Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there. The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong. We on this side believe that cars are not a luxury, and for many people, they are a lifeline. On this side of the House, we would zero-rate used vehicles under the Excise Tax Act. Will the Liberals stop profiting off of inflation and remove GST from the sale of used cars in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will remember that several times in the House I have raised the issue of a three-year-old little toddler in my riding who was brutally raped and beaten and left for dead. About a week and a half ago, survivors of sexual assault from early age to adulthood came to Ottawa to talk to members of the House about their stories of survival. This is not a partisan issue for me. This is something that we need to do as a country. These survivors came to Ottawa and asked me to ask the Minister of Justice why it is that we continually see people being given bail after being convicted of sexual assaults against children and adults. Will he commit to ensuring that if this legislation does not go far enough, there will be amendments made in the future to ensure that for the perpetrators of these vile crimes against children, it never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S‑210 to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada, not merely as a matter of multicultural courtesy but an act of moral clarity, historical justice and national affirmation. This bill is not symbolic in the diminishing sense of the word. It is substantively symbolic, the kind of recognition that tells a community we see them, we remember with them and we stand beside them. In this moment, when the soil of Ukraine runs red from Russian bombardment and when cities that Ukrainian Canadians' grandparents once called home are being reduced to rubble by an imperial aggressor, the passage of this bill carries a weight that goes far beyond ceremony. It is a declaration of who we are as Canadians. Let us begin with history, because history is where the story starts. When the first great wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada began in the 1890s, tens of thousands of women, men, farmers, labourers and dreamers crossed an ocean to escape poverty, land scarcity and political oppression under Russian imperial and Austro-Hungarian rule. They came at the invitation of the Canadian government that needed settlers for a vast, unbroken prairie west. They came with almost nothing. They were given land, raw, stubborn land that had to be cleared by hand, broken by oxen and coaxed into yield through sheer endurance. They built homes from sod and timber. They raised churches with onion domes on the Saskatchewan horizon. They planted sunflowers beside wheat fields in Manitoba and Alberta. They gave the Prairies a soul. In Alberta, Ukrainian settlers established hundreds of communities from Vegreville to Mundare, from Two Hills to Smoky Lake. In Saskatchewan, Canora, Yorkton and Foam Lake became centres of Ukrainian cultural life. In Manitoba, the north end of Winnipeg became a vibrant Ukrainian corridor, home to cultural halls, Orthodox and Greek Catholic parishes and newspapers printed in Ukrainian. The Ukrainian contribution to Canada did not stay on the Prairies. In Ontario, Ukrainian communities built cultural institutions in Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton. In Quebec, Ukrainian immigrants added their voices to an already‑complex multicultural chorus. In British Columbia, communities in Vancouver carried forward traditions that connected generations to a homeland thousands of kilometres away. Over 1.3 million Canadians today identify as having Ukraine heritage. Four Governors General have been of Ukrainian descent. Ukrainian Canadians have served in our military, on our supreme courts and in our legislatures, shaped by culture that prizes resilience, community and a ferocious attachment to freedom. One such individual is a man that I worked for as a member of Parliament for Edmonton East. In 1984 he was elected. He was a proud Ukrainian Canadian. He often told me stories of how his family came over here from Ukraine. I was proud to spend a few years with Bill Lesick, the MP for Edmonton East. I will never forget his passion for Canada. He ended his career as a citizenship judge, which reflected his commitment to his country. His attachment to freedom brings me to the present moment, and I will not mince words. On February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched a full‑scale invasion of a sovereign democratic nation. Russia did not stumble into war. It chose war deliberately, systematically and with the stated ambition of erasing Ukrainian national identity from the map of the world. Putin has said explicitly that Ukraine is not a real country, that Ukrainians are not a real people and that their language, culture and history, the very things that this bill celebrates, are fabrications to be corrected by force. This is not a border dispute or a regional conflict. This is a genocidal ideology expressed through artillery shells and mass graves. When this Parliament debates Ukrainian heritage month, we are debating it against the backdrop of Mariupol, Bucha and Kherson, while Ukrainian families in Canada carry the grief of relatives killed under Russian occupation. To pass this bill is to say the culture Russia is trying to destroy is a culture Canada honours. The identity Russia calls fictional is an identity Canada celebrates. There is no more powerful rebuttal to imperial erasure than democratic recognition. That resolve is alive right here in our own communities. In Hamilton, Ontario, a drone manufacturer called Sentinel Research and Development, founded in 2023 specifically because of Russia's war of aggression, is now part of the Canada‑Ukraine defence partnership. When the Russian government responded with threats, CEO Kath Intson did not flinch. She called it what it was, which was “political posturing”, saying, “It does not affect our way forward in any way whatsoever”. This is the Canadian answer to Russian intimidation: not retreat, not appeasement, but moving forward. Sentinel is cut from the same cloth as those prairie settlers. The geography has changed; the adversary has not. Some will ask why we need a dedicated month. The designation matters because it would create space in schools, communities and public life for structured reflection and education. It would mean teachers have a framework to bring Ukrainian history into classrooms. It would mean that Ukrainian Canadians, particularly the younger generation, the grandchildren of those prairie settlers, would see their inheritance acknowledged at the highest level of democratic governance. Given the current war and Russia's documented attempts to suppress Ukrainian cultural expression, ban the Ukrainian language in occupied territories, destroy cultural monuments and abduct children, the designation of Ukrainian heritage month is an act of cultural solidarity. It says that, what they are burning, we are keeping alive. Let me close with an image. Somewhere on the Prairies, perhaps in Alberta, perhaps in Saskatchewan, there is a small Ukrainian Orthodox church, white-walled and blue-domed, standing alone in a field of wheat. It was built over 100 years ago by hands calloused from a hard crossing and harder work. Around that church are the graves of men and women who arrived with nothing and gave everything to this country. Those graves are Canadian soil. That church is Canadian heritage. The culture it represents is alive in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and my riding of Niagara South. There are 1.3 million Canadians who carry that Ukrainian heritage with them. They deserve a month. They deserve this bill. In passing it, we would send a message heard far beyond our borders, which is that Canada does not only welcome the people of Ukraine, but also preserves what those who wish to destroy Ukraine are trying to erase. I ask members to vote yes, support this bill, honour the heritage and stand with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-232, introduced by my friend and colleague the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, yet I do so with a deep sense of frustration because this legislation should not be necessary. Canada should have resolved this issue years ago. In my riding of Niagara South lies Lake Gibson, in the city of Thorold. Every time I cross the bridge over that water, I think of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. I cannot cross it without remembering that that lake is where Paul Bernardo discarded the remains of two innocent young girls after subjecting them to unimaginable cruelty. The horror of those crimes is impossible to adequately express. For those of us who lived through that dark chapter in Niagara, the memory has never faded. It remains etched in the consciousness of our communities. That is why Canadians were outraged when, on May 29, 2023, Correctional Service Canada quietly transferred Paul Bernardo, a serial rapist, a sadistic torturer and a convicted murderer, from Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security penitentiary, to a minimum-security institution in rural Quebec. The families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy learned of that decision only hours before it became public. There was no consultation, no meaningful explanation and no consideration for the anguish it would reopen. Their lawyer, Tim Danson, described the families as devastated. He said the transfer forced them to relive the worst moments of their lives all over again. Canadians across the country shared that outrage. Political leaders from every corner of this country condemned the decision. That unanimity mattered because it revealed something fundamental about Canadians: that regardless of political affiliation, most Canadians instinctively understood that the most dangerous and predatory offenders belong in maximum-security institutions. It is not out of vengeance or emotion but because justice, public safety and moral clarity demand it. Despite the national outrage, nothing has changed. Paul Bernardo remains in medium security to this day. Every time I cross that bridge at Lake Gibson, I am reminded that while Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy lost their lives forever, the man who destroyed them now benefits from conditions that Canadians overwhelmingly believe are wholly inappropriate. That reality is not merely disappointing. It is profoundly shameful. Paul Bernardo is not simply a convicted murderer. He is a designated dangerous offender, a classification reserved for the most violent and persistently threatening individuals in Canadian society. Parliament created that designation precisely because certain offenders demonstrate such enduring brutality and such a high likelihood of future violence that extraordinary measures are justified to protect the public. Dangerous offender designations are not applied casually. They are rare. They carry indeterminate sentences because the courts recognize that these individuals cannot safely be trusted outside the strictest controls. What do these assessments continue to tell us about Paul Bernardo? A spousal risk assessment conducted in 2014 concluded that he posed a high probability of violence toward intimate partners and continued risk toward others. Clinical evaluations conducted decades into his incarceration identified ongoing psychological concerns and only intermittent progress. Experts concluded that he demonstrated little genuine rehabilitation and limited acceptance of and responsibility for his crimes. When Bernardo appeared before the Parole Board in 2024, parole was denied for a third time. The board cited the extreme violence of his offences, the serial nature of his crimes, his narcissistic personality traits and persistent concerns surrounding sexual recidivism. Correctional Service Canada itself has repeatedly opposed his release. Even the commissioner of CSC reportedly acknowledged that Bernardo continues to exhibit psychopathic characteristics. This is the offender whom our system deemed appropriate for medium security. At the centre of this controversy lies the principle within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that requires inmates to be managed in the “least restrictive environment” consistent with public safety and institutional management. In principle, rehabilitation is an important goal of corrections policy. Canadians believe in rehabilitation where rehabilitation is genuinely possible, but that principle was never intended to be interpreted mechanically or blindly. It was never designed for sadistic sexual predators whose crimes rank among the worst in Canadian history and whose risk assessments continue to raise profound alarms decades later. The dangerous offender designation represents Parliament's clearest declaration that certain individuals pose a uniquely persistent threat. Under the current system, however, that judicial finding can effectively be diluted through an administrative reclassification process driven by incremental behaviour metrics inside prison walls. That contradiction is precisely why Bill C‑232 is necessary. Tim Danson articulated this powerfully when he stated that sentencing reflects society's moral values and that prison placement must reflect those same values. Canadians understand intuitively that there are some crimes so monstrous, some offenders so dangerous and some harms so permanent that the only proportionate response is the highest level of confinement our correctional system can provide. This debate is not solely about offender management. It is also about the victims. For more than three decades, Debbie Mahaffy and Donna French have carried unimaginable grief. They have endured repeated parole hearings, legal battles, media attention and a consistent reopening of wounds that truly never heal. Their courage has been extraordinary, yet even after all these years, the system continues to place new burdens on them. In 2024, because Bernardo had been moved to a medium-security institution, logistical implications initially prevented the mothers from appearing in person at the parole hearing. Tim Danson described their reaction as “gut-wrenching”. He called it a devastating setback for victims' rights and an insult to the families who have already endured more suffering than most Canadians could imagine, and he was correct. There is a direct relationship between where dangerous offenders are housed and the rights available to victims. Prison placement affects access, participation, security arrangements and the ability of victims' families to confront the individuals responsible for their suffering. Friends of and advocates for Kristen French testified before a parliamentary committee that the system appeared to prioritize Bernardo's administrative rights over the rights of victims and survivors. Many Canadians believe they were right to say so. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights guarantees victims the right to information, protection and meaningful participation in the justice system. Those principles cannot simply disappear when correctional classifications are reviewed behind closed doors. Bill C‑232 recognizes the reality by explicitly connecting victims' rights to decisions regarding the placement of dangerous offenders. Correctional Service Canada later reviewed Bernardo's transfer and concluded that the process had complied with the existing law and policy. It simultaneously acknowledged that the family should have received better notification. Those two conclusions are deeply revealing. If a process can be technically compliant while still producing an outcome that shocks the conscience of the nation, then the problem is no longer merely administrative. The problem is legislative. The law itself requires reform. Kristen French was 15 years old. Leslie Mahaffy was 14 years old. Their lives were stolen through acts of calculated evil that horrified an entire country. Decades later, their mothers are still fighting for dignity, for accountability and for a justice system that fully recognizes the magnitude of what was taken from them. Meanwhile, the offender responsible resides in a medium-security institution. Canadians know instinctively that this is wrong. The moral argument behind Bill C‑232 is not complicated. These are offenders whose crimes demonstrate such enduring depravity, such profound danger and such catastrophic harm that maximum security is not only appropriate but necessary, not temporarily, and not symbolically, but for as long as the threat posed continues to exist. Now is the time for our laws to reflect that reality consistently and unequivocally. We have a moral obligation to ensure that the most dangerous offenders in Canada remain behind maximum-security walls, commensurate with the horrific violence they inflicted upon innocent people. I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation. Let this Parliament send a clear and unmistakable message that Canada will never lose sight of its duty to victims, its obligation to public safety and its responsibility to ensure that the most dangerous criminals face the most secure confinement our justice system can provide.

Madam Speaker, it is my job to bring a profound conclusion to the debate before us tonight, and I am happy to add my 30 seconds of wisdom. Let me begin by stating something quite clearly, Conservatives believe workers have the right to organize. We believe workers have the right to choose their representation freely and democratically. We believe employer domination of unions has no place in Canada. Those principles are not in dispute. The question before us is whether Bill C-259 strengthens workers' rights or whether it creates instability, uncertainty and unintended consequences in federally regulated workplaces. The sponsor argues that workers must be represented by organizations independent from employer influence. On that point, there is broad agreement. However, the reality is that the Canada Labour Code already contains strong protections against employer interference. Today a union cannot be certified if it is so dominated or influenced by an employer that its ability to represent workers is impaired. I will wrap up with that profound statement of five or six sentences tonight. I appreciate the patience of the House.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Minister of Immigration tried to dodge a very simple question. When asked whether taxpayer dollars are being used to buy hotels for asylum claimants, she attempted to rebrand them as “reception centres”. Canadians know the facts. Municipalities like Ottawa and Pickering have already used millions of dollars in public funds to purchase hotels to house asylum claimants. Changing the label does not change the reality. With Canada now the only G7 country in a recession, will the minister stop hiding behind bureaucratic language and finally confirm the Liberals are funding municipalities to purchase hotels for asylum claimants?

Mr. Speaker, with Canada now the only G7 country in a recession, Canadians cannot understand why the government continues wasting millions of dollars through government programs that fund municipalities to buy hotels for asylum claimants. A hotel does not stop being a hotel because the Liberals rename it a “reception centre”. Canadians are tired of political spin and word games, as families struggle with rising costs and economic uncertainty. Will the minister stop misleading Canadians and answer a question directly? Is the Liberal government funding municipalities to buy hotels for asylum claimants?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that thoughtful presentation. She knows full well that when governments pick winners and losers, capital flees. Capital flows to where certainty exists. In this regime, under this proposal, there is no certainty. The CRTC is oblivious to economics, trade or capital flow. Can the hon. member tell me how she thinks the decision can negatively impact investment in Canadian production and Canadian culture?

Mr. Chair, there is a twist: “reception centres” is catchphrase for allowing municipalities to purchase hotels to put asylum claimants in them. Let me go back to another question I asked the minister in committee. There are contribution agreements that are signed between IRCC and municipalities. What is the language in the contribution agreement that allows the municipalities to purchase real estate with taxpayers' money?

Mr. Chair, I am not going to get a straight answer, for whatever reason. It does not seem like a difficult question. In these contribution agreements, she will not verify that there is language that allows municipalities to purchase real estate, but we know that they have purchased real estate because it has been all over the news, including the fact that the City of Ottawa spent over $40 million purchasing real estate for asylum claimants. Let me ask the minister this. What happens to the real estate? Who gets the proceeds when the city sells this real estate?

Mr. Chair, for 10 years, IRCC has spiralled from backlog to backlog while temporary migration numbers exploded beyond Canada's capacity for housing, health care and infrastructure. Nearly two million visas and permits are now approaching expiry, exposing a system riddled with abuse by questionable colleges that turn immigration into a business model. One of the programs that got caught up in this chaos is the start-up visa program, which has not been talked about by anyone since the new government has taken office. There are now around 43,000 innovation founders waiting in the queue, having paid substantial fees to go through incubation and business building programs, but your website now says, Minister, that there is a 10-year wait for visas to be issued. These entrepreneurs are going elsewhere, where there is no chaos and where economic certainty exists. Is the minister okay with this?

Mr. Chair, that is interesting, because my next question was going to be about the corruption in the program. The minister has just verified and validated that there has been corruption in her department in the program. It cannot handle the backlog of applications, so it shut it down because it was corrupted. I wonder if the minister can tell me, did the department ever audit NACO when it was subcontracted to do the due diligence on designated organizations?

Mr. Chair, it is not that I want to correct the minister by her trying to correct what she had already said, that the program had been rife with corruption, but the IRCC's own evaluations identified problematic applications, weak oversight and pay-to-incubate schemes involving designated organizations. Why did your government fail to act before the backlog exploded past 43,000 applications? Why did you subcontract a designated organization approval process to NACO? Does the minister know what NACO is?

Mr. Chair, let us talk about results. Right now, the minister's website says the approval time for start-up visa program applications is in excess of 10 years. People can get approval in France in one to two months. In the United States, it is 15 days. In Germany, it is four to six months. In the U.K., it is two to four months. In Canada, it is 10 excruciatingly painful years. Is the minister okay with that?

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader says there is hypocrisy on this side of the House because we vote against funding programs to fund programs to fix problems that the Liberals created in the first place. That is the definition of insanity, in my view. I would like to ask my hon. friend something. He is talking about the temporary relief from fuel taxes in Canada. We have been advocating for a permanent exemption for fuel taxes to really help Canadians in a time of need, not spending more money to fix problems that the government already created. I wonder what my hon. friend has to say about that.

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions with the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. Liberals blame $100 per barrel of oil for high gas prices, but in 2014, oil was also $100, and gas was $1.38 a litre. Today, it is $1.83. That is 45¢ more for the same global price. What has changed? Liberal policy has changed. Higher taxes, carbon taxes and GST on top of the tax are driving up costs. A weaker dollar, down roughly 20% since 2014, means that Canadians pay more for fuel and food, because our economy is weaker under Liberal leadership. Canadians are paying the price for bad policy. We want all of the taxes removed for all of the year. It is time for Liberals to take our common-sense plan to remove them, unblock our oil and gas production, and make Canada affordable and strong at home.

Mr. Speaker, the media panels have given up on this immigration minister. Bob Fife, the bureau chief of The Globe and Mail, called her performance “pathetic” and her “incompetent” twice in the same panel. Even CBC's David Cochrane said, “when they fall back on privacy, process and the passive voice, it's usually a sign of some trouble.” Immigration is a serious issue and the Prime Minister is ultimately accountable for the minister's failures. When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, and fire this minister?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is capitulating on U.S. tariffs. Tariffs on steel have doubled. Lumber tariffs have tripled, and new barriers continue to hit our manufacturers. Nowhere is this failure felt more than in my region of Niagara, where cross-border trade is the lifeblood of local jobs, supply chains and our communities. While he blames tariffs on the shrinking economy, he fails to show up, and Mexico actually has a seat at the table. The Prime Minister is dragging his feet. When will he finally stand up and fight for the 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on U.S. trade and deliver the tariff relief he promised?

Mr. Speaker, I was entertained by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's speech. Every time I have risen in the House before to speak to legislation, the parliamentary secretary has accused us of filibustering and not allowing legislation to go to committee quickly enough. Now that the Liberals want to assert their majority to get a majority on committees, will he undertake and commit today to stop the rhetoric about how we should stop debating legislation in the House? We have a right to stand here with our opinions. He seems to want to have co-operation until he does not. At the immigration committee, we passed substantial and reasonable amendments to legislation that were only overturned when it came back to report stage. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would commit today to being more collaborative in reality and not just in rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring the temperature down just a touch, get a little decorum and speak a little more calmly, but I am happy to participate in this debate today on the auto sector. I am also happy to let the House know that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the great member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake. As my friend from Niagara Falls knows all too well, as a former summer student at GM in Niagara, the Niagara region was central to the development of our country, from making steel, refining critical minerals and shipping the world its grain through the Welland Canal, to harnessing the immense power of Niagara Falls to electrify a growing nation. We also made great cars. Generations of workers and communities in Niagara did not just support the national economy, but powered it. In Fort Erie, a place where the battles of war and conflict literally led to the creation of Canada, the majestic Peace Bridge transits the vehicles of commerce across the border to the United States and beyond. At the heart of that Niagara legacy stands the auto sector, one of the most important pillars of Niagara's industrial base. It used to be a pillar, but it is not so much anymore. What we are seeing today is further disintegration of our once dominant auto sector shrinking into a small semblance of its former glory as one of Niagara's and Canada's anchors of economic strength. A decade ago, Canada produced over two million vehicles a year. Today, that number has fallen to just over 1.2 million. The value of auto manufacturing in Niagara has changed. It is no longer the sprawling, multiplant, labour-intensive industrial engine it once was. While it remains critical and highly specialized in our economy today, it is in a bit of precarity. The sector remains vulnerable. In the last year alone, production has dropped 7.8%. Thousands of skilled, dedicated Canadian workers are now out of a job, and this did not happen by accident. It happened because of decisions that caused the slow but constant export of manufacturing to everywhere but Canada. Canada's complacency was not imposed on us. It was chosen through neglect by abdicating our industrial strategy through economic hibernation and by focusing on social constructs, virtue signalling, postnationalism and open borders. Remember, “the budget will balance itself.” Exacerbating all of this is that Canada created a bureaucratic behemoth whereby our system is mired in red tape, leading to capital flight and underinvestment. We have allowed declining productivity, chronic underinvestment, bureaucratic gridlock and the lack of an industrial strategy. Our largest source of new jobs in Canada has been in building redundant bureaucracies. That is the national disgrace and a fiscal disaster. We may want to blame Donald Trump for the shockwaves in the global markets, but the signals have been here for a very long time. Trump's rhetoric may offend us. It offends me for sure. We can denounce him from the rooftops as reckless, dangerous and destabilizing. It gives us a fleeting sense of moral satisfaction, but it accomplishes nothing. Like it or not, the United States has, overall, seen significantly stronger productivity growth than Canada has over the past decade. The U.S. capital investment per worker is substantially higher. Business creation and job creation have been stronger. In fact, Canadians started more businesses in the United States in 2024 than they did in Canada. Let that sink in. Canadians started more corporate entities in the United States than they did in Canada in 2024. If that is not a testament to failure, I cannot imagine what is. Energy production in the U.S. is surging, but ours is not so much. Do members remember when there was no business case for LNG? Manufacturing investment is reshoring at scale in the U.S. As the government talks about pivoting away from the United States in what seems on the surface like a reasonable strategy, we need to recognize some fundamental facts, particularly with respect to the auto sector. The government is asking Canadians to believe that we can replace the U.S. market, where over 95% of our vehicles are sold, with exports to Europe and overseas. That is not a strategy. That is an illusion. As I listen to the answers to the questions in this House, the government's focus is on saying, “We believe in Canada.” The Minister of Finance says that ad nauseam. He is a bit of a master of righteous indignation. Frankly, it is nothing more than a deflection from inaction, a slogan without substance and abdication instead of action. The Prime Minister continues to talk about balance, pivoting toward China as if geography were a suggestion, rather than a fact. At the same time, we are using Canadian taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the purchase of vehicles that are not even made in Canada. Think about that. We are taxing Canadians to help buy foreign-made cars while Canadian workers are losing their jobs. That is not industrial policy. That is surrender, and the cost of that surrender is enormous. Geography is destiny. Geography is gravity. Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the United States, and 75% of our exports go south. Markets follow scale, infrastructure, proximity and legal certainty. We cannot close the gap of distance to other markets. Business grows to where capital flows. Canada's trading relationship with the United States is structural, not discretionary. To suggest anything different is not only foolish, but delusional and, ultimately, destructive. As such, we must renegotiate CUSMA and leverage our strategic advantages to secure a durable trade deal. We have the resources, the critical minerals and the raw materials that can finally bring more homegrown value added to our products, rather than simply shipping raw materials and buying them back at market prices. However, most of those strategic opportunities are solidly stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. Whether it is approving a pipeline or LNG terminals, or eliminating interprovincial barriers, it has been like watching the government push rope uphill. That is why my leader is calling out for a new auto pact. It is because we cannot afford to watch this industry slowly slip further away. This plan is grounded in a principle Canadians understand: fairness. If someone wants to sell cars to Canadians, they should be building cars with Canadian workers. The plan would restore tariff-free trade with the United States, but with a clear expectation that production in Canada must match access to our market. That is how we bring investment back, that is how we secure jobs and that is how we rebuild confidence in our industrial future. If we get this right, Niagara will not just be part of our industrial past, but it will be central to our industrial future, because every day tariffs remain in place, Canadian manufacturers are losing ground. Billions of dollars are flowing south. Investment is leaving. Plants are not being retooled here, but in the United States. I may be an MP, but I am also a business person, and I see the tragic outflow of capital every day. The best and brightest are going south, to where capital, commercialization and scale exist. Capital investment happening here is highly leveraged against tax dollars. It is happening in my riding, where two EV plants exist. One never opened and one has been delayed by years because the market collapsed. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars were committed to these projects that are now stuck in EV purgatory. Conservatives are putting forward a serious, practical strategy to rebuild Canada's auto sector and restore our economic strength. It is a plan rooted in reality, a plan grounded in results and a plan designed to bring our industry back to life. Our goal is clear. It is to restore Canadian auto production to two million vehicles a year. We would remove the GST on Canadian-made vehicles and make it easier for Canadians to buy Canadian. We would end subsidies for foreign-made vehicles. We would bring production home. We would introduce a simple and fair rule that for every vehicle a company sells in Canada, it must produce one in Canada to earn duty-free access. It would be a one-to-one system: build here and sell here. Let us be clear about what is at stake. It is not just about cars. It is about jobs. It is about our communities. It is about whether Canada remains an industrial nation or continues to slide in productivity while ceding more of its economic future to countries like China and Italy. That is not an option.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting her information, because this side of the House has been meeting with auto workers and unions for several years. They understand our plan and support our plan. I do not know what the plan of the government is. I wish the Liberals would explain it beyond just criticizing our plan, which is based on a historic and successful tradition of trade between Canada and the United States. Let me remind the government that the border between Canada and the United States is never going to disappear. The trade routes and the supply chains that have been developed over generations cannot simply be replaced or ignored. The government seems to think that pivoting to China is an alternative to developing a new, stronger relationship with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the heart of our policy is to recognize that with respect to the cars that we manufacture in Canada and that are going to be purchased by Canadians, there is a two-way street with the United States. We need to be able to ensure that with the cars that are built here, that are purchased by Canadians and that have access to the American market, it is done the same way. We would not engage in any agreement that does not favour Canadian workers. We have stood up for the workers in the past and will continue to do that. I look forward to my colleagues' actually negotiating that agreement with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy the banter back and forth with the hon. member. Every time I make a speech in the House, he has something interesting to say. It is not always on point or relevant, but it is generally good for comedy. In all seriousness, we have had a lot of members stand up today to talk about the auto industry in their riding. I am probably the only one in the House who has two EV plants in their riding, both of which are non-operational. Linamar built a billion-dollar facility in the city of Welland. It is a magnificent building that did not open. There is also AK, or Asahi Kasei. The government has put tens of millions of dollars into these two businesses. AK has now decided to not open on time, primarily because, as it describes it, it is like opening a nuclear plant to run for two days. It cannot be done. Therefore, it is delayed for several years because the market has collapsed. I wonder what the hon. member has to say to the constituents and the workers in my riding who were promised thousands and thousands of jobs, which are just not going to materialize.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto exports fell to their lowest level in years this January. More than 5,000 auto workers have already lost their jobs. In Niagara alone, there are two EV plants that have either not opened or been delayed because of a declining EV market, yet the Liberals are subsidizing foreign-made electric vehicles. It makes no sense at all. Will the Liberals finally adopt our strategy to protect Canadian workers in the auto sector, or will they continue to push ahead with their disastrous plan to subsidize foreign-made electric vehicles?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration system is broken, and the Liberal immigration minister is treating this critical file like a game of hide-and-seek. She is not very good at hiding, but the Liberals are very good at deflecting. Even her own Liberal colleagues have called out her abject incompetence. As the minister tries to hide, Canadians are left witnessing a youth unemployment crisis and three million temporary resident visas expiring in 2026. Will this minister stop playing games and start taking responsibility for the mess that she and the Liberals have created?

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of ground to cover today on the immigration question, but I think I am going to focus on a couple of health care issues that I need to get on the record with respect to my riding. Canada's health care system is under some serious pressure. The wait times are long, access to primary care is in crisis and hospital systems are in debt. In my riding of Niagara South, we are in the middle of an unfair and catastrophic reconfiguration of our community hospitals. In Fort Erie and Port Colborne, Niagara Health is slated to close two vital urgent care centres that were built by our fathers, our grandfathers and our aunts and uncles. Workers actually had deductions from their paycheques in order to build these institutions. People are rallying to pressure the government to step up and recognize the responsibility it has to provide community-based hospitals and emergency and complex care. Interestingly, I have been trying to obtain information about the new health infrastructure fund that the government announced in the budget. It is supposed to provide capital for improvements to rural and remote hospitals, for smaller hospitals and communities. I cannot get answers. I have reached out to virtually everyone from the minister's office to the policy people in the department. I cannot get a response to anything about when the funding will be rolled out and how it will be administered, whether it will be done by the province or the federal government. It is another example of the failure of the government to respond to serious crises in our communities. The last thing I want to make mention of is that the public safety minister yesterday made reference to the new cohort of graduates for CBSA guards. This 1,000-person cohort does not even keep up with the replacement requirements at CBSA on a yearly basis. The cohort is simply keeping pace with the departmental turnover. The intake process is seriously flawed. I know of several highly qualified candidates, one of whom worked for CBSA as a student with outstanding performance reviews, who cannot get through the bureaucratic process to even get an interview. With all the academic and direct job experience, this outstanding Canadian cannot get beyond the keyboard to talk to a real human being at CBSA. I am running out of time. I just wanted to get those comments on the record because I think this is important for the people in my community.

Mr. Speaker, too many people in Niagara cannot find a family doctor. Right now, taxpayers are being charged up to five times the provincial rates to provide health care to rejected asylum claimants. Families have waited long enough and our failed asylum system is making them wait even longer. Conservatives have proposed common-sense solutions to address this horrible situation. It is time for the government to remove benefits for bogus claimants. Will the government support our motion and ensure that non-citizens and non-permanent residents do not get health care superior to that of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, American protectionism is hammering our auto sector, yet the Liberal government has announced a $2.3-billion EV subsidy for vehicles built in the United States. That is not leadership; it is economic capitulation. Donald Trump has been clear: He wants every Canadian auto job moved south. Under the Liberals, 5,000 Canadian auto workers have already lost their jobs. Plants are idle, and families are hurting, yet the government is prepared to let Canadian tax dollars subsidize American factories during the economic fight of our life. In Niagara, a brand new EV plant was completed but never opened because the market never materialized. Another major EV battery facility is being built right now in a precariously murky market. Conservatives believe in one simple, non-negotiable principle: Canadian dollars are for Canadian jobs, full stop. They are not to bankroll foreign factories, not to ship opportunity across the border and certainly not to export our paycheques, our plants or our prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because Canadians are asking simple but deeply troubling questions. They ask why our justice system seems to work harder for criminals than for victims, and why law-abiding Canadians feel increasingly vulnerable while repeat offenders appear increasingly confident. Nowhere is that question more urgent than in the alarming rise of extortion across this country, including in my own region of Niagara. Let us begin with the facts, because facts do actually matter. Since the Liberals took office, extortion has risen by 330% in Canada. This is not a statistical anomaly or a coincidence; it is a systemic failure, one that is being felt in real ways by real people, including small business owners, families and newcomers across Niagara in my communities of Welland, Fort Erie, Thorold and Port Colborne, and throughout the region. Extortion is not a victimless crime. It is the restaurant owner near our tourism and commercial corridors who receives threats and knows that a single incident could ruin their livelihood and indeed their lives. It is the family living in fear due to gangs that hide in the dark, shooting at houses in once-safe neighbourhoods. Canadians are scared. Retaliation is certain if they speak out. There are newcomers who came to Canada seeking safety, opportunity and a better life, only to be targeted by organized criminal networks that exploit their fear and silence. Niagara is a gateway region. We are home to an international border, four border crossings, major transportation routes and a vibrant but fragile tourism and industrial economy. We depend on trade and the safe movement of goods across our borders. Those strengths should be protected, but instead, criminals are exploiting them. They are doing so because they know the risks are low. Time and time again, when Conservatives have brought forward common-sense solutions to confront this crisis, the Liberals have voted no. They voted against closing loopholes that allow false refugee claimants, including those tied to serious criminal activity, to exploit Canada's asylum system. They voted against Bill C-381, which would have imposed tougher sentences on extortionists. They continue to refuse to repeal Bills C-5 and Bill C-75, legislation that has fuelled a revolving-door justice system, where repeat offenders are released again and again, including in regions like Niagara, and police officers are forced to rearrest the same individuals, repeatedly. Laws are not compassionate if they abandon victims. They are not humane if they embolden criminals. They are not effective if they leave communities like Niagara less safe than they were before. The motion before the House is clear, targeted and reasonable. First, it calls on the government to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims. Canada's refugee system exists to protect people fleeing persecution, not to shield criminals from accountability. In Niagara and elsewhere, where many of the newcomers follow the rules and contribute positively to their communities, this distinction matters deeply. When criminals abuse the refugee system, it undermines trust and unfairly stigmatizes law-abiding immigrants who are doing everything right. Second, the motion calls on the government to bar non-citizens with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims. This loophole is being exploited, and regions and communities like Niagara feel the impact. Individuals facing serious charges use refugee claims to delay proceedings and complicate removals. They remain in Canada longer than they should. This is not fairness; this is dysfunction. Third, the motion calls on the government to end the practice of leniency that allows non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to avoid deportation. Canadians believe in due process. People in Niagara believe in fairness, but they also believe in consequences. If someone who is not a citizen commits a serious crime, serves their sentence, and then uses legal technicalities to remain in Canada indefinitely, the system has failed the victims, the community and the public trust. Deportation in these cases is not extreme; it is responsible. Finally, the motion calls on the government to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, legislation that has weakened sentencing, expanded bail and contributed directly to the rise in repeat violent and organized crime, including extortion. Police officers in Niagara have been clear. They are arresting the same offenders over and over again. Crown prosecutors are frustrated, victims are ignored, and small business owners feel abandoned, yet the government continues to defend policies that prioritize ideology over public safety. Extortion thrives where consequences are uncertain and enforcement is inconsistent. Criminal organizations are rational actors. They assess risk. When sentences are lighter, bail is automatic and deportation is delayed, crime becomes a business model. It is like an episode of The Sopranos. The people who pay the price are law-abiding Canadians, including families and small business owners across Niagara, who simply want to feel safe in their own communities. Let me be clear. This motion is designed to protect Canadians and those who dream about becoming Canadian. Niagara was built by immigrants. Niagara thrives because of newcomers, over generations. This motion protects them. It is pro-victim, pro-law and pro-common sense. Canada can be compassionate without being naive. We can welcome newcomers while still being firm with those who abuse our generosity. I ask members of the House, what message do we send to the Niagara business owner who has been extorted when an offender is released within hours? What message do we send when criminals exploit refugee processes faster than the government can close loopholes? What message do we send to Niagara police officers when their work is undone by laws that favour release over responsibility? Leadership is about choices. The Liberals have chosen leniency over accountability. They have chosen delay over action. They have chosen ideology over evidence. Today, the House can choose differently. We can stand with victims instead of criminals. We can protect the integrity of our immigration system. We can restore confidence in our justice system. We can send a clear message that extortion, organized crime and repeat offending will not be tolerated in Niagara or anywhere else in Canada. In 2023, a foreign national attempted to purchase sex from who he believed was an underage girl. When he arrived at the location, he was met not by a child but by an undercover police officer. He was arrested, and yet when it came time for sentencing, the court imposed a lighter sentence, not because the crime was minor but because the harsher penalty might have affected his immigration status. Canadians need to ask themselves how that makes any sense. We have seen where this kind of failure leads. In Welland, Daniel Senecal committed one of the most horrific crimes imaginable: the sexual assault of a three-year-old child. It is a crime that shatters families and leaves lifelong scars. These are not technical violations. These are serious violent offences. I ask the House plainly, do members believe that individuals who commit crimes like these, crimes against children, should ever be rewarded with the privilege of Canadian citizenship, or do we finally draw a clear line and say that protecting the most vulnerable must come before protecting the status of criminals? I urge all members of the House to support this motion, not for partisan reasons but for the safety of the communities we represent and the trust Canadians place in us to get this right.

Mr. Speaker, I have a strange sense of déjà vu, because the last time I stood up in the House, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked me the same question. He is effectively saying he wants us to just roll over and pass all this legislation without adequate debate. I have a right to stand up in the House and represent the interests of my constituents, and those interests include crime, crime prevention and penalties for offenders. I take exception to this repeated question. He does this over and over, ad nauseam. He has asked the same question every day. I have a right to stand here. I will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Bloomberg reports that Canada's economy is on life support. Canada's GDP growth was zero in November. Productivity continues to fall, and the Bank of Canada expects just 1% growth next year, with business investments being postponed. How bad is it? Homebuilders in Niagara have laid off 60% of their framers due to stalled residential construction. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet growth has stalled. Will the Prime Minister please adopt Conservative ideas that remove barriers so Canadians can actually build and grow again?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the contents of Bill C-9 and its assault on religious freedom. Their fear is that Christians and other religious individuals who believe in the Bible will be told they are engaging in criminal activity. On behalf of these citizens, I urge the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect religious freedom in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16 today. It is timely for me and relevant to my constituency, which has recently been hit with more than our share of sexual assaults and child sexual assaults. I meet regularly with survivors of these crimes, and their stories are heartbreaking. They have informed me, educated me and inspired me. They have shared not just their insights and their tears of disappointment but tears of hope as well, hope that we can change the Criminal Code. I am humbled and proud to be their voice today in the House. I have learned that, more often than not, perpetrators remain in the community, silently hiding, often repeating their crimes, only to be released again into the community. I have met survivors who move from place to place out of fear for themselves and for their own children. These survivors hide their identities, cannot trust people they do not know, and find it difficult to have relationships with and trust people they do know. This is not theoretical. Survivors of child sexual abuse often live with trauma for decades, struggling with mental health, relationships, job security and trust. When repeat offenders are allowed back into communities too quickly or inconsistently, the justice system sends a devastating message to victims that their suffering is secondary to the comfort of the offender. Mandatory minimum sentences reverse that message. They say, clearly and unequivocally, that protecting children comes first. People in the House know that I have risen countless times to talk about the horrendous assault of a three-year-old toddler in Welland, in my riding of Niagara South. The sexual assault of this little girl was an unspeakable act of cruelty that violates the most basic moral and human boundaries. What makes this crime worse is that the perpetrator had been released early from prison, after serving just one year in jail for raping a 12-year-old boy. Within just a few short weeks, this abhorrent excuse for a human being attacked little E in her own home, where she should have been safe from harm but was left for dead with horrifying and horrendous injuries. Such crimes demand not only our collective outrage but an unwavering commitment to protect children and hold offenders fully accountable. I am not a lawyer, but my father was a Crown attorney and most of my preceding family members were police officers. My son Conrad is a first responder in Welland with the Welland Fire and Emergency Services. My entire family has witnessed atrocities from repeat offenders, and the images are forever etched in their minds and memory. I had the opportunity to welcome my son's colleagues here on the floor of the House, shortly after the assault on this little girl in Welland. I believe it was cathartic for the firefighters, two of whom had been first on the scene of this appalling assault. We spent time in the chamber and talked about the magnitude of the tasks we undertake here. We spent over an hour talking about when legislation could be introduced to fix the system of repeat offenders being continually released. They asked one fundamental question: Why did we tolerate a soft-on-crime approach for so long? We talked about ensuring that time in jail must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. We talked about the relentless rise in violent crime that first responders endure while still stepping forward every day to protect and serve our communities. The emotions were high and the expectations even higher, but I fear that we have failed them yet again with Bill C-16. The legislation goes only halfway and does not provide certainty in minimum sentences for serious crimes. There are few responsibilities more fundamental to a society than protecting its children. Children depend on adults, not only for care and guidance but for safety, especially from those who would exploit their vulnerability. When that trust is violated, the harm is profound, lifelong and often irreversible. That is why mandatory minimum sentences for repeat child sex offenders are not only justified but necessary. Little E deserves this. We owe it to her and to so many others. Sadly, we had another arrest in my hometown of Port Colborne a few weeks ago, where the repeat offender was arrested on historic assault charges. This repeat offender actually played Santa Claus in my community and was well known as an entertainer. Minimum sentences are not about vengeance. They are about protection, accountability and prevention. First, we must confront the hard truth that repeat child sex offenders have already demonstrated that previous punishment, supervision or rehabilitation efforts were not sufficient to stop their behaviour. The first conviction may involve some uncertainty, with questions about rehabilitation, treatment or the possibility of change. However, a second or third offence removes that uncertainty. It shows a pattern, and when a pattern involves the repeat sexual abuse of children, society has a moral obligation to respond deliberately and decisively. Mandatory minimum sentences provide that decisive response. Subjective wiggle room in Bill C-16 is not decisive. Instead, it creates uncertainty where clarity is required and discretion where firmness is needed. Research consistently shows that repeat offenders pose a significantly higher risk of re-offending. Second, mandatory minimums promote consistency and fairness in sentencing. Without them, sentencing outcomes can vary widely depending on the jurisdiction, the judge and the ability to have counsel who may have a more dynamic set of legal skills. It is conceivable that offenders with nearly identical records can receive drastically different sentences. That inconsistency undermines public trust in the justice system and leaves victims feeling that justice is arbitrary. Bill C-16 allows a situation where similar crimes can end with drastically different consequences, creating uncertainty for both victims and those charged with enforcing the law. Mandatory minimums establish a clear baseline. They do not eliminate judicial discretion entirely, but they ensure that repeat offences are met with serious, predictable consequences. Third, mandatory minimums serve as a powerful deterrent. While no law can stop every crime, the certainty of severe consequences does influence behaviour. Critics argue that mandatory minimums remove flexibility and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. That points to the flaw in this legislation. For example, it states: When imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender. In other words, if Parliament's baseline jail term for any particular crime feels too extreme, a judge can simply decide on a new minimum. The rules for what counts as cruel punishment are murky at best, and make no mistake, this will be the first argument in every trial going forward. Finally, minimum sentences must reflect our values as a society. Laws are not just rules; they are statements of what we prioritize. When we impose minimum mandatory sentences for repeat child sex offenders, we are saying that children's safety outweighs convenience, cost or discomfort. A society is judged on how it protects those who cannot protect themselves. On this issue, we must choose clarity over hesitation, safety over leniency, and justice over excuses. I mentioned the survivors I meet with regularly in my office in Welland. These inspirational and brave women will be coming to Ottawa on May 26 to talk to us, tell us their stories and urge further movement to ensure stricter sentencing, the removal of easy bail procedures and the necessity of minimum sentences. Most importantly, they will urge us to release the national sex offender registry as a measure to protect victims. I am looking forward to welcoming Alicia, Melissa, Liz, Tammy, Alysa, Ashley and other brave women who have survived sexual assault and who have shown extraordinary strength in their healing, resilience and willingness to stand in community with one another. To sum up these remarks, minimum sentencing is necessary to ensure accountability and communicate that these crimes are taken seriously by the justice system. That is how we protect victims. Conservatives will continue to be the advocate for survivors like these brave women from my riding, and we will not stop until repeat offenders actually get a sentence commensurate with the crime, and the registry is made public.

Mr. Speaker, I could have anticipated that question before I stood up. We are not filibustering anything. I am a new member of Parliament. I have a right to stand in this House. I am not on the justice committee, which this bill would be referred to. We are only putting up four speakers today on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, and with these crimes committed in my riding, I have a right to stand here and speak on behalf of my constituents. The member should be ashamed of himself for suggesting I should not be standing up and talking about this on behalf of the victims in my riding. It is a shameful question, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point, but I would again point out that one of the issues in this legislation, the wiggle room in Bill C-16 with respect to judicial discretion on changing sentences on mandatory minimums, creates a greater imbalance. Someone can have a very talented lawyer who knows the system better than others but may be less fortunate and not able to have adequate representation. To me, that is the bigger flaw in the system and in this bill. I hope that at committee, my colleagues on all sides will discuss this in depth because it is a serious question. If we provide counsel with wiggle room because of lawyers not being able to argue strenuously, I think we have a bigger problem.

That is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, splitting a bill so that we can get important pieces of a bill through, so it becomes law, is not an unreasonable suggestion. We have already done it in this session. We are not filibustering or delaying. We are here to co-operate on good pieces of legislation. As my colleague said, there are good parts of this legislation, but I am hoping the committee will bring forward some amendments to make it a better bill.

Mr. Speaker, tell that to the little girl's family, that when Daniel Senecal was released after serving one year for raping a 12-year-old boy, that one-year sentence was adequate. Tell that to the community that is hurting. We have to have mandatory minimums for serious repeat offenders. There is just no question about it. I do not care what the stats say. When we get down to repeat child sex offenders, there must be a mandatory minimum.

Mr. Speaker, if the government is really serious about building faster, it should start with opportunities already in front of it. I have one that is truly shovel-ready: restoring wharves 17 and 18 on the Welland Canal in Port Colborne. For more than 20 years this critical infrastructure has sat broken. During that time the City of Port Colborne, shipping companies, port authorities and private investors have all been ready to move, but they are still waiting on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Transport Canada to act. Federal funding has already been partially committed. The Liberals talked a good story for over 10 years on this project but failed to hit the finish line. In the meantime, we are waiting. Every year of delay costs us real economic opportunity. Restoring the wharves could create well-paying local jobs, strengthen domestic supply chains and position Port Colborne as a strategic industrial hub while helping protect Canada's economic sovereignty. This project is shovel-ready, the partners are ready and the benefits are clear. It is time to pull the trigger and get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my colleague from Windsor West over the last several months, and I want to thank him for his years of service as a police officer, protecting Canadians and our borders. I appreciate his service to our country. My riding is at the opposite end of Lake Erie, and we share similar border issues. We just learned, for example, that the CBSA has eliminated 40% of its capacity for custody of people coming illegally into the country. The government talks about hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers when there is no capacity to actually train 1,000 new people. It has now reduced capacity for the custody of people breaking the law and coming into the country illegally. I wonder if my friend could comment on that in relation to the weaknesses of this bill.

Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, one of the members opposite asked my colleague here if he had mentioned to the auto workers who have lost their jobs that the government has set aside some money for them and if he had mentioned to them that the government has extended EI in response to the 3,000 lost jobs. It seems to me that the Liberal government's response to everything is to spend more money, throw money at a problem instead of looking at the core issues. I wonder if my colleague might comment on that.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to follow up quickly with the hon. member. It seems we are in this sort of economic purgatory right now with the government. I wonder what his thoughts are on the lack of a national industrial strategy. We have seen so much stuff in this budget, so much money being wasted, so much money being spent. I wonder what the member sees as the core issues facing Canada today in this sector.

Mr. Chair, I am honoured to wrap this debate up tonight. Coming from the Niagara region, which was literally built on the auto sector, I am grateful that my friend from Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake is here tonight to contribute to this debate. As I mentioned earlier, he worked at GM while he was going to university, as did many of my friends and many of my colleagues. I grew up in the small town of Port Colborne, and the ambition of a lot of people who grew up in my town was to get a job at GM or Ford, because it was a well-paid job with good benefits, a future and stability that would enable them to raise their family and enjoy their life. A friend of mine, Alan Davis, who will probably be upset with me for saying this, recently said to me in Port Colborne that he was so grateful to have had the job he had for so many years. They closed the plant in St. Catharines early in his career, but every day, a group of people from St. Catharines and the Niagara region would take a bus from Niagara to Oshawa, so that they could finish their career and have a solid pension. It was a hardship for them to do that, but they did it, and he says that he is forever grateful for the job and the opportunity he had to work for that company. However, those jobs have disappeared over the years. For a little perspective, as I said earlier, Niagara was a hub for the automotive sector. In 1969, 47% of all the jobs in Niagara were in the auto sector. Almost one in two jobs in Niagara was in the auto sector. In 2008, that number was reduced to 4,000. By 2014, it further decreased to about 2,900 but still represented about $2.5 billion of economic impact for the Niagara region. Today, as I think my colleague for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake said, there are only 700 direct jobs in the auto sector left in Niagara, so we went from 18,000 jobs in Niagara down to about 700 today. The Ford glass plant has disappeared and closed. The GM engine plant is gone, as is the GM foundry. I used to be in the homebuilding business in the 1980s, and I remember building a first house for an individual. It was a brand new house for him. He had just recently retired from the foundry, and had learned before his last day that the foundry was closing forever. I am in a situation today where I have two EV plants in my riding. One was built about two or three years ago. It was for Linamar, which built a plant in Welland to support the Ford F-150. It was going to be providing parts that would support the EV side of the Ford F-150 in Canada. However, that plant never opened. It sits about a mile and a half from where I live. It is a beautiful turnkey plant, if anyone is interested in buying it. It is on the market. This is an example of what a Yale professor refers to as narrative economics. The government created an economic environment based on a narrative that did not have a solid foundation under it, which is the danger when governments get into the idea of narrative economics: They create something that does not exist. In this case, the company put up over $1 billion to build a plant on the basis of an economic strategy and narrative that just never materialized. Canada is not in a position today, on any level, to support the EV sector. The EV mandate, while seemingly logical at the time, has turned out to be completely illogical, because not only are Canadians not interested in buying EV vehicles in the capacity that the government had, in its narrative, created, but we do not have the infrastructure to support that EV mandate. The sooner the government gets rid of that mandate, the better off the narrative in the economy will be because it will give some certainty within the economy for companies to plan, including in the auto sector. That needs to happen. The other plant in my riding is in my hometown of Port Colborne. It is the Asahi Kasei plant, which is an ion battery separator plant. It has been touted as the largest single industrial investment in the Niagara region. It is still under construction, and there is still a lot of uncertainty in the market. Hopefully, in this instance, because it is not manufacturing automobiles, it can pivot. Asahi Kasei is one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world. It manufactures a large number of different products from Japan. I am hopeful that at least this company will be able to pivot in the event that the narrative does not happen and the economy does not support that kind of investment in the sector. During the summer, I had the opportunity to sit down for lunch with the American ambassador to Canada—