Debates of June 17th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, have I towed anything? I will get to that. I have towed a dual axle utility trailer with a Bobcat S150 on the back from one city to another. I have towed dump trailers with it. These vehicles are extremely capable of getting the jobs done that only a gas vehicle could do, as Conservatives would want us to believe.

[An hon. member]

Was it an electric Bobcat?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, it was not an electric Bobcat, but one day it will be an electric Bobcat, despite the fact that Conservatives will do everything possible to try to prevent that from happening.

Let us think about this for a second. I gave a very easy example in responding to a member earlier. He said the ticket price of an EV vehicle is about $15,000 more than that of a combustion engine vehicle. Let us assume we stay on the low end of things. I did a quick Google search to see how much gas the average vehicle uses in its lifetime. It is between 50,000 and 200,000 litres of gas.

Let us stay on the low end. I will not even push the high end; my vehicle is clearly way on the high end. If that vehicle is going to use 100,000 litres and the average price is $1.20 a litre, which I think is fair to say would be on the low end, that is $120,000 we are spending on gas during the lifetime of that vehicle.

Of course, there is going to be another red herring, which is that it is going to cost so much for the electricity. I have great news: With the technology in my EV, my F-150, I can plug it in and it knows not to bother charging until we have gone into the off-peak hours. It charges overnight, and I pay a lot less.

This is from somebody who has been driving EVs since 2011. The actual impact on our utility bill is negligible since there are too many other variables on the utility bill to see the difference. That is the reality of it. I have owned three Toyota Tundras. I have put $150 in gas into those vehicles every week, week and a half for 10 years.

I have owned an F-150 Lightning for two years and two weeks. I would never go back. To any of the members here, I have it in Ottawa. I will pull up and take them for a drive. I will rent a trailer, and we can drive around the Gatineau region with it and I can bring them back here. I will show them that in reality, what they are saying, these red herrings they keep putting forward, is factually incorrect. To any member of the House who would like this demonstration, I will openly do it at their convenience just to show them that what they are saying is absolutely inaccurate.

I used an example earlier, because what the program is really about is incentivizing the marketplace and getting people and industry to start to look for different options. Yes, EVs are more expensive. An EV right now, and I will take the member's word for it, is probably about $15,000 more than a gas equivalent. However, it was not like that 10 years ago. Ten years ago it was about $60,000 more for the gas equivalent. Why is the price coming down? It is because governments around the world have been incentivizing private investors and private companies to find solutions and to mass produce product.

One would think Elon Musk, the darling child of the right, would be able to convince my colleagues on the other side of the House, but they seemingly do not even want to believe him. However, I am sure they believe just about everything else he says as it relates to his politics.

Earlier, I used the example of the lighting in here, which is LED lighting. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, we did not have LED lighting in this room, but rather the incandescent light bulb, which is extremely inefficient. It produces a ton of heat, a ton of waste and creates a lot of expense in the process of producing the light. What did the Ontario government do back in the early 2000s? It said it wanted to phase out and transition toward another technology that was a lot more efficient. What did it do? It said that by a certain date, I believe it was 10 years, the incandescent light bulb could no longer be sold in Ontario. What happened there? Industry started to look for options.

The first option was the compact fluorescent light bulb. Do members remember those spirally little light bulbs? Everybody was using those light bulbs at first. There was incentivization. If people went to a Home Depot or a Canadian Tire, there were little stickers they could pull off to get two or three dollars off the purchase of each light bulb. That was a government incentive that helped consumers pay the increased costs, knowing that later on those same options would end up costing less.

This is basic economics 101. One would think the party that purports to be the champion of understanding how an economy works would understand basic economic principles like this, yet Conservatives do not. What happened later on? It turned out the compact fluorescent light bulb was just a bridge to get to something else, because next came the LED light bulb. Now, as a result of Ontario and many other jurisdictions making that call 20 years ago, the only thing we can buy when we go into a store is an LED light bulb. As a matter of fact, if for some reason someone needs an incandescent light bulb, they end up paying more for it than an LED light bulb.

As a result of government intervention 25 years ago, we now have a more efficient light bulb that is cheaper to produce, to buy and to operate. The consumer wins all around. To boot, the Ontario government actually helped people buy those before as well. This is not ground-breaking. It is the exact same logic for the transition through the light bulb or the transition through any technology when government has seen the benefit and identifies the need to do that.

We can continue to listen to the red herrings, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong talking about the gas tax and all the money the government is collecting at the pumps and how it could be used to help fix the roads. What about the other side of it? What if we do not do that, and we just keep polluting the environment? What about the impacts on our health system as a result of people having more respiratory problems?

Conservatives used to be the champions of the environment, that is, the Progressive Conservatives. Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, from my riding, were Conservatives who understood that acid rain was a problem. Brian Mulroney led the world with respect to dealing with acid rain by bringing people together. He went to see George Bush to deal with the problem. He came up with a protocol. The same can be said about fixing the ozone layer. Conservatives led the charge on the Montreal Protocol, bringing countries from around the world together in Montreal to deal with the problems we had with the ozone and the fact it was depleting. Whatever happened to those Conservatives?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Tecumseth—Gwillimburg—no, Gwillimbury.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Let us just call it the soup and salad bowl of Canada, Madam Speaker.

We are still waiting for our rural top-up from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who thinks if he says it loud enough it must be true in this place.

There was a lot to unpack in the member's speech. I have driven a Ford F-150 Lightning and can tell the House that, under load, in cold conditions up in Thunder Bay, that thing is about as handy as a front pocket on a pair of underwear.

I turn to the hon. member's comment that he has owned four electric vehicles in the last 10 years. It is about affordability in my riding. Purchasing four new vehicles in 10 years? People in my riding would have to wait 10 years just to be able to afford a used vehicle, even with the government incentive, as he puts it, which is really the taxpayer, the people of Canada, paying for the subsidy for the people. I wonder if he can comment on affordability in my riding and on the true nature of the F-150 north of Thunder Bay.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is the consumption of gas, and the inefficiency of a combustion motor, when towing something? It decreases significantly.

What I said is that I have owned several Toyota Tundras. When I put gas in one of those and was towing something, regardless of where I was towing it, I had to keep putting more gas in it. It is another red herring to somehow say that the range of an electric truck goes down when it is towing something. Well, thanks, but I think we all could have figured that out; it is pretty simple. When a truck is towing something, the range is going to go down, but the range goes down on combustion vehicles too.

I have good news. There are a lot of charging stations, if Conservatives would just open their eyes and start looking for them. Earlier, when the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound was speaking, he started talking about how there are no charging stations in his neck of the woods. I just looked up Owen Sound alone and found six charging stations, just in the small town of Owen Sound. Again, it is red herring after red herring; that is all Conservatives have to offer.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, since it is rare that I agree with my colleague, I wanted to rise to speak. This resonates with me.

Like him, I have an electric vehicle. I live in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in northern Quebec. I can confirm that the winters are cold in northern Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. However, I am still able to get here with an electric vehicle.

We have heard members try to demonize and vilify electric vehicles by saying that they do not work in winter and that there are no charging stations. However, the majority of people who own electric vehicles do 95% of their charging at home. They use their own charging stations. The network can be developed at home.

Here is what I want to ask my colleague. Does he agree with me that, ultimately, our Conservative colleagues' main argument is that we must protect the oil and gas sector's privileges?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, 100%, the member is absolutely correct. That is the argument the Conservatives are putting forward. They should just be upfront about it. They should say that they want to continue to produce oil and gas for an eternity, because they want to protect these companies that produce it.

My colleague, before me, spoke about how other countries, like China and Japan and all these other countries, are widely adopting EVs. I wanted to get up and ask her a question. I was going to ask her if she thinks they are doing it strictly for the benefit to the environment. I do not believe that is the answer. It has a lot more to do with energy security. The reality is that what we pay at the pump is dictated by a global price. We cannot really control that. What we can control is when we produce electricity and how we produce it, where we produce it, what kind of electricity is manufactured, from what source, and then we can control the price. There is a huge incentive for countries, not just from the environmental perspective but from the energy security perspective.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Oshawa.

I rise today to defend a very concrete reality that is often overlooked when political decisions are being made in Ottawa or Quebec City. I am talking about the reality of the regions, and my region in particular. Beauce is proud, hard-working, entrepreneurial rural region, where people get up early, work hard and do not wait on others when they need to get ahead in life. In Beauce, we continue to build our homes to produce results and keep our regional economy going. We need our gas-powered cars and trucks.

Electric transportation is a good idea. However, it is not realistic in the regions. Yes, electrifying transportation is a noble goal; we agree with that. Yes, the goal should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; we all agree on that. However, the caveat is that regions like Beauce cannot be asked to make the leap without any infrastructure. There is no efficient public transit system in my region. There is no subway or streetcar. There is not even a bus system anywhere in the Beauce region. There are no fast-charging stations. I have heard plenty of people say that there are some here. In my area, they are not on every street corner. In many villages, the first charging station is 30 kilometres or even 40 kilometres away. In the winter, the range drops quickly when it is -30 degrees and there is a trailer hitched to the truck. Before thinking about forcing the transition, we need to ask ourselves a basic question: Is it feasible on the ground? In many regions, the answer is simply no.

People in Beauce use trucks for work. The Beauce region is full of entrepreneurs, SMEs, construction workers, farmers and transportation workers. People here deliver materials, transport bales of hay, install roofing and build houses. To do so, they need reliable heavy-duty trucks that can handle job sites, gravel roads and icy hills, and most importantly, these vehicles need to be long-range. In Beauce, electric vehicles do not really meet our needs. They are more expensive to buy, heavier and shorter-range. It is even worse in the winter, when it is impossible to do a hard day's work without recharging.

The other day, tool boxes were mentioned in connection with Beauce. What the minister does not realize is that our tool boxes are not little hand-held ones. In Beauce, our tool boxes are enclosed trailers towed behind pickup trucks. Has anyone here ever tried to hook up a trailer to an electric car? The range is 100 kilometres, and half that in the winter. That would not even get us out of the Beauce region. I will ask a simple question. How many construction sites have my colleagues seen that have a fast-charging station? The answer is zero. In Beauce, there are none.

It is also a matter of freedom and dignity. Putting an end to gas-powered vehicles also means imposing an urban lifestyle on rural areas. It ignores the fact that for many people in Beauce, their truck is not a luxury but a work tool and an extension of their workshop. It is a small business on four wheels. People in the regions are not against the energy transition. They want to take part, but not to their own detriment and not by sacrificing their independence, performance and livelihoods. We cannot tell them to sell their truck and to buy and make do with a vehicle that costs twice as much but that does not do the job. That makes no sense.

What we need here is for the government to be realistic and to listen. It is time for the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, including those in the regions. Once again, it is important to adapt to rural reality and stop copying the big urban centres. Let us talk a bit about the false promise of uniformity. What we are experiencing today is bureaucratic pressure to apply the same rules to Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal as to Saint‑Éphrem‑de‑Beauce. The government needs to give that some more thought. What works on the Island of Montreal does not work in rang 9 of Saint‑Gédéon‑de‑Beauce. That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

In many regions, the transition to electric can only be done once charging stations are installed, prices come down, electric trucks achieve a range comparable to that of gas-powered vehicles, and the infrastructure follows. In the meantime, cutting access to gas-powered vehicles penalizes our workers and holds back our entrepreneurs. A just transition is a customized transition. No one here is saying that we should fight progress. What I am saying is that a brutal transition should not be forced on the regions. Gas-powered trucks should continue to be allowed, available and supported. It is simply unreasonable to say that they will be banned in 10 years' time.

If the government really wants to help the regions, it should invest in charging stations in rural areas, not just in major cities. It should invest in road infrastructure and support local garages so that they can maintain and repair electric vehicles, which cost a fortune. We have a shortage of mechanics. The government should offer realistic subsidies for vehicles that are adapted to the needs of the construction and agriculture industries, which are too often overlooked. Above all, the government should listen to the regions instead of telling them what to do once again.

Beauce is an example of an economy on four wheels. Every truck, van and pickup in Beauce is a tool for economic development. Farmers get their produce to market. Contractors transport their materials from Sainte‑Marie to Saint‑Isidore. Construction workers who leave home at 5 a.m. and go to three job sites during the day all need a reliable vehicle that can handle whatever challenges the road throws at them. Telling them that they should give up their gas‑powered trucks without a credible alternative shows contempt for their reality.

The Liberal government is being unrealistic. The Liberals have been unrealistic and inconsistent from the very start in their reasoning and in their timeline for this decree.

First, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that the government would no longer invest in new highways and local streets, but electric vehicles still need roads to travel on. Second, switching millions of vehicles to electric will result in a significant increase in energy demand. Is Canada's grid prepared to handle this massive volume of electricity? Moreover, several provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan still rely on fossil fuels to generate their electricity. The grid will need to be modernized quickly or else the environmental gains will be negated.

Lastly, EV batteries require critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel, which create pollution during extraction and recycling and are often controlled by countries such as China. Canada has mineral resources, but its extraction and processing capacity lags far behind demand. Canada does not even have a clear national strategy or the large‑scale industrial infrastructure to recycle its batteries.

I am asking the government to show some respect for the regions. Let me be clear today. I support the energy transition, innovation and electric vehicles. I have no problem with any of that, but it must not be done at the expense of Canadians and the regions. We need to give the market time to adapt. We need to listen to the needs on the ground. Most importantly, we need to show respect for workers in construction, agriculture and logistics. They are the ones who keep Quebec running, the real Quebec, not just a theoretical version of it. In Beauce, we are moving forward, but not blindly. We want to participate in the transition, but in a way that makes sense.

I would invite all of my colleagues to think carefully and vote in favour of this common-sense Conservative motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to highlight the fact that as we continue to move forward in dealing with this particular issue, it is important that we recognize that there are American states, and in fact other countries like the United Kingdom, that actually have targets and are moving toward what we have been doing here in Canada.

I wonder whether the member could just provide his thoughts, in terms of reflecting on what is actually taking place around the world and not just here in Canada.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is indeed an energy transition going on. We all know that.

However, I will once again bring up the rural reality, which is different from that of the big cities. In my region, we have trucks, sugar shacks and farmers. Sugar shacks mean tractors. Tractors run on gas. Tractors have trailers, and trailers tend to go with quads. There are also chainsaws, which require gas. Our regions have to use gas. It is a necessity, but I agree that we need to improve our structures. I am well aware of that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also represent a rural riding. I have family members working in construction, and there are agricultural producers all over my riding. I am very involved in this issue of the rural reality and land use.

There are three points I would like to raise. First, I think it is shameful that we are debating a motion today that seems to completely ignore the issue of climate change. In fact, my Conservative opponent did not even show up for the environmental debate during the election, which I think is also shameful.

Second, when the member talked about standards, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and I exchanged glances, because today's debate is about electric vehicles, not tractors, which our farmers do need on their farms. Members should avoid spreading disinformation. We are talking about electric vehicles today; we are not here to hurt agricultural producers.

Finally, when a target is voluntary, that means there is no target. I will quickly give an example. In 2005, automakers and the federal government had a voluntary agreement. They committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Since there were no penalties, the target was not met. They missed it by 95%. Perhaps it is time to set some standards and rules for moving forward.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not disinformation. Transporting a tractor to a woodlot requires a trailer. Not everyone has a garage on their woodlot. I have an electric truck, and I know it cannot tow a trailer for more than 100 kilometres. The member for Shefford is the one who is spreading disinformation.

The reality is that EVs are simply not designed for towing. I am not against electric trucks, but it is important to understand what trucks are used for. People always forget to talk about that. They are not designed for our needs.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech.

I would like to ask him a question. Does he believe that the government carefully explored all of the options before deciding to focus solely on electric vehicles? For example, we could use our fossil fuels to have a positive environmental impact on the entire planet by selling them and helping other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Does my colleague not agree that it would make more sense to take a holistic approach on a global scale rather than focusing solely on our own domestic policies?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are, in fact, many possible solutions to explore. Have the studies had enough of an impact and did they go as far as they should have? I would say no. To answer the question from my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix, there is still a lot of work to be done in this area.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today again to speak to our Conservative motion as the member of Parliament for Oshawa. We know that the motion is to end the ban on gas-powered vehicles, not to stop the production of electric vehicles in any way.

My city has been the heartbeat of Canada's automotive industry for over a century now. For generations, Oshawa has helped drive this country forward, literally and figuratively. From the early days of McLaughlin Motor Car Co. to becoming the national headquarters for General Motors Canada, my community has been building the vehicles that Canadians rely on every single day.

The people of Oshawa know cars. We do not just buy them; we design them, we engineer them and we build them while also utilizing the CTC McLaughlin Advanced Technology Track, which supports building and combining software and hardware for advanced vehicle systems, helping make Oshawa and Durham Region leaders in automotive technology in Ontario. We have rolled up our sleeves through good times and bad. We have weathered plant closures and celebrated reopenings. Therefore, when the government tries to tell Canadians what kind of car they must drive, without listening to workers, to industry leaders or to the families who depend on affordable transportation, that is not leadership; it is simple overreach.

Even the president of General Motors Canada has said that no major automaker is even close to hitting the 2026 targets. He is calling for the entire program to be scrapped, not tweaked and not delayed but scrapped, because the unrealistic mandates would force automakers to restrict the sale of gas-powered vehicles just to comply, leading to job losses in dealerships and in manufacturing companies, to lost revenue for manufacturers and to higher prices for consumers. This typical Liberal one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect reality in my community and in many, many communities around this country.

When do the 2026 cars start rolling out? We used to say that we would expect them to roll out in the fall for the following year, but now the industry leaders are telling us that is not the case. They are starting to roll out right now, so this is a very important and timely debate.

The workers of General Motors in Oshawa who fought hard to keep the auto industry alive in this country deserve better than to be dictated to by politicians in Ottawa who have never punched a clock, perhaps, or maybe never even had to pay off a car loan. The Liberal government's top-down ban on gas-powered vehicles is not only unaffordable; it is also disconnected from reality. It threatens jobs, limits choice and raises prices on the very people who are already being squeezed by inflation, high taxes and rising debt.

In December 2022, the Canada Gazette, found on the Government of Canada website, in the regulatory impact analysis statement of the ban said this: “The proposed Amendments are expected to have a disproportionate impact on low-income households due to the higher upfront cost of ZEVs in early years and the potential for non-ZEV costs to increase due to a decreasing supply of these vehicles in response to the increasing ZEV sales targets.” It goes on to say, “The proposed Amendments would also disproportionately impact households living in rural and northern communities that may have lower access to public charging infrastructure”, and there is more to be said regarding that as well.

A skilled tradesperson in Oshawa hauling their gear in the dead of winter is not thinking about EV market share; they are thinking about whether their truck is going to start in -20°C or maybe whether they can afford the payments. These are the people the Liberal elite never think about, ever.

Canadians are not anti-EV. We are already leading the way in clean tech and in sustainable manufacturing. Since 2020, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have announced nearly $1.5 billion of new job-creating investments in Canada, strengthening the automotive sector and its supply chains. These investments are driving growth across communities in parts manufacturing, logistics and technology development, reinforcing Canada's role in the global automotive industry.

As reported by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, EV sales have collapsed in recent months, falling to just 7.5% in April 2025. There is no longer a pathway to achieving the government's mandated sales level of 20% by 2026. The auto manufacturers cannot meet these quotas. In fact, in Quebec, sales decreased by 75% in the first quarter of 2025. That is a 75% decrease in EV sales. If auto manufacturers cannot meet these quotas, then there will be penalties. We know this. It was said before. Let us say a company is supposed to sell 10,000 vehicles in 2026, 2,000 of them must be EVs and they only end up selling 1,000. That is a cost of $20 million to the manufacturer, so the government does not have to worry about the consumer carbon tax anymore. They probably looked at this policy and thought, “This is a new carbon tax. We will just get it this way from Canadians.”

The Liberal government will impose this $20,000 per vehicle tax at the expense of Canadians. Essentially, the result of the legislation would be lower vehicle sales, higher vehicle prices for Canadians and fewer jobs in the sector. It will undermine consumer affordability and choice, specifically at a time of rising costs, limited demand and growing uncertainty about infrastructure readiness.

The auto industry is already under stress because of the U.S. tariffs. I know all members of the House will agree that now more than ever, we must collectively protect this vital sector. Causing further avoidable harm would be irresponsible, jeopardizing Canadian jobs, investment, affordable access and choice for essential transportation needs and the stability of our economy. If our auto regulations are not aligned with those of the United States, for instance, it will threaten Canada's industrial future, and we risk losing our auto industry, which is why we must let the market and the industry dictate, not the Liberal government.

Conservatives reject this approach. We believe in common sense. We believe in trusting Canadians, not punishing them. Canadians deserve freedom to choose what they say, what they think, where their money goes and, yes, what they drive, whether it be gas-powered, electrical or both.

We support cleaner technology. We support lower emissions. We support a strong, competitive Canadian auto sector. We do not support telling working-class Canadians that they must spend $15,000 to $20,000 more for a vehicle that does not fit their life or their region just to satisfy a mandate drawn up by this out-of-touch Liberal government. That is what Conservatives stand for. It is what we will always stand for.

The auto sector in Oshawa and across Ontario has a delicate balance. Our workers have proven time and time again that they can compete with the best in the world, but they need stable, realistic policies, not sweeping bans that ignore infrastructure, regional needs and consumer realities.

Let us be honest: This ban is not going to hurt the Prime Minister, his Bay Street donors or many of the elites across the aisle. They will still drive what they want. They will still get chauffeured around in motorcades with idling engines, and they will still fly their private jets to climate conferences overseas. Working Canadians will be left holding the bag.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the aisle a question. Given the scientific consensus that immediate action is needed to combat climate change, as we are living and experiencing the worst wildland fire season on record to date, and recognizing that the electric vehicle availability standard is designed to gradually increase EV supply and affordability over time, how can the member justify delaying future targets, especially when motions like the one proposed by the Conservatives call for ending these efforts altogether? How can we do this without effectively abandoning Canada's climate commitments?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I spoke with many auto manufacturers and groups yesterday, and the answer is this: The member said it; the word is “targets”. Targets are just fine. Auto manufacturers and the auto sector are fine with targets. Targets are something they can strive for. A mandate that controls what Canadians buy is unacceptable.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague spoke of her community and her riding being the heart of vehicle manufacturing for our country.

When Bev Goodman, CEO of Ford Canada, called for the EV mandate to be repealed; Kristian Aquilina, president of General Motors Canada, urged the Liberals to scrap the EV mandate; and Brian Kingston, president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, asked for the EV mandate to be scrapped as well, this must have sent a chill through my colleague's constituents. I wonder if she can share some of the stories she is hearing on the doorsteps about this.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it does send a chill of fear through constituents in my riding. In Oshawa, it was announced that we are losing a third line, that third shift. Jobs are already being lost because of sales going down. It is really a matter of choice. It comes back to choice all the time. As I said before, targets are fine. We all want a cleaner environment and lower emissions. We want to reach goals and targets. Mandates are unacceptable.

Overcoming Global Challenges

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical time in our nation's history. We know that Canada can no longer rely on the U.S. for our primary strategic trade and security needs. We must now forge a different and a strategic path to ensure that our security, our peace and our sovereignty are protected.

However, right now in Alberta, separatist groups are preparing a referendum to separate from Canada, thanks to Danielle Smith. At the very moment that we must come together for our country and for our future, Conservatives in my province are working to divide us. They are feeding Trump's “51st state” hallucinations.

While the Prime Minister is cozying up to human rights abusers and tyrants, he is rejecting meaningful consultation with workers, environmental groups and indigenous nations.

Our path to a stronger economy and a better future cannot bypass human rights in Canada or abroad. We must protect our democracy. We must protect human rights. That is who we are as Canadians.

Canada Day Celebrations

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great pride to announce that this year, I will be hosting our annual Canada Day celebration in my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Canada Day is a special occasion when we come together as one to celebrate our shared history, our many achievements and the joy of being Canadian.

My constituents can join me on Tuesday, July 1, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Chimney Heights Park.

Fellow citizens can come join me for delicious food, exciting performances and a day of Canadian pride. Canada Day is a moment to reflect on the greatness of our country and the values that unite us as Canadians.

Together, let us celebrate Canada strong and free.

Emmy Fecteau

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute a young woman who makes Beauce shine. On May 10, she was named athlete of the year at the 46th Beauce sports awards gala. Emmy Fecteau, a hockey player from Saint‑Odilon, is an exceptional athlete and person.

On the ice, she led Team Canada to gold at the University Games. Emmy was named captain of the Concordia Stingers in the 2023-24 season, which ended in a victory at the national championship. Since 2024-25, she has been with the New York Sirens in the Professional Women's Hockey League.

As a disciplined young woman, Emmy never put her education on hold. She combined high-performance sports and academic achievement with the same passion and discipline, obtaining her bachelor's degree in English education. Emmy is an inspiration to all our young people. She is a real ambassador for Beauce. She is proud, determined and deeply compassionate.

I congratulate Emmy for all she has accomplished. Beauce is truly proud of her.

Vaccinations

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Vancouver Centre residents for putting their trust in me again, for the 11th time. I will work hard to represent them.

I speak to them now, though, not as an MP but as a physician. I fear for the health of our children. Canada faces an outbreak of measles as has been unseen in decades. We eliminated measles in 1998, and now it is back. Measles is the most contagious of all viruses and can live in the air for 48 hours. Measles is deadly. Hundreds of thousands of young children died in the fifties from measles, and those who survived faced permanent brain damage.

I want to dispel some myths. Getting a kid to visit a friend with measles is risky. Measles is not chicken pox, so do not play Russian roulette with a child's life. Measles is preventable with the MMR vaccine. I beg parents to vaccinate their children. Women of child-bearing age should get the vaccine before becoming pregnant. Provinces should not allow unvaccinated kids to attend school. Surely, we owe our children that much.

Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the people of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong for putting their trust in me for a fourth term as their member of Parliament.

I want to thank my campaign manager, Anne Denman, and the many dedicated volunteers who worked to ensure a victory.

Special shout-outs go to Mackenna, the best volunteer coordinator and door knocker ever; Brandon, the brains behind getting out the vote; and Bill, a.k.a. “Murph”, who made sure there were blue signs from one end of the riding to the other.

I also want to thank my husband, Paul, who put up signs, door knocked, and was a major support for me, as he always is.

I also thank my daughters, Gillian and Katie, for their love and support.

I commit to being a strong voice for our issues in this riding and to be helpful to all constituents who need my assistance. These are challenging times, and I will be standing up for their civil liberties and the rights and freedoms we hold dear.

I look forward to working with all sides of this House to build a better Canada for everyone.