Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, our recent investment summit attracted investors from around the world who wanted to be part of Canada's future. As our country attracts new investment across the entire economy, can the Minister of Transport tell the House about the measures our government is taking to create the right conditions to encourage investment and strengthen the Canadian economy, including in the transportation sector?

Mr. Speaker, the previous question was about what the rush is in terms of passing this legislation. I want to ask my hon. colleague this: When you are out in the community, the amazing Spadina—Harbourfront, are you hearing from people that this is a housing crisis and an emergency, and that they want us to move quickly during construction season? Let us answer this: What is the rush in the House to pass this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, first, I just want to celebrate the Guelph & District Multicultural Festival, which celebrated its 40th anniversary this weekend. I congratulate Anu Saxena, their chair, and also Cinthuja Leon, who is their executive director. It was another amazing weekend. When I am out at these community events, people really want to know how soon we can see the waiver of the HST on new homes in Ontario. My hon. colleague was a municipal councillor, as I was. What is the urgency in passing the legislation and getting the money flowing? How important is that money, in terms of ensuring that people can buy their home now, a new home that would be built in the future, in terms of smoothing out the construction, so that, in fact, we are seeding builds for the next several years?

Mr. Speaker, let us honour the life and legacy of James Ross Hurley, the founding director of the parliamentary internship programme. Created in 1969 by Wellington MP Alf Hales, the program flourished under James Hurley's leadership as a unique, non-partisan opportunity for university graduates to experience parliamentary democracy. Since then, more than 550 young Canadians have participated in the program, including members of this Parliament, members of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, and alumni who have gone on to hold top positions in the public and private sectors and in non-profit organizations in Canada and around the world. James Hurley devoted his life to public service as a Privy Council Office constitutional adviser to six prime ministers, a beloved mentor and a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. In March 2025, he left us. In a final act of generosity to the Hales and Hurley Parliamentary Foundation, he ensured that the program would continue in perpetuity. His family, including his sister Ann Gibson, is with us today. James Hurley's legacy will continue to be an inspiration. His legacy to youth, democracy, bilingualism and Canada will inspire generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest democracies in the world, but we can never take that for granted. We need to protect the independence of our judiciary. We need a strong parliamentary system, and we need strong journalism. Obviously we can never take our democracy for granted. We need to strengthen those institutions. I know that one of the measures that struck me as being particularly important in this legislation is reviewing the ways people can make political donations, including the use of crypto. I wonder if the minister wants to speak to the importance of knowing where the money that fuels our democracy comes from.

Madam Speaker, the minister just answered the question I was going to ask about how this structure actually clarifies the housing spectrum of non-market and market, and how the Canada Lands Company comes in, and so how this new structure will function in a way that is much, much better for proponents. Instead, I will ask the minister about the following. I know the proponents in my riding are going to provide housing for seniors with mental health issues. These are non-market housing units. They are going to get to functional zero in terms of youth homelessness. Minister, what has the response been in the community to Build Canada Homes? What kind of response are you seeing from proponents in the non-profit housing sector?

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have an opportunity to speak again in support of the Build Canada Homes act. This landmark legislation would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building and expanding the supply of affordable homes for Canadians, truly affordable homes pegged to one's income. We are in a housing crisis. On that, we all agree. Federal efforts to date have been spread across multiple departments and agencies and programs. This limits the government's ability to have maximum impact. Traditional construction and funding approaches are not delivering the scale or speed Canadians need, which is why we are taking this new, consolidated approach. Of course, all Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home, but doing it the same way we have been doing it for generations—

Mr. Speaker, housing is a fundamental need, and growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. While the opposition wants to fiddle about with the structure they do not like, we are moving to action. Build Canada Homes would be created to act quickly and efficiently in a more flexible way than ever before. The legislation would give that Crown corporation the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate. As a Crown corporation, it would maintain a clear accountability framework to the government. It would report on those numbers. This would strengthen its ability to build partnerships across the housing system and deliver affordable housing at the scale and speed Canadians require. Rather than silos, there would be broad collaboration. Build Canada Homes would streamline federal housing efforts by acting as a developer, financier, convenor and catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. It would have a central position in forging strong partnerships across all levels of government and with indigenous communities. It would work with non-profits and other key stakeholders in the housing industry, including developers and community organizations, to drive the development of truly affordable housing across Canada. Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its achievement lies in its partnerships. Stronger collaboration among all levels of government and with key partners is needed to address the housing challenges we face across this country. Build Canada Homes would make it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground. The agency would attract public, private and philanthropic investment, maximizing its impact. Build Canada Homes would make it easier to develop partnerships across the housing ecosystem to bring together the right financing, the right land and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, it would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. This is new. It would accelerate the delivery of affordable housing, working with non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government. This approach reduces risk, eliminates barriers and guides projects through the development process. Sometimes those non-profits are not large, especially in smaller communities. Build Canada Homes could help guide them through this process. We want to get housing financed and built. We will work directly with builders and housing providers that are focused on long-term affordability. This includes, as I said, non-profits, co-ops, community housing providers and organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. Those strategic partnerships will create homes that are affordable to a range of households across the income spectrum. Build Canada Homes would be empowered to achieve this collaboration through agreements, financial support, joint ventures and shared development initiatives. It would look for strong collaboration and coordination with the provinces and territories to help advance these priority projects, because working together, we can achieve more. This could include providing land, accelerating the approval process and waiving applicable fees. We know indigenous people face unique housing challenges. Build Canada Homes would collaborate on proposals that deliver shared housing outcomes with first nations, Inuit and Métis governments, indigenous housing providers and urban indigenous organizations. Build Canada Homes would meet the housing needs of indigenous communities in a spirit of collaboration. The Government of Canada respects indigenous sovereignty and supports self-determined housing solutions that are designed and delivered with an indigenous-led perspective. Our indigenous partners know how to incorporate culture and adopt housing solutions in ways that enable their communities to thrive. Paired with the infrastructure investments this government has announced and has begun, this could be a game-changer. Since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. The Government of Canada has identified public lands that can be converted into housing. We have partnered with local governments to cut red tape and fast-track approvals. In April, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced an initial partnership to create nearly 865 new affordable housing units in the province. The total investment in affordable housing, supportive housing and transitional housing in the province amounts to $200 million. This investment is being shared between Build Canada Homes and the Quebec government. In Ontario, Arbo at Downsview will be home to 540 new homes and a future 1,700 new homes. In Ottawa, 1,100 homes have been announced. Eventually, there will be 3,000 homes. The thing is that we do not build this stuff overnight. We have to assemble the land. We need the investors. We have to align the trades. We have to prep the site. We need the site to be serviced. What might start with a small number can actually grow over time, and I think we are missing that point. By working together, the federal and provincial governments could accelerate the approvals process and identify additional housing projects. Those combined investments would help build more affordable housing in the communities that need them the most. It is local knowledge and local projects with a lot of federal support and guidance. In March 2026, the Government of Canada, through Build Canada Homes, and the Province of New Brunswick partnered to deliver affordable housing. This partnership is accelerating the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel-ready affordable homes, again with the potential to scale that to 1,500 homes. There are land constraints to be considered as well. Build Canada Homes and New Brunswick are each contributing up to $150 million toward the project. We can see the collaboration. It would be great to have more of it in this place. Together, New Brunswick and Build Canada Homes are working to attract additional municipal, private and philanthropic partners to expand toward a 1,500-home target. At least half of those homes would serve lower-income Canadians, and a minimum of 160 homes would provide supportive and transitional housing. Approximately 30% of those, up to 450 homes, would be smaller and in rural centres, which is so critical. Small numbers are not small potatoes, because those homes matter to every single family. In January 2023, the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. signed an agreement in principle that will deliver up to 750 much-needed homes across the territory. That is a lot of homes in the Arctic. This will be public, affordable and supportive housing. Through this agreement, Build Canada Homes would again provide a matching investment with the Government of Nunavut. As part of this partnership, approximately 30% of the units would be built off-site to incorporate modern methods of construction. This will streamline building processes and help accelerate the delivery of housing, making the most of the short construction season in the north while keeping costs down. Those first units are expected to be completed soon. Pacd Homes, in my riding of Guelph, has designed homes that can be flat-packed and shipped. They can be assembled in a matter of weeks. This kind of innovation is a game changer. In Nova Scotia, Build Canada Homes has secured something that is close to my heart. It would develop 1,430 new affordable homes. That includes 500 units of non-profit and community housing from the province's housing pipeline. Of those, 300 units would be built in Shannon Park, where I went to junior high. That includes supportive and/or transitional housing and public housing. I do not know about Nova Scotia, but in Ontario, there has been an absolute dearth of investment in social housing. We need it badly. We need supportive housing badly, and this government is moving to create it. Through Build Canada Homes, all levels of government would come together to address this housing crisis. We would increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce barriers to construction through a structured and collaborative approach. With private, public and government partners showing up at the table, we would get homes built. We would grow and strengthen partnerships because it is an integral aspect of building homes for Canadians. This legislation would allow Build Canada Homes to operate at arm's length from the government, manage assets, deploy innovative financial tools and make long-term investment decisions more efficiently. This is the power of partnership: implementing transformative change. We are working together to build a strong and more unified approach to truly affordable housing across this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. It speaks to the spirit of collaboration that exists in this legislation. Because there would be multiple departments that might be involved, Build Canada Homes could help coordinate that. I also talked in my remarks about the partnerships with the provinces and territories. It would not be up to the Government of Canada to make those decisions. They would be made in partnership with its provincial and territorial counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important problem. If that is really the case, it is a shame that there was such turmoil in the transition between programs. The member has an email address where she can directly make demands and ask questions of Build Canada Homes. I would encourage her to do so. What I would say is that Build Canada Homes will provide far more housing for abused women and people in precarious situations. We know that affordable housing is key; it is vital for women to be able to escape violent situations. We completely agree on that. The goal is really to invest so that we can build more affordable housing, as well as transitional housing.

Mr. Speaker, every province is going to have a different municipal act. Every province is going to have different regulations. Every municipality may as well. That collaboration is important, and so is streamlining some of those rules so that we can move faster. The provinces clearly need to collaborate. It is often their responsibility to ultimately provide the supports that go into supportive housing. All of this is intended to accelerate where there is provincial will, territorial will and first nations interest so that we can work together to find solutions for a project that are suitable for its context. That is the difference with Build Canada Homes. It can bring in land. It can help with financing and it may know of other investors. This new structure creates that flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She is a tireless champion in the fight against gender-based violence. We have had several opportunities to discuss this issue. Her speech conveyed her sincerity and how hard she works on this issue. We now have the opportunity to pass a bill that will enable us to make progress. I would like to know what steps my colleague envisions taking next.

Mr. Speaker, every day, we hear news stories about how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is in Canada. Frequently in the House, members stand to talk about a tragedy that has occurred in their community. According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 147 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2025 in cases classified as femicide. That is one woman every two days. At December 6 vigils in my community, we read the names of the women killed in Ontario and we hear their stories. These are not isolated incidents or private matters; they are part of a systemic crisis with costs in our homes, in our schools, in our communities, in our court systems, in this place and across Canada. About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves intimate partner violence, and we know that is the tip of the iceberg, because the last thing somebody wants to do in the worst moment of their life is pick up the phone, call the police and have the cars outside with maybe kids in the house. In Ontario, nearly 100 municipalities have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic. I am proud to say Guelph is one of them. A recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in Canada. Members can think about the lost wages of the victims and the costs of the lawyers, the counselling, the investigation, the courts, all of it, not to mention the deep social costs, which can last for generations through individual, family and community trauma and adverse childhood experiences. Could there be a more adverse childhood experience than sexual abuse and exploitation? Police have reported that child sexual abuse and exploitation material offending is now more than 12 times higher than it was in 2008. From prevention to prosecution and community support, we need to address this epidemic in many ways. Bill C-16 is part of the legislative solution. It is one part, but it is urgent and important progress. The protecting victims act would be one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. While broad in scope, the bill can be clearly understood through four core pillars: tackling gender-based and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. Together, these reforms would modernize the Criminal Code to respond to contemporary threats, intervene earlier to prevent escalating violence and ensure that the justice system works faster and more fairly for victims and survivors. What I hear from some women is that the justice system is in service to the law and not in service to victims. The bill would take decisive action to prevent violence before it becomes lethal and reflect the gravity of modern forms of abuse. It would address femicide, coercive and controlling conduct, criminal harassment and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including AI-generated sexual deepfakes. We know there has been a story in the news in the last couple of days of women who have been subjected to this type of abuse. These reforms would recognize patterns of control and exploitation that often precede physical violence and would ensure they are treated seriously under the law. This means creating a new offence prohibiting coercive control, which is a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. If people missed it, I would refer them to the remarks provided by the member for Spadina—Harbourfront, who described it very well. We need to get to a place where there is no more “awful but lawful” when it comes to controlling someone's behaviour. Let it be known that coercive control will become a crime. Bill C-16 recognizes femicide as automatic first-degree murder, and provides the following circumstances for what would be murder in the first degree, known as femicide when committed against a female person: (i) the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, (ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence, (iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking, or (iv) the murder is motivated by hate; All of these would require the courts to consider life imprisonment for manslaughter committed in those circumstances. Bill C‑16 would address criminal harassment by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety and replacing it with a requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe that someone’s safety is threatened, removing the need for victim testimony. We have all seen news stories where a woman is not believed until it is tragically much too late. Bill C‑16 would ensure that the offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology as well. The scope of that is mind-blowing, from abusers who are sending messages through bank transaction memo sections to those who are monitoring people's whereabouts. With respect to the new scourge of our time, sexual deepfakes, Bill C‑16 would address those by amending the offence of “non-consensual distribution of an intimate image” to include those deepfakes. The bill would also protect children from predators. Child victims face unique vulnerabilities. Predators increasingly rely on digital tools to lure, manipulate and extort children. This includes threats to distribute images, deepfake technology and the use of explicit bestiality depictions to groom children. Let us think about that for just a minute. Current laws do not fully capture these behaviours and courts have struck down several mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences, creating uncertainty around sentencing and weakening deterrence. This bill would strengthen Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. It would update offences to reflect how predators groom, manipulate and exploit children today while reinforcing accountability and prevention. Mandatory minimum penalties would be strengthened for predators who possess or access child sexual abuse and exploitation material, including restoring more than 12 mandatory minimum penalties for a range of child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts. We would bring them back in a way that is constitutional. We would criminalize the threat to distribute child sexual abuse material and the distribution of bestiality depictions used to groom children. That is child sextortion, which are two words that really should never, ever be said side by side. We would expand child luring and sextortion offences, and we would also create a new offence for recruiting a person under 18 to participate in criminal activity. This is particularly important in sex trafficking. We would strengthen the reporting of child sexual abuse and exploitation material by bolstering mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations for online service providers. Victims' rights also require modernization. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides important protections, but many victims report difficulty accessing information, navigating procedures or having their interests reflected in decisions that affect them. Calls for clearer rights and expanded access to information have been consistent across provincial and federal reports. The bill would reinforce a victim-centred and trauma-informed justice system by enhancing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and improving victims' participation, protection and access to information across criminal, military and correctional systems. We would do that by affirming victims' right to be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness, which I cannot believe we have to legislate. This means that, in other contexts, we need to ensure ongoing training for the whole spectrum of people who are in victim services, from the very first point of contact to the judges who see them in court. We need to provide victims with information proactively without requiring a formal request. We would expand access to testimonial aids for victims of offences committed by an intimate partner. The bill would clarify victims' rights to present impact statements at sentencing, parole and correction stages as well as enhance disclosure of information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C‑16 would finally address court delays and strengthen system integrity. The Ottawa Citizen has reported that, in 2023 to 2024, 55% of adult criminal cases were stayed or dismissed in Ontario. Courts are struggling with serious delays. The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Jordan established strict timelines for bringing cases to trial. While the federal government designs criminal law, the administration of justice is shared with provinces and territories, which are responsible for policing, prosecution services, court resources and provincial judges. Despite strong federal efforts to appoint judges, delays persist in many jurisdictions, including Ontario, due to resourcing pressures. These delays have resulted in cases, including sexual offences, being dismissed entirely. magine. These reforms would build a justice system that responds earlier—

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely share the position of the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that this is urgently needed legislation. It would immediately restore 12 mandatory minimum penalties in a way that is constitutional. It would protect children. It would protect victims of crime. I hope that all members will support the legislation, just as members on this side of the House have supported a number of private member's bills, because we can all care about intimate partner violence.

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way assuming that the members opposite will not support this bill. I am inviting them to support this bill, just as we have supported a number of private members' bills that also address intimate partner violence. When it comes to this type of scourge, an epidemic, we need to put down the partisanship and move forward with the progress. The justice committee has met nine times, heard from 54 witnesses and received 60 written briefs on this study alone. It considered over 100 amendments, which have added to strengthening the bill. What is is important is that any legislation passed in the House be constitutional. Who gets to decide that? It is the courts.

Mr. Speaker, there are often times in the House when we can find common ground. I think we can all agree on the fact that a sovereign Canada, a sovereign country, has the right to make decisions on matters within its borders. If someone wants to sell something in Canada, we have the right to make safety, environmental or tax regulations. It is also a fact that Canadians want us to be self-sufficient. We are in a tariff war, as others have mentioned, and we have the right to make decisions accordingly. I am shocked that the Conservatives are calling the Americans our friends when they are imposing unfair tariffs on us. We can, however, agree on the importance of Quebec and Canadian culture. My colleague talked about a geographic injustice, but there is also the matter of the American and anglophone culture flooding in. Would my colleague not agree—

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax. This bill would amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require the CRA to list all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion, in its annual report. The bill also requires the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual report once every three years. Additionally, Bill S-217 specifies that the Minister of National Revenue is to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap. Broadly defined, the tax gap is the difference between the taxes that would be paid if all obligations were fully met in all instances, and taxes that are actually paid and collected. It is not difficult to imagine that a lot of circumstances could produce a tax gap. That said, I should point out that the CRA is firmly committed to protecting the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system. This includes cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion both domestically and internationally. I should also mention that CRA takes a firm stand on non-compliance. First, I would like to point out that the CRA has a robust criminal investigations program. This program investigates major cases of tax evasion, tax fraud and other serious criminal violations of tax laws. Where appropriate, the CRA's criminal investigations program refers cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for potential criminal prosecution, which is extremely serious. The consequences for taxpayers who commit tax fraud or hide assets or money abroad are very serious. If convicted of tax evasion, these taxpayers must still pay the full amount of tax owed, plus interest and administrative penalties imposed by the CRA. Under the Income Tax Act, offenders could face a fine of up to 200% of the taxes evaded. In addition, they could also be sentenced to up to five years in prison. It should also be noted that a person convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code is liable in Canada to a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Fingerprinting and restrictions on international travel are also possible consequences. However, it should be noted that all convictions related to tax evasion, including those involving tax evasion abroad, are already published via enforcement notices on the Canada.ca website. The CRA has also set up a free subscription service to raise Canadian taxpayers' awareness of CRA enforcement actions and warn them about potential fraud schemes. During the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2025, the courts sentenced 49 people to prison for a total of more than 98 years. Investigations are under way, prosecutions are under way, action is being taken and people are being sentenced. That represents more than $39 million in evaded federal taxes, with a total of $24.5 million in court-imposed fines. As of March 31, 2025, the criminal investigations program, or CIP, had 200 ongoing investigations. That is a huge number of investigations. Between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the CIP also executed 86 search warrants, a 46% increase from the previous fiscal year. The CIP's computer forensics analysts seized at least 258 devices totalling more than 119 terabytes of data. I would now like to bring up a second point, namely the CRA's work on estimating Canada's tax gap. Since 2016, the CRA has had a dedicated team studying the tax gap, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to encouraging an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance. Estimates of Canada's tax gap, combined with other indicators relating to compliance and non-compliance, can provide valuable insights into the overall health of our tax system. At the end of March, the CRA published Canada's second overall tax gap report for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. This edition presents the overall federal tax gap and is supported by updated estimates based on the most recent data available for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. The report provides tax gap estimates for all key components. These include personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, HST and excise revenue. The report also includes two new subcomponents: the payment payroll gap and the excise gap on cannabis. Furthermore, it examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the federal tax gap, providing an overall picture. Importantly, this report also highlights how the CRA's compliance and collection activities are impacting the tax gap. The money recovered by the CRA puts downward pressure on the federal tax gap each year. We have the numbers in front of us, and we can compare the gross and net amounts. In tax year 2022, the gross tax gap was 16% of the federal tax revenue or $59.5 billion. However, the net tax gap would have been 9.3% of the federal tax revenue or $34.7 billion, so the CRA's compliance and collection activities resulted in a potential reduction of the overall gross tax gap by 42%, or $24.8 billion. That said, I would like to mention that the data on Canada's tax gap is also published on the Government of Canada's open data portal and is widely available. That means that this information can be accessed by the Canadian public and interested parties, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Canadians can rest assured that the Government of Canada and the CRA remain committed to supporting the Parliamentary Budget Officer in carrying out her mandate. This commitment is being fulfilled with the assurance that Canadians' confidential tax information is protected in accordance with the law. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the recent appointment of Annette Ryan as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In conclusion, the work on the tax gap provides us with a clearer picture of the health of Canada's tax system. This work encourages an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance. That said, it is important to note that many factors remain beyond the control of any tax administration when estimating the tax gap. Moreover, there is an international consensus that a country's tax gap will likely never reach zero. Furthermore, it is important to note that the tax gap is not a performance indicator for either the CRA or the government. It is a theoretical estimate of non-compliance with tax obligations over a given period, and this non-compliance can vary over time. As a result, the tax gap is primarily an important source of information to monitor what is happening in our tax system. One thing is certain: These efforts to address the tax gap are aimed at ensuring that everyone, individuals and corporations alike, meets their tax obligations, because taxes not only fund government services and programs, but also promote economic development in Canada through investments in the many sectors of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Violence Prevention Month in Ontario. Every day, news stories show how widespread and devastating intimate partner and sexual violence is across Canada. These are not isolated incidents. They are not private matters. They are part of a systemic crisis with real human and social costs. In Canada, a recent report shows that sexual violence costs nearly $15 billion every year in lost wages, counselling, investigation, courts and more. About one in three police-reported violent incidents involves IPV, and we know that this is the tip of the iceberg. Bill C-16 would expand protections, increase access and help address systemic vulnerability, but cops, courts and counselling are all after the fact. Prevention must be the goal, through education, early intervention and addressing root causes, including gender inequality, racism and discrimination. I thank Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, support teams at the University of Guelph and Guelph General Hospital, Victim Services Guelph, Guelph Police Service, and groups like them across Canada. Ending sexual violence is not just their work. It must be all of ours and it must be done every day.

Madam Speaker, economic growth is truly transformational only when everyone has the chance to participate in and benefit from it. The spring economic update will empower workers through the historic team Canada strong program, Canada's largest-ever investment in workers, by making education more affordable and by advancing the labour mobility deduction. Our government has also made permanent the employee ownership trust tax exemption. The former MP for Guelph, Lloyd Longfield, and I are huge advocates. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please explain how this strengthens the economy for all?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of citizens and residents of Canada concerning the global debt crisis and its impact on development and climate action. The petitioners note that many lower-income countries are spending more on debt repayments than on a number of other priorities. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to review and cancel unsustainable bilateral debts, to advocate for global financial reform and a United Nations framework on sovereign debt, and to increase the grants-based portion of Canada's climate finance, particularly for adaptation, loss and damage.

Mr. Speaker, today the city of Guelph marks its 199th anniversary, nearly two centuries shaped by people who care deeply about learning, community, place and one another. Situated on Treaty No. 3 lands held by the Mississaugas of the Credit, home to the Haudenosaunee and the Attawandaron, Guelph brings together nature and ideas, from the University of Guelph Arboretum to the Speed and Eramosa rivers, and to a historic downtown rich in arts, culture and local business. Its contributions to the arts, culture, science, innovation and business resonate nationally and globally. As Guelph approaches its bicentennial, I invite members and all Canadians to gather in Guelph to celebrate a city that values words and imagination; is home to celebrated authors; is the birthplace of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, author of In Flanders Fields; and is the birthplace of two Nobel laureates. Guelph is a cornerstone of Ontario agriculture and a leader in advanced manufacturing. I welcome all to gather in Guelph to celebrate this remarkable city. I wish a happy birthday to the royal city.

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. Mr. Speaker, happy Earth Day. What a fitting day to introduce Senator Robert Black's Bill S-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. This important bill would recognize soil as a national strategic asset. At its core, it calls for a national strategy on soil health, one that would bring together research, farmers, industry, indigenous knowledge and governments across the country. It calls for data collection and the appointment of a national soil health advocate. The urgency is real. Soil is the foundation, literally, of food, feed and fuel. Protecting soil is good environmental, agricultural and economic policy. The University of Guelph's Ontario Agricultural College is ranked number one in Canada, anchoring world-leading soil and agri-food research, and it brings together researchers, farmers and industry. We can do this nationally with a framework to scale. The Minister of Agriculture has already announced his commitment, and I invite all members to support passage of this very important bill. I wish everyone a happy Earth Day. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, my dad grew up in my hon. colleague's riding. I thank the member for being a tireless defender and an advocate for action on anti-Semitism. It is shocking to me that in a city like Guelph, members of the Jewish community are worried about their safety. They are looking for leadership. They are looking to us to do something. I ask my colleague, with regard to the protection of access to community centres and synagogues, to outline how this would also apply to other places of worship. Why are we responding in this moment? How would it apply more broadly to protect people and their faith?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens and residents of Canada concerning the start-up visa program. The petitioners are concerned that in recent years, start-up visa applicants have faced extensive and unpredictable processing delays, often lasting several years, despite having undergone rigorous vetting by designated organizations. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to increase annual permanent residence admissions under the start-up visa program; allocate additional resources to reduce application backlogs; adopt a risk-based triage system to fast-track low-risk applicants; and resume issuing a limited number of work permits to essential founders so that they can build early business traction while their applications are being processed.

Mr. Speaker, it puzzles me that the member from Windsor would not be celebrating that federal government investments in the NextStar plant mean 1,100 jobs in his riding. The people at Stellantis are excited to add a third shift. The people are looking to government to support them in this difficult period with a challenging trading partner. I am hearing a lot of “throwing up our hands” on the other side of the House, but the proof is that these investments have worked in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we just cannot run the 2026 auto sector with a 1965 rule book, unless the plan is to drive Canada straight into the past. The members opposite are saying we need a plan. On February 5, the new government presented a plan in consultation with all of the industry associations and workers. It was received with universal acclaim. This is not the first time the Conservatives have come together with a hodgepodge number of different sentences that may or may not make sense. On February 12, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot had a CPC opposition motion with an opposition strategy. At the industry committee, twice now, we have had studies on the auto industry. This is important because auto workers and the industry need us to really be thinking these things through, but we have a robust plan, and this opposition motion is just not it. This ill-conceived proposal is centred on a new, tariff-free auto pact that is modelled after a 1965 version. The plan is so old, it predates seat belts and the Canadian vehicle safety standard, and only major North American automakers dominated the production at the time. Now they make up less than 30% of domestic production, and they are the only ones endorsing this proposal. The reality today is that we have a globalized multi-manufacturer environment that operates very differently. The reality is that this motion does not take into account the entire ecosystem of parts or critical minerals or dealerships and what that means. This is also a proposal that arrives late and looks backwards. The plan is not just out of date; it did not show up in time. Our strategy, released February 5, provides $3 billion in strategic response to help our fabulous automakers weather these unjustified illegal tariffs. There is $1 billion for regional tariff relief. I know of businesses in Guelph, parts manufacturers, that have needed this to help keep their shop floors busy and to position for the future. The federal government's plan supports workers, which is something that is completely absent from the proposal of the members opposite. This proposal, so-called, waits for Washington instead of Canada to lead. A real strategy leads. This proposal waits for permission and is looking backwards. It is like waiting by the phone for an unreliable boyfriend to call, and I think that we should be making other plans. Of course we want zero tariffs. That is hardly a novel idea. Do we want to preserve a highly integrated auto sector that has benefited both Canada and the U.S.? Absolutely, that is the goal. We can have contingency plans and a forward-looking strategy that looks at global trends such as electrification. Our auto sector cannot depend on the political stripe of our neighbours. That is not smart and it is not sustainable in every sense of the word. The workers have rejected this proposal, and they have been ignored. I am going to read for the House remarks made by John D'Agnolo, Unifor Local 200 president and auto council chair: “The problem is that he [being the Leader of the Opposition] went ahead and did not consult with Unifor, and it was very, very frustrating to see the things that he put in place knowing we would be in big trouble”. He also said, “He didn’t recognize engines. There’s a prime example. He didn’t recognize imports. He didn’t recognize exports of parts that we make, which is discouraging.” He continued, “He didn’t recognize the fact that the one-for-one would mean they wouldn’t need to put a product in Brampton. They wouldn’t need to build a product in Ingersoll, and they wouldn’t need a third shift at Stellantis.” He went on to say, “What it looks like is he reflected from 1965...and he tried to put details in there.... Today, the industry is totally different.” He then said, “That was because they didn’t consult with us, the people that are working on this every day. So, we [are] frustrated with that.” I am frustrated with that too. We have been hearing the Conservatives talk down the auto sector and talk about this decade of decline for the last couple of hours, but we have the best auto workers in the world. The proof is that in April 2024, Honda announced a $15-billion investment in an EV plant in Alliston, and they are ready to go. We know that Toyota Cambridge is the most awarded plant for quality in the world. Guess what. They had record sales in 2025. I do not know where opposition members are getting their information, but they are talking down an important sector when it needs our support. It needs stability, and it needs unity. The Conservatives are not offering a realistic path to two million vehicles per year. Where did that number even come from? They offer no plans for supporting that new production, and they have no legal or operational explanation for their tariff-free models or how they would magically get there, when they have zero experience negotiating something like that in a context like this. The opposition members have no vision for batteries, critical minerals or the future of assembly. They ignore everything that actually builds the vehicles today. We are looking at battery supply chains, critical minerals and EV platforms. The Conservatives have no plan for autonomous systems or next-generation manufacturing. They are ignoring global shifts in EV and moderate emissions standards. Globally, 20% of all vehicles are EVs. The market is actually leading here. If we look at the United States, 20% of all luxury vehicles that are sold are EVs. Why is this? It is because the technology is great. People love them. The adoption will then take place and that technology is going to move to lower-priced vehicles. Like most trends, we will see adoption. Since the House resumed in September, the Conservatives have asked for a take-note debate on the auto sector, brought two motions to the industry committee and now proposed this sad plan. What is consistent throughout all of these proposals is the lack of consultation, for one, and their attack on EVs. It is not surprising, because in March, the Leader of the Opposition appeared on a podcast, where he described the policy of net zero as a “pretext.” He said, “It's all B.S.” He called it a “net-zero fraud” that takes “away the opportunities of the people who actually do the work.” The narrative is pretty clear. A cursory understanding of science and what is happening in the world would tell members otherwise on climate change and EVs. I worked for 10 years for an insurance company. Global reinsurers believe in climate change. They are hardly the woke left. They see the frequency and severity, and they know we need to act. The opposition members hate EVs so much that they would sacrifice the future of the automotive industry. Would they shut down the battery plant in Windsor that is employing 1,100 workers, just as it starts to mass produce, or Canada's largest EV battery facility in St. Thomas, which is expected to have 3,000 jobs? Looking at Toyota's sales results for February, electrified sales represented 55.9% of overall sales. Why is this? It is because consumers like the convenience of being able to charge at home. It is also a lot less expensive, and it is a great ride. If we look back at Toyota's record sales in 2025, electrified vehicles continued to lead the way for Toyota Canada in 2025, representing a 5.4% year-over-year increase and 49.7% of all 2025 sales. It is where the market is going, undeniably. It is not just on these passenger vehicles. When we look at what is happening in the United States, Tesla opened its first publicly accessible Megacharger station for customers of the Tesla Semi. There has been massive infrastructure spending because the future is electric. Increasingly, heavy mining vehicles are electrified with regenerative braking for when they are going back down into the mine. This Conservative plan risks blocking the future growth of the EV sector. It actively gets in the way. Unifor warns us that the CPC proposal could prevent future growth. It does not address competitive pressures from the U.S. or the EU and has no long-term, and certainly not an integrated, electrification strategy. Let us be kind. The members opposite have never negotiated anything close to this, so how could they know? What they are proposing risks weakening Canada's position in CUSMA negotiations, and the GST proposal could be seen as a non-tariff barrier. The CPC plans to end EV subsidies and rejects the electrification incentives. It undercuts Canada and the fastest-growing segment of global auto manufacturing. Why would the House adopt a half-baked plan when Global Automakers of Canada, Unifor and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, which all endorsed the government's plan a month ago, were not even consulted? The Conservatives' plan ignores the best auto workers in the world. They have no plan to support the industry, and they are neglecting the industry's future. Canada's new government has a plan. It is thorough and forward-looking. That is what I am going to support.

Mr. Speaker, $3 billion in the strategic response fund, $1.5 billion for infrastructure to create certainty in electrification and $1 billion for tariff relief is not waiting it out. Supports for workers and retraining to help auto plants retool and auto parts manufacturers keep people on the shop floor is not waiting it out. I have confidence in our ambassadors and our negotiating teams. We all want zero tariffs on vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I have two things. One is that there are ongoing negotiations with Washington regarding unjustified, illegal tariffs. That is number one. Number two is that this uncertainty caused by the American tariffs has put a hold on things like the Honda plant. It has created uncertainty, so a number of automakers are waiting to see. That is a private sector decision. What is the opposition's plan to get tariff-free access? Let me read what they want to do. They want to bring back the Chinese tariffs. What are you going to tell your canola farmers and the fishers? The Conservatives have no skills to negotiate a deal. They would push us to accept a bad deal, and we are not going to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada had a magic wand for tariff-free access to the United States, the Conservatives would oppose it. We can do more than one thing at a time. We can fight for the auto sector and the canola sector and the fisheries sector. That is what being in government is. It is all of it. We cannot have a myopic plan that does not consult anybody and will not yield any results.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to wish my husband, Mike, a happy 20th anniversary on St. Patrick's Day. We are on this crazy ride together, and it has really been wonderful. As a former city councillor, I am very familiar with the development process and acutely aware of the housing crisis, so I really appreciate the opportunity not only to wish Mike a happy anniversary but also to talk about the importance of the Build Canada Homes act. This legislation establishes Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building truly affordable homes in communities across the country. The bill is the next major step in strengthening the federal government's capacity to address Canada's housing crisis. The need is very clear. Across the country, far too many Canadians are struggling to find homes they can afford. The phenomenon is not new, but it is urgent. In 2010, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a report entitled “Canada's Housing Bubble: An Accident Waiting to Happen”. The headline on the news release reads, “Housing bubble at precarious 30-year peak”. That was in 2010. Here we are 16 years later, and the challenge persists, through different political leadership and through different market conditions. There are many reasons for the complex challenges we face with Canada's housing system. Over the past 30 years, the Canadian building construction price index more than doubled, the cost of land and labour is rising, and through it all, the supply of homes simply did not keep pace with the growing demand for market housing. Governments at all levels did not invest in community, affordable, social and supportive housing, believing incorrectly that the private sector would fill that gap, when that is not its mandate. Although we are beginning to see promising improvements in several cities across the country, it is clear that more needs to be done, and crucially that it be done differently. This is why we are taking a new approach. Since it was launched in September 2025, Build Canada Homes has made progress in scaling up the supply of affordable housing across Canada. It is driving a more productive and innovative homebuilding sector and acting as a catalyst for modern methods of construction. Combining access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof, Build Canada Homes makes it simpler and faster to get big projects off the ground. With low-interest loans, equity investments, contributions and guarantees, Build Canada Homes can fund construction in an innovative way. It is designed to partner across the housing ecosystem. It works in partnership with non-profits, indigenous organizations, private developers and all orders of government. The federal government's investment in housing supports local jobs and local businesses, helping to grow Canada's economy everywhere. Build Canada Homes is also implementing the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy. This means prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials and strengthening domestic supply chains while creating jobs that pay well. This aligns extremely well with the government's significant investments in training for construction trades. By also prioritizing modern methods of construction, such as factory-built housing, Build Canada Homes will spark a more productive homebuilding industry. I have seen this first-hand. Guelph's Pacd Homes can flat-pack a home. People from the auto sector, one of the most productive sectors in the country, have figured out a way, with new materials, to assemble, in particular, ADUs or additional dwelling units. They can ship them. They can assemble them in four to six weeks if they have the zoning and the land. We are going to see more and more of these innovations right across the country. This will drive a steady demand for factory-built housing to speed up delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability. The industry committee just completed a study on productivity and how Canada can boost it. Did members know that industries with the lowest productivity often include those that are highly labour-intensive, slow to adopt new technologies or composed mainly of small firms? Those are all characteristics of residential construction. In fact, in 2024, TD Bank identified construction as one of the lowest-performing sectors in terms of productivity and said it was at a 30-year low. The need is so great that we can boost productivity in homebuilding, and there will still be plenty of room for smaller builders. Every new home that is built will mean more demand for Canadian steel, lumber and aluminum, helping workers and businesses thrive. A broad increase in supply will have a downward pressure on prices on the market side of the housing continuum. These are some tangible results provided by Build Canada Homes already. In just a few months, Build Canada Homes has delivered measurable progress. Landmark agreements have been signed with many provinces and municipalities, and six federal land projects are advancing toward construction. Canada's housing crisis is being addressed. Do we wish it could happen overnight? Absolutely, we do. With new innovations, thousands of affordable homes are committed, and we should see shovels in the ground this year. Hundreds of projects are under review across the country, ready to break ground. These are concrete results that show how this new approach is turning ambition into action. It is what can be achieved when speed, innovation and especially collaboration are prioritized. Housing advocates across the country are very excited. I met with housing proponents in Guelph just last week who are collaborating to submit a portfolio of projects. One is an affordable housing project for vulnerable families, and another is a multiresidential, permanent supportive housing project for seniors who are struggling with mental illness. These are not projects that the private sector would build. The private sector has a profit motive, which is fine, but the private sector in Guelph also has a big heart. It has been a huge provider of services, funding, supports and, very importantly, land in the last few years, to help previous Guelph projects literally get off the ground. Land is so often the core of this issue, so this bill would also give the federal government the authority to transfer the land holdings and development experience of Canada Lands Company Limited to Build Canada Homes. This would streamline and consolidate federal tools to directly build affordable housing on public land for public good. Build Canada Homes and Canada Lands Company would continue to work together closely. They would continue to advance priority projects, including the direct-build sites, and ensure a smooth transition. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would be overseen by a board of directors responsible for strategic direction, risk management and oversight of activities and performance. This would ensure alignment with Build Canada Homes' legislative mandate. A chairperson and CEO, both appointed by the Governor in Council, would provide leadership and ensure that the corporation's activities align with government priorities. The legislation, importantly, would provide Build Canada Homes with the independence to operate effectively, while ensuring clear lines of accountability to Parliament. Once this legislation is passed and comes into force, Build Canada Homes will become a Crown corporation. It will be given the independence necessary to take risks and the operational autonomy it needs to focus on fulfilling its mandate, while remaining accountable to Canadians. Making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation will give it the flexibility and legal and operational autonomy it needs to fulfill its mandate. At the same time, it will maintain a clear framework of accountability to Parliament. It will be able to exercise a broader range of powers than a special operating agency, and it will be able to hold assets, make investments and conduct complex financial transactions. This bill fulfills the commitment that the government made in budget 2025. It is a historic law that will help advance the mandate of Build Canada Homes, which is to build more housing more quickly and more affordably. It will guarantee safe and affordable housing for every Canadian. Everyone in Canada, no matter where they live across the country, should have access to affordable housing. A home is not merely shelter. It is security, stability and connection to community. We are facing a housing crisis, one that has been growing for decades. In response, the new government is adopting a new model, a new approach, new construction methods and new partnerships and collaborations to accelerate housing construction, restore housing affordability and reduce homelessness. Canadians need affordable housing now. This bill would help enable Build Canada Homes to continue to deliver on the federal government's promise to Canadians. It would provide a better, brighter future for homebuilding across our country.

Mr. Speaker, as a city councillor for many years, I saw the municipality streamline its processes. The member is quite right. The private sector is building homes, but for 30 years, communities have expected provinces or the federal government to build non-market affordable housing. Guess what: The private sector does not build that kind of stuff. Why? It is because it has a profit imperative. Look, I have an economics degree. The private sector wants to maximize its profits. It wants to pay higher wages and all that stuff. It is all fine, but there is a gap. Build Canada Homes is going to fill that gap for true market affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that the government needs to support sectors put at risk by unfair U.S. tariffs. Liquidity programs exist for the lumber, steel and automotive sectors. Although this issue is truly important, it falls outside the scope of this bill, which only seeks to create a Build Canada Homes Crown corporation. Nevertheless, the issue is indeed important and yes, we need to use Canadian lumber.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Guelph is a participant in the housing accelerator fund from the previous government. That funding has allowed all kinds of zoning reform. We have removed exclusionary zoning. We have seed money for accessory dwelling units. We have seed money for affordable housing projects. That first step, that first foray of working directly, has been extremely important. This next step is a complete game-changer. I want to congratulate all the affordable housing providers in Guelph, which have done an amazing job of building affordable housing with wraparound services over the past four years.

Mr. Speaker, it was heartwarming to see the Children's Foundation of Guelph and Wellington's keep kids fed programs in action last week. I met parent volunteers and U of G nutrition students who were preparing the snacks. I spoke with a school administrator and Children's Foundation leaders. Together with volunteers and donors, they ensure every child has reliable access to nutritious food every day, with dignity and without barriers. We had a great conversation about how federal policy directly shapes the well-being of children in my riding through initiatives like the national school nutrition program and the upcoming groceries and essentials benefit, which will help more than 18,000 people in the riding of Guelph. While the national school nutrition program helps with the keep kids fed at school program, our community fills in the gaps and supports the keep kids fed at home program, which provides nutritious snacks for vulnerable kids during weekends and holidays. The return on investment, whether it is social, educational or economic, is significant when every child has the food they need to thrive. Our children definitely deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to correct an error I made in my remarks earlier. Tuesday is my 25th wedding anniversary, not my 20th, and my husband let me know immediately when I left the chamber. I wish a happy anniversary to Mike. To the member opposite, we agree that we need to see housing prices come down. We have had a housing bubble since the 1980s, so when we are seeing homes selling under their asking price when we increase the supply, that is the housing bubble starting to deflate. When we increase housing, we create competition, both with new homes and the ones for resale. I am just curious about development charges. I was a city councillor for six years. I wonder if the member opposite knows that if we cut development charges, and he voted against supporting infrastructure, that is a direct download of the cost of infrastructure to the property taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good day in the House of Commons when we all agree that we need to boost our trade and that we need to invest in infrastructure. However, I am really puzzled when I hear a member opposite talk about the importance of improving our ports, roads and railways and talking about the importance of infrastructure to drive down food prices, when the member opposite voted against a $5-billion trade diversification corridor fund that was in budget 2025, which was aimed specifically at new port infrastructure, railway upgrades and road and airport projects tied to trade flows. Time and time again, there are massive investments being made on this side of the House and members opposite vote against them.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oakville West is a colleague in our auto caucus. We visited Honda and Toyota together and were fortunate enough to be at the auto strategy announcement just last week. Members of the auto caucus are clearly in favour of electrification and see what the global trends are. I am curious as to whether my colleague would talk about the importance of the investments in the charging infrastructure and what they mean for Canadian consumers.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to join others in expressing my condolences on the profound tragedies at Tumbler Ridge and Kitigan Zibi. Having lost people close to me, I know it is really challenging, when one's world has been shattered, to feel like the rest of the world is moving along. I just want those communities to know that we grieve with them, and they are in our hearts even though we are continuing the work of this place. I am very proud to represent the riding of Guelph, where we see leadership in the auto sector every single day, in parts manufacturing. Guelph is home to Linamar, Denso, Polycon, CPK and many others. Many people in Guelph work at Toyota in Cambridge, and that plant has received more quality awards than any other plant on the planet. In our region, we know auto manufacturing. That is why I chair the auto caucus. I understand in my bones how important the sector, with 500,000 jobs, is to Canada and to our communities. In Guelph alone, there are 12,000 jobs in the auto sector. I care about the auto workers and the health of the sector. This government cares. That is why we announced a comprehensive auto strategy last week. Through that strategy, we will accelerate investment in Canada's auto manufacturing sector, with $3 billion from the strategic response fund and up to $100 million from the regional tariff response initiative to help the auto industry adapt, grow and diversify to new markets. I have been promoting this in my riding, and I hope all members of the House are reaching out to potentially tariff-affected businesses and letting them know what supports exist, even if they voted against those supports in budget 2025. The auto strategy will harness the productivity superdeduction and reduced corporate tax rates for zero-emissions technology manufacturers, to encourage investment in clean technology and EVs. The productivity superdeduction is another measure to enable all manufacturers to invest in capital or business that can be written off in the first year, and was also opposed in the budget by members opposite. The auto strategy will rationalize emissions reduction policies to focus on outcomes. This means that stronger greenhouse gas emission standards put Canada on a path to achieve a goal of 75% of EV sales by 2035 and 90% of EV sales by 2040 to reduce our carbon footprint and secure Canada's global leadership in clean energy. I am really thrilled to be speaking at the same time as my hon. colleague, the member for Halifax. I attended the environment caucus presentations from Electric Mobility Canada, and environment caucus members joined in auto caucus meetings. We really understand that there is an exciting intersection of auto and electrification that is positive, and that is where the world is going. The more stringent emissions standards will allow manufacturers to use a range of technologies to meet the standards and respond to consumer preferences in the near term while driving adoption over time. This is what the manufacturers have been asking for as they innovate in their technology and as they move towards their goals of net zero. Earlier today, some members in this House talked about automakers as laggards, but I want to applaud the industry's leadership in regard to electrification. Toyota is committed to becoming carbon-neutral across the vehicle life cycle, in its manufacturing and in its vehicles, by 2050. Consumers are with them. Toyota Canada's Q3 results show electrified vehicles representing 49.4% of overall sales. The demand and the expertise are there. Honda also has a net-zero initiative for 2050. This trend is global. Electric car sales exceeded $17 million globally in 2024, reaching a sales share of more than 20%. Electric car sales in 2025 were expected to exceed $20 million worldwide and to represent more than one-quarter of cars sold across the globe. In Canada, we do not have the 2025 data yet, but in 2024, EVs were responsible for 60% of the net increase in total vehicle registrations. They accounted for one in seven new vehicles sold that year, but depending on the region and the model, that number was as high as one in three or one in four new vehicles sold in 2024. There is consumer demand. What happened? When the incentives were paused, that demand dropped off as consumers waited to see if they would come back. Therefore, we are going to strengthen domestic demand by making EVs more affordable and the infrastructure more reliable for Canadians. That is why we have launched a five-year EV affordability program, to lower the cost of EVs for Canadians and to create a stronger domestic consumer market. The plan was always to support EV adoption over 10 years. We are resuming that plan because, frankly, it worked. This is a piece that has been missing as well. We are going to offer individuals and business owners purchase or lease incentives of up to $5,000 for battery-electric and fuel-cell EVs and up to $2,500 for plug-in hybrids with a final transaction value of up to $50,000 on cars made by countries that Canada has a free trade agreement with. To support the Canadian automotive industry, this $50,000 cap, as we know, will not apply to Canadian-made EVs and plug-in hybrids. Let us be very clear. The rebates for the purchase of an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid go into the pockets of individual Canadians or companies that purchase them. That is where those incentives go. Even if the vehicle comes from the U.S., it is subject to countertariffs, and it contains parts from Canada made by Canadian workers, which means it is part of our Canadian auto sector. Let us not allow the Conservatives to confuse people on this point. The Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and cabinet members have listened to Canadians. Canadians are embracing the EV rebates. Canadians also want to address the issue of range anxiety. They want a better national EV charging network, so we are investing, as my colleague said, $1.5 billion to support the charging infrastructure. We are establishing a comprehensive trade regime that strengthens the competitiveness of the auto sector by strengthening the remissions framework to reward companies that produce and invest in Canada, which we should all be able to agree on. We are attracting new investment to Canada, which should also be an easy point of agreement, and we are maintaining our countertariffs on auto imports from the United States to ensure a level playing field for Canadian automotive manufacturers in the domestic market. Finally, the automotive strategy protects Canadian auto workers and businesses from immediate pressures while helping them bridge to the future, if required, through support and re-skilling. As that happens, other players are coming into the market, like EV battery plants in St. Thomas and Windsor. This strategy has been supported by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. It welcomes the government's automotive strategy, stating: Funding to support renewed purchase incentives and a robust charging infrastructure strategy will help continue to drive EV adoption, and CVMA members are well-positioned to support the shift to electrification through diverse product offerings. The Global Automakers of Canada stated: We are pleased that the government has provided greater clarity on issues such as the Electric Vehicle Accessibility Standard, the reinstatement of EV incentives, and a commitment to aggressively build out the charging infrastructure. The members of the Ontario Auto Mayors caucus are thrilled, and the next one is my favourite. The Canadian Auto Dealer president and CEO stated: The expanded and adjusted support measures aimed at maintaining Canada’s vital automotive manufacturing sector are essential as we enter the critical phase of the CUSMA renegotiation with the U.S. Dealers across Canada particularly applaud the government for ending the EV mandate and choosing a better path forward for EV adoption that is more in line with diverse technology, charging infrastructure and overall consumer demand. Even Unifor representatives are saying that they are ecstatic and believe this is very helpful for the sector. The Conservative motion before the House today is not a strategy. It is not sound policy. It is not even accurate. We need clarity, not confusion. EV incentives go to Canadian households and Canadian businesses. We have an integrated auto manufacturing sector. All vehicles assembled in North America have parts from Canada. The strategic response fund is helpful. I do not support this opposition motion, because there is no substance. I support Canada's auto sector strategy. I support solutions that work. I stand with the sector and with our auto workers.

Mr. Speaker, we will absolutely support Canadian auto workers. Let us be very clear. We also have the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. I do not believe the Conservatives, for this motion, have consulted with any of the large associations. A lot of Canadians will buy a Kia. A lot of Canadians will buy electric vehicles from a lot of places. Why the focus on the North American auto market? Why are they now talking down some of our partners, where the parts are being sold and the collaborations are taking place? We have an integrated North American auto market. We are going to fight for that integrated auto market. We are going to fight for auto workers.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Alfred-Pellan answered his own question. Yes, we must look at the automotive strategy and budget as a comprehensive plan to attract investment. We need to look at not only the automotive sector, but also Canada's manufacturing sector as a whole. We need to look at the entire supply chain, from critical minerals to auto parts, from assembly to distribution and charging stations. This will build confidence in the sector and ensure we have the best workers in the world, equipped to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, the mechanism for the EV rebate will be similar to what it was a few years ago. If someone goes to a dealership and purchases a vehicle, depending on the manufacturer's suggested retail price and if it fits the conditions, they will get that rebate. It goes into their pocket. We are seeing movement of all types through the auto sector. For a party that loves consumer choice, the EV rebate gives them that consumer choice.