The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vehicle.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Income Tax Act First reading of Bill C-211. The bill aims to streamline disability benefit applications by automatically recognizing provincial/territorial disability status federally, reducing paperwork for applicants and healthcare workers. 200 words.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered Vehicles Members debate a Conservative motion calling to end the Liberal government's zero-emission vehicle sales mandate. Conservatives argue the mandate is a ban, forcing expensive EVs, costing jobs, and lacking infrastructure. Liberals state it's a phase-in, not a ban, promoting investment and job creation in the EV sector, benefiting affordability, and addressing climate change. Bloc Québécois supports electrification for Quebec. 12200 words, 1 hour.

Testimony by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in Committee of the Whole Kevin Lamoureux responds to a question of privilege alleging the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources misled the House regarding Bill C-5, arguing the Minister did not deliberately mislead and clarifying the bill's consultation process. 500 words.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles Members debate the Liberal government's mandate to phase out the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Conservatives move to end the mandate, arguing it's a ban that imposes a $20,000 tax, lacks infrastructure, hurts rural Canadians, and removes consumer choice. Liberals defend the policy as an availability standard driving economic growth, jobs, and addressing climate change, stating it increases EV supply and saves money over time. 47100 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the Liberal ban on gas-powered vehicles, claiming it costs jobs and choice. They also raise concerns about auto sector job losses from US tariffs. They question the Minister of Housing's personal financial interests amid the housing crisis and condemn the government's soft-on-crime policies, highlighting rising extortion and failures in bail reform.
The Liberals focus on defending the Canadian auto industry against US tariffs, highlighting investments and support for auto workers. They address crime, detailing plans to toughen the Criminal Code, reform bail for violent offenses, and combat extortion. They emphasize efforts to deliver housing, increase starts, and support major projects while respecting Indigenous rights.
The Bloc criticizes Bill C-5, calling it an attack on Quebec and indigenous peoples that allows Ottawa to impose projects without consent. They condemn the bill for circumventing laws and being rammed through Parliament.
The NDP demands delayed selenium regulations for coal mining to protect water and fish.
The Greens advocate balancing defence spending with foreign aid for development and peace.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage Members debate the government's 2025-26 Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, detailing planned spending priorities on defence, health care (including the Canadian dental care plan), housing, and infrastructure. The government emphasizes investments like aiming to achieve NATO's 2% target and building a "one Canadian economy," highlighting the new Prime Minister and administration are working hard for Canadians. Opposition parties voice concerns regarding the plan to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles, government transparency, spending levels (without a budget), and the carbon tax rebate. 28800 words, 4 hours.

Main Estimates, 2025-26 First reading of Bill C-6. The bill grants money for federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, and passes through first, second, and third readings in the House. 400 words, 10 minutes.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26 First reading of Bill C-7. The bill grants money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, passing through first, second, and third readings and committee stage. 400 words, 10 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Budget plan transparency Greg McLean demands a budget, citing Canadians' struggles with job losses and rising costs. Annie Koutrakis emphasizes job training and skills development programs, promising a budget in the fall. McLean criticizes Koutrakis for not answering his question. Ryan Turnbull defends the government's economic actions, including a middle-class tax cut, and also says a budget will be released in the fall.
Minister's housing record Tamara Jansen criticizes the housing minister's past record as mayor of Vancouver, accusing him of enabling money laundering and driving up housing prices. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's housing plan, citing investments in affordable housing and programs to support first-time homebuyers. Jansen questions the minister's credibility.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. I listened to his speech, and he continues to discuss what happened in the past. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years.

Over two million people are using food banks. Seniors are living on the street. What is happening? The housing minister's own issues in Vancouver increased homelessness for seniors by 40%. You have been in power for 10 years. What have you done to help ensure the seniors in this country, the ones who built this country, are not living on the streets?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Before I give the floor to the parliamentary secretary, questions are through the Chair. I have not done things.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me enough time to be able to answer that question.

Suffice to say, Pierre Poilievre sat around a Conservative cabinet table for many years. He was part of a Conservative caucus when the manufacturing industry was devastated, during Harper's era. We can look at the loss of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario during the Harper regime.

There was more change in the Liberal benches in the last election than there was in the Conservative benches. They have been there for the last 10 years, and if they do not make any changes, they are going to be there for another 10 years.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment rather than a question.

People can call a rose anything they like, and it will still smell amazing. No matter how one spins it, a pile of manure is not going to turn into a charming hill in the countryside. Dressing up any old policy in new fancy packaging does not change what it is or what it demands of the Canadian people, which is more sacrifices.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what to say to that.

At the end of the day, I sense the Conservatives are a little sensitive on the issue of change. They resent the fact that the Liberal Party was able, through the change of leadership and the election, to provide the change that Canadians wanted. That was demonstrated on April 28.

I am very grateful to Canadians, to every one of them who took a look and took the time to understand the platforms of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Ultimately, I would argue that they made a good decision, and we will find out more in the months and years ahead.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just told us that he was proud to represent Quebec. I have a simple question for him: Is the National Assembly of Quebec important to him? If so, does he think that when 125 elected members from Quebec call—

I will stop there because this is a big moment for us right now. I am being told that the Bloc Québécois bill on supply management has been adopted in the Senate. Supply management is a done deal. I forgot my question, but I say bravo. I am happy. I hope that my colleague from Winnipeg North is happy too. The Bloc Québécois bill to fully protect supply management has just been approved by the Senate. That is a Bloc Québécois victory.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Hear, hear.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite fully understand the interjection. I think what the member wanted to ask was in regards to a unanimous motion that passed the National Assembly of Quebec. I am being completely honest when I say that I am very passionate about the province of Quebec. I care about Quebec, and I will always advocate for Quebec.

There were times in the Manitoba Legislature when a unanimous motion passed that Ottawa did not necessarily take into consideration to the degree that MLAs wanted in Manitoba. That is a part of being a part of a federalist system.

At the end of the day, we can do so much better if we all work together to build a stronger, healthier country. As the Prime Minister says, we can be the strongest, healthiest country in the G7 if we work together.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I am rising today on this motion because I will not stand here and let the “new” government deceive Canadians any longer. This so-called plan props up monopolies and makes life more unaffordable for Canadians under the guise of saving carbon emissions. This ban on gas-powered vehicles is exactly that. I must call out the Liberal hypocrisy. The government has not met even one of its environmental targets in this last decade, yet it has the nerve to keep imposing its unaffordable, ineffective climate agenda on Canadians.

Tonight, I want to cover three things: how the bill is in fact not sustainable or environmentally friendly; how it makes life in Canada even more unaffordable; and lastly, how this is classic Liberal lying and, ultimately, another broken promise. Starting next year, the Liberals will be rolling out a zero-emission vehicle mandate that will become more extreme over the years. By 2026, automakers and importers will be forced to ensure that 20% of their vehicle sales are zero-emission. That target jumps to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. Within just a decade, sales of gas-powered vehicles will be banned entirely.

While the Liberals lecture the rest of Canadians from their elitist circles, they seem to forget that Canadians do not like what they have done and that EVs simply do not work everywhere. In fact, in some areas, like my community, there is no facility to safely recycle the batteries that EVs use. According to the Canadian Automobile Association, electric vehicles can lose up to 40% of their battery life in weather from -7°C to -15°C. For northern British Columbians, starting an electric vehicle in winter is basically impossible.

Should this mandate stop families from taking their kids to school or hockey practice? What is the government doing? Do the Liberals think that BC Hydro, Ontario hydro and Hydro-Québec are ready to charge tens of millions of EVs every night, all while keeping up with the growing residential and industrial demands? I will answer that. They are simply not ready for that.

To make matters worse, the government continually blocks pipelines and energy projects across the country to line the pockets of foreign dictators. Why can it not admit that exporting foreign oil emits more carbon emissions than using clean Canadian energy? It would be far more affordable for Canadians if the government focused on developing our own natural resources. It should let Canadians work in pipeline and LNG programs, let them drive Canadian-made vehicles and let them heat their homes and start their cars with Canadian energy. Instead, the government is restricting consumer choice, driving up costs and punishing working families with policies like prioritizing ideology over affordability.

This is not a climate plan; this is a control plan, a Trojan Horse for a top-down mandate dressed up in green buzzwords. It will prop up monopolies, kneecap working Canadians and hand more power to the Liberals while pretending to save the planet. It will not just make cars more unaffordable. It will drive prices through the roof, shut down auto plants and send thousands of Canadian jobs straight to the U.S. economy.

A study in the Canadian Journal of Economics found that this mandate will eliminate 38,000 Canadian auto sector jobs and cost our economy up to $138.7 billion. However, it is not just the auto sector that is at risk. It is the everyday Canadians who work in rural areas and rely on trucks, long commutes and reliable vehicles just to get to work. This mandate hits the very people who keep our resource industry running, like forestry, fishing, mining, and oil and gas. They will be the ones who will end up paying the price.

Liberals' policies are already making life much harder for Canadians, especially those in resource sectors, so why are they targeting them again? Let us not forget that life is already very much a struggle for the everyday Canadian. Think about the single mom who must drive her kids from school and day care to hockey practice, or the senior in a rural community who just wants to commute to their medical appointment. Do the Liberals really think the average Canadian can pay for a brand-new electric vehicle? Under their mandate, every year the Liberals crank up their EV quota, manufacturers will not keep up because they will be forced to buy credits that cost up to $20,000. Guess who gets stuck with that bill in the end. It is Canadians.

The Liberals act like the cost vanishes into thin air, but it all gets passed down to the Canadian consumer. For most Canadians, a reliable gas-powered car is not a luxury but a lifeline. This mandate would push the very people who can afford it the least. The Liberals want to force top-down decisions, take away choices from hard-working Canadians and call it “green” while ignoring the damaging impacts. It is time to bring some common sense back to the government. No one should be told what kind of car they need to drive. Conservatives, especially, will not force Canadians to buy a vehicle they do not want, cannot afford and cannot count on.

It is not just Conservatives raising concerns. Even former Liberal MPs are pushing back on the new government's electric vehicle mandate. Former Liberal MP Dan McTeague also said this is the wrong policy for Canada. The truth is that the Liberals think they know better than the average Canadian. The government is not interested in choice but wants to dictate how Canadians live, what they drive and how they spend their money. Conservatives believe in something different. We believe in freedom, practicality and respecting our Canadian workers.

EVs are great for many families, who always should be free to purchase the vehicle of their choice. For many Canadians who live in cold environments or travel long distances, they are practically useless, especially without the infrastructure to power them. That is why the Conservatives have put forward a motion to protect Canadians' right to choose in their everyday lives. Soon this House will have a choice: Will it vote in favour of the Conservative motion that calls on the Liberal government to immediately end the ban on gas-powered vehicles, or will it take away the choice for Canadians for generations to come?

I urge my colleagues to vote in good conscience for the Conservative motion, not just because it makes sense economically or environmentally but because it defends something even more fundamental: our right to choose what to do with our lives. At its core, this motion is about freedom and personal choice, values that built this country and must never be taken for granted.

Canadians were promised leadership, but instead they got bureaucracy. They were promised jobs, but instead they got pink slips. They were promised a choice, but instead they are being told exactly what to drive. Canadians were promised change, but instead they received empty slogans and rising costs. I guess it is not elbows up. I guess it is elbows down.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jessica Fancy-Landry Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way talked a lot about affordability and planning, so thank you for that. Tonight, you talked a lot about having choice and lots of indicators for choices we should be making.

What do you feel are some of the largest indicators of affordability?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Before I recognize the member for Abbotsford—South Langley, I would just remind the member that questions go through the Chair.

The member for Abbotsford—South Langley.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, an affordability crisis has been led by the government for decades now. We see what has happened to our economy and our nation. Canadians are struggling. If we point our finger at affordable housing, we do not have any. If we point our finger at the resources, we are not using them. I would say that we need to do is put Canadians first and Canada first.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a right-wing Conservative. He talks about freedom ad nauseam.

What always surprises me about these right-wing Conservatives is that they become communists when it comes to taking public money and sending it to the oil and gas industry, with subsidies for small modular nuclear reactors that make oil with nuclear power, or with subsidies for research and development for carbon capture. The taxpayer would even have to pay the oil and gas companies to sequester their own carbon. We are talking tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years.

How does my colleague reconcile the fact that he repeats the word freedom every time he opens his mouth with the fact that, when it comes to pouring public money into oil and gas companies, he essentially becomes a communist?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that what we have right now is not the true North American dream. What we need to do is build Canada up from the ground up. We are ready to work with first nations. We are ready to work with the provinces. We want to work with Quebec and all the other provinces to make sure we do what is right for Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his election. He had one of the most exciting victory parties. I got to watch it online. He livestreamed the whole thing. I want to congratulate him for that as well.

I am wondering if the hon. member could talk a bit more about the housing situation in the Lower Mainland of B.C.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will touch on what it is like for the unaffordable housing sector. I am a prime example of that.

Today, for 25- and 26-year-olds in the community of Abbotsford—South Langley, it is out of reach. It is a dream to envision that they can own their own home one day. They have to pick and choose. It is either they have a family, work three jobs and stay in a basement or they decide not to have a family, work and maybe have the opportunity to one day own a house, but that will be after a long period of time.

What I see in my community is a struggle. What I am here to do is work hard for my community and put Abbotsford—South Langley first.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:25 p.m.

Trois-Rivières Québec

Liberal

Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about how we all need to work together to build a strong Canada. I think that is what I heard. The points he raised about affordability and housing are strong commitments that we made in our platform. It is because of these commitments that we were elected with a strong mandate.

My question for my colleague is this. Does he think his party could stop repeating slogans here in the House and really start working with us? The moment is much bigger than any of us. Canadians expect us to work together.

Does my colleague think that we can work together to push ahead with real measures for Canadians and Quebeckers?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I definitely think we can work together. As the Liberals have already stolen many ideas from the Conservative platform, we are ready to work together. We want to force the Liberals to keep taking our policies and keep taking from our platform, making sure that we work together and vote in some great policies.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want clean air. Canadians want innovation. Many Canadians, especially in my home province of British Columbia, are eager to embrace electric vehicles. I come from one of the most beautiful and most creative parts of the country. We are deeply committed to preserving that beauty, and we strive to find the technologies that will protect it.

I am genuinely excited about the future of electric vehicles and the role they can play in reducing emissions and driving technological progress. I am also excited about hydrogen fuel cells, renewable fuels and many other breakthroughs revving up across the transportation sector, as well as the technologies that have not even been conceived yet.

When innovation is allowed to flourish, Canada wins. Variety, they say, is the spice of life. On our vast roads and rugged terrain, Canadians want and need a full range of options, all the gears in the gear shift, so to say, from EVs to hybrids, sustainable fuels and even increasingly efficient internal combustion engines. I am so glad to see our entrepreneurs and our market delivering just that.

What Canadians do not want and absolutely cannot afford are heavy-handed mandates from Ottawa that jack up costs, punish small businesses and stall out consumer choice in the fast lane of central planning. That is not welcome in my community.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberal government's so-called zero-emission vehicle sales target does. It is being branded as a target, but it is a 10-year road to a ban, the “no more gas vehicles” ban, a regulatory sledgehammer disguised as a goal. Backed by fines and compliance quotas, this is not about helping the environment; it is about pushing all Canadians to the outcome the Liberal government wants, whether they like it or not. That is why our Conservative motion today puts the brakes on this policy and puts Canadians back in the driver's seat. We are calling on the government to immediately give Canadians the freedom to choose vehicles that meet their needs at a price they can actually afford.

I have been listening to the auto sector. The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association has been sounding the alarm. It knows what the Liberals refuse to admit: that this plan is out of step with the reality on the ground.

EV adoption has been growing, and that is a good thing, but it has happened because of consumer choice, smart incentives and infrastructure investment, not because of government strong-arming. Instead of encouraging choice, the government is taking it away. Federal and provincial rebates are being scaled back. Charging infrastructure is still patchy, especially in rural and northern communities. People in apartments and townhomes cannot plug in.

Canadians want clean transportation, but they also want vehicles that fit their budgets, their geography and their daily lives. That is why the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association has warned that this Liberal policy is unrealistic and will lead to significant cost increases for consumers. The mandate forces car dealers to carry large, expensive EV inventories that often do not match local demand, especially in small cities like mine and in rural areas. The burden of compliance, along with penalties for non-compliance, is being downloaded onto dealers. That means it will ultimately find its way to consumers.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association has also raised concerns about supply chain readiness and the speed of transition. A decade may feel like a long time, but in the world of design and in the current context, 2035 is actually quite near. Canada still lacks the domestic capacity to fully support the shift at this speed. The automotive industry in Canada is already coping with tariffs and volatility. It does not need this on top of it.

Under this policy, car companies that sell even one gas vehicle above the Liberal quota could face penalties of up to $20,000 per car. That cost gets passed down straight to the consumer. At a time when groceries are out of reach, mortgages are ballooning and food bank lines are growing, the Liberals want to make vehicles more expensive by design. How out of touch can they get?

This is not just bad for drivers; it is a head-on collision with small businesses. Dealerships, especially in small cities like Nanaimo, are being forced to carry excess or even double inventories. They have to stock expensive EVs that may sit unsold alongside the gas-powered vehicles that are more affordable and more in demand in their showrooms. That is a massive financial burden, and then Ottawa penalizes them if they do not sell enough of the EVs that no one is asking for. That is not a policy. That is a lemon. It is going to hurt the very Canadians the government wants to help.

In the rural parts of my community, people rely on pickups. In northern climates, they need vehicles that can handle snow, cold and long distances without worrying about where they are going to find a charging station. In all of the communities across this great country, people want choice. They want the freedom to choose what works for their family, what works for their job and what works for their wallet. What they do not want is a Prime Minister in the driver's seat deciding what kind of car they are allowed to buy.

Conservatives believe in innovation. We believe in clean technology and we believe in reducing emissions. We also believe in choice and competition, and yes, we believe in common sense.

The demand for electric vehicles is plateauing. It may be that the current economy is creating challenges for affordability. It may be that the demand for electric vehicles has reached its saturation. After years of growth driven by early adopters and government rebates, the market is now cooling because many Canadians simply cannot afford the high upfront costs, do not have access to charging infrastructure or might not be convinced that EVs meet their needs in our climate and geography.

However, rather than adjusting government policy and adjusting course to help Canadians during these difficult times, the Liberals are demanding that we adjust course, that we change our behaviour to suit their needs and desires. They are not responding to market trends. They are trying to manufacture those trends and coerce Canadians with quotas. That is not innovation. That is desperation and control.

We have an opportunity to steer Canada back in the right direction. Let us invest in infrastructure. Let us support a range of clean technologies. Let us let demand grow organically. Let us recognize that there is more than one route to an emissions reduction. Hybrid vehicles, hydrogen power, sustainable fuels and, yes, even better internal combustion engines all have a place on the road to a more sustainable future. Above all, let us listen to the workers who build our cars, the family-run dealerships that sell our cars and the Canadians who drive them every single day.

The Liberal plan is broken. It is unaffordable, it is unrealistic and it is unfair. It is time to shift gears. Let us support this Conservative motion. Let us end the ban, and let us give Canadians back the keys to their own decisions and their own future.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Liberal

Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I would like to read a few words from a document I have before me. It talks about something “expensive, unreliable and limited in its performance”. I was sure it was talking about electric vehicles but no, that is not it. It is talking about the internal combustion engine, when it made its debut on the market. It was expensive, unreliable and limited in its performance. However, through research and the development of suitable infrastructure, like roads and service stations, the combustion engine became what it represents today in the car world.

We are currently entering a new era. Electric cars are undergoing the same change. We are right in the middle of this change. I have a question for my colleague. Would she rather be part of this evolution and propel Canada into the future, or would she rather sit idly by and do nothing?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the incredible thing about evolution and the incredible thing about innovation is that, when we embark on that journey, we do not know where it is going to take us. When the combustion engine was originally created, and when it was originally started, there were lots of models and lots of designs.

Over time, we got an incredible variety. From the little horses and buggies and the little engines of the past, we now have sports cars, convertibles, family cars, station wagons and all manner of transportation.

We got there by letting industry take the lead. We got there by letting people innovate. I believe that, if we allow that in this case—

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in history that are important. We have just experienced one. Tonight, the bill to protect supply management, which we passed unanimously here just a few weeks ago, passed third reading in the Senate. It will soon receive royal assent at Rideau Hall.

Let me say a few words. First of all, I want to thank everyone who believed in it. Despite the fact that no one believed in it at first, we managed to get it passed. A great man once said, “They did not know it was impossible, so they did it.” That is what we did. We protected our agricultural model.

We are celebrating tonight. I want to congratulate and thank everyone.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, while I think my hon. colleague is incredibly eloquent, I do not believe there was a question in his remarks, so I would like to return the floor to you because perhaps someone else might have a question.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing the concerns being heard within the community. The member raised important points about the impact of the gas ban on affordability and access, particularly in high-cost regions such as Vancouver.

Given the pressures already facing families and businesses, could the member expand on what specific hardships this policy may create and how those impacts could further challenge communities already struggling with the rising cost of living? In particular, what might this mean for local dealerships that could be burdened with added costs, inventory challenges or penalties tied to compliance?