the rise, and 9.7 billion litres is a record level of consumption in Quebec. Consumption is not dropping. It is increasing. Let us not forget that the F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016. The current provincial government has shown some openness on the issue of gas. On July 4, Quebec's premier stated that he would be open to the idea of building a plant. He is also open to the idea of building a liquefied natural gas terminal, if Quebeckers support the idea. Even yesterday, he said that he would take a page from the federal government regarding Bill C‑5 and table a bill that he is calling Bill Q‑5. We will see. I should point out that Bill C‑5 included Bill C‑375 , a bill I tabled that sought to ensure that a single assessment be undertaken for each project. However, the Liberals rejected it.”
“I am proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the extraordinary legacy that has been handed on to us thanks to the vision that Quebec politicians had in the 20th century and still have today. They have been able to develop the full potential of electricity. However, there is also potential in fossil fuels, whether it be oil or gas. Quebec makes its own choices, but here is the reality for Quebeckers. According to an annual analysis by the École des hautes études commerciales, oil accounts for 36% of Quebec's energy, whereas natural gas accounts for 13%. Last year, Quebec consumed 9.7 billion litres of oil. Although I support electrification, the reality is that we still need oil in Quebec, and as long as we need oil, then I will support Canadian oil.”
“In our view, the government is there to ensure that everything is done properly according to the rules and not to get in the business of pipeline ownership. Today, the government is trying to sell it and all the experts agree that if it sells, it will be worth half of what it cost. Congratulations. Fortunately, Canadians can rest assured because the government created the position of minister responsible for government efficiency. The minister who holds that position is the one who came up with the bright idea to buy the pipeline. That is amazing. I know that minister well. He is my neighbour. It is the member for Louis‑Hébert , whom I respect and admire. I hope he will learn from what he did and never do it again.”
“When someone decides to buy something that is not for sale, they have to pay more. The Canadian government paid $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had not even been built yet. It paid twice what it was worth. Not only did we get ripped off a bit on the price, but then it still had to be built. When the Liberal government bought the pipeline the estimated cost was $7.4 billion. Any idea how much it actually cost? It did not cost two, three or four times more, but five times more. The cost went from $7.4 billion to $34.2 billion. Add to that the $4.5 billion and that is almost $40 billion. That is taxpayers' money that was used to buy a pipeline and build it, when that is absolutely not the government's mandate.”
“That is contrary to what the former prime minister said during his campaign, that, sorry, there was “no business case”. What a missed shot that was, because, yes, there is a business case. As very clearly identified by the ambassador of Poland in an interview on CBC, it is time for the government to open its eyes and act correctly for the good of all Canadians. [ Translation ] Let us not forget that those folks have been in government for 10 years. They have stepped up only once on an oil project. Let us not forget that Bill C‑69 slowed down any momentum, but they did do one thing: They decided to buy a pipeline. First they lecture the entire planet, then they buy a pipeline. Can anyone say that it did any good? Not really, we just have to look at what happened.”
“In a nutshell, the gas we refuse to sell to Europe ultimately ends up there anyway, minus a juicy profit margin swallowed up by an American company. The bottom line is this: there is no benefit to the environment, a major economic loss to Canada and a tidy sum being pocketed by the United States. I am sorry, but this is ridiculous! That is the issue we are talking about today. (1120) Are we going to keep pretending that everything is just fine? Are we going to keep saying that we, here in Canada, are nice people and will not rock the boat even if others do? Or instead, will we seize the opportunity to achieve our full potential in every energy sector that we, as Canadians, need? [ English ] The ambassador of Poland illustrated it very well, saying there is a business case.”
“The ambassador was so embarrassed by the question that all he could do was laugh. He admitted that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States, but claimed it was encouraging Canada at the same time. How so? Well, that natural gas bought in the U.S. comes from Canada. That means Canadians are sending their gas to the United States, and the United States is sending it to Europe. In the meantime, countless business opportunities are being squandered. That is what prompted commentator Mario Dumont to say the following in the Journal de Montréal: While [the Prime Minister of Canada] was visiting his country, Poland's ambassador in Ottawa revealed during a CBC interview that the natural gas his country buys is still Canadian natural gas. ...”
“According to Jean-Paul Rodrigue, professor at the department of maritime business administration at Texas A&M University, “Canada is stuck in a situation that puts it at a disadvantage”. “Canada has made bad choices for ideological reasons”, laments the Montreal native, who has lived in the United States for 30 years. He believes that environmental considerations are preventing Canada from exploiting its vast oil resources to their full potential. As I said, Alberta's oil goes to Texas and then comes back to Lévis. Obviously, Texans are taking advantage of this to make whatever profit they can. The other thing is utterly embarrassing. On August 26, a CBC anchor was interviewing the Polish ambassador and informed him that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States.”
“Therefore, as long as Canadians need fossil fuels, I will support Canadian oil and gas and Canadian energy. Two troubling examples have come to light that demonstrate how this government is stifling the potential of our natural resources. First, I would like to quote a report by Olivier Lemieux out of Quebec City, which was broadcast by Radio-Canada on March 19. According to an expert from Texas, “Canada has made bad choices” for the oil industry. The author explains how it all works. Oil leaves Alberta, goes to Texas, and then comes back to Canada—not far from my riding, in fact, in Lévis—to be refined. However, rather than having our oil go through Texas and enriching Americans along the way, things could have been done differently.”
“That is why I believe that, for as long as we need what we call fossil fuels, these fuels will have to come from Canada. Let us take advantage of this wealth we have to develop our full potential and, as my colleague so aptly stated just a few minutes ago, send Canada's natural resources to the rest of the world along with the Canadian workers whose labour creates that wealth. We need to allow these businesses and their full potential to be used how they were meant to be used. Moreover, it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister claim that, in certain circumstances, there is no viable business case for fossil fuels. That is completely false, as we will see later in my speech. Let us not forget that Canadians consume 51 million litres of oil and gas per day to meet their needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today, which will set the record straight for Canadians about who we are and what we can be if we reach our full potential here in Canada. Canada is a wealthy country, and it draws its wealth from its millions of citizens, from its hundreds of thousands of innovative businesses, and from its natural resources. The fact is we have been truly blessed here in this country. We have it all, all of the natural resources—whether it be critical minerals, minerals that we have been using for centuries, or what is rightly known as green energy, like hydroelectricity or biomass. We have everything in Canada to develop our potential and provide energy to meet all the needs of Canadians.”
“Gun crime is up 130% and extortion has skyrocketed by 330%. Is the member proud of Canada's record after 10 years of Liberal governance?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Bourassa on his speech and on his election. I am not going to congratulate him again on the quality of his French, because we know that he is francophone. I also want to acknowledge his predecessor. The riding of Bourassa is one of the most vulnerable areas in Canada when it comes to safety, particularly in Quebec and in Montreal. The member is well aware of that. I am very disappointed to hear him say that the Conservatives are just spouting slogans, that we are fearmongering, that our premise is wrong and that we are cutting corners. What I am about to say is not a false premise, nor is it meant to scare people. It is not a slogan. It is a fact. Over the past 10 years, under the Liberal Party's watch, violent crime in Canada has increased by 55%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend and congratulate the member on her speech and her excellent French. Speaking of policies that do not work, these people have been governing Canada for 10 years now. In 10 years, what have they done about crime in Canada? Violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130% and extortion is up 330%. Is Canada really doing so well?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that we are talking about food, something that is essential to life. Right now, thousands, if not millions, of Canadians are flocking to food banks. He knows full well that demand has doubled at Solidarité familles on Ormière Boulevard. He knows full well that Chez Amélie et Frédérick on Bastien Boulevard has received 50% more requests for urgent food assistance. That is the reality after 10 years of Liberal government. Why the hypocrisy when it comes to food inflation for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' compulsive deficits over the past 10 years have had a direct impact on food inflation. We know that, in just a few weeks, the deficit will be even higher than it was under Trudeau. Unbelievable. Food inflation is affecting all Canadian families. The Prime Minister said this week that the tariff war is a factor. Is that so? If it is, can he explain why the price of apples that are grown in Canada, picked in Canada, sold in Canada and eaten by Canadians went up by 14% thanks to inflation?”
“That is quite the challenge. I must remind him that the government has been in power for 10 years, that he has been minister for six months and that it took him 172 days to ask for and demand a 100-day plan—”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal governance, Canadians have lost confidence in the Canada Revenue Agency, and for good reason. Has anyone tried reaching anyone at the CRA over the phone? Barely 5% of calls are being processed. For weeks, the CRA was unable to say how much we invested in our TFSAs. There are thousands of cases of phantom income. There are thousands of cases of interest demanded on money that has already been paid. Every day, our constituency offices receive calls from honest people who are fed up with being treated like fraudsters. The problem is not the CRA employee answering the phone. It is mismanagement. One of the government's primary missions is to provide good service to Canadians, especially when it comes to money. The minister was so proud to announce that he is assigning the CRA a 100-day action plan.”
“Every week, as parliamentarians, we are confronted with dozens of mishandled, problematic immigration cases. Could the member tell us how things are going in his riding? In his opinion, how much of the blame lies with the people who have been governing us for the past 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, who will soon be celebrating his tenth year as a parliamentarian here, in the House of Commons. I want to congratulate him. I notice that there are a few of us here in the House who will soon be celebrating our tenth year. I was extremely impressed by the quality of my colleague's fact-based speech, especially the history leading up to the current situation. I congratulate him on his expansive knowledge of Canada's history. However, I want to remind him that, at the end of his speech, he mentioned a reality which I am sure is a common occurrence for all parliamentarians, every week, on all sides, whether they are members of the government, the official opposition, the second opposition party, independent members associated with the NDP or other independent members.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the problems that Canadians are facing every day. On the day that he was sworn in, the Prime Minister said that Canadians would judge him by the cost of groceries. Four months later, grocery prices are extremely high. Inflation is rising and so is the cost of everything. People who were already struggling are struggling even more because of this broken promise. Canadians are now realizing that the Prime Minister breaks his promises, just as all the Liberals have done over the past 10 years while mismanaging Canada. Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why their grocery bills are going up as a result of food inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, there was talk of tax cuts. Numbers were thrown around. The Prime Minister , among others, talked about $840. I seek unanimous consent to table the Parliamentary Budget Officer's document, which in no way includes— Some hon. members: No.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not being truthful. The problem is that, on average, Canadians will barely get $90, while low-income seniors will be getting about $50, which is not even a dollar a week. When the Prime Minister was head of Brookfield, if a director came and told him that they had a plan to make good cuts and then did not deliver the goods and gave three and a half times less than forecast, would he say, “Hooray, let us keep going”? Would he not instead ask them why they misled him?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the Liberals promised to lower taxes for families. For an average family, that meant saving $825. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report today. The actual amount is $250, not $825. That is less than a third of what was expected. The Prime Minister is an honourable man, to say the least. Could he stand up and apologize to Canadians for misleading them?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his very relevant question. He cares about the future of the planet, and hybrid transportation matters to him. He has had that kind of car for some time now. When the government imposes standards or fines or an extra $20,000 tax, will GM or Ford absorb those costs? No, GM, Ford and the rest will make buyers pay. We are not going to change people's minds by penalizing them. Pulling on a flower will not make it grow any faster. If people want an electric car, they can choose to have one. If it does not meet their needs, they will be able to do something else. If it happens one day, so much the better for them and so much the better for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there is a debate going on in Quebec right now on the obligation to no longer sell conventional vehicles as of 2035. I quoted a few politicians who are quite high ranking and who are expressing reservations about this. Their approach is entirely pragmatic, not dogmatic. I want to say to the member that this morning, his colleague from Jonquière was not at his best. He said that Pierre-Olivier Zappa, who had some trouble with his electric car after owning it for over a year, had grossly exaggerated. Mr. Zappa said that he unfortunately had to give up on his electric car. That was his personal perspective based on his own experience. The Bloc member for Jonquière said it was a gross exaggeration. It is very disappointing.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no magic bullet. We have to build everything step by step, with confidence, with experience. This does not fit everybody; it is not a wall-to-wall way to travel and to have mobility. Electric cars are a fit for some people but not a fit for all the people. However, imposing it on the people is the worst way. The government shall not impose something on the people. The people make their own choices based on what they want, what their daily needs are and what they and their family want to do with their car. Imposing it as a mandate is the worst-case scenario for convincing people to have an electric car.”
“He said that the target was modelled on California, that even American interest in EVs is starting to wane, that the shift was too abrupt, and that there is an urgent need for a realistic shift. That is what we are increasingly hearing. We support giving people a choice. We are not against electric cars or gas-powered cars. We are in favour of them being able to coexist, not pitting one against the other. We should not insult people who choose one car over another. Let people make their own choices. The market can decide for itself. (1640) [ English ] As a Conservative, I bought a used electric car with no subsidies. I like it. It is okay; it fits my needs. That is fine. I will never impose it on anybody, but if they want to know, then yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car.”
“He said that a realistic approach is what is needed now. Then there is Quebec environment minister Benoit Charette, who said that the approach has always been to not be dogmatic. If it becomes apparent over the years that the market is not ready, then adjustments will be made. It is true that Quebec has the most electric cars in Canada. Half of Canada's electric cars are in Quebec. Electric cars account for 25% of the car fleet in Quebec. There is obviously some appetite, although there is some debate about making them mandatory. This led news anchor Pierre‑Olivier Zappa to express his views in a recent column, because he himself bought an electric car. He said that while it was perfect on paper, real life is another story. He talked about problems accessing fast‑charging stations, the impact of winter, insurance costs, and so on.”
“The interim leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Marc Tanguay once said, “It is not just up to the government, in its ivory tower, to set a target and say that everything must change. The government needs to take stock of the market and the public's ability to pay, and assess for itself whether its target is realistic.” The leader of the Quebec Conservative Party started a petition and said, “I am not against electric vehicles. I drive a hybrid vehicle myself.” He added, however, that it was unrealistic and irresponsible to go down that road. MNA and Liberal transport critic Monsef Derraji said that he thinks that things are moving too fast. He said that setting a realistic goal first requires taking stock of the situation, and that continuing to pursue an unrealistic goal means selling people a bill of goods.”
“We need to acknowledge that GM Canada and Ford Canada are saying that the 2035 deadline is unreasonable and that Volvo abandoned its goal for 2030. That is the distinction to be made between a target and an obligation. There are many challenges to electric vehicles in terms of production, price, range, access to critical minerals, the number of charging stations currently available and the amount of electricity required to power all these cars. As we know, Quebec has set the exact same targets. However, there is ongoing debate in the province about whether to uphold the ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035. Polls have been conducted. According to a poll conducted by the firm Synopsis, 54% of people say they disagree. This percentage rises to 59% according to another poll conducted by Pallas Data.”
“Obviously, they wanted to save their wallets because they saw that a lot of people were attracted to electric cars. [ Translation ] That is why all the big manufacturers invested massive amounts of money to electrify their cars. Things were evolving normally until came the obligation to stop selling gas-powered cars by 2035. One after another, companies and manufacturers are saying that we should not get ahead of ourselves, that we need to go one step at a time. Volvo, which committed to stop producing conventional vehicles by 2030, went back on its decision and dropped that obligation. GM Canada and Ford Canada feel that the 2035 target is too strict. We need to listen to the industry while keeping in mind that other players could enter the Canadian EV market and also balance out our trade.”
“It was sabotage and improvisation, with the Liberal government's stamp. When we talk about cars, we are talking about industry. Let us not forget that the appeal of electric cars really took off in 2008 when Tesla introduced its famous Roadster. In 2012, the Model S was released, followed a few years later by the Model 3. These were so well received by the public that many people, instead of buying a luxury car, including traditional German brands, chose to buy a Tesla. People found that interesting, even though the charging system was not very well developed. [ English ] At that moment, all the other players in the industry decide to go to EVs. Why? Do members think they did that because they wanted to save the planet, or did they want to save their wallets?”
“In others, it may not work. People need to be given the freedom to choose. That is why, when the government imposes things, it is the government that creates the battle, creates the opposition and makes it so that communities are not involved in decisions about the future. When people are forced to do something, it creates sadness in communities, precisely because the government is imposing its choice on them. Let us not forget that, last January, in an unfortunate improvised move, the government literally sabotaged the subsidy programs for car buyers. The program was cancelled overnight, leaving car dealerships with dozens, if not hundreds, of applications. I personally received calls from dealers asking what had happened with the Canadian government over the weekend.”
“A Liberal member asked the following: [ English ] A Liberal asked her why she was opposed to targets, and she said that we are not talking about targets; we are talking about a mandate. We do not disagree with having a target, but a mandate is an obligation. We do not want to live in a country where the government will pick the winners and losers and mandate an issue. People should address their own needs for mobility. [ Translation ] That is why we think it is a shame that the government's approach is pitting one against the other. The government is pitting conventional cars against electric cars. That is not the way to look at it. It should be seen as things that can work for everyone and other things that cannot work for some. Not everyone's daily needs are conducive to having an electric car. It can work in some cases.”
“It is indeed possible to drive an electric car without one. I am living proof of that, or I should say, driving proof. I carefully assessed my needs and knew that I needed a certain type of electric car to travel nearly 500 kilometres with only one stop, since there are several fast chargers along my route that allow me to do this. Every type of car has its challenges. There is no magic wand here. Everyone must carefully assess their needs. It is important to consider the ease of using an electric vehicle compared to the ease of using a conventional car. People should be allowed to make their own choice. I knew what to expect. That is the key element of this debate, which my colleague from Oshawa summed up very well when she spoke earlier today.”
“We have absolutely nothing against gas-powered cars. We do have something against forcing people to do things. (1635) [ English ] The main issue today is about the mandate to no longer sell conventional gas cars, instead of letting people decide that themselves. [ Translation ] That is the focus of today's debate. Let me say at the outset that I am in a conflict of interest. For almost two years now, I have owned a 100% electric car. For almost two years now, I have been travelling back and forth between Quebec City and Ottawa, close to 500 kilometres each time, in an electric car. To be honest, I bought the car used, so without the benefit of a subsidy. A Conservative is a Conservative. I installed a charging station too. It is no fancy charging station. It cost me it $455, and came without a subsidy.”