Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I feel like I have been here before, because we debated a bill that was supposed to get things built about 18 months ago, and not only get things built, but get things built at speeds we had never seen before. Unfortunately, what we saw were things getting built at the exact same speed they have been built for 11 years under the Liberal government. Not a single new project was approved by the so-called Major Projects Office and not a single new shovel was put in the ground. Here we are again. We are back. We are looking at another Liberal piece of legislation that is supposed to accelerate building in this country, but if we go back to Bill C-5, let us also not forget that it was supposed to be the One Canadian Economy Act. It was supposed to remove interprovincial trade barriers, all of that by July 1, 2025. The last time I checked, we are in September 2026, and all of the interprovincial trade barriers are still there, which brings us to where we are today. The Liberal government is all talk, no results. I will give the Liberals this. They are very good at the talk part. There are lots of photo ops, lots of announcements and lots of fancy backdrops making it look like they are building something that get taken down a few days later. They are very good at all of that, but when it comes to actually delivering for Canadians, this is where the rubber hits the road and they significantly fail. What we have seen in this country is an inflationary and cost of living crisis that this country has never seen before. Every single day, Conservative members get up in the House of Commons to ask questions based on conversations they have had with real Canadians, people who are struggling every single day to put food on the table and struggling every single day to pay their rent or mortgage. That is the legacy of the government, not the fancy photo ops and not the fancy words that ministers get up to say in the House of Commons day after day. What I want to talk about in particular today is part 3 of this gigantic omnibus piece of legislation. I want to start off by saying this. Canada has never seen more labour disruptions in 40 years than it has under the Liberal government. Do members want to know why? A huge part of it is the cost of living crisis created by the Liberal government, with the terrible management of the economy over the last 11 years that has led to workers all across this country, our friends and neighbours, fighting hard for better wages so they can put food on the table. What we saw were labour and unions fighting for better wages, better benefits and things for their members, and fighting hard. Because of the ham-fisted approach of the Liberal government, labour relations in this country have never been worse. We saw record use of section 107 by the Liberals. I lost count of that. They used it 13 times in 18 months or something like that. They often used it pre-emptively. In fact, they used it pre-emptively on flight attendants who were fighting to get rid of unpaid work. Think about that for a second.

Madam Speaker, the member is saying that is untrue. Let me take a moment to educate the member. I have met with flight attendants. I have met with flight attendant unions. They have unpaid work, unlike what the minister said in this House and at committee about looking into whether or not flight attendants provide unpaid work. Do members know what the head of the airline union said to that? He asked if they will look into whether water is wet next. This is legitimately where we are on that subject. The Liberals used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work, using the Canada Industrial Relations Board and their section 107 order before the strike had even happened, therefore effectively sending them back to work unpaid. That is their record. Now they are going to make more changes to section 107. Do members know what I and just about every single union in this country have to say about that? We do not trust them. We do not trust their changes. They are making changes to section 107 at a time when the use of section 107, the constitutionality of it, is being challenged in court. They know this, and they decided to go ahead and make changes anyway. The changes to the legislation are embedded in a giant omnibus piece of legislation in which one section has nothing to do with the other sections. There are significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. For example, my colleague asked about the changes to geographic certification. The Liberal parliamentary secretary had no idea what geographic certification was and could not comment on the changes to geographic certification. I can say this. The changes to geographic certification are significant. There used to be a process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It was a complicated change. It took time. Two businesses could now petition the Canada Industrial Relations Board to create a geographic certification. What will be the effect of that? We have no idea. Will it cause, in fact, more labour strife as some union locals are combined? Could a union local represented by one union be combined with a union local from another union? I do not know. Perhaps it could. Do the Liberals know? Have they looked into this? When we look at the omnibus nature of this piece of legislation, we have to ask ourselves why. Why have they decided to put these significant changes to the Canada Labour Code in a gigantic omnibus piece of legislation? I hope it is not because they plan to ram this piece of legislation through committee with their majority, as they have done with other pieces of legislation, so there is no proper study of the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not know, but I will go back to what I said when I first started talking about the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not trust them. I forget the number of pages in this piece of legislation, 425 pages or 285 pages, but I suspect that all of that is going to go to one committee. How long will it look at the changes that are being made? Is it one day, two days, maybe a week? Give me a break. The Liberals are doing this so there can be very little scrutiny of what they are doing. They are doing this so that union members will not have the opportunity to come to committee and make their case for why the changes being made are a problem. They are doing this to make it difficult for opposition parties, and members of the Canadian public when they get in touch with their members of Parliament, to put forward amendments to this piece of legislation. I do not play the lottery and do not bet on sports, but I will tell members this. I am going to bet on the idea that this piece of legislation will not get the proper study at committee. The Liberals will rush this through committee. They will use their majority in the chamber to make sure that the bill gets out of committee as quickly as possible and that it is not studied in detail. They think they can pull one over on Canadians. Well, we on the Conservative side are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that this legislation gets studied. We are going to fight to make sure that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation get to come to committee and that the Liberals hear what these changes are going to do to them. We will be with those people every step of the way.

Madam Speaker, I know this segment is called questions and comments, and that was mostly a comment. I am not sure what the question is, because as I said, we want to study the legislation. I will turn it into a question for the member: Will the Liberals allow the legislation to be studied? At the member's next opportunity, will he get up today and tell the House that the Liberals are going to allow as much study on the legislation as necessary to make sure it is fully studied and fully understood? Will the Liberals commit to that?

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member. The Prime Minister has shown remarkable contempt for Parliament. He shows up to answer barely any questions in the chamber. The Liberals ram pieces of legislation through. They use programming motions to make sure there is very little debate on them. We have received no commitment from the Liberals that there will be ample days to study the bill at committee. I would love to get a commitment that says that if we want 25 or 30 witnesses from the union movement to come talk about this piece of legislation, the Liberals will agree that they would all get to give their comments before they rush it through committee. We have heard none of these things, and the silence on that is deafening. I suspect we will once again see that they do not have respect for the parliamentary process. They will rush the bill through to committee and leave it the way it is without amendments.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that this is not the same Liberal Party it was a few years ago, which was constantly trying to beat down resource projects. Imagine, if it had actually approved things like energy east, what position we would be in. Imagine if it had built LNG liquefaction facilities across the country. Europe is begging for that. It took it 10 years, but I guess, as we say, a broken clock is right twice a day. We are happy that the government has seen the light on some of these things, and hopefully we will build a better, stronger and more resilient Canada that exports our resources around the world.

Mr. Speaker, Liberal catch-and-release laws are resulting in a surge in auto thefts. In Peel region, auto theft is up 52% in the first seven months of this year over last year. Why? It is because these Liberals are all talk and no results on crime. At my community barbecue this summer, I had residents tell me they go to sleep at night hoping their car will be there the next morning. Why? It is because the Liberals' talk of law reform is all talk, no results. When will the Liberals pass laws that keep repeat car thieves denied bail and in mandatory jail?

Mr. Speaker, it is like when someone hires a roofer to fix the leak in their roof, and the roof still leaks. They go back to the roofer and he says, “Yeah, but I did some stuff over there.” It actually did not fix the problem. That is why car thefts are up in the region of Peel by 52% over the first seven months of this year. It is because what the Liberals do is all talk. There are actually no results. If there were results, car theft would be down. Why do the Liberals not adopt Conservative laws that would keep those repeat car thieves denied bail and in mandatory jail?

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago the industry minister stood in the House and proclaimed that the Stellantis plant would reopen or she would get Canadians' money back. Neither one turned out to be true, because the Liberals are all talk and no action. It is the same thing when they say they are going to double housing or that it is the most affordable in a decade. Neither one is true. These failures, though, have real consequences. Eighteen hundred Stellantis workers have lost their jobs. Many have actually lost their homes. When will the Liberal minister move from talk to actual action to protect these jobs?

Mr. Speaker, those are literally the same out-of-touch talking points that she used a year ago, saying, “We are going to do something.” Those 1,800 jobs are gone. Those 1,800 workers had a top-up, and then they went on EI; now they are getting nothing. There is a lady in my riding, and both she and her husband worked at Stellantis. They have now lost their home because of this. The minister said she would get the money back or protect the jobs. She has done neither one. Why is she still minister?

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Constable Tarun Bali, who passed away tragically in the line of duty in northern Ontario. Constable Bali was a member of the Dufferin OPP in my home riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know the men and women who serve in the Dufferin OPP. They are incredibly dedicated, community-oriented officers. Constable Bali was described by his colleagues as a man of bravery, dedication and incredible community service. Police officers come under incredible scrutiny and criticism these days, yet they put on the uniform every day, knowing that they might not come home to their loved ones. I want Constable Bali's family to know that the community of Dufferin—Caledon will never forget his service and his sacrifice for our community.

Mr. Speaker, luxury Normandy butter cups, beef tenderloin, braised beef with wine reduction and crème brûlée were included in 95,000 dollars' worth of luxury meals on one flight, $1 million in the last 12 months. Meanwhile, a quarter of Canadians are food-insecure. Surely there is not a Liberal member who is going to stand up and justify that, when 2.2 million Canadians go to an increasingly empty food bank every single month.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th time the Liberals have announced they are going to make food cheaper for Canadians. Forgive me if I do not believe a single word that these guys say. It is another national program to do something to deliver something, like the housing accelerator, which did not accelerate anything except giving money to municipalities that actually did not build more homes. If they want to get food affordability under control, they can cut the expensive things they have done, like increasing the cost of packaging and making fresh food more expensive with their plastics regulations. Why do they not cut their costly plans and taxes to make food affordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is with respect to a young man from Bolton, Ontario, Gabriel Arshad, who was critically injured on July 5, 2025 in a devastating four-vehicle collision. The collision was caused by a man with five prior drunk-driving convictions who, to no surprise to any member of the chamber, was out on bail. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to take immediate action to reform Canada's bail system and sentencing laws to keep repeat and violent offenders in jail where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, every month, there is a new report that shows how difficult life has become under the Liberal government. Last night, it was a damning report from Food Banks Canada, and this month we have a report from United Way that says 60% of Canadians now have anxiety just thinking about their finances. It has gotten worse in the last year under the Liberal government. At what point do the Liberals realize their policies are causing all of the problems that Canadians are facing and reverse course?

It is really unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Every week, they stand in the House of Commons and brag about the fact that for the first time in Canadian history, a government has to send money to Canadians so they can buy groceries. Let us think about that for a minute. That is the country they have created in Canada. Things have gotten so expensive under their watch, they actually have to send Canadians money for groceries, and then they brag about it. It is almost like someone thanking the arsonist who burned down their house for putting out the fire. It is their policies that are causing all the problems. Why will they not realize it, stop their costly policies, reverse course and follow the Conservative plan?

Madam Speaker, I have had this conversation with the member previously. One of the issues I see with this particular piece of legislation is the threshold that is being set for a review of an entire union, which is 25% of any bargaining unit. The concern I have is that there are many small bargaining units across the country. We could go to a small bargaining unit that has five or 10 people and get one, two or three people to sign saying that they believe the union is employer-dominated, and then the entire union is under investigation. Does the member agree with me that there are some concerns about that kind of a threshold? We could have a union with tens of thousands of members, but if two or three people in one small bargaining unit sign a document, the entire union is under investigation. That is how I interpret the legislation, and I have real concerns about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member for this particular piece of legislation. Two years ago, I was asked to be the Conservative shadow minister for labour, and it has been one of the best experiences I have had in my life. I have had the opportunity to travel to almost every province in this country and meet with union locals and union representatives. I have done it especially in the construction and building trade unions, in which there is an entire system that most Canadians do not know about, which are union training centres. Most people do not know the extent to which the people who build this country are trained in union training centres. The unions themselves have put money aside to build these facilities. Yes, in certain provinces, they are now getting provincial money to help with that, and at the federal level there have been programs to do that. In fact, in the last election, the Conservative platform included a massive increase in funding for UTIP, including elements like a bricks and mortar thing to help expand union training centres. I know how hard our unionized construction workers work in this country, and they deserve the best representation. I agree with that unequivocally. When I look at this member's piece of legislation, I break it down into three categories. The first category is the definition in the Canada Labour Code, which currently says “so dominated”. I have always thought that was a bit of an odd term. Someone is either dominated or not. What does “so dominated” mean? Is it okay if someone is a little dominated? I think the member is right: The Canada Labour Code should be changed. We should remove “so dominated”. That modifier, I think, adds a level of domination when no domination should be acceptable. The test should be whether a union is dominated by the employer. I give the member kudos for identifying that and seeking to make that change. I agree with what everyone has said here so far tonight, both from the NDP and from the Liberals. No union should be dominated by the employer. The whole purpose of a union is to represent the rights of workers, and they do a fantastic job of that, especially in the construction and building trade unions. I agree 100% with that. Where I have a little less agreement and a little more uncertainty, and I am open to having conversations about this, is with the other two key aspects of the legislation. One part is, and the member has said it tonight, that her definition of dominated is the fact that a local union representative is not elected. That is how CLAC functions. CLAC elects its national representatives, the members get to elect them, and the national representatives choose the local union rep. Its argument is that it does that because national representatives can select people with expertise in labour relations, construction projects, etc. I do not know which of these two things is where the problem lies. I think there is an interesting question that we should be looking further into with respect to that. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has looked into CLAC, and it determined that it was not employer-dominated in previous iterations. Is that because the test was “so dominated”? Maybe the CIRB said that CLAC is a little dominated, but not “so dominated”; therefore, it is okay. I do not know. I have looked at some of the decisions, and it is very unclear. When the CIRB looked into CLAC, it would have, of course, looked at governance structure. I do not know if the governance structure is part of the problem, but that is something we absolutely could look a little more deeply into. Where I do have a challenge, and I have told the member this as we have discussed this piece of legislation many times, is in this: The change to the legislation is that if 25% of any bargaining unit decides that it thinks it is employer-dominated, then an investigation into the entire union could happen. This country is covered in a lattice of union locals, and some unions in this country are gigantic. Unifor has over 200,000 members. A small local could have someone go around and convince them that the employer was not representing them properly and that the union must be employer-dominated. If the bargaining unit is 10 people, and there are bargaining units that are that small, and three people sign that, then the entire union would be indicted. That, to me, would lead to a bit of a challenge, because it seems to me that the threshold is too low. The other thing that someone would know, if they have spent any time working with the construction and building trade unions, is that they do not always get along with each other as well as we might like to think. There are often jurisdictional disputes. There is what is called a raiding period, where different unions seek to take over individual locals, which is exactly what happened with the operating engineers in Alberta. The operating engineers in Alberta were able to take an entire CLAC local of some 800 people, and move it out of CLAC and into the operating engineers, so the unions do have a bit of a tussle with each other every so often. I can see that at times there could be an inclination to perhaps weaponize this section. I also know that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does incredible work in this country. Its members have to deal with very difficult situations all the time, but when the head of the Canada Industrial Relations Board was at committee recently, the testimony was very clear. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has far too much work, and it does not have enough funding to deal with the work that it has. If we were to add to that a whole bunch of investigations into a whole bunch of unions, because in any bargaining unit, no matter how small it is, 25% can meet that litmus test to have that union investigated by the CARB, I could see this becoming incredibly challenging for the CARB. In fact, there are many circumstances where the CARB does not meet deadlines, and its members have to ask for extensions. Those extensions, in the context of all kinds of serious disputes that they deal with, can have real consequences. I have very great concerns about the impact and effect of that particular section. When I have had conversations with construction and building trades unions about this particular section, many have said to me that they had not thought about this, and that I might be right and there could be a challenge with that particular section. Initially, they are very supportive of the bill. Virtually every person in the construction and building trades unions whom I talked to thinks this is a great bill to deal with a union that they think is not a real union or is an employer-dominated union. However, when I pointed out some of the things inside the bill that I think are concerning, many of those very same people shared those concerns. I do not know if the member is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation. We have talked a little. I hope she is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation, because I believe that there is a way to get this legislation to a point where it could be supported by the Conservatives. I do not know where the Liberal Party members are on this. The member's speech did not touch too much on the substance of the legislation. It talked about a whole bunch of other things, so I do not know 100% where they are, but from my perspective, I think that the legislation needs a bit of tweaking. I want to conclude my remarks by saying, because I do not get the opportunity too often to speak about unions and the great things that they do, that my son went from the private sector into a unionized environment in the construction industry, and his life got 10 times better, so no one is more convinced than me of the good work that unions do to represent people.

Mr. Speaker, for the last several months, the Liberals have repeatedly gaslit Canadians by repeating the PMO talking point that we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but the reality is we have the only shrinking economy in the G7. The Liberal Prime Minister was touted as some kind of an economic genius, but all he has delivered is a shrinking economy and 112,000 Canadians who have lost their full-time jobs this year. If this is truly about global events, as the Liberals keep saying, why is Canada the only G7 country that is now in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I can say this. No Conservative will ever apologize for getting up and fighting against this bad Liberal government. Let us talk about some numbers that the member says we are making up. According to Statistics Canada, 112,000 Canadians have lost their jobs this year. According to Food Banks Canada, 25% of Canadians are now food insecure. These are not fake numbers. The member should know that. These are real people who are suffering as a result of the Liberal government. If it is all about external events, as the Liberals keep saying, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession? How about a real answer?

Mr. Chair, since she does not know the answer to the question of how many TFW permits she gave in the skilled trades category, it is 126,000, which is almost identical to the 127,000 skilled trades workers who were unemployed in 2025. Does the minister now want to take the opportunity to apologize for removing the union's safeguard on LMIAs and apologize to the 127,000 skilled trades workers who lost their jobs because of the 126,000 TFW permits she issued in skilled trades?

Mr. Chair, the minister's lack of remorse for a bad decision that has had real consequences for skilled trade workers in this country is really shocking. Ironworkers Union Local 97 warned the government of the effect of this. The head of that union said that the TFW program was being misused and abused, was driving down wages and undercutting hard-working Canadians, which the numbers I just gave the minister prove. Does she now want to admit that it was a mistake and apologize for that mistake?

You talk about building the country. Here is what building trades unions have said about your temporary foreign worker program. They warned your government that excessive reliance on temporary labour would weaken apprenticeship pathways and discourage employers from hiring Canadian employees. The numbers I just gave you bear that out exactly. I give you another opportunity: Do you want to apologize to the 127,000 unemployed skilled trade workers whose jobs went to 126,000 TFWs that you granted in the skilled trades?

Mr. Chair, the question was about undocumented workers on federal construction sites, where they are getting federal tax dollars. Perhaps the minister misunderstood the question, which is why I am repeating it. In fact just recently, four undocumented workers were identified by CBSA at the Calgary event centre project. Is the minister aware of these cases, yes or no, and what is she doing to prevent this in the future?

Mr. Chair, once again, there is not even an attempt to answer the question. It is insulting to the people whom we represent when we ask these questions and the minister does not try to answer. Alberta labour organizations uncovered allegations of workers being paid cash, using forged safety certifications, operating without WCB coverage and being threatened with deportation if they spoke out. This was on a project that received federal dollars. Can the minister cite one investigation into this going on and one action that her department has taken to crack down on these types of occurrences?

Madam Speaker, the member has obviously called out the Liberals for their repeated use of section 107 to take away the right to strike. I have been here a long time, and what I find interesting and curious is that at no point in the last 10 or 12 years did anyone call for the repeal of section 107. In fact, the section has been in place for a very long time, and no one has thought it necessary to repeal it. Would it not actually be the Liberal government's weaponization of section 107, specifically weaponizing referrals to the CIRB, to take away the right to strike and doing it eight times in 13 months that is the problem, and not the section in and of itself?

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this private member's bill, which I believe is exceptionally well intentioned. This is a private member's bill that has been designed due to the malfeasance of the Liberal government. When I say “malfeasance of the Liberal government,” one might be wondering what I mean. What I mean is that up until the last two years, there was nobody in this country who said that we should get rid of section 107. There was not a single union saying that. There were no national unions saying that. In fact, section 107 was used the way it was supposed to be used for decades in this country. It has been the Liberals' weaponization of section 107 that has led us here today. Let me explain what I mean by weaponization. We should take a look at section 107 in and of itself. The section is quite valuable. It says, “where the Minister deems it expedient, may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace” and “the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.” The purpose of section 107 was to refer things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the board would then do things to maintain industrial peace. That is how it functioned, until these Liberals, by accident, discovered a secret power within section 107. When I say they discovered this accidentally, I mean they literally discovered it accidentally. Minister Seamus O'Regan, during the WestJet mechanics strike, referred a matter to the CIRB. He asked the CIRB to impose binding arbitration. Fine, that is what the CIRB went on to do, but it also then said that it did not mean the right to strike was taken away, because that was not specifically requested in the referral. The WestJet strike went on and, guess what? The parties reached a settlement. They reached a collective agreement themselves, which is how it should work. Conservatives firmly believe the best deals are made at the bargaining table. That bargaining can be hard. Sometimes there is pain as a result of that bargaining and the disruption, but the parties come to an agreement themselves, and that is how it should work. What the Liberals discovered in their mistake with the referral of the WestJet mechanics strike is that all they needed to do in their next referral was add in “and the parties are not allowed to strike or be locked out.” They stumbled into this new power, and once they had this new power, they became absolutely addicted to it. They then used it seven times over the next year and a bit to take away the right to strike for Canadian workers. They routinely and repeatedly used it and specifically told the Canada Industrial Relations Board that as part of the referral for binding arbitration, it must also order the parties to cease a strike and a lockout, thereby depriving unionized workers of their constitutionally protected right to strike. These section 107 referrals are now before the courts, and the courts will be determining the constitutionality of those referrals. I can understand why the NDP has said we need to get rid of section 107, because these Liberals have created such a toxic environment in labour relations in this country because of their repeated use of section 107. It is like they are hammers and everything, therefore, is a nail. It is the only thing they can do. If there is any labour dispute, get out section 107 and smash it to the end. That is what the Liberals been doing for the past 18 months. It was so terrible, as my colleague pointed out, that the CEO of Air Canada was relying on the use of section 107, which is why they had no fallback position when the flight attendants chose not to follow the CIRB order saying to end the strike. Amazingly, through that defiance, they came to a collective agreement, just like when the strike went on with WestJet and the WestJet mechanics. The parties were able to find an agreement for themselves. What is the problem here? Is the problem that section 107 allows the government to refer certain things to the Canada Industrial Relations Board? Is that the problem? No, it is not the problem, because, for decades, that power existed. For decades, it was used properly. For decades, it was used appropriately. The challenge has now come because the Liberals weaponized the use of section 107. If they had used it once, we would not be having this conversation. This private member's bill would not be on the Order Paper today. If they had used it twice, it probably would not be either, but the Liberals became obsessed with using section 107. Why did they have to routinely use section 107? It is because they have allowed the environment in this country between employers and unionized workers to become so toxic that it was the only way they could end disputes, rather than allowing the collective bargaining process to continue. They used it to stop the work stoppage with CN and CP Rail. They used it with Canada Post. They used it with Air Canada. They used it with WestJet. It is like they had nothing else they thought they could do. In the process, they have created outrage among Canadian unions, outrage at the use of section 107. There is so much outrage that the Liberals have decided they are going to do some sham study into the use of section 107. We know what they do with their investigations. They commenced an investigation into unpaid work for flight attendants. What investigation is necessary? They should go and have a conversation with a flight attendant. The Liberals know that flight attendants are doing unpaid work, but they conducted a study to look into whether or not flight attendants do unpaid work. It is unbelievable, actually. They might as well do a study as to whether or not people get wet when they are standing outside when it rains. Unpaid work was being done. But wait, it gets worse. One would think it could not get worse, but it actually does. The first part of their study came back and said that they need to do more study. It is literally unbelievable. After a decade of these Liberals, the state of labour relations in this country has never been worse. We have seen the most work disruptions in the last couple of years, more than we have seen in the last 30 years. In part, it is because of how they behave. In part, it is the weaponization of section 107. In part, it is because of sham investigations into things like unpaid labour. While I agree with the member's intent in getting rid of section 107, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if I can use that expression. What we actually need to do is throw out the people who are poisoning labour relations in this country. I want to congratulate the member for putting forward this piece of legislation. I think it is exceptionally well intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not believe that section 107 is the problem. There are lots of ways to use section 107 that are not weaponized and that will not destroy the labour relations in this country. The only way to do that is to get rid of the people who are doing it. Unfortunately, we cannot support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years, it is the same Liberal waste and Liberal corruption going on every single day. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million on the PrescribeIT program, yet they could not explain where the money went and why almost nobody used it. Liberal-connected consultants are now getting a gobsmacking $26 billion a year, up 37% from the previous year. This is costing the average family $1,400. They are spending $200 million on a so-called spaceport that is nothing more than a gravel parking lot in Nova Scotia. Meanwhile, after all this spending, 2.2 million Canadians go to food banks every single month. It is really not hard to figure out how these Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. What is really hard to figure out is why things are still so hard for average Canadians.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time. I asked the minister about a zero-emission vehicle mandate, and he did not answer. I am assuming it is because the minister did not know the answer. In fact, the regulations that the government has put forward actually mean that only a fully electric vehicle will meet the tailpipe emissions target by 2035. Will he agree with me that this is a zero-emission vehicle mandate?

Mr. Chair, it is becoming quite embarrassing now. I have asked three questions, and the minister has not even attempted to answer any of them. I will answer that question as well. It is 20,000 vehicles. Out of 1.2 million vehicles manufactured in Canada, 20,000 of those are fully electric vehicles that will meet the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Does the minister know what percentage that is of the vehicles manufactured in Canada?

Mr. Chair, when he says that electrification is the north star in Canada, and we only manufacture 1.6% of our vehicles as electric, what he must mean by “electrification is the north star in Canada” are the 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles that he is now allowing into Canada. Is it not really what he means when he says electrification is the future or the north star, that it is the 50,000-plus Chinese electric vehicles that he is going to be bringing into the country?

Mr. Chair, so in eight and a half years, he is saying that Canadian auto manufacturers will go from producing 1.6% of their vehicles as fully electric to 100%. No, that is absolutely impossible. The minister said Canada “would never be a back door to cheap Chinese vehicles which are overly subsidized”. Does he still believe that, in light of his government letting in 50,000 Chinese vehicles into Canada every year?

Mr. Chair, what I am looking for is an actual answer tonight to a single question I have asked, which has not happened, so I will reiterate. There are eight short years to get to the government's zero-emission vehicle mandate. We manufacture 1.6% of vehicles in Canada that will meet that mandate now. What is the plan, if the minister can lay it out now, for the Canadian auto sector to get from 1.6% to 100% in eight years?

Mr. Speaker, I almost do not even know where to start with that statement. The member said the Liberals reduced the deficit by $11 billion. That is not true. Under Justin Trudeau, the deficit was $30 billion. It is now $65 billion. That is not less, it is more. If they do not know that is more and not less, maybe that is why we have such a problem. When they say they are going to do things, they do not seem to understand that if they write something down, it does not mean it actually happens. That is why we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. Will the Liberals at least apologize to the 112,000 Canadian families that lost their jobs and are now going to food banks?